From the VO 1.7.2 changelog:
- Guilds now disband after 48 hours if the number of council members goes below the minimum required number of 5 council members

According to this thread, this was supposed to have been in effect, and enforced almost twenty-two months ago. What happened?

We still have guilds all over that do not satisfy this requirement. Some examples:
- [BotH] Band of the Hawks: This guild has one member in it. ONE. This single member was last ingame on September 27, 2006 at just before 10:00AM EDT.
- [BETA] Beta Guild: I'll be sad to see the first official guild in the game (post-retail) go, but it doesn't meet the criteria; it has only one Council member, green cactus, who has not logged in since before January 2006.
- [EMS] Emergency Medical Services: Sorry, I know you guys are new and active, but you only have two Council members. Get some more.
- [GN] Ghost Nation: I don't think this guild did much of anything in the first place, but in any case, there are only two people in the guild, neither of whom is a Council. (Stranger still, this guild had the requisite number of Council about a week ago. Why didn't it disband then?)
- [(K)] Kallisti: No Council members to speak of. None of these members have logged in for over two years.
- [PLAG] Players Lamenting Another Guild: There are only three Council members. This guild was created to make a statement about the number of guilds (both active and defunct); I think by now it's made its point.

There are several other guilds that could be construed as violating the overall "Be Nice" principles outlined in the Rules of Conduct. These guilds are mainly spoofs and mockeries of already-existing or older, disbanded guilds, and frequently contain spoof/mockery character names that also violate the "Be Nice" principles. Either they all need to be disbanded or they all need to be left alone. Here are a few:
- [BLAK] Black Lance: While some of the character names here could be construed as humorous, given past precedents these names should have been the subject of dev or guide intervention long ago.
- [IRS] Itani Revenue Services: See above.
- [VPR2] The Vipers' Greatest Fans!: See above.

I won't even get into the multitudes of other guilds that are completely inactive but meet the requirement stated at the beginning of this post.

Either the main list of guilds needs to filter out guilds that have not been active for a certain period of time (much like the Duel Stats pages are supposed to work), or a serious pruning is in order.

Well the list is deceiving to the new players especially. A lot of outdated guilds that are not alive and haven't been for literally years, but guild doesn't remove accounts (which is cool in current state) but the negative effect of course being the guild list. It would be nice to see it pruned a little so things are in more order and so it will be easier to read and new players will know which guilds to really look at.

Agreed.

You can't delete one of the originalest pirating guilds ever! That's OBSCENE!

But Syn isnt in the list genka?

Uh, it's a stretch to claim that a spoof guild is a per se violation of "Be Nice" and/or EULA.

But I know overblown statements are sorta your thing, so I'll let it slide.

Actually attacking a player or a group of players is actually in the EULA Lecter, aint you read it? I'm sure in the UK at least that means guilds.

[edit]

Seems I have not read the EULA in a long long time, nice one devs :)

I never did the pruning because it wasn't very important at the time.

"I won't even get into the multitudes of other guilds that are completely inactive but meet the requirement stated at the beginning of this post."

vpr2, IRS, blak all meet the above mentioned requirements, interesting you included them but not NUTS

They were there for a different reason LNH, read carefully.

Thanks Yoda, I have read it: it prohibits harrassment, abuse, and "hate-mongering," whatever the Hell that is.

Now, explain to me how a spoof guild necessarily qualifies as "attacking [or any of what the EULA actually says] a player or a group of players."

Is it arguable? Sure it is, and the nature of the spoof seems particularly relevant--but it's not a per se violation by any stretch of the imagination.

I deleted the BotH, GN, and a couple others that had 0 members.
There was a bug with the 48 hour timeout if the server gets restarted during the 48 hours.

All I know is that when Itani made a parody of SCAR, within 48 hours Naut launched a bitch fit to get it disbanded....

Let's remove the guild page. Softy2 had it right so long ago.
Then, the "nothing" guilds will truly be unknown.

Hi, I thought we had already addressed this, including the auto-disbanding of pre-existing guilds that didn't meet the requirements, as well as mandating that new guilds be only started or joined by subscribers. Those two effectively addressing most of the "nothing guild" complaints and hopefully only leaving us reasonably "something" guilds. Apparently some wires got crossed.

Anyway, we'll take a look at this again, and document it properly on our ticket system this time.

Well, I'm not entirely sure how to respond to the OP...

Oh, silly me, there's always a relevant quote out there- "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

(But seriously, please, please don't mix up the guild list and the player list. The result would be unfortunate.)

I really LIKE the Vipers Biggerest Fans!

i think the more completely inactive guilds we prune the better. Focuses more on active guilds and makes the search for a guild to join by newbs much more easier.

So if I make an alt called Mosley and start a guild called BDSM I will get shouted at ?

( sorry UK political joke )

You'll also be fined two million credits, Ecka ;)