Forums » Suggestions
While I agree, somewhat with you Leber, I consider myself an active player, however, I am ALSO a truck driver, and we are out on runs for weeks sometimes months at a time. While I'm gone, I can't log in, the entire guild knows this and knew about it ahead of time, but if I don't log in for a month, because I'm working, why should I be booted from the guild, only to log in the day I get home, to tell my guildies "hey! I'm home for a few days again!" I have to go find an LT to re-invite me..
Tnx
Eize Ryda
Tnx
Eize Ryda
the auto boot is unnecessary if the guilds are better maintained, a few people here and there like yourself who can only log in a few times a month shouldn't be booted. But there is a definite need to refine the guild creation process and maintenance. More user control over the guild it's self and more strict guildlines as to who can form a guild and the types of founding members (no 0/0/0/0/0 trial accounts, etc.).
Well, you wouldn't be kicked from VO, just listed as "inactive" in the guild. (Sorry I said "kicked" in prev post.) You should not have to re-apply to jump back ingame and chat with yer buds in guild chat.
If the guild has less than 10 "active" players for more than 45 days it is disbanded.
And I guess my point was that there would be no need to "maintain" the guilds if we could do some simple things to the character record:
1) Maintain a record of the last log-on (This is already done)
2) If ((currentdate-lastlogondate)>30) then set inactive.flag=1
3) If the inactive flag was set due to player inactivity, see if that player belongs to a guild. If yes, goto 4, if not, exit.
4) Determine if the that guild has more than 10 active players
(run the same routine as #2 on all its members)
5) If not, run(deleteguildroutine)
The routine would be simple and automated, it could run every week on Thursday morning or something. That way everyone knows the rules of maintaining a guild and no actual human interference is needed.
If the guild has less than 10 "active" players for more than 45 days it is disbanded.
And I guess my point was that there would be no need to "maintain" the guilds if we could do some simple things to the character record:
1) Maintain a record of the last log-on (This is already done)
2) If ((currentdate-lastlogondate)>30) then set inactive.flag=1
3) If the inactive flag was set due to player inactivity, see if that player belongs to a guild. If yes, goto 4, if not, exit.
4) Determine if the that guild has more than 10 active players
(run the same routine as #2 on all its members)
5) If not, run(deleteguildroutine)
The routine would be simple and automated, it could run every week on Thursday morning or something. That way everyone knows the rules of maintaining a guild and no actual human interference is needed.
Why would you want to have an automatic guild maintenance system?
Why can't you just people take care of their own guilds? It is not that having too many guilds will cause your own guild to suddenly become less important.
[EDIT:
If you cannot stand the unsightly page of so many inactive guilds in the guildpage, then why don't just have the devs remove the page, and instead replace it with a player info search?
In fact, I think the guildpage/player info search thing is just plain bad : it takes out the RP aspects of thing. I mean, who keeps this database in the game? UIT? Serco? Itani? TGP? ]
Why can't you just people take care of their own guilds? It is not that having too many guilds will cause your own guild to suddenly become less important.
[EDIT:
If you cannot stand the unsightly page of so many inactive guilds in the guildpage, then why don't just have the devs remove the page, and instead replace it with a player info search?
In fact, I think the guildpage/player info search thing is just plain bad : it takes out the RP aspects of thing. I mean, who keeps this database in the game? UIT? Serco? Itani? TGP? ]
Other MMO's have similar sites that allow for complete char info to be shared (magelo.com for EQ is an example) and does not ruin the RP aspect of it at all IMO. It simply helps with planning things, checking to make sure someone is a new player or a vet, if you didn't know, just an all around useful tool, let me say that again for you, a tool, you don't HAVE to use it. And as far as who has the info in a "in-game" sense, who cares, it could be that all three nations keeps tabs on their own citizens and then somehow the info is leaked and everyone gains access. You could come up with a million different reason why it could work.
And it's pretty apparent that people CAN'T take care of the guilds themselves which is why Leber, myself and anyone else who wants to chime in here think it's a good idea to have SOME form of maintenance to the guilds, either by giving council members more control or making it automated like Leber suggested. In any case there are good reason IMO to do something like this.
