Curse

Larys · Jul 22, 2005, 04:56 PM // 16:56

I've contacted GW Support regarding this issue, and besides the "sorry, can't help you" response, they suggested I post the issue for feedback.

I'd like to see the option/ability to oust an absent guild leader and promote a new one from the pool of active officers. Our current guild leader has not logged on in five weeks, and did not leave any kind of indication his absence would be temporary. While it's true the officers have some of the powers a leader does, there are still some that are missing, such as demoting/kicking officers that also have not logged in for some time (though officers are able to do this to regular members). Since there is a finite number of officer positions possible, this hampers the ability to promote members to officers if all of the officer positions are filled, primarily with players that haven't logged on in two+ months.

I don't feel it should be solely one officer's ability to do these kinds of changes, it could be put to some kind of group decision, i.e., X (where X = some number) officers must approve before the action will be carried out by the game.

The current solution is leaving the guild and starting a new one where you lose all that was associated with the original guild. I think that's far too drastic a measure to have to take just because your guild leader has burned out on the game.

Thanks for listening

Melish Mehlynqhali

Age · Jul 22, 2005, 05:09 PM // 17:09

I often suggested on another board there be two guild leaders if say one were ill,sick in hospital or haveing real problems.

Aristotle · Jul 22, 2005, 05:11 PM // 17:11

I like the idea and have thought about it myself

karl h · Jul 22, 2005, 05:15 PM // 17:15

i think your idea is absolutely stupid. sorry but im a guild leader and i have personallypaid 100k for my guild hall 6k on changing the cape and 100 making the guild so if i was to be demoted from my hard earned cash that would drive me crazy. you would be effectivly stealing from some guild leaders

Alodarn · Jul 22, 2005, 05:15 PM // 17:15

I liked what DAOC does, it autopromotes players to the leader position if the leader doesn't log in for an extended time.

samarium · Jul 22, 2005, 05:55 PM // 17:55

Quote:

i think your idea is absolutely stupid. sorry but im a guild leader and i have personallypaid 100k for my guild hall 6k on changing the cape and 100 making the guild so if i was to be demoted from my hard earned cash that would drive me crazy. you would be effectivly stealing from some guild leaders

Sure, but if you quit the game and leave your guild leaderless and stagnant, you're screwing your guildmates.

Besides, if you quit the game for 3 months, you obviously don't care about your 100k, or you woulda stayed around.

I like the idea myself.

-sam

Mistress Dasha · Jul 22, 2005, 06:00 PM // 18:00

I agree.. There should be a clause as to when you can kick your guild leader..

I suggest 1 month of inactivity.. 1 month is not to low or to high of a time frame..

Aniewiel · Jul 22, 2005, 06:08 PM // 18:08

I think the idea of an "auto promotion" is a good one. The leader would be 'demoted' to officer status and the most active, longest lived officer would take over.

Thomasuwoo · Jul 22, 2005, 07:24 PM // 19:24

Sounds promising. The other alternative is to have one of the officers just start a new guild and bring the players across. The number of stagnet guilds around is amazing!
Maybe a guild merging option if the leader is away for an extended period of time? Two birds with one stone.

Sofonisba · Jul 22, 2005, 07:42 PM // 19:42

I think if the guild leader were in the hospital, their first concern would never be,"Gee, I hope I'm still leader after I'm outta surgery!"

An officer/guild leader must play the game in order to serve. It's very simple.

SOT · Jul 22, 2005, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by karl h

i think your idea is absolutely stupid. sorry but im a guild leader and i have personallypaid 100k for my guild hall 6k on changing the cape and 100 making the guild so if i was to be demoted from my hard earned cash that would drive me crazy. you would be effectivly stealing from some guild leaders

Not to mention the potential devious bastards who will band together simply to join a guild, demote its rightful founder, and shanghai his or her accomplishements.

I've seen this before. If you had something like this in place, that is exactly what would happen, the griefers who cannot piss me off by talking to me (i have no chats on but current party and guild, EVER) would simply make a dinky character, build up some respectable ability, then seek me out for membership, perhaps lull me into accepting them, or one of my officers (he's slow) and then find some way to oust me.

Nope, this idea is utterly devoid of coherent thought.

Aniewiel · Jul 22, 2005, 07:44 PM // 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

Sounds promising. The other alternative is to have one of the officers just start a new guild and bring the players across. The number of stagnet guilds around is amazing!
Maybe a guild merging option if the leader is away for an extended period of time? Two birds with one stone.

That is, of course, an option but the group loses it's hall, essentially starting over from scratch.

Perhaps what could happen when a leader is gone for an extended time would be for the guild to be 'disbanded' with the guildhall being removed. BUT the sigil could be given to the most active ranking officer. That way, they could head out with the remaining members and found a new guild without having to start over from scratch.

SOT · Jul 22, 2005, 07:47 PM // 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by samarium

Sure, but if you quit the game and leave your guild leaderless and stagnant, you're screwing your guildmates.

Besides, if you quit the game for 3 months, you obviously don't care about your 100k, or you woulda stayed around.

I like the idea myself.

