I think Andaho makes a good point in the 5th paragraph of his last essay... Lets not make new members officers instantly but instead keep an eye on their level of activity, and then promote them to officers. It does go against the constitution of the guild, but would new members know anything about it and us when they join at first?

When the new player influx from kong happened, we pretty much invited and accepted anyone that showed interest in joining a guild, yet I have found that some of new active members might not play the game in the spirit of Kindred. I don't want to insult anyone but the guild chat gets out of hand a lot sometimes, and as a member of this guild I find lots of things overwhelming. Basically, what I am trying to say is - to me - respect is given but trust is earned. But you may not all feel like that. I am torn as to what to answer to the question that was brought up in the first place. If I say 'nay' to making new recruits officers, I'll be going against the principles of what this guild was founded upon. If I say 'aye', I'll be going against what I feel is right - that trust and 'officership' should be earned.

I still think it's a great idea to pass the leadership "boot" around the most active players. It shows that we not only believe in our equality concept, but we have it in action.

Epic,
I think you have a good argument for the kind of guild organization you described. However, what some of us discovered is that when we were in a guild that had a few officers, we could not recruit fellow players, even though we were active, long-time players, and knew the game inside and out. So, this guild was founded on the principle that everyone had the ability to be an officer in order to recruit fellow players. Perhaps, now that the guild is full, that founding principle is less important?
I can see both sides of the argument, and will go along with whatever the guild as a whole decides is best for the guild. And, I think that is the most important founding principle of this guild--that the entire guild membership helps decide what is important to the guild, rather than leaving the conversation and decision making up to a select few officers.

I can see everyone's points. I'm still a bit torn, though. I do like the suggestion of a short period as recruit before becoming an officer. If we think management is easier with fewer, then I would also be for a rotating leadership, or perhaps voting for leadership? I don't personally have a huge desire to be an officer - I play to have fun, and enjoy the chance to help others once in a while. So I am fine to be demoted if that's what is needed to move forward well. I guess I'm just not sure that it's actually needed, and that we aren't just falling into the pattern because "that's how guilds should be run."

All that being said, I appreciate that this conversation is happening in an open way, which gives me a lot of trust in whatever decision is reached. The guild will keep my loyalty regardless of the final decision.

I don't know, El, that sounds like hard work. :P Unless it happens smoothly and we don't have to take extra 'time off work' to train them? I love to see people getting involved in this discussion, by the way! Thanks, guys!

I don't want to overwhelm the already active and experienced players with playing 100 questions with the newcomers. El and I have been working on a FAQ thingy that we hope to get published soon. I hope it will help take some of the pressure off. If you are interested in having a look at the document and would like to contribute to it as well, just let us know! It would be nice to have input from all classes, as we - wizzies - may skip something that's important to rangers and warriors! :)

Hey you in the shirt!

First of all on today's agenda - I'd like to thank everyone for their input in the guild discussion (both here and in the chat), it looks like we all agree that something needs to be changed.

So, here comes the second issue (not an issue, really, more like a proposal) I want your further input on. Marie, the leader of the Kindred Alts has been hard at work this week recruiting new members. Many of them very active and reaching max levels soon. Instead of 'sharding' the wing to lvl10, how about we graduate these active new players from Alts and move them to the Kindred? In this scenario, El's idea about trainees moving up in the world would play out beautifully.

We are already working on compiling a list of Alts who would want to move to the Kindred. At the same time I am having a look at the inactives in the Kindred (and by inactive I mean members who haven't logged back on since the day they started playing - obviously they didn't get hooked on the game).

You can either discuss it here, or drop a line in the guild chat, especially if you say 'nay' about this proposal!!!

I agree with kicking out a player after a time of inactivity if he doesn't announce it first to the leader-I'm thinking vacations ,or hospital, or just hard times at work.you could put it as rule on display in the guild , not everyone reads his mails. this game is very time consuming after a certain level and I'm sure there will be even more people who will quit.maybe you should let a few alts in kindred as an emergency supply? :D maybe someone you really want finally comes here ? :D. moving active people in kindred sounds good if there is place but I'm afraid we'll be out of places soon and you won't be able to do it for long , idk. fairness for all , huh? :P(yes , I'm coming from the patch thread ). maybe warn people that the thing is limited by how many spots are available. as for officers if we give up all officers thing you can demote me , I don't care about that :P. I'd say keep this thing with all officers cause otherwise you'll have to watch closely what everybody is doing and ponder who should be or not should be and it seems a pain to me and people might be offended for nothing.maybe keep someone new as recruit for a month and after that promote him. in a month it should be clear to you if you like the game or not. make the rule public too.
there Annie, another essay :P
oh , and idk if you do it or not but maybe you should put in kindred alts a message with cooldown for next upgrade is xxx and the next to upgrade will be xxx. new people have no idea about the insane cooldown there

Bumping this thread to keep it alive.