And it's pretty apparent that people CAN'T take care of the guilds themselves which is why Leber, myself and anyone else who wants to chime in here think it's a good idea to have SOME form of maintenance to the guilds, either by giving council members more control or making it automated like Leber suggested. In any case there are good reason IMO to do something like this.
Sorry I'm going to have to agree with softy2 here. The question that hasn't been answered is why. How does booting players or making them "inactive" in a guild help VO at all?
I've been seeing suggestions on how to clean up the guilds automatically, but not why they need to be cleaned up. It takes nothing away from any guild to have almost all its players inactive. And by making some kind of automated script would just take away from what the dev are trying to do now. I think there are more important things for them to consider right now.
JB
I've been seeing suggestions on how to clean up the guilds automatically, but not why they need to be cleaned up. It takes nothing away from any guild to have almost all its players inactive. And by making some kind of automated script would just take away from what the dev are trying to do now. I think there are more important things for them to consider right now.
JB
I say NO to automated guild clean-up.
SoR is a quiet guild, mostly of old vets who want to know when each other are on. Currently most of us are more inactive than active, almost exclusively due to real life reasons. At the same token almost all of us are PAYING, even tho we might not be PLAYING.
one of the things we pay for is the ability to have guild chat with each other when we DO log on. We created the guild partially for just that reason.
(right now i think there are about 5 active members of SoR who wouldn't end up on your inactive list)
The only reason I can see to remove a member from a guild automatically is if thier account has been unpaid for greater than XXX months (at least 9) at which point deleting all characters and thier affiliations MIGHT be considered.
What I WOULD like to see instead is a simple level and membership requirement for joining a guild. force people to:
1- have a total of 10 levels (thats a 2/2/2/2/2 character) --OR-- have at least 24 hours of play time for that character (so people who want to have nothing but trade levels for example can be in a guild. its possible to spend 24 hours of game time getting trade 8 if you aren't overly agressive about pursuing it)
2- be a paying member in order to join a guild.
3- have a one time "processing fee" of ""BLAH"" credits to join a guild. this fee would be refunded to the members who attempt to create a guild and fail to get the required number of people in before the 10 minute timer is up, or to people who otherwise have a guild creation fail. (since one person loosing connection can abort the guild create process at the moment, it doesnt seem fair to keep the money :) )
the cash requirement can easily be explained ingame as a paperwork and communications fee to post your name to the guild roster at all stations within the known universe.
SoR is a quiet guild, mostly of old vets who want to know when each other are on. Currently most of us are more inactive than active, almost exclusively due to real life reasons. At the same token almost all of us are PAYING, even tho we might not be PLAYING.
one of the things we pay for is the ability to have guild chat with each other when we DO log on. We created the guild partially for just that reason.
(right now i think there are about 5 active members of SoR who wouldn't end up on your inactive list)
The only reason I can see to remove a member from a guild automatically is if thier account has been unpaid for greater than XXX months (at least 9) at which point deleting all characters and thier affiliations MIGHT be considered.
What I WOULD like to see instead is a simple level and membership requirement for joining a guild. force people to:
1- have a total of 10 levels (thats a 2/2/2/2/2 character) --OR-- have at least 24 hours of play time for that character (so people who want to have nothing but trade levels for example can be in a guild. its possible to spend 24 hours of game time getting trade 8 if you aren't overly agressive about pursuing it)
2- be a paying member in order to join a guild.
3- have a one time "processing fee" of ""BLAH"" credits to join a guild. this fee would be refunded to the members who attempt to create a guild and fail to get the required number of people in before the 10 minute timer is up, or to people who otherwise have a guild creation fail. (since one person loosing connection can abort the guild create process at the moment, it doesnt seem fair to keep the money :) )
the cash requirement can easily be explained ingame as a paperwork and communications fee to post your name to the guild roster at all stations within the known universe.
