In order for a guild to stay on the list, all members should have their accounts paid and active. What are the current requierements? Is there a per hour activity requirement to keep guilds active? If not, I propose to keep a guild alive, all members of council and co should have to play in that guild a certian number of ours or that person is put as inactive in guild. Inactive guild members should be listed below the active members list that is currently on the vo website. Inactive members should not count towards keeping the guild alive.

This also would help new players pick a more active guild knowing that players put in a minimum time in that guild.

Not council members, and certainly not all of them.

The commander and the lieutenants are the life's blood of a guild because they are the only members that can invite or kick players to or from the guild. I don't object to the role of councilor being part of the equation however. I would suggest the following.

If neither the commander nor lieutenants have logged on within two weeks, then the guild is considered at risk. This doesn't have to be a public status, but a background requirement leading to the guild being moved to inactive status. If a member of the guild council has been logged on within those two weeks, then the guild continues in active status for an additional two weeks, after which if neither the commander or lieutenant(s) have logged on, then the guild becomes listed as inactive.

But, I think active members should at least only be shown, logged in last 30 days for over a period of time. Why inflate number of guilds and number of players? If we want VO to take off, the base that put time into a guild and the real supporting guilds, should lead that.

So, you just want to bump TGFT up on the top of the list because you're sick of scrolling everytime you want to check your members.

Why else would you care about the placement of guilds on the guild page?

No joyless, on each guild page, the top part of the page would list active members. Members who have put in so many hours the past 30 days (maybe even sort by time online in that guild). On the bottom would be inactive guild members.

-1 PA is quite happy with it's inflated membership numbers.

Sounds like a retarded idea to make a set of rules to reward only TGFT

+1

This way dead guilds actually look dead.

Mighty empire serco majestic united?

@ TRS/joyless
I think it should be stopped seeing a TGFT ghost behind every suggestion/offer. Yes TGFT has many players, but so do many other guilds. Yes TGFT made mistakes during its history, but which guild didn't? Why is it so funny/important to throw sh*t at the other? If that is the only funny act you can imagine, I can only pity you.

@ bladerus

I agree with the spirit behind this suggestion. I disagree with indicating on an individual level to outsiders which members of the guild are active (because privacy), but I have nothing against displaying the number of active members.

This thread has nothing to do with TGFT. It's about helping newbies determine which guilds are active and lively, which guilds are really just one member stubbornly refusing to abandon their dead family.

+1 to the private way. Show the number of active individuals as an additional counter.

My proposal (add following line to each guild page):

Number of guild-members online within the last 30 days: X players

Trolls/clowns:
Please move your shit to the RP Forums. No one needs that here. Shut up if you are not going to be constructive.

Not sure how the things work with the VO guilds list page now. I suppose if a guild is inactive for a period of time it gets removed from the list which is fine.
When someone starts playing with the guild tag of a guild that was removed from the guilds page, said guild returns to the active guilds. Or am I wrong here?

Basically, as I understand it, biretaks suggestion aims at removing guilds from the list if even one of the members is a f2p account or one of the members did not renew his sub?
This will create a pretty silly situation - we would have xxx members of existing guilds flying in VO and their guilds would not be listed on the guilds page or maybe all those guilds with f2p players should be disbanded?

Now, showing active and inactive guild members for everyone to see is an invasion of guild privacy.
Nobody should be able to see, at any given moment, which guild members are active or inactive except the real members of the said guild.

Inactive members should not count towards keeping the guild alive - if I read this right, if 5 council members are inactive guild should disband regardless that a guild has 10-20 or 100 active members?
This is ridiculous.

Most old and memorable VO guilds have commanders & council members that have honorary status - players who actually founded the guild and were very valued members of that guild at some point in time. Now the whole guild should be punished and disbanded if, for instance SOR commander Lin or Spellcast or RelayeR do not play for 2-3 weeks?

I am sorry but I am founding this idea extremely stupid.

This thread has nothing to do with TGFT. It's about helping newbies determine which guilds are active and lively, which guilds are really just one member stubbornly refusing to abandon their dead family.

There are two ways of viewing this issue.

On the one hand, there is some (albeit limited) value in a newb being able to determine the amount of active players in guilds. Most people who play VO want to be where the people are.

On the other hand, it is absolutely clear that this is not going to have any affect whatsoever of "VO taking off". Player retention is not being harmed by our guild system. I don't buy that as a reason to do this suggestion.

Even "Active Members" can be misleading with people who have multiple alts in single guild, or guilds that have bots. It is easy to see how the "active members" number could be easily inflated.

Of course nobody is under any illusions that TGFT or PA actually have hundreds of active members, but they were all active at a certain point in time and those people are free to return. I am fully against removing people from guilds for being inactive.

Bojan - you need to work on using ways to indicate what you are quoting and what you are opining about.

Greenwall, nobody should be removed. People come back. They just should not be counted/shown among active members.

I'm going to -1 this because I agree with greenwall, even though greenwall is wrong in another thread. This change doesn't add enough benefit to justify the work involved, even if the work involved is trivial.

-1. And the way that guilds are de-listed from the Guild page is right at the top of that page.

"List of player guilds with members who have been active within the past 30 days"

-1

Not really an issue as I see it.