Cooperative Guild Model

[Anarchaeis]

Hello, this is my first forum post, I believe.

I just wanted to suggest that players be given the option to formally organize cooperative guilds. Currently, guilds are controlled by a leadership with the power to "hire and fire," so to speak, and along with that they are assumed to more or less have "ownership" over the guild and are free to impose their wishes on the membership, which is faced with the ultimatum of being guildless in a social game or joining one of many guilds that have a leader. The notion of having a leaderless guild is possible but only informally, and it would be at odds with the mechanics of the game and hence vulnerable to abuse. What I am proposing is a formally recognized cooperative guild model in which no single leader is possible, no succession is possible, and the "council" or whatever we want to call it, the cooperative membership, calls shots together, however they see fit. There can be a grace period or probationary period during which new members will not be full members with all of the rights that this entails (like making decisions on policies or what have you).

This would open up a space free from the ubiquitous scenario in which a single person can boss others around. I find myself increasingly frustrated with the authoritarianism that is embedded within the very game mechanics themselves, and how this produces unnecessary tension in guilds because of the assumption of leadership or singular ownership with its privilege of imposing rules and commands on others. I get enough of that from my job, I'd prefer not to have to deal with it in a game that I otherwise enjoy.

[Ezequiel_Sarkar]

I recommend finding a new guild then Anarchaeis. Unfurtantely, the guild setup has been setup and they have improved where there is succession now where before it hasn't.

[The_Director]

Hello, this is my first forum post, I believe.

I just wanted to suggest that players be given the option to formally organize cooperative guilds. Currently, guilds are controlled by a leadership with the power to "hire and fire," so to speak, and along with that they are assumed to more or less have "ownership" over the guild and are free to impose their wishes on the membership, which is faced with the ultimatum of being guildless in a social game or joining one of many guilds that have a leader. The notion of having a leaderless guild is possible but only informally, and it would be at odds with the mechanics of the game and hence vulnerable to abuse. What I am proposing is a formally recognized cooperative guild model in which no single leader is possible, no succession is possible, and the "council" or whatever we want to call it, the cooperative membership, calls shots together, however they see fit. There can be a grace period or probationary period during which new members will not be full members with all of the rights that this entails (like making decisions on policies or what have you).

This would open up a space free from the ubiquitous scenario in which a single person can boss others around. I find myself increasingly frustrated with the authoritarianism that is embedded within the very game mechanics themselves, and how this produces unnecessary tension in guilds because of the assumption of leadership or singular ownership with its privilege of imposing rules and commands on others. I get enough of that from my job, I'd prefer not to have to deal with it in a game that I otherwise enjoy.

You are asking for a guild who has the ability to create votes, and/or be ran by several leaders as a council.

I highly suggest you check out my own posts on the matter, they are far more in depth on this subject.

Also remember, this is a game, and Guild Leaders is common in many other games.