The whole point of a guild having some chain of command is that so people who actually do something. keeping track of who's active is something to do. do it. it's just what organizations do.
OK OK.
Spellcast said: ...one of the things we pay for is the ability to have guild chat with each other when we DO log on. We created the guild partially for just that reason.
I would argue that guilds should be something special, active, and dynamic. Not buddylists for chat sessions. (Even though I myself used VO as basically a graphics-intensive chat client in the past, so I am not throwing stones in glass houses... Hehe.)
If players want to create a guild just to chat with friends, then I suggest that the devs create some kind of persistent group chat setting, with multiple group chats going on if you like.
Otherwise I agree with Spellcast - you should have reached a min license or playing time threshold in order to join, and an even higher threshold in order to create a guild. Having it cost credits to join and create is not a bad idea either.
Jestatis said: How does booting players or making them "inactive" in a guild help VO at all?
Using the carrot and stick approach:
The stick: Players play more because they know if they are inactive a lot they'll be listed as "inactive" and this will hurt their guild.
The carrot: If guilds have many active players then they get some kind of mild reward. Could be a group reward or a reward given out to all active guildmembers.
Having more players online can only help VO. And like many have said, everyone wants to be in a guild. More players in guilds + mild penalties for the guild if you don't sign in and out once a month = More active players.
softy2 said:It is not that having too many guilds will cause your own guild to suddenly become less important.
Well, no. But I would argue that 50% of the current guilds on the list are composed of completely inactive people.
And yet, in a sense, what you say is true. I've always respected your opinion; however, I think that having many many guilds is detrimental to the playerbase - there aren't enough players to go around to fully populate these guilds. Having a tiny penalty for inactive players in guilds makes being IN one just a little bit more special, because you have to participate.
Fnugget said:The whole point of a guild having some chain of command is that so people...[can keep]...track of who's active
Well, yes, leadership should encourage and cajole players to become active or there's not really any point in having a guild, is there? If some simple rules can be enacted that put some teeth behind the guild commander/Lt's requests to be online, then that is a good thing. Players should join a guild with the expectation that they are going to be active and participate in it. PLUS, this way the guild leadership can concentrate on more important things, like plotting and planning and fun stuff instead of bookeeping. PLUS, this way if some players don't play then there's no hard feelings if they get listed as inactive by the emotionless V-O server, instead of the guild leadership. In fact, that could help the busy guild leadership out, since then guild leaders would see inactive guildmembers and could make inquiries as to why that player is inactive. Are they bored? Forget to pay their "investment?" Sick? Computer died?
Back to arguing my point - Perhaps less than 10 is too harsh for guild disbanding? What would a good number be?
Or what about being able to join multiple guilds? If the devs can make persistent multiple group chat areas, then certainly they could allow multiple guild chats. Or is that a stupid idea? (Tell me if it's stupid. It's OK.)
Spellcast said: ...one of the things we pay for is the ability to have guild chat with each other when we DO log on. We created the guild partially for just that reason.
I would argue that guilds should be something special, active, and dynamic. Not buddylists for chat sessions. (Even though I myself used VO as basically a graphics-intensive chat client in the past, so I am not throwing stones in glass houses... Hehe.)
If players want to create a guild just to chat with friends, then I suggest that the devs create some kind of persistent group chat setting, with multiple group chats going on if you like.
Otherwise I agree with Spellcast - you should have reached a min license or playing time threshold in order to join, and an even higher threshold in order to create a guild. Having it cost credits to join and create is not a bad idea either.
Jestatis said: How does booting players or making them "inactive" in a guild help VO at all?
Using the carrot and stick approach:
The stick: Players play more because they know if they are inactive a lot they'll be listed as "inactive" and this will hurt their guild.
The carrot: If guilds have many active players then they get some kind of mild reward. Could be a group reward or a reward given out to all active guildmembers.
Having more players online can only help VO. And like many have said, everyone wants to be in a guild. More players in guilds + mild penalties for the guild if you don't sign in and out once a month = More active players.
softy2 said:It is not that having too many guilds will cause your own guild to suddenly become less important.
