Promote/demote to your own rank (guild option)

[Under the moon]

I have a request to make it an option to be able to promote another player to your own rank in a guild. As it is now, you can only promote them to one rank lower. In guilds that choose to have more of a democratic settup, this causes a problem.

As a secondary request for guilds that wish to have more political intrigue, the option to -demote- a character at your rank or above would also be great. It would work by vote such as follows.

Ranks 5-8 gave been given the power of demote in your guild. A rank 8 has been irritating many of the guildmembers under him. A rank 6 puts in a 'petition' to the guild to have that character demoted to rank 5. If the proper number of guildmembers with voting powers goes with the vote, then the demotion goes through.

Demote power options could be as follows:

Demote vote + rank. Allows rank to vote up to a certian rankl, but not put another character up for demotion. A rank 4 with +2 vote power could only vote on demotes up to rank 8

Demote + rank. Sets how many ranks above you the power extends. +1 would mean a rank 6 could only put a rank 7 or lower up for demotion.

Ranks themselves would have criteria for the vote to go through as well, set by the guildmaster.

'Demote 50%' would mean half the guildmembers who can vote on that rank would have to vote for it.
Demote 5 would mean only five guildmembers would have to vote for.
Also set a number to set how many ranks could be dropped. -1 meaning you can only put in a demotion for 1 rank, -9 to take the guildmaster down to 1. Only the bravest of guildmasters would set that as an option.

Thanks for reading.

[Raleigh]

This would really bring benefits for the guilds that "have more democratic setups", so there won't be any need of a forum with polls to simulate IC elections, specially because they don't tend to draw as much participation as a simple in-game system. Also I suggest to add an option for the plain and crude ostracism, something that really helps when those who can kick people out without consulting others aren't ingame, as extending this to not only demoting, but also polls on whether member x should be banished or not, will raise even more the political climate. However I fear that such options would present many risks to those who choose them. Of course, a 100% failproof guild isn't my definition of fun an challenge.

[Zan]

Do we really need game mechanics to handle this? Why won't roleplay be sufficient to create a fully democratic guild?

I don't see the difference between a forum poll or a game mechanic poll anyway, both are OOC mechanisms to make up for different log in periods and timezones.

[Under the moon]

However I fear that such options would present many risks to those who choose them. Of course, a 100% failproof guild isn't my definition of fun an challenge.

My point exactly. The risks are what would make this worthwhile and fun. Guilds are mostly pointless and static, and nearly all of the power resides in one single guildleader. That guildleader can declare war on another guild without anyone having a say in it, and no recourse besides leaving the guild.

A guild that gives its lower ranks more power is going to be more attractive to prospective guildmembers.

Zan, you would hope that, but it is not the case. Even a vote has to rely on the guildleader for approval in the end. And as stated in this thread http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=28967.0 , sometimes that person just is not around. Not everyone is a great RPer, and even the best of roleplayers will be affected by out of character information. A higher ranked person can easily stomp out any 'revolt' under him, RP or not, and those players have no say in it besides quitting the guild, or trying to get a hold of the guildleader, or someone else with power. It would be very hard to have a secret overthrow of the guild leadership if you have to get the leader’s OOC approval first.

However, I do not see how a coded system in the game would be OOC at all, as you would have to be using your character at the time, and vote as your character. Other things could make it even more realistic, such as having to go to a certain place, or see a certain person to vote.

[Zan]

Excluding the situation where a guild leader is inactive .. I think that all the other possibilities are only adding to the realism of the RP. It is perfectly possible that a leader tries to seize power and turns his democracy into a dictatorship. In the end it are the people who make up a guild, not the leader. If the people all disagree with a leader they can simply leave the guild. To add to that point if your guild superiors don't fit your RP standards .. why are you in that guild?

I gladly admit that your idea is good in theory, it can work but I just don't know if it's needed. Too much roleplay being replaced with game mechanics, according to me, might take the fun out of this game. Game mechanics always limit the possibilities one way or another.

A guild, with the system we have now which is created by the 'leader' to be democratic in it's rule .. still has all the possibilities that real life offer. Corruption, change of government style, vetos being called in by the current leaders, etc.