-sam

Circumstances, circumstances, circumstances

Some people work 50 hours a week or MORE. Some have kids. Some ARE kids and have kid-based responsibilities like softball, school, anything. Some people may have not paid a bill and their baroadband is off. Some people may be DEAD and no one knows them enough personally to sort that out. Some people may have multiple accounts/guilds and focus on another one more than their main one. Some also with characters (this happens to me all the time with guilders, they make some new build and then are unreachable, setting their status to offline but I see them run past me, LOL). Some people burn out and take a break. Some people get another new game and take a break. SOme people have their accounts stolen, so the guild master you usually like speaking to and is usually on may not be on because some addtard took their account and is sitting on it for some reason (many come to mind, like blatant irritation and nothing more).

It's not so much about a leader's lack of passion or interest as perhaps their life is in the downer specturm. People have offline lives. I love games but it is easy for us all to forget their are bills to pay, and mouths to feed, and you get the idea...I think...

ManadartheHealer · Jul 22, 2005, 08:29 PM // 20:29

Our Guild Leader is pretty good about being on. But sometimes, he does remain AFk for a few days (he has this thing called "Life" to attend to

).

Even though he is probably as active as possible, I would hate to see some impacient officers get together and give him the boot (although, I doubt that would happen

)

Drake_Grievous · Jul 22, 2005, 08:38 PM // 20:38

I think that there should be a second in command rank, Im a leader of a growing guild and honestly I have a hard time getting on until late in the day. I wouldnt want to get home one day and find out that my guild had impeached me because I had to work late.

Perishiko ReLLiK · Jul 22, 2005, 08:52 PM // 20:52

I dont think you should be able to "oust" the guild leader at all... i personaly think that's a very stupid idea...

They're the ones who put the guild together, get things set up... if you don't like the way the guild is being run, then leave... it's not up to you to change a guild that isnt owned by you.

I do agree with the suggestion however, that there could be two guild leaders.

quanzong · Jul 22, 2005, 09:26 PM // 21:26

I say if they havent been on for month it should automatically kick them out.
Because maybe some guild leaders get in terrible accident and cannot play for weeks.

EDIT: Some get grounded too lol, that would suck you come back and say "wtf where my guild?" And your officer saying "sucker!"

Age · Jul 22, 2005, 10:02 PM // 22:02

Then again guilds do have places like groupsites or forums to post on.OI don't see the problem with having 2 guild leaders or even up to 4.This would be good if more than one guild mergered together eg 4 guilds merging to be come one with new cape and all.I am not talking about one with guild halls.

Larys · Jul 22, 2005, 10:39 PM // 22:39

I guess I was unclear about the stipulations for demoting or removing a guild leader.

1) The guild leader would have to be inactive for a prolonged period of time. It's summer, people go on vacations for weeks at a time, other things in life occur - can't argue with that. But if someone is absent for five+ weeks without any kind of notice, it's likely they've got something far more important going on in their lives than GW, even if it's some other game. So, logging on late one evening, or not showing up for a day or two would not meet the stipulation of prolonged inactivity.

2) Once prolonged inactivity has been established, a set number of active officers would have to all agree to change the leadership of the guild, the action performed by the game or a gm. No one officer could accomplish this alone, unless he/she had access to five officers' accounts (I guess that's possible

). GW could even go as far as to email the account of said guild leader, notifying him of the change and giving said guild leader an opportunity to either let it proceed, or log on and do something else. I don't have my guild leader's email address but GW absolutely does.

The idea that it isn't my guild to change is incorrect. I'm expected to participate and add to the general whole. It most certainly is my guild to change, both by my presence and participation as an officer or member. Otherwise, what's the point? If I wanted to be lead by just one ideology, I'd go play an offline RP'ing game. However, in my specific case, a few officers have contributed just as much as the leader has towards the cape, guild name, sigil and hall (even the name of the hall), and they don't deserve to have to work for all of that again just because the leader has stopped logging in.

For those of you who are guild leaders that responded, what I've posted really doesn't seem to apply to you - you're active!

What I'm proposing couldn't be used by some mutinous officer, greedily coveting your position, because you're still logging in. It would be nice to think that if you did lose interest in your guild/the game, you'd tie up your loose ends by promoting someone to take over. From my own experience in online games, that doesn't happen most of the time. People leave, think they'll return, and usually don't.

For those of you that support the idea, or similar ones, perhaps GW could concede there needs to be some way of salvaging a guild if the guild leader doesn't officially leave, but is for all intents and purposes gone, rather than losing everything everyone has worked for towards that guild. While this is my suggestion, I think some of the ones posted here and in the threads I searched prior to posting are valid. We're all saying the same thing in the end - we need a solution to the absent guild leader.

Thanks

Melish Mehlynqhali

Iceciro · Jul 22, 2005, 10:54 PM // 22:54

There should be a Guild Leader position and a Guild FOUNDER position - and they could both be the same person. The Founder basically has the ability to nominate a leader, and can never be removed from the guild. The leader works exactly as they do now, making the decisions and whatnot. The LEADER should be able to be voted up or down by officers in a 75% majority, but the Founder position should be, in a word, invulnerable. Thus, if a leader doesnt show or doesnt preform to the guild's needs, the officers can move him up or down, but the founder stays put. Think of the leader as the CEO and the officers as a Board of Directors.