Well, no. But I would argue that 50% of the current guilds on the list are composed of completely inactive people.
And yet, in a sense, what you say is true. I've always respected your opinion; however, I think that having many many guilds is detrimental to the playerbase - there aren't enough players to go around to fully populate these guilds. Having a tiny penalty for inactive players in guilds makes being IN one just a little bit more special, because you have to participate.
Fnugget said:The whole point of a guild having some chain of command is that so people...[can keep]...track of who's active
Well, yes, leadership should encourage and cajole players to become active or there's not really any point in having a guild, is there? If some simple rules can be enacted that put some teeth behind the guild commander/Lt's requests to be online, then that is a good thing. Players should join a guild with the expectation that they are going to be active and participate in it. PLUS, this way the guild leadership can concentrate on more important things, like plotting and planning and fun stuff instead of bookeeping. PLUS, this way if some players don't play then there's no hard feelings if they get listed as inactive by the emotionless V-O server, instead of the guild leadership. In fact, that could help the busy guild leadership out, since then guild leaders would see inactive guildmembers and could make inquiries as to why that player is inactive. Are they bored? Forget to pay their "investment?" Sick? Computer died?
Back to arguing my point - Perhaps less than 10 is too harsh for guild disbanding? What would a good number be?
Or what about being able to join multiple guilds? If the devs can make persistent multiple group chat areas, then certainly they could allow multiple guild chats. Or is that a stupid idea? (Tell me if it's stupid. It's OK.)
What are the current rules for guilds if any? I think we should start there.
Lebermac a guild is whatever the members want it to be. Since each character can only be in one, if we want to use it as a way to keep track of each other, than what harm does that do?
Also please note the word PARTIALLY in the quote you responded to. Our other reasons for the guild are (shifty eyes moment here)secret for the moment, and more in line with long term goals (which we cant achieve yet because the game doesnt fully support them yet, go devs - getting closer every patch) than short term, largely meaningless, activity.
And I agree with Jestasis Bess (I cant believe i just typed that) I still havent seen any good reason for WHY guilds should be automatically policed after they are created.
I wouldnt mind seeing rewards FOR guilds that remain active, maybe a certain % of the membership must log in and take part in a guild mission X times a month to get the rewards.
(once we have some missions specifically for guilds, you were going to add those weren't you devs?)
Even with that however I dont see any reason to remove guilds just because the players aren't active, especially as long as the players are paying for thier account to be kept in the database.
EDIT FOR JB
currently to create a guild you must have 10 people all online at the same time.
one person (commander) creates the guild and invites the other 9
once all 9 have joined the guild, (must be done within 10 minutes) the guild is finalized, and the 9 founding members are given council positions, and the commander assigns 2 LT spots.
during the 10 minute startup period if any player who has joined the guild disconnects or leaves before the guild is finalized , the guild is automatically disbanded.
If a guild falls below 6 council members at any time, the guild is disbanded.
Also please note the word PARTIALLY in the quote you responded to. Our other reasons for the guild are (shifty eyes moment here)secret for the moment, and more in line with long term goals (which we cant achieve yet because the game doesnt fully support them yet, go devs - getting closer every patch) than short term, largely meaningless, activity.
And I agree with Jestasis Bess (I cant believe i just typed that) I still havent seen any good reason for WHY guilds should be automatically policed after they are created.
I wouldnt mind seeing rewards FOR guilds that remain active, maybe a certain % of the membership must log in and take part in a guild mission X times a month to get the rewards.
(once we have some missions specifically for guilds, you were going to add those weren't you devs?)
Even with that however I dont see any reason to remove guilds just because the players aren't active, especially as long as the players are paying for thier account to be kept in the database.
EDIT FOR JB
currently to create a guild you must have 10 people all online at the same time.
one person (commander) creates the guild and invites the other 9
once all 9 have joined the guild, (must be done within 10 minutes) the guild is finalized, and the 9 founding members are given council positions, and the commander assigns 2 LT spots.
during the 10 minute startup period if any player who has joined the guild disconnects or leaves before the guild is finalized , the guild is automatically disbanded.
