Impeachment of a Guild Master

[Robinmagus]

Well, yeah. I think we should get a vote option, to impeach a guild master out of his rank, and replace it with a new...
There's been a bit of a discussion going on about this in this thread:
http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=23642.0

I think it would add major realism to the guild system, creating betrayals etc. Backhanded, but very realistic. We'd have seconds betraying guild masters with their own followers, guild masters cleansing the ranks of traitors, it's great ^^

[zanzibar]

Yes.  I love this wish.  I think that the guild system is currently too stiff and unnatural feeling.  Something like this would spice it up!

[Torik]

I give 5 points against this idea:

1. People dont want to spend 20k just to be overthrown.
2. This would create many rivalries in the game and on the forums....people will turn chaotic.
3. People will send hateful PMs and talk OOC alot more often.
4. Leaders can make many ALTs and make them all vote himself.
5. Friendships will be lost and many trusted players will become intrusted.

4 reasons for this idea:

1. Adds an interesting twist, like Zanzibar said.
2. Inactive leaders can be replaced.
3. The game will become more exciting as everyone will suspect everyone and this will create more wary people.
4. People who create guilds will think twice before creating unpopular, "easy to take" guilds.

[zanzibar]

I give 5 points against this idea:

1. People dont want to spend 20k just to be overthrown.
2. This would create many rivalries in the game and on the forums....people will turn chaotic.
3. People will send hateful PMs and talk OOC alot more often.
4. Leaders can make many ALTs and make them all vote himself.
5. Friendships will be lost and many trusted players will become intrusted..

For 1.  I don't like the 20k thing.  I think it's unnecessary, and it promotes OOC behaviour.
For 2.  It wouldn't create new rivalries.  It might make refresh previous rivalries, but it wouldn't create new ones I don't think.  People would only turn chaotic if it was IC for them - ideally.
For 3.  I don't see why.  There are plenty of ways for people to grief eachother already.
For 4.  This already happens.
For 5.  Again, no.  If people are friends, then they'll stay friends.

[Robinmagus]

An addition to the idea, or wish, or whatever,

There's a game I remember back in the day...I think it was called medieval total war . Well, in that, when you have many untrustworthy generals they launch a rebellion and a civil war starts...so we could even have a vote for that, and then one commander takes the rebel half of the guild, and is put to war against the other until one half falls, and the other gains/keeps leadership. Civil wars and such breaking out would be awesome.

We need some betrayal, danger, fear, all that good stuff, right now the game is too...well...happy? Nice? It's like we're being sheltered from the bad stuff, except for a few exceptional RPers, Shalmaneser, umm..You know, starts with a d...had the dwarf haters? I never could remember her name...(I'd add myself, but  I just RP a jerk.)

[Svala]

this cival war idea is a great one. theres real possibilit there, i think. so called 'evil' guilds can team up and the 'good' one have to try to keep the peace. Its true there is too much um... peace. (not that thats a bad thing, but kinda dull for storytelling)
As for overthrowing a guild leader from the inside, i think this has potential, but the details should be ironed out a bit. i personaly, would never overthrow my guild leader, but my character is lawful good, so there temptation would not be there. Others may find it irrisistable, wich would make for some wonderful drama. I mean, thats what were after, isnt it? A good roleplay has to have lots of drama and excitment..

[Farren Kutter]

I'm in love with this idea! It could also open up new levels into guild wars, where people could be sent into guilds to try and overthrow the guild leader, take over, and do what they want with the guild. It would be awesome Because personally, I trust all of my current guild members, so I'd not have too much to fear.

[Easton]

im a bit undecided on this one..

i see benefits and negative points, but the one think i can't get rid of is that each guild is run differently. For example, the Dark Empire is ruled by a queen, whereas other guilds may be run by a high council of some sort. In the high council one, it may be possible to re-elect a new leader if the current leader allows this of course.. But in the guild where the queen rules, this would be a great idea since there is no other alternative way to remove the leader.

Easton Ghent

[Pestilence]

hmmm well I like the idea for RP reasons. I love the idea of a guildleader having to make sure he ha most of the people supporting him or risk a second in command becoming so popular that he would lose control of the guild.

