Impeachment of a Guild Master

[Kerol]

Then you recommend an additional security for voting, especially for impeaching?

[Pestilence]

Well yeah. I mean it shouldn't happen everyother day that someone gets impeached. Thats not really the goal of it I think. It should be used to be able to get rid of inactive guildleaders or guildleaders perhaps that aren't doing anymore what the majority of the guild wants.

So if you want a vote on impeachement you have to think of a way so that it can useally only be used in the way you intend it to be used.

The alt recruiting and the deletion possibilities I think are big drawbacks in the current system to have fair votes. In the normal votes people wont go through the effort becuase people will figure it out and then you have a reputation to loose and little to gain really

With impeachement you have the power in the guild to gain so people will often risk reputation and I don't want it to become a strange who recruits the most alts kind of competition.

I mean things like that would be highly distuptive from the beginning. Not to count how unstable a guild would be if every few days the leader would change becuase of that.

I think that atm votes like that would only work with GM supervision and with anyone caught using alts to swing a vote or to be deleting members would be banned. This way you have it to work.

Otherwise you would have to do strange things like make when the vote is unpredictable and have deletions and invites unavailable during the vote. This so people can't prepare becuase they don't know whats coming and when they do they can't do anything anymore.

[hydran]

i think there will be alot of fighting and coruption if people vote for a GM
i think its a bad idea
becuase someone would want this person to be a GM the other would want a other person
to be a GM and that starts fights 
the system now is much 

[Pestilence]

Were talking about voting for a Guildleader perhaps supervised by GMs Not talking about voting for a GM

[Kerol]

I hoped to reduce the need to call for GMs by such a system, not amplify

I find your concerns about manipulating votings reasonable, but wouldn't like to block invitations in the meanwhile of a voting.. Maybe it is a better idea to give the a vote per account (in one specific voting), not character. This way it would rule out to have alts on the same account voting in the same guild. Of course it doesn't stop people to create more accounts, but the more of an effort in doing so lowers the risk to an acceptable niveau.
If this isn't enough of a security against alt-votings, one could consider to block characters in votings with under 10 online hours, for instance. That would make it pretty hard to just create an alt for the voting on another account, get it in the guild, vote and delete the char again.

As for removing chars of the guild, I don't think it is wanted or even possible with a reasonable solution to restrict that, even for votings.

[ThomPhoenix]

A voting system should be completely in-guild, not supervised by anyone outside that guild, not even GM's.
2 types of votes could be called:
- Vote type with predetermined result (if vote succeeds then guilleader is auto removed for example, or if vote succeeds then Member A with rank B is auto promoted to rank C. These voting templates could be addes by the devs, built into the voting system.
- Vote type with no automatic result. (Should we declare war to guild A? Vote results can be viewed by anyone, or maybe a few predetemined ranks, the guildleader and his crew can choose to do with it whatever they want.)

And yes, a few security rules should be added. A minimum in-game time and a minimum in-guild time should prevent people who want their vote to succeed from using alt's or inviting random people for money, only to vote and then leave. A vote could last for a predetermined time, a week, or a day or an hour for things on very short notice. A vote could also last until a predetermined number of people or percentage of the guild members have cast their vote.

[Pestilence]

I think thats a very good idea indeed Kerol. Having both an ingame time and an inguild time you have to have before being able to vote would definately make using alts a lot harder. Specially if you only give one vote per account that I think would make it hard enough for it not to happen. Not at jumbo scale atleast.

Might also be a way to giv e the priviledge of voting. If you have been a member for a long time you can start a vote no matter what rank you have.

As for the replacing I would think that perhaps the one starting the vote should chose someone. This way the people who vote know who the replacement is and you don't get that only the second in command could replace the guildleader who might be an alt or might be part of the problem.

You would still need to win the vote afterall.

Only problem that I see is the deleting misuse atm. This would be highly disruptive to the guild if it would happen often so think we'll need to figure something out to counter that although I can't think of an idea I have to admit. You don't want to hinder normal affairs in a guild, but the problem is that you can delete someone or you can't. There is not something like "only if someone is inactive or if someone broke a rule you can delete them" option I'm afraid.

[Kerol]

- Vote type with predetermined result (if vote succeeds then guilleader is auto removed for example, or if vote succeeds then Member A with rank B is auto promoted to rank C. These voting templates could be addes by the devs, built into the voting system.
- Vote type with no automatic result. (Should we declare war to guild A? Vote results can be viewed by anyone, or maybe a few predetemined ranks, the guildleader and his crew can choose to do with it whatever they want.)

Sorry, I don't see any difference there.. 

[Pestilence]

Vote one: something happens depending on the results.

Vote two: it shows what the majority of the guild wants but the guildleaders can still chose for themselves if they'll do it or not.

[Kerol]

A voting system as I proposed it doesn't make much sense with case II.
You can do that always on forums, for instance.

For case I it isn't possible to use other means than such a system.

[Easton]

A voting system as I proposed it doesn't make much sense with case II.
You can do that always on forums, for instance.

While i agree 100% i think its not a bad idea because it emphasizes people having to actually come in game to make a difference in the guild, as opposed to just going to the forums, voting, and leaving.

[Janner]

All good suggestion but far simpler to go get 20000 Then form own guild with disgruntled members. Saves all the hassle of scheming and corrupting and so on. After all guild leader did all the hard work putting guild-together in first place, or is it the intended guild leader is to lazy to do all that work for themselves, in the case of a guild leader being banned or away far to long then a simple in guild vote should be service to sort it out, a absent leader deserves to lose all the hard work they put into the guild if they don't post a reason for being absent. With the resent banning of a guild leader I am shore that a way to remove them from guild can be implemented by a Dev. Just my thoughts on this.

[Hadfael]

- Not all guilds have to be democracies. If the system forces it, it's a limitation to guilds organisations like councils, hierachies based on achievements, ...
- Using the damages done in 1 hit by the leader is meaningless regarding a religious guild, a mining one, brewing guild, animal training, ...
the 5 members limit is more a way to prevent forming of random guilds than a way to get rid of empty ones. Anyone with a few alts of inactive members recruited on the first day who never connected since can have a running "guild". A guild can exist without an active leader. But it allow you to leave your guild, create another one as long as you find 4 allies inside or outside your guild.
So there can be betrayals and conspiracies within the guild while you try to find the 4 allies you need to create you own guild in order to recruit the majority of the members of your previous one. Leaving the leader alone can be part of your plot.

Guildleader in game mecanics is one thing. the lead of the guild is another one. A guild can be leaded by 1, 2 (1 leader+1vice) or any number of people. You can decide it's a democracy and allow polls on your forums...this is already possible.