If a guild falls below 6 council members at any time, the guild is disbanded.
Thanks Spell for agreeing with me. It will get better in the future. :)
It's not a negative thing towards the guilds its just a way to keep them updated. I'm not saying that any automated system should be deleting guilds left and right, but if players are not active for many months then why keep all that info still active, perhaps the system performs an archive and dump so that if they ever came back it could be retreaved and activated again.
Some example guilds this might effect: (don't see these around much if at all)
[WP], [Free], [SCC], [NEW], [MED], [MP], [LUCA], [MEaT], [FRG], [EO], [DPR], [DX]
Prime examply IMO of why we need some guidelines for guilds:
http://www.holtgraphicarts.com/archive_john/pictures/voimages/[DPR].png
Some example guilds this might effect: (don't see these around much if at all)
[WP], [Free], [SCC], [NEW], [MED], [MP], [LUCA], [MEaT], [FRG], [EO], [DPR], [DX]
Prime examply IMO of why we need some guidelines for guilds:
http://www.holtgraphicarts.com/archive_john/pictures/voimages/[DPR].png
are those all alts of the same person?
Spell sez: Lebermac a guild is whatever the members want it to be. Since each character can only be in one, if we want to use it as a way to keep track of each other, than what harm does that do?
Also please note the word PARTIALLY in the quote you responded to.
Well I didn't want it to come off sounding like I was attacking you & [SoR], if it did so I apologize. (See apology thread elsewhere on this forum.)
I think that the rules I've suggested would not adversely affect the active guilds in V-O right now.
I'll bet that most of the guilds that johnhawl218 mentioned are made up of people who have not signed on in over 6 months. Some of those guilds are already under 10 members, and should be deleted anyway.
Long-term, there will need to be a method of policing guilds, otherwise when this goes commercial people will greate guilds left and right, and which guild you are in will change with very login. Guilds may just become 1-use chat session tools, discarded when you and your friends logout.
Establishing some basic rules now will make guild management easier in the future when there are 10,000 players.
Oh, someone mentioned a web interface for guild management, etc. I think that is an excellent idea. Perhaps a ways off, but managing character and guild info via a secure web interface would be neato.
Also please note the word PARTIALLY in the quote you responded to.
Well I didn't want it to come off sounding like I was attacking you & [SoR], if it did so I apologize. (See apology thread elsewhere on this forum.)
I think that the rules I've suggested would not adversely affect the active guilds in V-O right now.
I'll bet that most of the guilds that johnhawl218 mentioned are made up of people who have not signed on in over 6 months. Some of those guilds are already under 10 members, and should be deleted anyway.
Long-term, there will need to be a method of policing guilds, otherwise when this goes commercial people will greate guilds left and right, and which guild you are in will change with very login. Guilds may just become 1-use chat session tools, discarded when you and your friends logout.
Establishing some basic rules now will make guild management easier in the future when there are 10,000 players.
Oh, someone mentioned a web interface for guild management, etc. I think that is an excellent idea. Perhaps a ways off, but managing character and guild info via a secure web interface would be neato.
Why not just keep tabs of online time for each guild. Then if a guild doesn't log any online time for 3 months or so they get cleaned.
None of these guilds have logged any time in ages iirc
Mercenary Armoured Corps
Eternal Order
Beta Guild
Dai Dai Hai
Lucri Causa
Designation Xero
Future MEaT
Angels of Darkness
Newbs of Vendetta
BOFH Multi Nation Clan
Fraggers Hall
WOLFPACK
The Freespacers
Gold Nation
Medics
None of these guilds have logged any time in ages iirc
Mercenary Armoured Corps
Eternal Order
Beta Guild
Dai Dai Hai
Lucri Causa
Designation Xero
Future MEaT
Angels of Darkness
Newbs of Vendetta
BOFH Multi Nation Clan
Fraggers Hall
WOLFPACK
The Freespacers
Gold Nation
Medics
Why do we know that there are so many inactive guilds out there? Well the existence of this page (EDIT : which is as anti-RP as you can get)
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/guildinfo
is why.
