PlaneShift
Gameplay => Newbie Help (Start Here) => Guides and Tutorials => Topic started by: Phinehas on August 09, 2006, 05:49:03 pm
-
After a great deal of thinking, I’ve come to the conclusion that perhaps it would be good for someone with a decent amount of experience to critique the present, more or less accepted, guild hierarchy format. I have, obviously, taken it upon myself to do so. I find this to be one of the rare instances where my natural bent for criticism is able to actually be helpful. Hopefully, after reading this guild leaders will look carefully over their own guild’s hierarchy, and future guild leaders will think carefully before giving their guild the usual hierarchy system.
Sections:
The hierarchy system used in most guilds is appalling in its lack of originality. It is true that several guilds have attempted to add color to their hierarchies by splitting it into three or more different sections(usually graced by drab terms such as “ways” or “paths”). However, I find that most of these attempts are poorly executed. Often, one of the sections will have almost no members, due to the fact that in light of the guild’s goals, it’s almost entirely superfluous. An extreme example of this would be a swordfighter’s guild having a wizard section, or vise verse.
Am I saying that a guild should not have different sections? No, indeed! I find sections a wonderful addition to many guilds that use them. It is, however, important to remember that they can be your worst enemy if used improperly. Too many guilds have burdened their hierarchies with unnecessary sections which give them the image of being clumsy and cumbersome.
Rigidity:
Another interesting problem with guild hierarchies is their rigidity. Many, in fact, most guild hierarchies are drawn up with the idea of each position being filled. No one gives any thought to the fact that for a good period of time, many of the positions are unlikely to be filled. What happens then, when the “guild librarian” is gone? No one is allowed to add to the guild library. Heaven forbid the “general” not turn up. We’d have to postpone the war till another day. What happens if the website manager of your guild hasn’t been around for three months? Do you go without any updates to your website?
As you can see, it’s asking for problems to have a rigid hierarchy. Unfortunately, rather than look into changing the actual hierarchy, most guild leaders simply try to fill in the gaps. This usually entails someone being saddled with a job that they have neither the desire nor skill to do. Worse yet, often some fool is promoted to a rank far above his ability to fulfill, rather than let the position go empty.
Is there a perfect solution? No, I don’t believe so. After all, we are people and it is simply a game. People will go missing, and others will get stuck with jobs they’re not good at, no matter how you look at it. But let me suggest that if the hierarchy was designed with these failures in mind, it would enable the substitutions to take place in a much more organized and practical manner.
Although I’m loath to give any direct advice, I can at least say that when a position in a guild is created, it is important to keep in mind that it may not always be able to be filled. Perhaps there should be a substitute of the same rank to fulfill the duties until a suitable candidate can be found. Perhaps the holder of the position should be required to teach the more basic and necessary of his duties to someone of his rank, or even divide his duties into several areas and teach each area to an underling in case of his untimely absence. The ways of doing this are numerous, and rather than give up my own personal formula for success, I’d like to encourage you to think your way through it. Although at first glance it seems rather bureaucratic at first, but let me assure you, if well thought through, it can be both elegant and practical.
Guild Leaders:
One of my pet peeves is guild leaders who think that simply because they started a guild, that should entitle them to be the grand exalted dictator of it. Foolish. It is true, in most cases, that the one who started the guild deserves to be rewarded for his efforts, and most likely he will understand the guild’s purpose and goals better than the others. This does not, however, mean that he is the most intelligent, or most capable in his guild.
I would think it would be considered rather old fashioned for the guild leader to be the founder, and not necessarily the most capable member of the guild. It’s simply foolish. If you start a guild simply to boost your ego by being the guild leader, then you can expect ruin. Although the whole “king” concept might be attractive to the mindless masses, if you’re interested in luring any truly intelligent individuals to your guild, then you should realize that they won’t relish being lorded over by some half-wit.
