<Blitzkrieg> Community Destroyed

85 Human Warrior
8610
The information was available in the launcher for quite some time.
The information was in the patch notes.

The new mechanic has been talked about for half a year now.
Reply Quote
85 Undead Priest
3500
This is what we had in <Blitzkrieg> yet the non co-gm "kleitarxos" only not being online in 8 days was bypassed thus one of the lower members taking control of the guild and taking advantage of it. Sure our gm was inactive, but our second in command was NOT yet this happens. There are just too many flaws with the current policy for it to be active imo and should have more options. Preventative measures include:

1. A co-gm SLOT who gains control rather than the first person to log on and TAKE control.

2. Send a email to the CURRENT gm to raise awareness.

3. And lastly make the 30 day period changeable by the gm from 30 days to 12 months that way military members on deployments will have options.

In the end we aren't making a QQ thread about the policy or patch or anything. We are just seeking HELP. Our guild was clearly wronged and yes we may have made some mistakes but the fault is not 100% ours. We are just asking that Blizzard right this by making "kleitarxos" guild leader and restoring the 100,000 gold to the guild bank.
Edited by Kyrexx on 2/4/2012 12:25 PM PST
Reply Quote
85 Blood Elf Paladin
6935
Well I can see replacing the "7 day" rule with a 30 day one, might be workable. But one week is still too short, as it does not take in account the average vacation, or Holidays such as Christmas. Perhaps 2 weeks would be the most fair and workable at the same time.


This sounds more reasonable. Ten or fourteen days, I could live with.


Yeah, I'd sign off on that. The 7 days does seem a little too constrictive, but a month might be overdoing it; 2 weeks sounds JUST right. < /Goldilocks>
Reply Quote
85 Undead Priest
3500
Yes agreed! Thanks for all the support.
Reply Quote
85 Undead Priest
3500
Are you even reading your own posts? If the guild was an active raiding guild then the gm would NOT extend it to (lets say 4 months) because he would want his guild to progress game content. Yet you say any guild leader would automatically extend the period to protect themselves... why though? Maybe to prevent an officer stealing control of your guild and taking 100,000 gold? And maybe because your comp was broken and your co-gm wasn't online this past week because he had a business trip out of town? Any serious guild that was progressing content would want to keep the 30 day policy. Also an email being sent to the GM after 20-25 days of inactivity would help give heads up.
Edited by Kyrexx on 2/4/2012 12:50 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Death Knight
13815
Had you structured your guild better, you would have been safeguarded from this unfortunate incident. Instead of taking the steps to protect your own guild, you want Blizzard to change the policy to something that will be more harmful to more players.


90% of the advice on this forum is predicated on the belief that guilds ultimately can't harm players and that players should vote with their feet if guild leadership is poor. I just don't accept that player are meaningfully harmed by inactive leadership. Dethroning is simply more convenient for guild members that start and leveling a new guild. However, I do think people like the OP are quite harmed when their guilds are taken away from them without their knowledge. That is why the current system is quite poorly conceived.

I like the idea of creating a "Interim Rank 0" for the new GM, with "Interim" taken off after an additional month. The original GM, upon seeing the dethrone notice could log back in and simply demote the Temp GM if the guild was not really abandoned. The worst case scenario is that a malicious person kicks everyone from the guild, messes with permissions, and steals everything. But now, there is a recovery path - the original GM comes back and assumes control, files tickets for theft, invites everyone back in, etc.

If a guild has truly been abandoned, then the month goes by without issue.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Hunter
13445
I'm sorry this happened to you Kleit.I didn't know that jerk too well,but I didn't think or know he would have it in him to do something like this.My most sincere sympathies go out to you.You are a cool dude and you didn't deserve this.You will bounce back and form an even stronger guild.I can promise you I can be trusted so if you need any help with anything let me know.
Reply Quote
85 Blood Elf Paladin
6935
02/04/2012 01:22 PMPosted by Siantha
90% of the advice on this forum is predicated on the belief that guilds ultimately can't harm players and that players should vote with their feet if guild leadership is poor.


I confess I've been wrestling with this apparent inconsistency myself. On the one hand, I have often advised guild members on this forum to leave a guild that isn't working out for them. On the other, I am in support of the general guild dethroning policy. So this apparently means my general stance is "If the guild's in bad shape, take off - unless the reason it's in bad shape is an inactive GL, in which case, just wait and hope you or someone like you can take control." Is this inconsistent or merely an exception to the rule?

In thinking about this, what I have come to is that my core belief is that a Guild Leader is the servant of his/her guild. If the guild leader is not serving the guild well, by all means, leave. That is still the best and most viable option in many situations. If the guild leader is not serving the guild at all, well...I think this is a slightly different situation. Leaving is still an option (it's always an option, after all), but if the only real problem with the guild is the absence of a willing leader, this is an easily solved problem. I don't advise leaving in every situation. My first response is usually "Did you talk with them about this problem/how you feel?" I usually try to look at solving the problem first.