A guild with the system you propose would be limited. There would be no way to forge the voting results for example. But even worse, if such a guild, started with the best roleplay intentions, somehow has been infested with too many poor roleplayers .. it would have a high chance of ruining the guild. The bad roleplayers simply have to outnumber the good ones to seize control. I think this is a realistic situation because in general, bad roleplayers do outnumber the good ones .. sadly So for one simple reason, OOC defense against poor roleplay or no roleplay at all. I'd feel much safer in a guild where a very good roleplayer is in absolute charge but roleplays his democracy. That way he can still interfere when OOC trouble arises in his creation.

[Raleigh]

     Of course you don't see the need of it, because you aren't in a guild that is supposed to be democratic. The current mechanics, if followed IC on the way it works, would limit all guilds to be dictatorial, so it's even more limiting than what you seems to imply a democratic system would be. In my case, there is a dillema between centralizing OOC most of guild powers on the leader(because in a democracy one cannot take a decision without consulting others) and having a "democracy" by taking decisions based on forum polls, or giving massive autonomies to all members to attempt representing a democracy, though it would be OOC more close to an anarchy then, and would mean the guild could be easily torned off by a single agent provocateur, by bad roleplayers or by "L33Ts".
     As I said before, it would be much easier to vote in-game than it is to register in a guild forum to vote for something. Also this would remove the OOC dependence of the guildleader on such democratic groups.
     About bad roleplayers, remember that a democracy, specially in guilds as they aren't "the people", can be very elitist. I should remind that Athens "democracy" was only open for its male citizens, that composed a minority of the population, while the majority was excluded. So it's quite possible to prevent that it becomes a "1337 D3m0cr4cY", and a solid recruitment policy also can help much in regards to that. If you keep the bad roleplayers out of your guild, it is very possible to things work out. Thing is, a democracy never works with large amounts of stupid people, unlike a system where all the same stupid people should do was to obey their superiors, for example.
      And finally, the OOC stability of guilds is very dull, as @UTM already mentioned. Of course the choice of having elections would be on the  guild leader, so now instead of only having dictatorial guild mechanics, you could switch them to democratic as well.

[Zan]

You're right .. as far as I know there doesn't exist even a single democratic guild, semi-democratic (where an elite leads by democratic vote) sure  .. Vaalnor falls under that. Guess that's also a part of why I don't see the need. I'm not going to argue against this though .. just wanted to make you guys think whether this really is something we want the Devs to spend their precious time on.

[Garile]

Well I have to agree with Zan that I am wondering how much a priority this should be for the devs. Giving GMs the ability to impeach a guildleader is a must I think but after that I feel it would be better to have them work on giving the guild itself more of a meaning in the game besides a chatbox then to make complex gamemechanics to see who will rule.

However thinking how much time it would take programming guildwars or upgradable guildhouse and storage and such compared to this voting system I think there isn't really a comparisen. I also feel this would be a good idea specially seeing it's suggested as an optional thing. If you want to join a guild with a roleplayer in control 100% in fear of him recruiting the wrong people then join such a guild. Adding some more options doesn't force you to use them.

[Araye]

I don't think that presenting ideas is setting the dev's priorities.  I think it is just a place for us to post ideas and expound upon them.  If it is really a great idea, then it will get coded in it's time.  Without fully discussing the ideas, a good idea may never make it to a great idea.  And that's the purpose of "Wish List" imho.

As UtM has mentioned in many threads, it's all about options.  I think the idea of promoting someone to one's own level is a good idea and will benefit "democratic" guilds.  I think that the idea of a "demotion vote" is a good idea and could even add something to dictatorships and allow a coup.  But I also see some drawbacks based on my experience with my own guild (that is a democratic dictatorship  ).  For example, the vote may take placed out of haste or immediate need and by the time you get enough votes, the pressing need may have been resolved.  This becomes more true as the guild grows larger.

So I think that if these types of things are added, they should be added as options that the leadership can toggle providing the necessary flexibility to best suit the desired guild structure.  If I had the ability, I would turn on promote to same rank but would disallow higher level demotions.

Araye