Words for thought: Choose your leaders wisely

[Sallust]

In order to do that Daeem that have to first fix all the bugs in the org system and actually put in some things like the clan advantages (The 1h blunt which doesn't work for many clans is only one advantage that most really don't care about)

Not a bad idea, but they need to work on the basics first before they can really add anything.

[_____________Pinkoid]

I have heard of such practices. I roll characters every now and then, just to try some other professions out every now and then.

More than once I have been invited blindly by some higher level yalmed up type character in a backyard, only to find that I was about to be invited into a guild that had a tax running for 100 creds.

That may be just the thing that will put off new players to the game, since by the time they reach 100 creds, they will have to pay the organization for being member.

As to the title of my post:

1) I am damn proud of our little (well, former little) guild on RK-2. Long time ago we started a friend guild. We had and still have one simple rule: Have fun with eachother and help out where possible. We have no taxes whatsoever and everyone knows eachother. Apart from that we have the finest guildleader possible on the entire planet. But then I again, I would have to claim that, she is my girlfriend after all

2) This post made me an Eleet

But seriously, there should indeed be a way to have GM's ingame offer assistance to guilds that have become leaderless. A friend of ours was disbanding his guild since most of the members had quit the game or hadn't been online for a very very long time. He didn't disband though, for the simple fact that there was a lot of credits int he org bank and he didn't want that to go to waste. Instead he handed leadership to the only other person he knew would not run off with the cash and waited till the exploit problems were over. He then disbanded, sharing the credits equally over all the leftover players from the former guild.
This sort of thing a leader makes.
If for some reason a guild is leaderless, have it disbanded by a GM who took control over the guild and let them devide the org bank, if there, equally amongst all players in the guild.
Same thing for any other guild really.

Make the guilds so that if the guild disbands, the leader doesn't take all. Instead have every member of the guild get an equal share of the bank's contents. I know that leaders will still have the possibility to just kick everyone (scripts are easily written for that) and then disband, but at least then people are alerted to what's about to happen.

Better yet, make it so that a certain percentage of the members have to agree on the disband before it actually takes place in the form of an organizational poll.

I know it will not ever take away all the risks, but these things do make it slightly harder for wrong-doers.

Or just be like we are. Friendly people who help eachother. We have a bank, we never use it for anything other than helping out people and we never ask anyone to put money in it. People just add to the bank whenever they want. That's the beauty of sharing without prejudice...

[MissMaul]

I'd like special terminals for guild banks, and we should be able to store items too...

[assassimon]

I want to be able to promote someone to vice pres, should have same rights as the pres, but can maybe not talk in leader spam channel (would be good if he/she could listen tho)

[Taoh]

I was depressed recently when I rolled a new char, I was just zoning into the backyard, a fresh lvl 1, my eyes had not yet even seen a leet, and their in the middle of my screen was a box asking... "would you like to join an Organization named *****"

This is wrong. Had I been new, most likely I would have pressed, yes having no idea what was going on.

If I had my way I would make it impossible for anyone to join a guild, If they are still able to listen to Newbie OOC. This would mean that all players must live a little, before pledging themselves.

Any rerolled char will have no trouble leveling the basic levels if they wish to join a guild. It wouldnt be an issue.

As for guilds as they stand now. I believe they are fair. A leader is just that. you choose to join the guild. you choose for different reasons, but when you choose you are saying, yes I accept this person as my leader. You can always leave.

Having a tax warning is a good idea. Giving the player the oportunity to leave. I do not tax, I dont believe in it. If my members believe that I am doing a good job, then they will donate money because THEY want to and they are happy with the way things are going...

just my 2 cents.

[__________Umberdeath]

Im all for being able to have "Vice Presidents" or more basically a "Co-Owner" of a guild. People who can take responsibility of the Org Bank, and maybe also have leader chat. Would probably have to set a limit on number of those allowed (ex: 2)

[Sallust]

Well instead of a Co-prez, how about giving the existing ranks some purpose? Make the 2nd highest rank able to read leader chat and not post or something. 2nd highest rank also has access to the org bank.

Go ahead and create more ranks if they're needed, but much of the current "governingform" structure is just entirely fluff. Why isn't it put to use? Heck, these abilities could even be advantages which are bought in an org store and implemented by the leader. How about that?

[Llorrac1]

When my org was created we were leaving an org that was being run by a 13 year old boy that lives in England. He was acting like most kids his age, doing whatever whim struck him at the time.