Get rid of it. Then those guilds which are inactive will basically be out of sight, and therefore out of mind, and hence, does not exist anymore.
(EDIT : if you want a webpage to manage your guilds, then just display those guilds that YOUR alt(s) are in, not all the guilds.)
Guilds should be managed by guild members, not by some automated rules. Everybody has their own idea about what they want from being in a guild, why don't just let them have their way instead of imposing your own rules on what you think is active or inactive?
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/guildinfo
is why.
Get rid of it. Then those guilds which are inactive will basically be out of sight, and therefore out of mind, and hence, does not exist anymore.
(EDIT : if you want a webpage to manage your guilds, then just display those guilds that YOUR alt(s) are in, not all the guilds.)
Guilds should be managed by guild members, not by some automated rules. Everybody has their own idea about what they want from being in a guild, why don't just let them have their way instead of imposing your own rules on what you think is active or inactive?
Martin: How do you know none of those players in those guilds have been active in the past 3 months? Every one logs in at differnt times and I don't think any player is keeping track of other players. at least i hope not. I'm sure the devepoers and guides can find out that information if they need too.
But again I don't see the point of an automated system. Let the commanders take care of it. If they want almost all inactive players in thier guild let them. It doesn't hurt anyone to let them run thier guild the way they want too.
I do think the guides should start enforcing the rules we have more before we start making more. and maybe adding 1 rule that should have been thier from the start:
"Any guild with less then 10 players should be disbanded."
JB
But again I don't see the point of an automated system. Let the commanders take care of it. If they want almost all inactive players in thier guild let them. It doesn't hurt anyone to let them run thier guild the way they want too.
I do think the guides should start enforcing the rules we have more before we start making more. and maybe adding 1 rule that should have been thier from the start:
"Any guild with less then 10 players should be disbanded."
JB
softy2 said: Get rid of [the guild listing page]. Then those guilds which are inactive will basically be out of sight, and therefore out of mind, and hence, does not exist anymore.
Ignoring them won't make 'em go away. Removing the guild listing page only masks the underlying problem, like sweeping it under the rug. If guilds go inactive then how 'bout they aren't deleted but just don't get listed then. But if a new guild gets created and wants their name, then the old guild gets renamed to "Inactive Guild 00001" and the new guild can use the name. Kind of like an expiring domain name registration.
He goes on to say: Everybody has their own idea about what they want from being in a guild,
If the idea of a guild is to merely exist without active players then what is its purpose? Who is harmed by the loss of a guild whose members no longer play? If none of the players who have alts in that guild have played in over 30 days, then who will care if the guild is set up on the "inactive" shelf or even deleted? Well, (admittedly this is a minor point) eventually if we don't police guild names, all the good ones will be used up and we'll have to start naming guilds like "Itani Alliance 2005" or "1t4ni 4l1iancz" to have unique guilds.
Further, softy2 states:Guilds should be managed by guild members, not by some automated rules.
Well yeah, the rules won't TAKE OVER, obviously the guild leadership will continue to act (or not act) as normal. All that will ever happen with the "guild cleanup script" is to "inactivate" the guilds that don't have active people in them.
My point is: "Why not make a little script that will take care of future headaches now?" And softy's point seems to be: "If you don't see the headache is it really there?"
My friend Jestatis states: Every one logs in at differnt times and I don't think any player is keeping track of other players. at least i hope not.
I think you would be surprised the lengths that certain guilds and players go to to keep track of login/logout times, IRC usage, correlation of signin/signoff with different alts, matrices that show who's been online with whom, ferreting out alts and so forth. LOL I barely scratched the surface doing this kind of research with [IA] and I know two active guilds that have extensive protocols that keep track of these things.
He goes on to say: But again I don't see the point of an automated system. Let the commanders take care of it.
