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.
This one confuses me, because generally the same people who were in power prior to the EC are still in power now. There has never been any secret agenda with what was happening with the EW/EC either, this has been an ongoing process where what was going to be happening is all over the EW Recode Discussion Board since Petros was working on them. It's been what, a decade in the making now?
Even Prior to EC, EW has never been a democracy so I dunno who is surprised about the changes or why.
Far as the suggestion for term limits go I'm half and half with Gorboth on this. I don't think anyone should be forced out of a position due to hardcode, there are some people who just should not be a guild leader and such a process would just invite the chance for those people to take over. However, every guild -should- have some way, shape or form to remove a leader that isn't impossible to do. 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.
I remember for the longest time Knights had no way of removing the GM. Eagledraco held on to that spot and was never around at all, which hurt the guild in a huge way back then spiraling it into a dead guild. Then a voting process was added and it has been used for the benefit of the guild a few times now. If the majority of members wish for a change then a way to change should be in every single guild. Be it voting or assassination, but things such as "Those who don't log in for two weeks are removed" or "Only the Council can call a Vote" or even those guilds who just flat out give absolute power to the GM to hold on for as long as they wish to should be fixed. One person hanging on to power for the sake of just having the title can ruin a guild and hurt the game overall.
This game should not be for a select few to live out their glory days, if someone isn't that active and only logs on once or twice a week and just checks mail at that... then they need to pass the torch to someone else. If someone is leading the guild in a manner that the "Members" (Not outside Spectators) dislike, they should have a viable option to remove said person.