Once again, I’m loath to give direct instructions as to how your hierarchy should be formed, but allow me to point that the good old idea of a council is not to be scorned. There are of course many ways to make it original and practical, but I’ll leave that to the guild leaders themselves. There are also ways to have a single leader and yet make sure that he is kept in check by a group of elders, or even that he can be replaced. However, I would stay away from democratic-type voting systems. They tend to be rather messy and impractical in the guild context.
Lower ranks:
Something I’ve noticed in guilds in PS is that very little thought goes into the lower ranks. The higher ranks have their privileges, mostly fame and the ability to command the masses in the lower ranks, but the lower ranks are almost pointless. You can almost see the guild creators thinking, “Ok, we’ve gotta have nine ranks. Well, the top three will be such-and-such, and then we’ll have a “testing” rank at the very bottom. What to do with the other five ranks… hmm… Well, let’s just come up with really cool names so that way all the people down there feel like they’ve achieved something. I mean, we can’t have everybody in the top three ranks, so…” You get the point.
When you create your guild, you must create it with the understanding that not everybody in it can be a warlord, archmage, loremaster, Elite Guardian, or whatever. What has your guild to offer, besides prestige? If you have no privileges to offer your lower ranking members, then what incentive will they have to join if all the top positions are taken? Personally, I think there are far too many guild members who have been promoted to the top simply because it didn’t seem fair to keep them in a low rank that was essentially useless. If a rank is useless, either chuck it out, or make it useful. Give each rank certain privileges and responsibilities. This way a person could, theoretically, be perfectly happy in a lower rank, doing their job. Don’t make lower ranks so that their only responsibility is to obey every command of a higher rank and their only privileges is that they’re one step closer to a meaningful rank at the top.
Get real. Be brutal with yourself. If your guild really has nothing to offer except the chance to become a high-ranking officer in a guild, then should your guild even exist? Enough said.
And a few parting words of wisdom about guild histories. I would like to point out how uninspiring so many guild histories are. Let’s be frank for a few minutes. The vast majority of guild histories are stories about how one or two people were in the midst of some adventure when they saw a vision, or were overwhelmed with the desire to start a guild due to… etc. You get my point. Now, although I daresay many of them make a good read, they are far from inspiring as a guild history.
I would strongly suggest coming up with a guild story that gives the guild a greater scope than just the fond desire of one or two people. This may sound like an unreasonable suggestion, but if you think about it, it’s really quite up to you to create your guild’s history, it’s not like there actually was one.
Well, that is about all I have for now. Please feel free to discuss what I have said. If I hear any suggestions or additions to what I have said that I feel are good then I’ll add them to this original post.
P.S. My apologies to those of you who feel that this is not quite up to my usual standards. I have been gone a year, after all.
-
actually your post was probably one of the best i have seen in any forums. people might already be thinking what you posted, but feel liek they are alone in it so they dont say much. the Lower Ranks part was the best part of your post, its true. if you have 9 ranks and only 2 of them do something..its pointless to have those 9 ranks.....i dont like guilds with ranks that the top 2 ranks have all of the control and the abuility to invte people kick people, do this that and everythign else...and the lower ranks can simply just chat. why not break the responsibuilty up between all the ranks. would prolly see that your guild would become much stronger and organized n mostl ikely have alot more people in it that are going to stay in it and try the best they can to be a good member for your guild because all of the other guilds treat them like dirt and you actualy make them usefull and in turn it makes them happy to help
-
To many buecratic guilds where sole benifitor is the leader. Almost like heichary with occasinoal taxes.
*edit*
Honestly some of the ranks are useless like librarian is there even suppose to be a library? Well of course on the website yes but then again how can you "check out" something on the internet.
Please avoid posting two or more successive posts before others have replied. Just edit your last post to add new information. Thanks! --Karyuu
-
Some guilds follow it perfectly while other fall like rome!
