1) Can guilds still be formed with trial accounts? If so, lets fix that.

2) and 'active' guild with out LTs and CO should be disband. Also, I think all 'active' guilds should have at least one LT and the CO. (sorry one dude guilds )

The 30 day limit on the active guilds page has been nice. But there are still a lot of shit guilds out there.

~2 ¢

I agree with everything except the Lieutenants part. Some guilds may opt not to have lieutenants, it all depends on the political structure they are going for.

Kill them with fire!

+1 to get rid of shit guilds

now disband [itan]!

: )

+1.

If there's a commander, don't disband it, even without lieutenants.

And what about those Guilds that no member have been online for months?

I do not agree with OP, because different guilds have different structure.

IMO "democratic" guild without Commander looks nice ;)

and btw, waffles, leut = regular member.

You are all wrong.

Except where you're not.

I think the only requirement should be that the guild should have a CO that is a subscriber. Otherwise, the guild must choose a new CO within X days (must be subscriber) or be disbanded.

That'd clean things up pretty fast, I imagine.

+1 to /0's post

i don't get why people hold the guild page as such a sacred object that must only have the best and most active guilds on it.

vo already has a population problem at least the guild page makes it look like there are lots of guild choices for new players and makes vo look more active

Except more than half the guilds aren't even options for them to join because 1: they're a guild of alts or 2: they haven't been active in months, years, whatever.

+1 to DivisionByZero's idea. Pirren, you must have a commander to put voted upon changes into effect.