Proposed Removal of Guild Leader Unfair Theft!

[Domesday]

Ubisoft should not cave in to the clamor for automatic removal of absentee guild leaders.
(1) How can the game take away an asset bought and paid for by a player i.e. the guild leader. Gems for guild house; gems for memberships.
(2) Best moments of the game have been the two periods where we have had to leave our guild because a leader went missing! Drama! stress! Who goes ? who stays. it was awesome.
(3) Let non-leaders simply break away and form their own guilds and invest their own gems and currency.
(4) Otherwise, players get to stay in a guild for nothing and get control for nothing?
(5) Those remaining players - if they are all that cozy with one another - will have no trouble breaking away and forming their own guild!
(6) And in those guilds where there was a 'buy-in" well, the current Ubisoft rules cover that" caveat emptor! what ever the buy-in was it was for the benefit of being in THAT specific guild for that specific period of time. Fee paid ; benefit received.

IF Ubisoft is going to cave in to the clamoring masses - they should allow for TWO different forms of guilds; Independent and Communal. Removal of an absentee guild leader should ONLY be allowed in communal guilds and Ubisoft should ESTABLISH a guild fee paid for by the members. Only when sufficient funds have been pooled should the communal guild be allowed to form. Independent guilds should continue as is. Guild leader foots the bill - no automatic removal. Period.

[The_Director]

Domesday, you need help

Ok let me count the ways...

1. You do not have to pay by gems, in fact many do not.
2. Stress? Drama? While they have their place, not everyone wants it, the leader inactivity kick helps with that.
3. Correction, Let Leaders who don't want to lead step down and be a valuable member instead, let the person who is good at leading, lead.
4. There is nothing wrong with controlling nothing. I am a very important member in my guild, and i don't have to lift a finger if i didn't want to.
5. If its not broke don't fix it. Well, Guilds, they are broke, so we fixed(ing) it.
6. i have no idea what this buy-in is. Can you please expound?

Your Final statement.

Blue Byte caved in to the players requests?

lol my blood is boiling over this statement. one sec.

*sigh*

Ok better sorry

1. You are in the right to make the suggestion "they should allow for TWO different forms of guilds; Independent and Communal. "
Infact i have that same suggestion myself (different wording of course )

But you are suggesting that members should submit to a player WHO DOESN'T EVEN PLAY THE GAME! i'm sorry if i am raging, but what you are saying is totally maddening.

Why not (and this is what the BB's have done) save the price of making a new guild and use the old one. The old inactive leader is gone anyway, and even if that old leader used gems for his guild house and membership(s) its not a total loss.

I get that you don't like that a old leader gets the boot and someone else gets all the stuff that leader worked for, for free. Real life buddy. But there is hope, Be active, be nice to your members, which are your teammates after all. (Yes i did say teammates, like you know, guild coins, and adventures?) And you can keep your guild.

You may not like that your lifeless leader is gone, don't worry. the closet was cleaned. No more bones. You like hanging around bones? np, G-1 should suffice. (OK Edit time, Thanks to all the great BB's who have been watching G-1, its much cleaner now)

(Ok before a BB decides i used to much rage sauce, please take this correctly. I hate it when guilds are mistreated, and what you just said was definitely upsetting And for the BB(s) that read this, i will be happy to take this down if necessary. (also improvement suggestions about rages would be helpful ))

Sincerely,

Michael Nelson, T_D

I was enraged by this post. So i blew my real name XD

[Moonlime]

I think that as the Guild Leader, I need to decide who (if anyone) would be able to continue to run the guild in the event that something happens. This I view remains completely under the control of the current Guild Leader. Otherwise, yes, folks can leave and form their own guilds if they want to. It shouldn't be a take over business.

[EpsilonSilver]

IF Ubisoft is going to cave in to the clamoring masses - they should allow for TWO different forms of guilds; Independent and Communal. Removal of an absentee guild leader should ONLY be allowed in communal guilds and Ubisoft should ESTABLISH a guild fee paid for by the members. Only when sufficient funds have been pooled should the communal guild be allowed to form. Independent guilds should continue as is. Guild leader foots the bill - no automatic removal. Period.

I agree with this part.

[RonEmpire]

It should also send an email alert to the guild leader telling him he needs to take action or get removed.

This problem is something Blizzard has dealt with before.

Blizzard tried to add this automatic dethrone inactive guild leader after 30days before. A lot of people were pissed about this because they felt if they want to be inactive that's their deal. You guys could just leave the guild and go build another. People complained.

So they changed the policy so that only the 4th 'rank down can dethrone the guild and if you wanted to disable the dethrone option, you simply demote all your ranks so that the 2-3 ranks are empty.

Anyways- the guild leader should be given an option if he wants this feature or not. It should not be automatic. If people don't like the option disabled, they can leave and form their own guild.

[Domesday]

WOW rightback at you Director. I don't really like wasting my time on the Forum but I have certainly noticed that you contribute solid insight and advice on almost every post that has ever caught my fancy. So I guess you were enraged as your post seems somewhat out of character for you. I have to say that I prefer RonEmpire's more modest post below.

As Shakespeare had Capulet's men do to the Montagues in the opening scene - I (Blue) Byte my thumb at you sir. I believe I have amassed a very decent reputation for fairness and generosity in the game (albeit on the younger Ares server) and don't need any lectures from you. Maybe you better open an account on Ares so we can line each other up for pvp when the day comes! LOL

You do not need to fear about Sammy's Lost Legion. Our guild is active and intentionally maintained in the 20-25 membership completing GQ daily. I have been playing since the Halloween event in 2012. Ironically, we agree on most points. At the end of the day I am laissez-faire; I do not think the guild leadership issue needs a Ubisoft solution. If the leader is noble, he will let his members know. If he is ignorant and just walks away, the others need to figure it out and come up with a solution (like we have done twice before.) EITHER WAY- other players should not get the leader's guildhouse and or paid memberships, without his consent and action.