Well, I don't particularly think that whether or not a guild follows the defination of heirarchy laid out in a dictionary is a good measure of the quality of their heirarchy. Defining the word isn't really important because in this discussion, we only need to consider heirarchy as it appears in PlaneShifts system.
Honestly some of the ranks are useless like librarian is there even suppose to be a library? Well of course on the website yes but then again how can you "check out" something on the internet? Phinehas you should know more about the libray besides being the most annoying level on halo.
1.) Double Post
2.) Librarian can be a very useful position. As could any position dreamed up by a guild. Since a good portion of this is simply role playing, I htink it does planeshift a disservice to consider roleplay positions useless simply because they don't have a specific ingame function to match. Sure no one can move the books around in the library, but that doesn't mean a guild can't have a librarian. You could say the same for a law enforcement type position in a guild because law can only be enforced in an RP sense.
3.) Whats halo got t o do with this?
All in all Phinehas an interesting post. I think it would help for the ingame guild system to be more flexible for one thing. I've contacted several devs regarding this and so of course it is something that will be done soon(tm). Good to see you posting again dear friend.
-
Wow trying to beat phinehas in sarcasim is really going to get me in trouble.........
Yes and i appolagize for that double post could of put it under one.
-
*claps*
Good post and straight to the point. If people read it it will give them an idea of things NOT to do and things to develop.
*goes pokes Gatuna so she reads this*
-
Honestly some of the ranks are useless like librarian is there even suppose to be a library? Well of course on the website yes but then again how can you "check out" something on the internet.
That was purely an example. However, many guilds, such as wizards guilds, do have libraries.To many buecratic guilds where sole benifitor is the leader. Almost like heichary with occasinoal taxes.
Was this a completely random comment, or is there some oh-so-subtle point to it?
Wow trying to beat phinehas in sarcasim is really going to get me in trouble.........
I don't deny it, but I'm confused as to what led you to the conclusion.
As for the rest of you, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I can only hope that you will take it into account, otherwise it's rather pointless. Despite the style it's written in, I didn't write it solely for the purpose self-gratification.
-
I agree with just about everything you have stated above. I cant think of what I dont agree with actually. Something else has been bothering me as well.. If you say you are an RP guild please dont mention it in your thread .. Im not sure saying your RP works out real well. Maybe just post all the OOC information on your site or something. Because doing it in your guild thread is not only cliche but what your expected to say here.
-
If you say you are an RP guild please dont mention it in your thread .. Im not sure saying your RP works out real well. Maybe just post all the OOC information on your site or something. Because doing it in your guild thread is not only cliche but what your expected to say here.
Although perhaps not quite relating to guild organization, you have a valid point. Who's going to start a guild thread and say, "We don't encourage roleplay. In fact, we believe unbalanced gaming has definite advantages."
-
well got most of those worked out my guild has a councill and were waiting for members the top ranks are handed for good rping only and the guild has three top members that act as the council when the other lvl just below us gets filled we will eventualy have council meatings with them and we do hope one day to att other members to the top 3 ranks as kinda underlings to the founders. We have a storie that streches our entire lives and before for our guild so thats sorted to :P seams as though the original posters views on how guilds should be structured was the same as ours.
-
well got most of those worked out my guild has a councill and were waiting for members the top ranks are handed for good rping only and the guild has three top members that act as the council when the other lvl just below us gets filled we will eventualy have council meatings with them and we do hope one day to att other members to the top 3 ranks as kinda underlings to the founders. We have a storie that streches our entire lives and before for our guild so thats sorted to :P
Allow me to point out, though, that it's not just the basic concepts that are important, it's how you implement them. A council can be as much of a flop as a dictator, albeit in a different way.
seams as though the original posters views on how guilds should be structured was the same as ours.
Try vice versa.
-
This certainly needed to be said, and no other could have stated it so lucidly. My other personae have been quite disgusted with many of the guilds for reasons like this. But, alas, I think you will be more unhappy as this world grows larger, sir ... rather than more content.