We decided that the first precept in creating this new org would be that we spend some time getting to know potential recruits before we invited them to the guild. Of course this isn't perfect, but it's worked fairly well thus far.

When we chose our governing form we went with Republic and made everyone that was there for the inception Generals, with myself voted leader by majority vote. Although the position doesn't yet exist, we decided to make a Vice President that, while not having official power in changing org taxes/modifying the government form/etc, would still be my point advisor as this was my first time leading an organization.

We've become good freinds over the past few months, and those that have hung on and stayed with the game I trust implicitly. I would LOVE to see my V.P. have official power of some kind, maybe able to access the leader channel and reduce the org tax if something wasn't appearing kosher to him.

Oh, and on the org tax issue, I've set it at 1 (one) credit as we're having a bug that's pulling funds from the members even after the fix a couple months ago. It won't be increased from there by my hand, as we're running a democratic republic where I consult my Generals on ANY decision concerning the org.

I fully support this thread and would LOVE to see additional powers assigned to each of the ranks as appropriate, perhaps in the case of a military-style ranking system setting up a classic squad/platoon/company/batallion/brigade style structure, whereby the ranks could actually acquire some command experience in the process?

[Julka_Pomy]

I LOVE MY LEADER!!

/me kisses Azza

[____________Greystar]

In UO is an option to "Declare fealty" in guilds, if more than 50% do this for someone, he becomes the leader, that's a good option if the leader left the game, and in any case, if more than 50% don't agree with the leader, it's maybe better if he isn't leader anymore even if active.

So why not make something like that in AO ?

[Nyadach]

It would be great to get our hands on a vice-president with all the powers as president. Would probably solve alot of the problems of the president leaving and leaving the guild with problems. Maybe also make it so if the guild was to disband, it needs both president and vice-president to say yes to it.

The voting systems time delays is annoying also. 30mins between votes can really wind people up. Although I figure it will induce lag having votes running 5 or 10mins a part?

Guild taxes should really be banded too. We've never used them (although need the funds) since they are simply not fair as they currently stand. Is it fair that a lvl 1 pays the same per hour as a lvl 200? no its not. But if we could set the tax rate based upon on fee per level of the char, in the same way payments to insurance terminals work. It would be alot fairer to the members.

What I would so love to see (and bet no time soon) is guild structures. And in these maybe our own personal insurance terms (payment goes to guild as a kinda tax). Also a mass of shop terminals where members can deposit items. Our own guild uses different members to store ncu, armours, weapons, nanos...basically everything for all the other members. Yet when they leave they need to hand over these items to other members. If these were stored in shop terminals then yet again, the guild might be able to charge members for using them (able to set pricing of items) and use it again for making guild funds, as well as more convenient for members.

Guild structures should also vary in size, why does a guild of 5 members need one the same as a guild with 500? In the bigger ones a bar/relaxing (rp area) would be handy, as would a meeting hall (a must). Maybe even a arena (eek pvp training area) would be useful to some guilds for it.

As expected, the bigger and more complex the structure, with more things in it, the bigger the fee to rent it (charged maybe weekly or daily to the guilds bank). Maybe have the structures modular so the guilds can buy on the bar, or arena etc?

Am probably getting a bit carried away here as to implement this is a shuttle craft full of code additions (and then some). But heck, am talking ideas here

[Animoy]

Bump for Vice President

Some guild are made up of people from all around the world, and guild leaders have to sleep too This meens that if your leader is from the US and you are from Europe, there will be noone able to do guild changes and access guild bank when you play. A vice with org power that was in the same time zone as yourself would be nice then

[_____________TanisAS]

Problem with voting systems that occasionally happened in uo but wasnt a big deal is that you recruit the wrong person... they seem nice... 2weeks later the guild comes out from under you ecause fealty has changed... in uo it wasnt a major thing since guilds were little more than tags unless you were in factions but here theres a bank to lose...

Edit: just want to make it clear that you lost fealty not because you were crap and they were good but becuase they recruit other "friendly" people who as a small guild you were usually hapy to have then boom.. not your guild no more effectively making the original members homeless.

[_____________Brandon]

It would be great to have the "Anarchy" format with a "leader" of sorts. That would prevent being changed at will but still have the all equal format. This is such a good idea I am posting on the suggestions forum.

[_______________Dokar]

Yes, we all know that there are leaders like that, but you can't put a limit on all organisation leaders, since not all of us actually are like that. I recently created an organisation, and I have no intent of leaving or disbanding it. I have put a lot of work into the guild, and fully expect to put even more in in the future. So think about the full story - every organisation leader - not just the bad ones.

