Forums » Suggestions
It would be great if there were a way for the guild commander to update roles and information directly without relying on voting in-game.
I'm assuming that Whistler is away currently. Until he's back, is it possible to have another resource assigned to monitor the guild information thread?
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/14/27253?page=3
I'm assuming that Whistler is away currently. Until he's back, is it possible to have another resource assigned to monitor the guild information thread?
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/14/27253?page=3
you can promote westie yourself to lieutenant, but you need to wait for whistler to make him council or get your council members to use the vote thing (which probably isnt viable)
So sorry to hear about your guild dying :D :D :D
Guild commanders should be able to promote all others
Lts. should be able to make council
Whistler should not be a normal means of guild updates. He should only be dealing with special cases.
Guild commanders should be able to promote all others
Lts. should be able to make council
Whistler should not be a normal means of guild updates. He should only be dealing with special cases.
Your guild is long dead, PaK.
Whistler is the normal means of guild updates, that is the reality, not an opinion.
Whistler is the normal means of guild updates, that is the reality, not an opinion.
the /guild vote command is perfectly operational, ye need 5 favorable council votes to pass any motion
-1.............
The Phoenix Alliance died the second I left.
+1
Also, the hierarchy of guilds is antiquated, council and all... what about dictatorships, anarchists... etc... etc...
+1
Also, the hierarchy of guilds is antiquated, council and all... what about dictatorships, anarchists... etc... etc...
How about we leave rp on the rp forum.... Nobody's guild is dying pak, I'm requesting the work around have for a club fisted guild structure actually be monitored.
Not sure what you mean by club fisted....
As I said Whistler should not be the normal way to get stuff done in a guild - The devs really need to rework how guilds operate in VO. I can understand the public info that appears on VOs site being monitored so that inappropriate material isnt posted but guilds really need a much better way to deal with thier elections and so on.
The whole situation with Guides and Mods is badly neglected at best. Unfortunately it also seems to be a touchy subject at times.
@ ryan -> Still full of yourself I see. Even after you were kicked from PA for spying.
As I said Whistler should not be the normal way to get stuff done in a guild - The devs really need to rework how guilds operate in VO. I can understand the public info that appears on VOs site being monitored so that inappropriate material isnt posted but guilds really need a much better way to deal with thier elections and so on.
The whole situation with Guides and Mods is badly neglected at best. Unfortunately it also seems to be a touchy subject at times.
@ ryan -> Still full of yourself I see. Even after you were kicked from PA for spying.
PaK... I see you still try to rewrite history (Maybe you ought to lay off the highly addictive pain medication... whoops, just remembered...you told me about that in confidence... my bad!).
I was kicked out for pirating TGFT ships in Edras after PA members more in the know than you decided that Edras was to be their territory and I as well as three other members were given autonomous control over the fairly hush hush P.A.P.W.D.
Don't feel bad if you weren't kept in the loop, the Commander only wanted people he could trust to know about it and his plans for it.
(By Commander, I mean the competent one... not the five year old basket case you lot have now.)
Either way, my point is still valid... why should the hierarchy of all guilds be the same?
I was kicked out for pirating TGFT ships in Edras after PA members more in the know than you decided that Edras was to be their territory and I as well as three other members were given autonomous control over the fairly hush hush P.A.P.W.D.
Don't feel bad if you weren't kept in the loop, the Commander only wanted people he could trust to know about it and his plans for it.
(By Commander, I mean the competent one... not the five year old basket case you lot have now.)
Either way, my point is still valid... why should the hierarchy of all guilds be the same?
Ow, dammit, I should read before I post
P.S PaK the guild system needs to desperately change? Really? No kidding!
P.S PaK the guild system needs to desperately change? Really? No kidding!
Would all of you behave yourselves? Don't make me have to start chatting on 100 again. You know how I hate that. :p
All well in good, Ryan, but propose a algorithmic way (not an linguistic one) for that to be accomplished. I would agree that multiple organizational methods be devised, so why not define them instead of getting snarky?
TRS, I'd understood PaK's initial comment to be tongue in cheek. I figure you've realized that now.
All, ideally (and I mean that since I actually DO design software for a living in addition to performing mathematical analysis), this should be a 2 step process: 1) figure out what we'd like to have modeled, 2) determine what kind of underlying data structure is required to support it. The easy part is spouting that things need to change or even something quite vague like the necessity to support different political systems, but GS is going to have to do the rest of 1 above, and all of 2. Are you going to sit back and then complain because you think they should have done a month of work in less than a week? We would be far more productive (not to mention more likely to get things implemented quickly) if we'd do a lot of the design developmental work for GS.