-
Intelligent original post and particularly accurate from what little experience I have had.
Altough, could it not be possible that democratic principals could be effective when related to major decisions affecting all members of a guild.
-
Altough, could it not be possible that democratic principals could be effective when related to major decisions affecting all members of a guild.
Actually, I've discovered that although that works in theory, it's not very practical in reality. I can go on and explain why, if you're that interested. Frankly, there may be guilds out there that have implemented that sort of system well, but I haven't seen them yet.
-
Please do explain your point of view, as for a Guild that it works for, Elemental Light functions quite well with this principal.
If a problem occurs that needs an immediate resoloution I tend to poll online members in guild chat and go with the consensus,
its worked so far, obviously any non-immediate threat is dealt with via polls on our forums.
Im interested to hear your reasoning though.
-
Please do explain your point of view, as for a Guild that it works for, Elemental Light functions quite well with this principal.
If a problem occurs that needs an immediate resoloution I tend to poll online members in guild chat and go with the consensus,
its worked so far, obviously any non-immediate threat is dealt with via polls on our forums.
Im interested to hear your reasoning though.
That's what I thought. This system works ok for the larger guilds, but not the smaller guilds I've been in. If you have a guild with less than 20 members, then everyone wants to be a part of the vote, so you can't really leave anyone out. However, although it's the right thing to let everyone vote, it's going to take the rest of your life to get everyone to actually do it. In the meantime, your guild is stuck in limbo.
So essentially, what I'm saying is, if you have a hundred members, and you can get 50 of them in-game at the same time to vote, then you're all right, but if you've only got 15 members and only 6 of them are around to vote, then it gets sort of unfair.
It also depends on your guild structure. If you're a mass-recruiting guild then democracy is really the only thing that makes sense, but if you're a selective-recruiting guild then democratic system becomes clumsy.I just think that in a guild situation, if you want everyone to help make a decision, then EVERYONE needs to be involved, not just half or most or whatever. Whereas if guild policy is controlled by a few higher ranking members who are respected and trusted by the rest, it streamlines the process. The only difficulty with that is that your guilds have to be more selective.
-
Thank you Phinehas
You have, most elegantly, expressed a matter that has been on my mind of late; the difficulty of managing a meaningful hierarchy which:
a) motivates members to progress (at all levels)
b) ensures that all members, even the most senior, face appropriate chalenges
c) makes the best structure to ensiure a fair distribution of authority (not too many chiefs and too few indians)
I believe our new structure makes use of this:
It is divided into 3 sections - Learners, Teachers and Leaders
Each level is marked by its transition to the next:
Initiates (within a month) will sit the entrants exam and become Students
Students will gradiuate with a Batchelor of Science or Arts and become Cognates
Cognates will graduate with a Master of Science or Arts and become Scrutators
Scrutators will be researchers who gather information for the teachers. They will produce a piece of work (opus) for their Doctorate.
A Scrutator may apply for the post of Proctor (examinor)
Proctors and Scrutators may apply for the chair of Professor.
Each of the four faculties will have a Dean
Voting is by all members on issues of general interest and membership issues.
Stratgy is voted on by the Central Council of Professors, Deans and Praesidior (with the casting vote of the Chancellor) This way, decisions are taken at the appropriate level.
The Praedisior may be voted out by a majority of the Central Council.
The Chancellor (a titular, lifetime post) can be voted out exceptionally by a unanimous vote to the Central Coucil.
I hope this arrangement would meet with your approval. I would welcome a critique.
One more thing.
Promotion is through the awarding of guild points - the tests for these become more exacting as one progresses and the number of points awarded for each task comleted reduces. This ensures that the distribution of members diminishes as the rank increases. But, the achievement of high rank is available to all those willingn to work for it.
Arka Garam
Praesidior
Knowledge Seekers
-
But what do your lower levels have to do other than just try and "level" in the guild?