EDIT: It seems it was only in the alpha testing forum that threads got locked after 7 days... It appears in this forum that they only get locked after 30 days inactivity now.

I'm not sure if the philosophy of not knocking other Kindred members off the #1 spot in the arena is working very well...

Some people feel offended/betrayed/disrespected when they are following this philosophy, and then other Kindred who don't, knock them off #1. In some cases this is happening frequently, and a small frequent annoyance gradually builds up to become a large one. I don't like anyone to feel like they are being betrayed/disrespected - It makes an uncomfortable atmosphere and isn't fun for anyone...

I personally don't mind much if another Kindred knocks me off #1 (perhaps I would if it was happening all the time)... But some players do. I am a competitive player (everyone around the top of the arena is - otherwise they wouldn't keep fighting their way into the top), and I do like to see The Kindred holding the #1 spot.

The #1 spot doesn't give any special reward, so it might not mean much to you... But, when players (especially new players) regularly see a player's name at #1, it adds a certain recognition or 'fame'.

The philosophy, although being stated as completely voluntary, was intended to be followed as a sign of respect for other Kindred. For people to follow it voluntarily gives a sense of freedom, and not a sense of being forced to follow the rules (but perhaps we need rules in order to keep the order?).

I see it as we have 2 options:


1. Scrap the '#1 philosophy'.
----------

***** PROS *****

Perhaps it isn't relevant any more? - It was more relevant for a small growing guild. When in the arena, everyone could beat anyone else, and the #1 spot changed frequently.

The gap between players is now much larger, because of lucky re-rolls on multiple pieces of epic equipment, or *quivers* P2W players.

Having grown into a large, competitive guild, that is almost always at #1, some players still want to be 'competitive'. They want to fight to be #1.

***** CONS *****

The philosophy gives a sense of unity, respect and ubuntu (google "define ubuntu"). It would be a shame to lose that.

It's something that makes us stand out from other guilds, and shows that we are kindred to each other. (a pretty big con, considering we are called The Kindred? - but perhaps we can find other ways to display a unity of the guild?)


2. Stronger than 'voluntary' enforcement of our philosophy.
----------

***** PROS *****

Being clear with set rules, so everyone knows what is expected of them.

***** CONS *****

Again, it's something that makes us stand out from other guilds: That we have no rules, but can still display unity and respect to each other.

It might mean that we would have to take action against members that don't follow our philosophy - Thus, going against TK not being exclusionary?

Rules like this might put some people off joining, as they might think the rules are silly or unneeded.

----------

I'd like to put this to a vote. But not voting yet... I'd like to give time (2 days?) for anyone to suggest other PROs and CONs for the 2 options. I'll edit this post to include them

As always, everyone's input is always welcome and encouraged :D

Sorry again for such a long post... I can't seem to do these kind of posts without writing an essay :S (a job's not worth doing unless it's done properly?)

5 minutes is hardly any time :S

I don't like #1 (or #2) :( But one of those options definitely needs to be chosen... unless there's a 3rd option I haven't considered?

I was just kicked out from rank 1 after the 5 minutes so I 'm entitled to an opinion :P.
I'd say forget about that rule cause it's not useful anyway. maybe for a newer player than us the max rank that he can reach is 5 or 6 or less where we don't have any rules. so we don't respect his equivalent of number one, best place that he can reach.it's very hard not to kick guildies within top ten cause we're on many places of ten. I don't want the stronger players to avoid kicking me neither. I want to be able to defeat them some day but I don't mind if I don't . if someone put much effort and more money than me in the game it's just natural they're stronger. anyway reaching number one couldn't be compared to the one time I could beat you in alpha :P. no one should be banned from playing or isolated, and arena isn't real pvp anyway , I think we being friends is more important than any not rule we have. I'm voting for getting rid of that rule .