View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 27 May 2018 13:35

Forum rules


- Use common sense and be respectful towards each other at all times, even when disagreeing.
- Do not reveal sensitive game information. Guild secrets, player seconds are examples of things not allowed.



Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Term Limits on Guild Leaders 
Author Message
Beginner

Joined: 10 Feb 2018 21:33
Posts: 13
I have been giving a lot of thought to guild leadership lately. I have noticed that in some cases guild leaders come to power and then cling to it kicking and screaming--and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Take the gnome racial guild, for example. As I understand it, the person in charge doesn't let anyone else challenge him, and then he uses his office as a personal drop room. There are other, more sinister examples, but I'm sure people have an idea of what I'm talking about. What if guild leadership was more democratic? What if leaders were elected and served the interest of the guild, not just themselves and their friends?

When I mention that, people always say, "That won't work. Leader X will just have all his friends make an alt and he'll let them in the guild and they'll all vote for him." Or they say, "All the inactive players will just wake up and vote for the current leadership, and then they'll go back to being inactive and play their alts." And I agree, these things do happen, but maybe I've thought of a solution.

What if votes for guild leadership are weighted? They're tiered and you get a stronger vote the more active you've been in the last 3 months. Someone who hasn't played at all, and just logged in for the vote, would be worth very little. While the person who has been out there working for the guild (presumably) by gathering equipment or teaming with members would get a very large vote. Perhaps then the leaders could be chosen by the people who actually use the guild!

I would further suggest that there by 3 or 6 or 12 month terms, and that one be limited from serving more than 12 months at a time. One year on, one year off, so to speak.

I believe Genesis would benefit from more players having more of an opportunity to assume leadership roles in guilds. And I believe Genesis would benefit from removing some of those who don't play but continue to hold on to power--or who only care about having a private drop room.

Just my 2 CCs.

--Poultry


20 Feb 2018 16:46
Profile
Adventurer

Joined: 23 Nov 2017 03:45
Posts: 95
Dunedain has a interesting feature that I think other guilds could copy:

Leaders that don't login for 2 weeks in a row, although they remain leader, they can be challenged.


In guilds with elections I think what this mean is that if leader doesn't login for 2 weeks, any member of that guild can call elections.


20 Feb 2018 20:42
Profile
Myth

Joined: 06 Mar 2012 00:14
Posts: 1521
Poultry wrote:
I have been giving a lot of thought to guild leadership lately. I have noticed that in some cases guild leaders come to power and then cling to it kicking and screaming--and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Take the gnome racial guild, for example. As I understand it, the person in charge doesn't let anyone else challenge him, and then he uses his office as a personal drop room. There are other, more sinister examples, but I'm sure people have an idea of what I'm talking about. What if guild leadership was more democratic? What if leaders were elected and served the interest of the guild, not just themselves and their friends?

When I mention that, people always say, "That won't work. Leader X will just have all his friends make an alt and he'll let them in the guild and they'll all vote for him." Or they say, "All the inactive players will just wake up and vote for the current leadership, and then they'll go back to being inactive and play their alts." And I agree, these things do happen, but maybe I've thought of a solution.

What if votes for guild leadership are weighted? They're tiered and you get a stronger vote the more active you've been in the last 3 months. Someone who hasn't played at all, and just logged in for the vote, would be worth very little. While the person who has been out there working for the guild (presumably) by gathering equipment or teaming with members would get a very large vote. Perhaps then the leaders could be chosen by the people who actually use the guild!

I would further suggest that there by 3 or 6 or 12 month terms, and that one be limited from serving more than 12 months at a time. One year on, one year off, so to speak.

I believe Genesis would benefit from more players having more of an opportunity to assume leadership roles in guilds. And I believe Genesis would benefit from removing some of those who don't play but continue to hold on to power--or who only care about having a private drop room.

Just my 2 CCs.

--Poultry


This has been suggested quite a few times, by me and others, it would be a great sollution. However, its easy for complete tossers to swarm a guild and vote people out just by beeing active, alltho since they are active they are the ones actually playing


20 Feb 2018 23:34
Profile
Beginner

Joined: 10 Feb 2018 21:33
Posts: 13
Yes, Draugor, they could take over. However, in guilds with an application process it'd be harder to do.