-
Good pioint
The lower levels (if they want to progress) either complete a series of quests of increasing difficulty or
Carry out a piece of research that adds to the knowledge of the guild.
High flyers can progress quickly
But everyone can make steady progress
Leaders and teachers make guild points by helping lower level players; Professors make points by mentoring Students and Cognates; Proctors make points by setting exams.
Deans make points by collating articles for the Guild Library.
Everyone has a job to do!
Arka
-
It's very thought through, but for the lower levels isn't it still basically trying to get to higher levels?
-
Well, I would prefer if the lower levels were striving to achieve thie degrees. People can stay as Cognates or Scrutators and collecrt higher degrees (as people do in RL!).
But I will look at it again - maybe some fine tuning is needed...
Thanks for the general thumbs up!
Arka
-
I understand that that's the way your guild is built. That's perfectly fine. I'm not actually saying that every guild has to be geared towards the low levels. Still though, wouldn't it be nice for them to be able to contribute while they were still low? Anyways, your guild actually has a very good hierarchy. I am content.
-
Actually I still think that a multilevel hierachy is not necessarily needed for a guild. The way I see this, the problem is that higher and lower ranks are not equal. And what would be the most obvious solution? To make them equal of course, consistently, from the necessary "Guild Leader" to the Newcomer.
*Cyl is hit by a fireball and crumbles to ashes.
-
Actually I still think that a multilevel hierachy is not necessarily needed for a guild. The way I see this, the problem is that higher and lower ranks are not equal. And what would be the most obvious solution? To make them equal of course, consistently, from the necessary "Guild Leader" to the Newcomer.
*Cyl is hit by a fireball and crumbles to ashes.
I'm not sure I got that, other than the fireball thing. You're saying there should be no ranks?
-
He's saying guilds can have no hierarchy. I've seen it somewhere.
Great post Phinehas, definitely a must for guild members new and old.
-
Great post Phinehas, definitely a must for guild members new and old.
I don't think his post was all that. It was rather narrow minded and it generalized like whoa. There are a lot of different guilds out there and there have been a lot of different guilds out there. I know I've only been in about half of them, but from what I've seen, there's a real diversity out there in terms of leadership structure and internal operations.
If you have a guild with less than 20 members, then everyone wants to be a part of the vote, so you can't really leave anyone out.
That's not true at ALL. Some guilds are like that, but many are not. That's where good leadership and real charisma come into play.
-
Keep in mind, Zanzibar, that this thread is more for newbies who are thinking of creating a guild or who have already done so. It's also for those long-time guild leaders who are looking for ideas, or wondering why they're failing in certain areas. This is by no means "law".
-
Keep in mind, Zanzibar, that this thread is more for newbies who are thinking of creating a guild or who have already done so. It's also for those long-time guild leaders who are looking for ideas, or wondering why they're failing in certain areas. This is by no means "law".
Uh... I don't see what that has to do with what I said.
-
Great post Phinehas, definitely a must for guild members new and old.
I don't think his post was all that. It was rather narrow minded and it generalized like whoa. There are a lot of different guilds out there and there have been a lot of different guilds out there.
Keep in mind, Zanzibar, that this thread is more for newbies who are thinking of creating a guild or who have already done so. It's also for those long-time guild leaders who are looking for ideas, or wondering why they're failing in certain areas. This is by no means "law".
What I'm saying is. You're judging the content as if I meant to impose my ideals onto all guilds, but that's not true. These are just... not-so-gentle suggestions.
-
It's your observations I take issue with, not your ideals.
-
It's your observations I take issue with, not your ideals.
Ah. Well in that case I have nothing to say to you. Take issue with them all you like.
-
It's your observations I take issue with, not your ideals.
Ah. Well in that case I have nothing to say to you. Take issue with them all you like.
I'm not sure what just happened here. ???
