The future?

[Lieva]

Whats GoS?

/Ankh

guardians of somminare (spelling)

was a very big guild.(see pm)

on paper having only one GM is very good.
In reality however, always best to have 2.

[Belisar]

But then again, why are we even having this discussion? The thread was made to give people the possibility of merging. It's not as if someone is being forced to. So if a small guild decides to merge with a larger one, they make the decission out of their own free will, and they will know any advantages or disadvantages up front.

In the end it's more fun playing somewhere active and have people to talk to, make new friends etc instead of just logging on every day and being bored.

The discussion itself is interesting but you are right - there are logical steps here.

The guild itself needs to decide if it wants to merge and if so, who to, and under what circumstances.

GM chats to GM and guild member opinion considered in each of the parties.

Weigh up pro's and cons and positions wanted/offered.

Merge/decline/agree a smaller step.

Nice to see that an offer from FS to consider such a move is greeted with such a discussion.

I think we can all agree this is not a "one size fits all" situation - it is simply an offer to talk positively.

[Cryn]

I think if the original post had been something to the effect of "FS invites guilds to merge" it would not have invited discussion, but Satyn did make a couple of comments in her invitation suggesting that such mergers would make the the game more fun or help combat population dropping issues.

Nothing wrong with those comments, but maybe they are more up for discussion than the invitation alone would be.

Anyway, discussions are healthy! That's why they taste like cabbage.

[Lairiodd]

Whats GoS?

Guardians of Somnaire.

The GM was Path Somnaire, it was a reasonably large guild. Path felt that he and his GF were spending to much time online (at least that is my memory of the reason from reading the forum), so he wiped the guild (well set all ranks to no for everything). People logged on any couldn't even speak in /gu.

[Lairiodd]

On the topic at hand. IMO, the reason that this is a major issue is that guilds are formed with absolute power involved. If you are a GM, you have complete control over the guild. If the GM is a trustworthy person, then this is no problem, they won't abuse their power. However, if they do, there is nothing that the members of the guild can do. It comes down to a question of who owns the guild. Does the guild belong to the GM or the members. Atm, the answer clearly falls on the side of the GMs.

There are other possibilities depending on who and how you give power to people.

Full Democratic

Everyone in the guild gets to vote. 50%+ support of the membership is required to implement any guild admin function. This could even include inviting people.

Also, if the system included guild ranks etc., it could include promotions or granting of rights to ranks.

Representative Democracy

The members elect the officers every so often and then only they vote on things.

Republic

A Republic combines democratic elements with rules to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Something like:

promotion to GM:
50% support of the membership, can be vetoed by another GM

removal of a GM:
75% support of the membership
or
75% support of the GMs
or
All GMs bar 1 (with the support of 50%+ of the membership)

Powers granted officers "council":
support of majority of the officers

Powers granted officers
support of 1 officer

Powers granted members
support of 1 member

All other decisions:
Majority of the GM's

Dictatorship

The GM(s) has full control of guild admin functions.

--------

I think the Republic version would be best. In such a situation, promoting someone to GM would not be as much of a risk. They can be removed if problems occur. All risk isn't removed though, but major abuse should not occur.

My personal preference would be that a guild can be formed with any of the systems. When you join a guild, you are told the system it uses. In fact, there could even be a method to modify the type.

For the democratic systems there would need to be some way to prevent abuse by inviting lots of "friends".

Some possible rules (all some or none of them could be applied)
- 1 vote per account
- you don't get a vote until you have been in the guild for X months
- there is a non-voting rank (promotion requires a vote of those with voting rights)
- there is a cap on the total number of invites per week (set by a vote)
- each invite is approved by vote

Votes that a person can vote on could popup when they login.

Another issue is durations for votes. This could be included in the rules. For example, a vote to remove another GM might require 75% of the other GMs. However, there could also be a timelimit.

For example, say you had 5 GM's and the new one was abusing his position. The problem is that one of the other GMs is not active. One of the active GM's proposes that the new GM be demoted.

After 1 week, the vote would be

For: 3
Against: 1

3 of 5 is not 75%, so the motion wouldn't be passed. However, if there was a time limit of 1 week, after 1 week, the poll would be completed. The rule would be 75% of those that vote rather than 75% of the GMs.

[Hemuli]

Now its me and thand and tho we sometimes dont agree with things we just turn to the officers for advice. Imo officers should have a say in everything otherwise there isnt a point of having them. IMO!

Yepyep, atleast I can 100% disagree with all this bs what u wrote.

Anyway, nice idea Lairi.

[Belisar]

Hem - you clearly have a personal issue. I am sure there are a lot of us who for whatever reason do not get on or like other players in the game. Not sure what your festering issue with Satyn is but it is personal.

You post on this forum an fair bit and will therefore realise that it is not FH and pointless flames or abuse aimed at specific individuals are quite well avoided. Whatever your feelings this is a perfectly legitimate thread with a perfectly legitimate content that some people clearly have a PoV or interest in.

So it would be quite nice if you kept the personal abuse out of it.

[<ankh>]

Your last post was moved to the Off Topic area so imo its just stupid to post another one.

/Ankh

[Norcott]

Yepyep, atleast I can 100% disagree with all this bs what u wrote.

and to quote ur own sig..

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

but what i would like to add to that which would be more directed at you personally,

I think in your case it´s better to stfu and look like a idiot then to speak and remove all doubt.

[Lieva]

<sigh>

ok if someone posts something you guys dont like let us know - counterflaming is a warnable offence too.

As it is the person in question has been temp banned. I dont wish to temp ban people who are only defending others.