I'll start it off. As previously stated, guilds should be able to reflect multiple political systems. Let's name a few: democracy (rule by direct vote of the entire guild), republic (rule by a select group. This would include oligarchy which itself includes possible variants based on money, license level, etc. This is what VO effectively models now), dictatorship (rule by one only), anarchy (no rule at all). From what I can tell atm, these are effectively modeled through the numbers of people in a guild council, with the additional rules of allowing passage of structure based on a majority of that council rather than a fixed number, allowing the number of members in the council to be variable, and allowing decision within guilds to take effect within VO without the intervention of an outside agency (namely a guide). We'd have to figure out a good method for assigning Lieutenants (who are usually outside the basic structure). The rest can be RP.
All well in good, Ryan, but propose a algorithmic way (not an linguistic one) for that to be accomplished. I would agree that multiple organizational methods be devised, so why not define them instead of getting snarky?
TRS, I'd understood PaK's initial comment to be tongue in cheek. I figure you've realized that now.
All, ideally (and I mean that since I actually DO design software for a living in addition to performing mathematical analysis), this should be a 2 step process: 1) figure out what we'd like to have modeled, 2) determine what kind of underlying data structure is required to support it. The easy part is spouting that things need to change or even something quite vague like the necessity to support different political systems, but GS is going to have to do the rest of 1 above, and all of 2. Are you going to sit back and then complain because you think they should have done a month of work in less than a week? We would be far more productive (not to mention more likely to get things implemented quickly) if we'd do a lot of the design developmental work for GS.
I'll start it off. As previously stated, guilds should be able to reflect multiple political systems. Let's name a few: democracy (rule by direct vote of the entire guild), republic (rule by a select group. This would include oligarchy which itself includes possible variants based on money, license level, etc. This is what VO effectively models now), dictatorship (rule by one only), anarchy (no rule at all). From what I can tell atm, these are effectively modeled through the numbers of people in a guild council, with the additional rules of allowing passage of structure based on a majority of that council rather than a fixed number, allowing the number of members in the council to be variable, and allowing decision within guilds to take effect within VO without the intervention of an outside agency (namely a guide). We'd have to figure out a good method for assigning Lieutenants (who are usually outside the basic structure). The rest can be RP.
Shores of Hazeron has an assortment of (mostly unimplemented) government types: http://www.hazeron.com/government.html
No, I'm not saying we should use them. But reading through gives an idea of some of the differences we might want to have, in particular relating to succession.
No, I'm not saying we should use them. But reading through gives an idea of some of the differences we might want to have, in particular relating to succession.
So Guilds should be able to
select if a CO exists and what powers the CO has
Select the number of LTs
Select the number of Council
Select if /Guild Vote works and for what.
Possible methods:
Promotion by CO / Lts
Promotion by Vote
Promotion by conbat
Also term of office ie life or x number of weeks
Anything Else I missed in my drugged out haze?
select if a CO exists and what powers the CO has
Select the number of LTs
Select the number of Council
Select if /Guild Vote works and for what.
Possible methods:
Promotion by CO / Lts
Promotion by Vote
Promotion by conbat
Also term of office ie life or x number of weeks
Anything Else I missed in my drugged out haze?
Yes... promotion by bribery, promotion by the new command /vote kill our current leader, promotion by licenses.
The CO powers list should be a checklist. Various guilds can then 'vote' on which of those powers the CO has. That should simplify things a lot. One of the powers would be how long does the office last? Again an effective dropdown selection should work here.
Next on the list: how does a guild decide who's running for office? Answering this question should allow for the effective modeling of some forms of anarchist government (i.e. council of 1 and who gets the office is the first to claim it every so often)
Next on the list: how does a guild decide who's running for office? Answering this question should allow for the effective modeling of some forms of anarchist government (i.e. council of 1 and who gets the office is the first to claim it every so often)
Disagree. Anarchist guild should be made up of all members, no council, no CO and no Lts.
Except that the guild should also either be open enrollment, or allow those normal members to invite people. Both of which should be options when defining the guild.
Agree. That would cover pretty much both types of anarchists.
Lt would be an office too, Ryan. Otherwise, it might be a little hard to get new people into your guild.
What is hopefully being defined here is a list of checkbox items which can be clicked in a GUI whenever a guild is created for the first time, or when the rule for changing the definition is invoked. (which ideally would itself be modifiable - just haven't figured out how yet) I'd initially thought an anarchist guild could have 1 person in its 'council' but a time limit for when offices could be claimed and guild setup rules be defined. That way, there's really no way to predict who's going to be 'in charge' and the guild setup rules could change often. Not sure yet how a guild configuration invocation would make a chaotic guild into a more 'stable' one and vice versa. Something to ponder.
What is hopefully being defined here is a list of checkbox items which can be clicked in a GUI whenever a guild is created for the first time, or when the rule for changing the definition is invoked. (which ideally would itself be modifiable - just haven't figured out how yet) I'd initially thought an anarchist guild could have 1 person in its 'council' but a time limit for when offices could be claimed and guild setup rules be defined. That way, there's really no way to predict who's going to be 'in charge' and the guild setup rules could change often. Not sure yet how a guild configuration invocation would make a chaotic guild into a more 'stable' one and vice versa. Something to ponder.