[Mystyz]

First of all, the leader is the beginning. Everyone who joins an org is joining the LEADER'S org. If you find that you dont feel you can trust your leader I see no point in wasting time sticking around. I absolutely do not agree with the idea of opening up the leaders chat to others, even if for 'read only'. (The only exception being the second-in-command, if such a thing is ever introduced) The leader's chat is a place for them to discuss and plan things that we may not be meant to know yet. Also, imagine our great leaders discuss raids, espionage, or anything else being planned. Why would we want to put that information out there where any loudmouth or spy can see and tell?? The leader's channel is there for a reason... it is elite... it is confidential, and it should stay that way. If you feel your leader is not clueing you in on what is being said and planned amongst the leaders in that channel, perhaps you should ask him to share. You may find that there is simply nothing being said at that time.

However, I do agree with sharing some of the responsibility a leader has with a 'vice-president' type and/or the trusted generals/advisors/etc. It usually takes a lot of trust, time, and committment to advance to such a level in a well run org. These people are respected by both the leader and the members. I doubt, if asked, the leaders would object at all to opening some of their responsibilities to their trusted second-in-commands. By responsibilities I mean guild bank (limited distribution), temporary leadership, etc.

Happy Hunting!

[LaBleuePetite]

Originally posted by Hypos

A GM actually did this for my guild. Our president quit without saying anything. After a couple months, we petitioned for help and FunCom assigned the leadership position to another player.

Our leader has disappear since nov 16. We have 26M cr in bank.
We need this money to build towers.
I have petitionned for the designation of a temporary leader but GM ashed answer me he cant do anything and propose we build a new guild (and leaving of course 26 M cr behind us)

It seems to me that an official article has been written about this problem. It evoked a vote between the olders in the guild to designate the new leader. Was it just a dream or someone else has read it ?

[Sergyevich]

Heres what I think could happen, it would involve if the leader goes inactive for 1 month, then an automatic vote is initiated among the org that lasts for 1 week, at which time people can do a /org votelead <name> to make a vote for a new leader of the org (assuming their in the org) after the week from time of start is up, the votes are totaled and that person is then made the leader.

Anyone in the org upon logging in will be promted to vote for a new leader and may choose to wait till a later time, once they make a vote they may not change it.

If a person with votes leaves the org for some odd reason, all his votes are dropped and whoever voted for him may vote for someone else.

If at anytime the org leader logons during the one week voting period, he will be unable to perform any organisation functions that would involve renaming, changing tax, using the bank, changing any descriptions, kicking anyone, or disbanding the org. Also those with inviting abilites in the org would be unable to during this period, in order to prevent them from calling up a bunch of their buddies to getting a ton of free votes. Reason for revoking leader commands to firstly prevent him from ruining the whole thing and kicking everyone and voting for himself, if he wanted to get up and run then he should have done it before going idle for a month.

If at the end of the election there is a tie in votes, the vote will be extended 2 days longer, where you can only vote for the tied candidates.

Now as for rank in the org being worth more votes, I'm not sure if that should be done or not. I'll leave that up to the community and FC devs to decide.

Probably the most successfull way I think can of to impliment this, as a one month inactivity time is more than enough to assume he either doesnt play AO anymore, or doesnt care about the org.

Well share your thoughts on the idea

[Ratty]

I think the way it is now is a great way to handle it until it can be really worked out.
But is now not that time?

First, lets identify the problem fully. I think we are all talking about inactive leaders, ones that quit AO, were banned or whatever, not so much the abusive leader. Cause if you have an abusive leader, you can just start a new org (and leave the bank, come on dont cry its only credits).

First, the idea of letting everyone in the guild do a command, that if 50% does it elects a new leader has one problem. Lets say you're in one of those multi-game guilds, that would be really awkward if your guild got taken over because the leader got banned or whatever and had no way to pass leader off.

Then vice president.. not a bad idea, but I have another proposition.. And this is less work for FC..

If the an org leader doesn't log in for 30 days, have it automatically pick one of the advisor ranked people and make them president. Maybe it will pick whatever one has logged in the most recently first. Then assuming that person is responsible, they can start an org vote for the leader like orgs normally do. If they are a straight up lamer and abuse their power, then thats the old org's leader's fault for picking that person.
In my opinion its not reasonable to ask FC to spend all sorts of human bandwidth being org cops and keeping org leaders from being corrupt. Thats just how it is, president is god, and the only problem I'd like to see solved is when the president is inactive or quits AO.