The reason I don't like the idea is for OOC reasons. It just seems way to easy in most cases to make misuse of it. With votes for example a second in command you could delete all loyal members to gain advantage in such a vote. This would be a gamemechanic way as IC you would need good reason to get someone officially kicked so he can't vote.

I also fear that OOC behavior would be a great influence. People making alts to get more voted and people using alts to infiltrate a rival guild and simply try to do damage.

If everyone would stick to IC I would think it a great idea but reality is that most people simply don't do that and the alure of power I think would be to great.

My conclusion it sounds like something that should be made possible becuase it adds realism, but I haven't seen a system yet that would allow it without it loosing all perspective on how hard it should be to overthrow a guildleader and would lead to a lot of OOC actions what wouldn't add realism either.

[zanzibar]

With votes for example a second in command you could delete all loyal members to gain advantage in such a vote.

That happens in real life.

[Peacer]

hmmm well I like the idea for RP reasons. I love the idea of a guildleader having to make sure he ha most of the people supporting him or risk a second in command becoming so popular that he would lose control of the guild.

The reason I don't like the idea is for OOC reasons. It just seems way to easy in most cases to make misuse of it. With votes for example a second in command you could delete all loyal members to gain advantage in such a vote. This would be a gamemechanic way as IC you would need good reason to get someone officially kicked so he can't vote.

I also fear that OOC behavior would be a great influence. People making alts to get more voted and people using alts to infiltrate a rival guild and simply try to do damage.

If everyone would stick to IC I would think it a great idea but reality is that most people simply don't do that and the alure of power I think would be to great.

My conclusion it sounds like something that should be made possible becuase it adds realism, but I haven't seen a system yet that would allow it without it loosing all perspective on how hard it should be to overthrow a guildleader and would lead to a lot of OOC actions what wouldn't add realism either.

then it should be done IC and no game mechanics were needed to be used...

[Ahriman]

1)Maybe instead of paying 20k to make a guild, maybe it could be that when you reach a certain power level (Like the system monitoring your damage) and maybe if you once do more than 300 damage or something,2) you can go to some NPC, ask him for a form to fill out to make a guild, and Whala, a guild is formed. 3)And if you go to the NPC too early, he says "You don't look strong enough to be a leader yet... I don't think you'll make it "
That's my 3 tria for THAT. 

[Farren Kutter]

Erm, what has that to do with guild leader impeachment?

[Kerol]

After considering and reconsidering I'm for this idea as well.
The biggest contra is, as already stated, the problem that every guild has a different system. If a system allows an impeachment ICly, there would be no need in normal gameplay for such an extension. If you have an authoritarian guild system, an impeachment extension would be senseless.
However, that extension would solve a problem that happens in "non-normal" gameplay, when the leader is gone vacant for instance, or got banned.
At the moment there is no solution how to get a vice guildleader or how to get the guildleader replaced, except by direct edition of the database, which is a hassle.
Not even GMs can change guildlevels, so I think such an extension, with which players can get their leader removed without involvement of GMs or Devs, is the best way, even if it has no justification in normal, IC, gameplay.

Edit:
Impeachment of a guildleader must be, regarding the game mechanics so far, a direct replacement. So you don't just impeach the leader but elect a new one at the same time. One should have that in mind.

[Robinmagus]

1)Maybe instead of paying 20k to make a guild, maybe it could be that when you reach a certain power level (Like the system monitoring your damage) and maybe if you once do more than 300 damage or something,2) you can go to some NPC, ask him for a form to fill out to make a guild, and Whala, a guild is formed. 3)And if you go to the NPC too early, he says "You don't look strong enough to be a leader yet... I don't think you'll make it "
That's my 3 tria for THAT. 

Kinda unrelated mate, but you can start a topic on that, or search for one, seems like an idea that may go places.

About the whole not impeaching a guild master but electing a new one, I agree. maybe a vote option, where you place a vote for the guild master, one with the most wins....I can't explain it well, but I mean like the politic system in Kingdoms of war: www.abandonedcastle.com If you research into that, you'll get the idea.