21 Feb 2018 02:40
Profile
Wizard
User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2014 13:15
Posts: 380
On top of the usual resetting of leadership after a period of inactivity, the Wizards of High Sorcery are set up so that the Conclave members serve terms, then their Orders vote on who they want to lead them. Not all votes are equal, with seniority mattering.

I am not a huge fan of democratic voting practices resulting in the best leadership... a benevolent dictator tends to work better! So it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

As for the Tinkers, I've actively avoided looking at that guild. It is really old code, and I don't get how they work beyond a very superficial level. I leave that to Carnak! But I am not a huge fan of there being leadership of layman guilds let alone racial guilds, so my way of fixing that rank issue would be to simply get rid of it. I am sure that would impact inventions, but maybe there is a way to still manage that without needing a guild leader?


21 Feb 2018 03:43
Profile
Adventurer
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2017 06:07
Posts: 80
Location: Studying spell scrolls
I like the idea of guilds having limited leadership terms. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", but lifelong leadership can do the same thing.


21 Feb 2018 04:47
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2010 20:51
Posts: 2127
Location: Some old coffin
What's wrong with corruption? Genesis isn't supposed to be about everyone behaving well. It is about creating stories and living out your ambitions for roleplay and gameplay. I would very much oppose any sort of global term-limit system for guild leadership. Individual guilds can create that if they want to, but no one is going to tell a Dragonarmy General the his or her term is up without getting roasted by the nearest pet. (for example)

G.

_________________
Mmmmmm ... pie ...


21 Feb 2018 06:54
Profile
Beginner

Joined: 10 Feb 2018 21:33
Posts: 13
So my question is, how does a lack of terms or democracy benefit the Elemental Worshipers (lay guild) who were just taken over by the OCC branch. I doubt many of the layman wanted to get taken over, and yet they have no recourse. Shut up or lose your guild. Pretty shitty. Players want to have a certain amount of control over their destiny.

This is just one example, but I think it's apt. I don't know all the ins and outs, but I do know that many of the lay members I've talked to feel they had no say in how things played out. That's a bad situation for the entire donut, because players who feel that way are less motivated to play.

There should be some way to include everyone in the decision making processes without total anarchy ensuing.


21 Feb 2018 07:30
Profile
Wizard
User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2014 13:15
Posts: 380
Poultry wrote:
So my question is, how does a lack of terms or democracy benefit the Elemental Worshipers (lay guild) who were just taken over by the OCC branch. I doubt many of the layman wanted to get taken over, and yet they have no recourse. Shut up or lose your guild. Pretty shitty. Players want to have a certain amount of control over their destiny.

This is just one example, but I think it's apt. I don't know all the ins and outs, but I do know that many of the lay members I've talked to feel they had no say in how things played out. That's a bad situation for the entire donut, because players who feel that way are less motivated to play.

There should be some way to include everyone in the decision making processes without total anarchy ensuing.


Isn't that a seperate issue to what you originally raised? That is two guilds thematically being joined, with the leadership positions defaulting to the occupational branch? (And that's an assumption.. i don't know how the council system works or whether lay members can be councillors). I don't think terms or how councils are picked is the issue here?


21 Feb 2018 08:38
Profile
Myth

Joined: 08 Mar 2010 19:50
Posts: 1307
Location: Kristiansund, Norway
gorboth wrote:
What's wrong with corruption? Genesis isn't supposed to be about everyone behaving well. It is about creating stories and living out your ambitions for roleplay and gameplay. I would very much oppose any sort of global term-limit system for guild leadership. Individual guilds can create that if they want to, but no one is going to tell a Dragonarmy General the his or her term is up without getting roasted by the nearest pet. (for example)

G.



*slap*

Because some corruption actually HURT the game people play?
It's good if people have a way of intervening, like regular votes or even assassination to get rid of said asshats that hurt the guilds and the game.(Cheers to you Einar!)
Now look at guilds like Neidar.
No term limits, no idle timer.. No nothing.
Once you're leader, you're leader until someone else is appointed.

_________________
The views posted by me on this forum is not the views of the character Amberlee in-game.
If you ask for my opinion here, you will get MY opinion, not that of my character.


21 Feb 2018 10:39
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.