Your point about gems is ridiculous. It does not matter how the guild leader paid for the guild house and memberships; gold, gems -- they are still the leader's assets not the guilds. THAT is the central issue and why I propose two differnt kinds of guilds based upon whose assets are used to FOUND and EXPAND the guild. Regardless of how the guild leader behaves - these are his property rights. Guild members can always just click the quit button.

A built-in - automatic take away of these assets is simply not right. and those who clamor for this ability - are lazy and greedy - in my opinion.

You don't have to worry about MY staying power Director. I will be here long after you have quit the game.

Domes

Domesday, you need help

Ok let me count the ways...

1. You do not have to pay by gems, in fact many do not.
2. Stress? Drama? While they have their place, not everyone wants it, the leader inactivity kick helps with that.
3. Correction, Let Leaders who don't want to lead step down and be a valuable member instead, let the person who is good at leading, lead.
4. There is nothing wrong with controlling nothing. I am a very important member in my guild, and i don't have to lift a finger if i didn't want to.
5. If its not broke don't fix it. Well, Guilds, they are broke, so we fixed(ing) it.
6. i have no idea what this buy-in is. Can you please expound?

Your Final statement.

Blue Byte caved in to the players requests?

lol my blood is boiling over this statement. one sec.

*sigh*

Ok better sorry

1. You are in the right to make the suggestion "they should allow for TWO different forms of guilds; Independent and Communal. "
Infact i have that same suggestion myself (different wording of course )

But you are suggesting that members should submit to a player WHO DOESN'T EVEN PLAY THE GAME! i'm sorry if i am raging, but what you are saying is totally maddening.

Why not (and this is what the BB's have done) save the price of making a new guild and use the old one. The old inactive leader is gone anyway, and even if that old leader used gems for his guild house and membership(s) its not a total loss.

I get that you don't like that a old leader gets the boot and someone else gets all the stuff that leader worked for, for free. Real life buddy. But there is hope, Be active, be nice to your members, which are your teammates after all. (Yes i did say teammates, like you know, guild coins, and adventures?) And you can keep your guild.

You may not like that your lifeless leader is gone, don't worry. the closet was cleaned. No more bones. You like hanging around bones? np, G-1 should suffice. (OK Edit time, Thanks to all the great BB's who have been watching G-1, its much cleaner now)

(Ok before a BB decides i used to much rage sauce, please take this correctly. I hate it when guilds are mistreated, and what you just said was definitely upsetting And for the BB(s) that read this, i will be happy to take this down if necessary. (also improvement suggestions about rages would be helpful ))

Sincerely,

Michael Nelson, T_D

I was enraged by this post. So i blew my real name XD

[Evil_J]

guild leader has the obligation to be active for his players, if hes not, too bad

[Serenity6]

simple solution to all this..

1) most members help buy player slots in a guild so that guild is a community, not singly owned by 1 player.
2) allow ALL members to vote in a true leader.
-do not allow one player to decide the fate of a entire guild.
- do not go through a line process, to see who is active and wanting to lead..

thanks,
Ser

[The_Director]

Good Morning everyone.

lol Dooms, lets restart shall we?

1. Thanks for the compliment, i always try to be current with my news, and the advice and tips i share i do my best to be correct in every way, even if it hurts. (then i say something like )

There is something i forgot, vital you can say for this issue. The Leader ISN't kicked! he only steps down. That means if he was a good leader, then his old members can restore his leadership back. (huzza)

Finally, there is one more point, this fact is the pointest of all, Blue Byte is the one who made this game, the majority of players wanted this option to be included, including me. So why wouldn't BB want to add it? everyone else wants it.

Of course there are exceptions, but at this time its a mute point to say no.

I respect Ares, and the players there, i have very good friends like Aisastrings that plays there. I also respect the guilds on both sides, Zeus and Ares alike. Its also why i am "fighting" for these changes, since they will improve them all.

Is it a shame the old leader will lose his gems/resources? yes. and i respect that loss. but if he went offline than thats his own fault, why should anyone expect 100 members to go leaderless for even one day when they could replace them? Drama is worthless and cheap. Go play Command & Conquer Tiberium Alliances if you are so desperate for drama.

I would also like to comment on your last statement, "You don't have to worry about MY staying power Director. I will be here long after you have quit the game."

How do you know? do you have a time machine? i have been here since July 2012, which means, i am one year old in TSO (Huzza) who will and who won't doesnt matter, and this kind of attack is rude and to be honest, low.

Finally, sorry about my first post on this thread, since it was aggressive and to a certain degree, rude.

(i am happy to report that not once of rage sauce was added to this meal of forum goodness)

[Moonlime]

A built-in - automatic take away of these assets is simply not right. and those who clamor for this ability - are lazy and greedy - in my opinion.

This issue should be completely under the control of the Guild Leader. If she or he wants to step down or quit as I have seen happen, then they have that ability to do so. To engage in some kind of takeover where others can get the guild house or slots for free is not right and could create more problems than what is intended with this new feature. Should the leader just go inactive, they would have had the chance to rank the next in line. Again, by choice and under that Guild Leader's control.