If they took away the guild dethrone policy and feature entirely, then the ONLY recourse anyone has in this situation is to leave. And that's fine. The absent GL (depending on how long they're gone) would likely come back to find that his/her membership had probably taken as much as their bank permissions would allow and /gquit. They are left with an empty (or mostly empty) guild bank and an entirely empty guild. But hey, at least they still have that tag above their head!

To me, a guild leader without guildies is not a guild leader. They've still been dethroned, just in a completely different way. Is that way better just because you get to keep the name and the guild bank tabs? I would rather see my guild have a chance at going on without me than be the lone person in Steelbound.

Maybe that's just me.
Edited by Katalya on 2/4/2012 1:44 PM PST
Reply Quote
Very disappointing to see Blizz allow this process to happen without stepping in. Clearly mistakes were made, but it's also very clear that the guid's usurper had nothing but malice in his heart as he stole guild funds and booted the core of the guild.

Yes, the dethroning happened according to Blizz's rules BUT THE USURPER OF THE GUILD ACTED COMPLETELY AGAINST THE GUILD'S BEST INTERESTS and does not care to answer to the guildies he supposedly leads.

Blizz, you've deactivated my accounts when they got hacked and I lost all those characters (5 level 80's at the time when 80 was max), you made my former guild change their name because someone objected to the word "tramp", you've made odd disciplinary decisions to appease whiners, and now you're allowing my guild to be torn apart by someone who cares nothing for this community.

How can you suspend players for saying "S**t" in chat but allow someone to destroy a guild without consequence? We're not looking for anything we didn't earn, just some justice.

I'm just a scrub member of this guild with no time to raid or participate in leadership. I just like the people and in order to stay with those people I have to lose the level 25 perks we've earned together. After starting over with my toons once again it's looking like it's time to put my time and money into The Old Republic unless things turn around here.
Reply Quote
85 Tauren Druid
9045
If you're upset about a large portion of the guild being kicked and/or guild bank absconded with suddenly, open a ticket about that.

THAT is the issue. THAT is what the ticket should address.

If that's what you're upset about, but you open the ticket about the mechanic ABUSED in order to do so, then you're not complaining about the action any more.

Nobody's account was compromised or hacked. The transfer of leadership was according to the rules. What happened AFTERWARDS, however, may be (have been) redeemable.

If someone backs into my car, I'm upset. If an officer asks what happened, I should say "he backed into my car," not complain about how the bumper didn't seem to prevent as much damage as it should have. The bumper issue might be good to look into later, but it's not the right time, and not the right issue.

The issue is NOT that the wrong person got leader. The issue is what he did with it. Focus on that. Take a deep breath, stay civil, and your ticket will be MUCH better addressed.
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Druid
16890
I think it is a flaw in the system that people can take the guild without being the highest ranking active member.

So many of these issues seem to be people complaining that some random member stole GM and kicked all the active officers who were leading the guild. Honestly, this feature was put into place so that people leading guilds could continue to manage them after GMs went AWOL. So why on earth does it allow for feature to be used by lower ranking players even if a 2nd or 3rd ranked player is still active?

The removal of GM should only be able to be used if you are the next highest ranking active member. If the officers are all also AWOL then it can just continue down the ranks until it gets to someone active.

I am sick of these posts.
Reply Quote
85 Tauren Druid
9045
02/04/2012 01:43 PMPosted by Katalya
90% of the advice on this forum is predicated on the belief that guilds ultimately can't harm players and that players should vote with their feet if guild leadership is poor.


I confess I've been wrestling with this apparent inconsistency myself. On the one hand, I have often advised guild members on this forum to leave a guild that isn't working out for them. On the other, I am in support of the general guild dethroning policy. So this apparently means my general stance is "If the guild's in bad shape, take off - unless the reason it's in bad shape is an inactive GL, in which case, just wait and hope you or someone like you can take control." Is this inconsistent or merely an exception to the rule?


Here's how your stance looks to me:

If the guild is not fun for one person, that person should leave.

If one person is not fun for the guild, that person should leave.

Both of those are heavily modifiable by situations, but in general. For example, in the latter case, if the GM is toxic but active, not much you can do, not much chance of convincing him to step down, and the only option the guild has is to vote with their feet.
Reply Quote
85 Tauren Druid
9045
I think it is a flaw in the system that people can take the guild without being the highest ranking active member.

So many of these issues seem to be people complaining that some random member stole GM and kicked all the active officers who were leading the guild. Honestly, this feature was put into place so that people leading guilds could continue to manage them after GMs went AWOL. So why on earth does it allow for feature to be used by lower ranking players even if a 2nd or 3rd ranked player is still active?

The removal of GM should only be able to be used if you are the next highest ranking active member. If the officers are all also AWOL then it can just continue down the ranks until it gets to someone active.

I am sick of these posts.


