Genesis Forums

fact-checking: I've been told Neidar does have an idle timer on Thane, and everyone's favorite active elder isn't a RL friend of Logg.

I might propose idle limits on Elders, for Neidar and and other guilds with a similar structure, to avoid the "inactive users waking up to keep their friend in power" situation that everyone fears.

Greneth wrote:

Rincon wrote:

Now look at guilds like Neidar.
No term limits, no idle timer.. No nothing.

Wrong.

Like Amberlee pointed out, the Neidars. The only way a vote can be called is by 2/3 Elders doing so. However, if the Thane never promotes anyone to Elder except for RL friends then he essentially holds a monopoly on the guild regardless of the guild members feelings, which should not be allowed.

Wrong again.

Please get your facts straight before making false statements, mkay?

That actually came from a few Neidars themselves, I was merely repeating. Feel free to correct it though. How do the Neidar replace the Thane they don't want?

4 weeks away and someone can assume command, so its 2 weeks longer than dragonarmies, but thats one of the two possibilities.

I'm merely using them as an example because it was brought up in discord some time ago, if what they said was wrong then it's wrong. But whether it's a timer or not that still does not solve the issue really. Which is, how do the Neidars if they do not want their Thane remove him?

Could the Neidars right now start a vote to remove the Thane, yes or no?

Greneth wrote:I'm merely using them as an example because it was brought up in discord some time ago, if what they said was wrong then it's wrong. But whether it's a timer or not that still does not solve the issue really. Which is, how do the Neidars if they do not want their Thane remove him?

Could the Neidars right now start a vote to remove the Thane, yes or no?

Elders could yes, wich are Pacal and Irk. They are also the only ones that can actually vote on the matter, but you need 3 people for a vote to fall through so it kinda hangs on that.

how do the Neidars if they do not want their Thane remove him?

The Thane of the Hill Dwarves is the King and ruler of the clan. What he/she says, goes. If a Clan member doesn't agree, he can forsake the Clan.

Could the Neidars right now start a vote to remove the Thane, yes or no?

No.

There is only one king and you know who it is.

Rincon wrote:

how do the Neidars if they do not want their Thane remove him?

The Thane of the Hill Dwarves is the King and ruler of the clan. What he/she says, goes. If a Clan member doesn't agree, he can forsake the Clan.

Could the Neidars right now start a vote to remove the Thane, yes or no?

No.

And that right there is the point.

Ultimate Power with no way for the Neidar, if they wished it to remove someone. If the Thane refuses to promote any Elders who can start the vote, then he doesn't have to worry about losing his position. Now I'm not saying thats what Logg IS doing. I'm merely pointing out that the system is fucked and this whole attitude of well if you don't like it just leave. No no no, that shit shouldn't be allowed in the first place and I don't care what the original coder thought about it.

Every guild should have a viable way for its members to remove the leader. Not some half-assed just hope they go afk for a month or only people the "Leader" appoints with a 2/3 majority can do so. I don't care if its Voting, Trial By Combat, Assassination, etc. But no leader should be able to just sit there and enjoy life without worrying about losing their spot. What happens is we get these leaders who are rarely around, don't interact with the game, hardly do their job and it gets annoying. We have a whole slew of people who are still excited for this game, if you're burnt out pass the torch.

The Ranger's voting system might be a good one to mimic. Elections every 6 months and guild members can impeach the Captain. Maybe just label it different things for different guilds?

Hi Greneth,

You are right that there needs to be a way out for "absolute rule" council builds in a given guild. In certain cases over the years, Admin has deemed it necessary to intervene in situations where a guild leader was holding hostage an entire guild's opportunities for the future. We retain that right, but use it VERY sparingly. It, though, is the reason we can allow structures like those that exist in the Neidar council to operate thematically the way they were designed. Monarchies are non-democratic, and you can't un-elect a King/Queen. You can assasinate them and steal the throne, but that isn't what got set up for the Clan.

I have never received a request from the Neidar for action, that I can recall, so perhaps that particular guild is alright?

G.

gorboth wrote:Hi Greneth,

You are right that there needs to be a way out for "absolute rule" council builds in a given guild. In certain cases over the years, Admin has deemed it necessary to intervene in situations where a guild leader was holding hostage an entire guild's opportunities for the future. We retain that right, but use it VERY sparingly. It, though, is the reason we can allow structures like those that exist in the Neidar council to operate thematically the way they were designed. Monarchies are non-democratic, and you can't un-elect a King/Queen. You can assasinate them and steal the throne, but that isn't what got set up for the Clan.

I have never received a request from the Neidar for action, that I can recall, so perhaps that particular guild is alright?

G.

I'm not apart of the guild so can't really say but I imagine if none of them have or want to speak up then they are fine with it. I was merely using that guild as an example of what shouldn't be done. I just remember how long we had to fight just to get a voting system for the Knights and by the time we did the guild was dead due to Eagledraco.