-
the council function as guide to a particular function of the guilds goal. they guide, they teach that aspect. the members themselves participate in every role, every function of the guild they can and should be encouraged to participate in what ever job they wish.
for example. the Tempelli in our guild is skillined in crafting. It is their job to help all members with all things crafting. as well they cordinate crafting projects for the guild.
I must point out all aspects of life in our world are encouraged, however members can specilize in a way/field/path.In this way when they are profecient they too can assist helping members newer or less skilled then them.
The council oversees those functions of guild life. They do not rule or command anyone.
Treasury. the guild treasury is exactly that, the guilds property. Our council has to be the poorest in the land, tho our treasury is very stable. it is the Master Merchants job to oversee the health of the treasury. The treasury is their for its members. to see that they have food, clothing, weapons and can afford training. when the treasury is in surplus we have givin stipens to the active members.
Our council works very hard for it members, we are their for them, not the other way around.
-
Good post, Phinehas. Our guild has now began the process of figuring out duties for each rank, that not all of them could be useless. Thanks for the post, keep up the work.
-
Good post, Phinehas. Our guild has now began the process of figuring out duties for each rank, that not all of them could be useless. Thanks for the post, keep up the work.
I'm sorry, but Phinehas is no longer a part of the Planeshift community. He decided to leave some time ago.
-
:oops:
It's still a good post. Pity he left.
-
Aww... I'm touched. And stuff.
-
Aww... I'm touched. And stuff.
Ah! I knew I'd get him back!
-
Good job Parallo. You'll be promoted for that.
-
Aww... I'm touched. And stuff.
It's just a matter of time now...
/me gets cover and readies himself, waiting for Phinehas to strike again on Planeshift forums
BTW here are some of the "best" guild threads here:
http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=27693.0 (http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=27693.0)
http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=27189.0 (http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=27189.0)
Disclaimer: the following one is just a joke - http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=27729.0 (http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=27729.0)
-
/me raises his glock 20c against Nikodemus "Put your hands up punk! You are under arrest for murder!"
However, I would stay away from democratic-type voting systems. They tend to be rather messy and impractical in the guild context.
I created a way of removing most of bureaucracy on a "democratic" system, basically it works by three points and merges some elements of direct democracy with others of representative democracy(Of course on a guild where the members don't care on exercing their right to vote, the guildleader would be the effective authority using this system). It obviously works better if the guild has a forum:
1) Voting is not mandatory and takes 2 days for a project/decision/etc to be approved, the accounted votes during these 2 days will be the basis for whether such will be approved or not, except if the number of people that voted is less than 20% of all the members, in such case:
2) The president(guildleader - elected) will decide on whether it should be approved or not, and also the president has autonomy for taking decisions, but most decisions taken must be informed and if more than 50% vote against it in the period of 1 day after its announcement, the decision will be blocked.
3) A specialized elected administrative council passes ideas directly to the president's approval, and also passes their proposals to the members for voting.
The problem is that there is no way of creating a voting-based permission on "Invite" an such other things on the Permissions tab of the guild menu, thus OOC the authority on the guild needs to be concentrated on the "president" and in some kind "vice-president" or it would become total chaos as people could take decisions like inviting people to it without the approval of others.
-
*bump*
I know that's not really an accepted practice, but I can't help thinking that a lot of the current guilds I'm seeing in the forums could benefit from reading this thread, and since it's last post was over two years ago, it's unlikely that people will simply stumble across it.
-
Explain why, bumpy.
-
Why what? Why the guilds could benefit from it? That seems pretty obvious. Admittedly I haven't looked into it thoroughly, but the few guild threads I've checked out recently don't seem to have put a whole lot of thought into their structures. Now, usually I'd denounce them thoroughly and generally make their lives miserable until they reformed. However, I'm not really "here," so I figured it'd at least be nice if they had some guidelines that'd help them think critically about it.
Also, although I don't particularly expect it to happen, it seems to me that this thread, and other threads specifically regarding guilds might fit better in the guild board, despite this being the guide board.