Except apparently in this issue it was taken over by someone in the third rank, because the person in the second rank WASN'T active, given the in place 7 day definition of "active" used for ranks beyond the Guild Leader in determining who has button access. So the officer who took over WAS the next highest ranking active member. Or perhaps put better, the active member with the next highest rank.
Reply Quote
85 Human Warrior
8610
02/04/2012 12:49 PMPosted by Kyrexx
Are you even reading your own posts? If the guild was an active raiding guild then the gm would NOT extend it to (lets say 4 months)


Yes he would. The GM of a raiding guild isn't always a raider, or raid leader. Even if you're a multipurpose guild that happens to raid, a massively inactive guild leader will kill the raiding-wing of your guild, and that's unfair to the raiders with in that guild.



If you're upset about a large portion of the guild being kicked and/or guild bank absconded with suddenly, open a ticket about that.

THAT is the issue. THAT is what the ticket should address.

If that's what you're upset about, but you open the ticket about the mechanic ABUSED in order to do so, then you're not complaining about the action any more.


This is what I said in my first reply to the first thread this guild who has swarmed upon R&GL forums en masse opened.

Blizzard does have some policy regarding hostile take over, and I'll agree that what was done by the player who took it over was wrong.

But this isn't what your posts here are complaining about (not directly), nor is this what your tickets to the GMs were about (again, not directly). You think that because you structured your guild poorly (when you've had about 6 months to get is structured properly), there's something wrong with the mechanic. It's hard for us to take blame for our own shortcomings, isn't it?

The mechanic works fine, and there's probably hundreds of examples (such as my guild, which I illustrated in an earlier post) of the mechanic working out quite well. At least as many, if not more, examples of a positive coming from the mechanic as it works than negatives.


And again, the real problem in this scenario is NOT that the guild was taken over, but rather who it was taken over by. Had one of the many posters here now complaining about what happened to their guild happened to log on and push the button first, either they would've done the same as the accused player in question for themselves, or there would be no one here complaining about the mechanic. There probably also wouldn't be anyone here to post a success story about the mechanic, but that doesn't mean that the mechanic didn't work out quite well.



The only real problem here is that no one from this guild visited the R&GL forums BEFORE this incident happened to them, otherwise they might've been forwarned. It's disappointing to me that they only decide after this incident that they're going to come to the forums and complain that things aren't going their way, when it was easy enough for any of them to visit here just once any time over the last 6 months or so and this all could've been prevented.
Reply Quote
85 Tauren Shaman
3175
02/04/2012 01:43 PMPosted by Katalya
I confess I've been wrestling with this apparent inconsistency myself. On the one hand, I have often advised guild members on this forum to leave a guild that isn't working out for them. On the other, I am in support of the general guild dethroning policy. So this apparently means my general stance is "If the guild's in bad shape, take off - unless the reason it's in bad shape is an inactive GL, in which case, just wait and hope you or someone like you can take control." Is this inconsistent or merely an exception to the rule?


I on the other hand would never suggest "waiting" as an option, even in the case of an inactive GL. The 30 day tool is simply a means of getting an active leader for a guild whose main problem is a lack of one. It is an option that could be given to someone who has come to the realization that their guild leader may not be returning, and it is a definite fallback for a guild whose leadership, for whatever reason, is unable to transfer power within the guild. However, the best policy remains to not rely on a tool, but to put the power in what you already have and not wasting any more time waiting to create and start releveling a new guild.

The fact that there's a secondary option available has never been a point of inconsistency: there's the best answer, and then there's the option for people who choose not to use the commonly agreed upon best answer. Just as there isn't one type of guild, there's not one right answer, just the answers that have been usually compatible with most guilds.

The only true and consistent statement is that if you are never inactive, you never have to worry about this happening. The absolute, indisputable, best method of not having your guild dethroned is to not let the guild leader position go inactive in the first place, whether by remaining active yourself, or transferring the rank to someone else when you feel you will be unable to log in once every 30 days.

Beyond that, I stand by the statement that the ratio of guilds that this affects adversely is miniscule compared to the combined number of guilds where this helps, where this makes no difference, and where this will be a moot point as the leadership won't ever be inactive. And considering how easy it is to prevent, if all of the guilds who fall into the very small minority of guilds adversely affected by this would take even a fraction of the time spent "discussing" this on the forums setting up their guild ranks correctly and taking just a moment of time to log in each month, then this wouldn't be an issue for anyone at all.
Reply Quote
85 Blood Elf Paladin
6935
02/04/2012 03:04 PMPosted by Evol
The absolute, indisputable, best method of not having your guild dethroned is to not let the guild leader position go inactive in the first place, whether by remaining active yourself, or transferring the rank to someone else when you feel you will be unable to log in once every 30 days.


Absolutely.


02/04/2012 02:46 PMPosted by Tyrnyx
I think it is a flaw in the system that people can take the guild without being the highest ranking active member.


So, to clarify, you think that, once the GL has been absent 30 days, the "dethrone" option should ONLY ever be available to those in rank 1, assuming at least one person is active there? I'm honestly just trying to make sure I've understood this properly.

If I'm understanding you properly, I would point out that, so long as someone's active in rank 1, even if they never push the "dethrone" button, it's not going to skip down to rank 2 or anything. It only goes to the next rank down if no one in rank 1 has been on in the last 7 days. (And I would agree that 7 days is a bit short.)
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]