guild continuity

[bilbous]

Would it be a good thing to have some kind of programmatic convention for inactive guild leadership to pass from inactive characters to active ones? I am thinking that after six months of inactivity by the guild leader he should be deposed in favor of the most active member. This could be the result of an Octarchai decree and represent the bureaucracies close monitoring of the guilds status. Guilds that have no activity for one year by at least five distinct members could lose their charter completely.

Is there a reason to keep dead guilds in the database?

[Aramara Meibi]

there's already a clause about inactive leadership being passed to an active player after an amount of time has passed (don't know the exact amount but a few months) and then it's a matter of contacting a GM I believe.

deleting guilds completely i'm not too sure about, what if a player returns after a long hiatus  to find their guild abolished and their guildhouse inaccessible?

[bilbous]

how would that be any different than what happens to guilds who drop below the required five members? Why should the onus be on the GM's to deal with such guilds when it can be done automatically?

It would also tend to derail vanity guilds created by players using only alts who never return to the realm but count as members towards the five member limit.

It seems to me the proper focus of a guild is as an in character group. I created a guild once with alts, most of which haven't seen the crystals light in years, should that guild have remained for ever? (aside from the fact that I deleted it myself)

[Eardstapa]

Would it be a good thing to have some kind of programmatic convention for inactive guild leadership to pass from inactive characters to active ones? I am thinking that after six months of inactivity by the guild leader he should be deposed in favor of the most active member.

maybe not necessarily the most active - the most senior member still active, or deputy/deputies as may have been agreed by individual guild laws? my guess is, GM intervention is still preferable to an automatic function because succession can be complex - not all guilds have a clearly designated deputy, and the most capable or suitable leader may not be the most active.

This could be the result of an Octarchai decree and represent the bureaucracies close monitoring of the guilds status. Guilds that have no activity for one year by at least five distinct members could lose their charter completely.

Is there a reason to keep dead guilds in the database?

lol, just look at those octarchs! - one more reason to agitate for a constitution. 
i agree with you about dead guilds, but isn't there already a kind of audit, with their guildhouses forfeited? in these lean times, a guild with fewer than five active, distinct members can still be making good contributions to RP and the game, and making the processes automatic might mean a lot of off-turning bureaucracy for returning players to wade through. maybe loss of charter if the guild has zero activity for a year, and that warning is included in the rules for guild creation?

[Vakachehk]

I honestly don't mind dead guilds, sometimes members wish to return and stay for sometime. For some guilds it's IC for a guild to have 'listed' but 'lost' members in a guild, some guilds are really small and the characters and players enjoy that, they belong to something but don't get involved in all the huge drama that comes with being apart of the larger guilds. If they are using major pieces of the database (like guild houses) then sure I can understand that privilege getting taken from them.

maybe not necessarily the most active - the most senior member still active, or deputy/deputies as may have been agreed by individual guild laws? my guess is, GM intervention is still preferable to an automatic function because succession can be complex - not all guilds have a clearly designated deputy, and the most capable or suitable leader may not be the most active.

Agree. Good point.

Maybe something better for this wish could be more information available for people wishing to create and lead a guild. Just because they founded it doesn't mean they can ditch it with active members, a reasoning for this could be how PlaneShift is trying to maintain and gain player numbers and I can see how players leave when their guild dies. Implementing it into the mechanics I can't see working well without GM intervention anyways.

[Erebey]

Would it be a good thing to have some kind of programmatic convention for inactive guild leadership to pass from inactive characters to active ones? I am thinking that after six months of inactivity by the guild leader he should be deposed in favor of the most active member. This could be the result of an Octarchai decree and represent the bureaucracies close monitoring of the guilds status. Guilds that have no activity for one year by at least five distinct members could lose their charter completely.

Is there a reason to keep dead guilds in the database?

They should do something like that...
BTW, It is called "Algorithmic" not "Programmatic"
What they do is to Program the Algortihem.

But as the others say, It maybe better to just Talk with a GM.

We should talk to the GM's about our guild.
If the leader will not come back soon... We will be doomed.

[tman]

What about guilds where NOBODY is active.  After how many months or years of having nobody logged in should a guild lose its house?

[Erebey]

What about guilds where NOBODY is active.  After how many months or years of having nobody logged in should a guild lose its house?

The gm take the house... They do it sometimes.

[LigH]

Indeed. Abandoned houses may be re-auctioned. I believe that already happened once?

Well, the Knowledge Seekers never had a chance to get a house. So they can't lose one. Yet.

[Erebey]

Indeed. Abandoned houses may be re-auctioned. I believe that already happened once?

Well, the Knowledge Seekers never had a chance to get a house. So they can't lose one. Yet.

How come we did not had a chance to get a house?

[MishkaL1138]

Indeed. Abandoned houses may be re-auctioned. I believe that already happened once?

Well, the Knowledge Seekers never had a chance to get a house. So they can't lose one. Yet.

How come we did not had a chance to get a house?

A) You're too poor.
B) You're too inactive.

Sorry bud, that's the way it goes

[LigH]

About A) - houses usually sell for a few dozen million trias.

About B) - try to find the threads about the "Octarchal Society for Progress"; we got a "consolation prize", the book review contract with Jayose.

[Vakachehk]

What about guilds where NOBODY is active.  After how many months or years of having nobody logged in should a guild lose its house?

My opinion is that each year there's an auction day in Hydlaa, Gugrontid and Ojaveda where each house gets re-auctioned (rented) for one year. There will be X many houses in each town/city for RP guilds and each guild wishing to gain a house through that will have to apply by a certain date and the GM team will select on RP and activity what guild gains a house.

[Caraick]

Bad idea.  I think the general notion of having guildhouses come up for auction regularly isn't a bad one.  That's going to allow more up-and-coming guilds to get houses, rather than simply having them belong to guilds that have been around forever, and aren't necessarily even active anymore.

But, I do think the idea of having to require guilds to re-purchase the lease on their guildhouse every so often isn't a good one.  That's going to be very expensive for the guilds, and it's also not very conducive to settling down.  However, I might support a proposal that asks each guild to pay a certain set fee (say 250k) each year to maintain their lease upon the guildhouse.  If unpaid, that guild's residence would go up for auction.  That's not a great amount of tria, and so it would serve as a sort of check on the guild's inactivity.   An inactive guild isn't going to fork out that sort of tria to keep a house that they're not even going to use.  But I think that would be a better option than forcing a guild to essentially vacate and re-buy it's own house every so often. 

[Karlyle]

Not that I actually like the idea, but who actually like the idea of property taxes anyways. Which essentially is what it is.
There are old guilds that were a foundation to Yliakum, but if there are only a couple members that visit form time to time .. does that give them the right to keep a house occupied.  I think that would need to come up for a vote.
Im sure many newer players would say "No", but there are many older players still around as well, that might not agree.  I myself say No, I think it is better for the community, though I would also support the idea that if some people wanted to pay the "tax" on a different guilds house ... for example "The Dark Empire". But that is just my idea.