Select new guild leader

[Caarrie]

Many guilds have been formed and had to be disbanned or left idle because the guild leader left the game forever or they have just left without telling their guild why for a long time. During the time there is no active guild leader many guilds in this position have had problems and needed to disband [not all have the abilty] or they have picked to restart the guild. It would be nice for a GM after lets say 2 months of inactivty on the part of the guild leader to be able to pick any player [alt of a member or anyone the guild picks] to take over as leader and the current leader to be demoted to the next lowest lvl below leader. This is a major problem for these guilds and it would be very nice to have this ablity as a GM do add a new leader to the guild so they can go on with the guild and not have to disband or leave the guild and rebuild it from scratch.

Caarrie

Please consider adding this for the next release it is not something to be used often but when used will save a lot of hassle for the guilds that need it.

[Induane]

That sounds to me like a very reasonable solution to the issue.   I second this - shouldn't be too terribly hard to implement I wouldn't think - at the very least just as a text command.

[Raleigh]

     It is an interesting idea so far and I agree fully with it, but I would like to suggest something derivative from it. Why not create an ingame poll system to allow a guild leader to actually be elected? Then there could exist a "election" option on the Permissions configuration so you could make the decision-making on that limited to a council of elders or alike, as a right for everyone inside the guild or as something that is only given to members that already have proven themselves, among many other things that would be possible then. And of course, if you don't want to allow election voting for IC reasons you can simply turn it off from that tab.

[Natrina]

 Hmm, I agree mostly with it, but I think the new leader should be added to the leader rank instead of replacing the other, meaning, I think it'd be better not to throw the leader down, as that might create a situation in which the guild leader goes off for a vacation or what and leaves someone in charge, but as the system recognizes that the leader is inactive for 2 months it over thrones him. And I agree with Raleigh, it shouldn't be something random, either the highest member or one elected by poll (though this would require a new system implementation, that of guild polls).

[Trymm]

There are obvious variations on this theme, some of which has been mentioned alrelady. Ellaborate schemes are not likely to happen in the short term, just like divorces due to in-activity has not been implemented yet. However, in its simplest form -- more or less what Caarrie suggested -- it would not take much to implement. It would furthermore be a tremendous help for guilds that are chained due to the lacking power for the second-in-command.

It would be a good solution if GMs could be awarded the power to help out in situations like this. I would not see it as a random solution -- simple guidelines would prevent that. A proper voting system would of course be a nice thing to have too, but not needed in order to solve the immediate problem some guilds face.

[ThomPhoenix]

Multiple guildleaders for one guild should be possible, ideally.

[Induane]

Our guild was like that back in Molecular Blue, the top rank was shared by a small council.  Crystal Blue removed that ability, so apparently it was intentional (dumb imo but its not my game).

[Feline Prince]

I don't think GMs shouldn't be involved. Raleighs idea is best and gives the option for mutiny within the ranks.

[Caarrie]

Idealy yes GM's should have no part in this but for now till there is a better solution found and put ingame this would be the only way that it can be done.

[ThomPhoenix]

I still can't understand why that MB feature was removed. It's not like all guilds are dictatorial.

[Garile]

I guess it is easier to have one person own a guild. In mechanic terms it's also the traditional form witch we have seen in games. Roleplayingwise these mechanics are very limiting obviously.

Elections I see a lot of problems with. So easy to manipulate that with gamemechanics.

[Raleigh]

Elections I see a lot of problems with. So easy to manipulate that with gamemechanics.

     Corruption isn't an exclusivity of dictatorships. So we can expect to have some "borked" elections when they are implemented, but this is part of the fun. Currently guilds are extremely stable and keeping one alive, as long as you have a small group of people interested on remaining on it, is quite simple. I really would like a more dynamic approach on power, as the way it is now, the mechanics discourage conflicts inside guilds for power among other things.

[Natrina]

 Hmm, honestly, elections will be quite bad if they are generalized. First, due to not all guilds being democratic, second because if it was an election in which everyone had the right to a vote, I can see a way for people do destroy other guilds with relative ease (that being infiltration in the other guild's ranks and then overthrowing the leader through elections and let's face it, most people use alts to spy, why wouldn't they use this?), which would create a retraction in guild's growth and cause infiltration panic which we, guild leaders in general, don't need.

[Zan]

Elections should not be the default way a guild works, like Natrina said, that reduces all possibilities to only the creation of 'democratic' governments. If a guild wishes to be democratic let it do so through roleplay and not forced by game mechanics.

I do agree that there should be a way for an inactive guild leader to be removed from their position. This can be done the easiest by giving GMs the power to check for activity and assign the highest ranking active guild member as the leader. Or this can be done with a variation on the election suggestion. When a guild leader does not come in-game for three months an option should appear within the guild. A poll is opened in which all guild members are candidates, everyone inside the guild gets one vote. The guild member who collected the most votes after two real life weeks wins and becomes the new leader. In case of a draw, the highest ranking member wins. In case of a draw between two equally ranked members, a random roll determines the winner.

[Feline Prince]

The elections are an amazing idea. I don't see what the problems you people see with it are. The guild leader gets to decide what ranks can vote, which will make infiltration harder, and they can chose not to give the power to vote to any rank and so have a dictatorship. Guilds should be IC, the way and who they are led by should be IC. As soon as GMs are involved it becomes ooc.