Well that's the POINT. The commanders and LT's have been AWOL for months and something needs to be done to clean it up, in the absence of any central control, the script kicks in and calmly puts the guild into cold storage. No one is harmed, no one can possibly claim to be angry that their guild was placed on the inactive list when there's no one from the guild left. Should be simple.
Lastly, JB says: I do think the guides should start enforcing the rules we have more before we start making more.
Agreed. Enforce the current rules. Then establish the new rules: at LEAST implement Spellcast's recommendations of levels or gametime thresholds to create a guild.
Ignoring them won't make 'em go away. Removing the guild listing page only masks the underlying problem, like sweeping it under the rug. If guilds go inactive then how 'bout they aren't deleted but just don't get listed then. But if a new guild gets created and wants their name, then the old guild gets renamed to "Inactive Guild 00001" and the new guild can use the name. Kind of like an expiring domain name registration.
He goes on to say: Everybody has their own idea about what they want from being in a guild,
If the idea of a guild is to merely exist without active players then what is its purpose? Who is harmed by the loss of a guild whose members no longer play? If none of the players who have alts in that guild have played in over 30 days, then who will care if the guild is set up on the "inactive" shelf or even deleted? Well, (admittedly this is a minor point) eventually if we don't police guild names, all the good ones will be used up and we'll have to start naming guilds like "Itani Alliance 2005" or "1t4ni 4l1iancz" to have unique guilds.
Further, softy2 states:Guilds should be managed by guild members, not by some automated rules.
Well yeah, the rules won't TAKE OVER, obviously the guild leadership will continue to act (or not act) as normal. All that will ever happen with the "guild cleanup script" is to "inactivate" the guilds that don't have active people in them.
My point is: "Why not make a little script that will take care of future headaches now?" And softy's point seems to be: "If you don't see the headache is it really there?"
My friend Jestatis states: Every one logs in at differnt times and I don't think any player is keeping track of other players. at least i hope not.
I think you would be surprised the lengths that certain guilds and players go to to keep track of login/logout times, IRC usage, correlation of signin/signoff with different alts, matrices that show who's been online with whom, ferreting out alts and so forth. LOL I barely scratched the surface doing this kind of research with [IA] and I know two active guilds that have extensive protocols that keep track of these things.
He goes on to say: But again I don't see the point of an automated system. Let the commanders take care of it.
Well that's the POINT. The commanders and LT's have been AWOL for months and something needs to be done to clean it up, in the absence of any central control, the script kicks in and calmly puts the guild into cold storage. No one is harmed, no one can possibly claim to be angry that their guild was placed on the inactive list when there's no one from the guild left. Should be simple.
Lastly, JB says: I do think the guides should start enforcing the rules we have more before we start making more.
Agreed. Enforce the current rules. Then establish the new rules: at LEAST implement Spellcast's recommendations of levels or gametime thresholds to create a guild.
Leber speaketh:
>Further, softy2 states:Guilds should be managed by guild members, not by some automated rules.
Well yeah, the rules won't TAKE OVER, obviously the guild leadership will continue to act (or not act) as normal. All that will ever happen with the "guild cleanup script" is to "inactivate" the guilds that don't have active people in them.
But why? People might just be on a hiatus, like spellcast said. And if you don't see them, they are "inactivate" by default, right, since you won't even know they are there anymore?
>My point is: "Why not make a little script that will take care of future headaches now?" And softy's point seems to be: "If you don't see the headache is it really there?"
Yes, if you have not known that there are 20 dead guilds out there, will you be complaining about them?
>Further, softy2 states:Guilds should be managed by guild members, not by some automated rules.
Well yeah, the rules won't TAKE OVER, obviously the guild leadership will continue to act (or not act) as normal. All that will ever happen with the "guild cleanup script" is to "inactivate" the guilds that don't have active people in them.
But why? People might just be on a hiatus, like spellcast said. And if you don't see them, they are "inactivate" by default, right, since you won't even know they are there anymore?
>My point is: "Why not make a little script that will take care of future headaches now?" And softy's point seems to be: "If you don't see the headache is it really there?"
Yes, if you have not known that there are 20 dead guilds out there, will you be complaining about them?