#Guild Gestion Mechanics... Et tu, Brute?

27 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

high anvil
#

Hello Lynsey and Dan...

Due to a recent event 😔

It will be welcome to improve some Guild gestion mechanics

Because at the end a Guild is not the Leader possession, it's at all the Members

Implement some safety mechanics...

If it have more than 2 member in the guild, make pop up in the chat (like the one to accept a new member in a Guild). A double authorization/authentication than have to be obligatory check (Approved or Denied) be an other member to authorize a Kick out

To choose who should double authenticate, it can be by establish an Accolades Donation Ranking... the member who have donate the more Accolades is the one who have to confirm a Kick out. Accolades donation is a big proof of dévotion to our Guild

That way a Kick out have a double security again bad Leader. A Guild have to have a Leader (a good Leader), but a Guild is at all is members, everyone have contributed and donate Accolades for and some member have years of relation to there Guild even if the Leader change and they don't want to be the Leader

Same way implement a mechanics that a Guild can resign is Leader and down rank him to Member (free to him to leave or proof that He can be higher rank again) by a "secret" vote that require all member participation or a mass majority/high pourcentage

So that's the idea 🙃

Take Care Midoki Team 😉

p.s.: Love to all be strong đŸ«¶

ionic birch
#

Thanks Liz.
I would like to add, that it would be great if it wasn’t possible for guild leaders to kick members during war and perhaps the day after. I think that would be fair since players can’t participate in any other guild’s war after being kicked.
It is so sad being kicked in the middle of a successful war by an otherwise mostly inactive leader without any notice . And that shortly after Knighthood won the prize for best community. This shouldn’t be possible for a leader to do.

hidden swan
vivid meadow
#

There's a few things to unpick here:

  1. A Guild is always the 'property' of the Guild Leader, unless they go offline for 14 days in a row. As long as they're not being abusive/breaching our T&Cs, it's up to them how they run the Guild, including determining their own activity level. If Guild members are unhappy with their leadership, they'll need to either politely convince the leader to step down (to which the leader is within their rights to reject), or to change guilds/form a new Guild.

  2. There is potentially an argument that kicking active participants for no reason during a Guild War is against our T&Cs, as it could be seen as trolling.

However, we would never actively prevent Guild Leaders from kicking players during a War, because what if those players posted something offensive/insulting? We're not going to force people to keep players in their Guild who are being abusive. A lot of Guilds also have their own minimum participation requirements, and I'm sure they wouldn't be thrilled if we forced them to carry someone they consider to be a freeloader through an entire War, to claim everything off the reward track.

If someone feels that they've been kicked unfairly during a War, we can take a look at their Guild Chat to double check that there was no provacation leading up to it, etc.

But again, and I can't emphasise this enough, Guild Leaders are ultimately responsible for how their guilds are run, and this is highly unlikely to ever change.

high anvil
# vivid meadow There's a few things to unpick here: 1) A Guild is *always* the 'property' of t...

Okay yes Thank's Lynsey...

  1. There's just a little something that can even be unfair...
    This is because if a Consumers buy the War Pass with IRL money and is kicked out of a Guild during Wartime, they lose their Guild War Pass Reward Track, that they pay IRL money and it's the discretionary choice from another player, a choice in-game by someone that impacts real life

Should a Kick Out during Wartime automatically result in a War Pass refund?

A Kick Out in War time, can makes the member inactive, GW side (freeze), until the end of the War... and expels him when the War ends with all is GW reward, Day and Track, Inbox. That way it will have less IRL money impact for the Consumers and Midoki

  1. I know it can be very specific but Guild Alliance on social medias keep a lot of Consumers in the game (money spend, yes it's ok hehe) due to the commitment and friendship, give Leader little simple tools to help for Leading...

Some time you have to entrust a Guild temporarily...
Maybe this could be the solution to have a Temporary Leader button

Add 2 button in the Leader config when you inspect a knight member

“Named as Temporary Leader”
“Take Back Lead”

The Temporary Leader can do everything except BlackList a Member and He can be easy dismissed, by the original Leader when He come back. Something like that?

Take Care Midoki Team... Love đŸ«¶

plucky snow
#

A guild should never be a property of a single individual. We grow as a guild, together. If one person (in this case, the guild leader) suddenly decides it's enough and kicks everyone out, all the other members have to not only organize to regroup, but also start a new guild from scratch. This voids any and all effort the kicked members made in the guild they got removed from.

This is unfair to all the people who put in weeks, months or even years of their time (and possibly money) to the guild, only to have it all wiped away by 1 person.

elder ivy
#

Giving a sole leader the ultimate power is essentially counter-intuitive to the concept of a guild.

If you're secure enough to have coleaders- you want to ackowledge that they can lead the guild in your absence, and more often than not, they are your pillars and core team members that build the guild with you.

If you're not secure enough to have coleaders, and you feel leadership is a fixed point of control- thats despotism and tyranny in disguise.

We need more democracy either ways.

Too many people fall into the role of a leader- not all of them deserving of it.

Creating a guild does not mean you're accredited for everything your members do.

A leader should be in charge, but not full radical control.

high anvil
elder ivy
#

Being guild leader does not mean your members stay for your leadership or presence.

A current guild leader can be completely incosequential to a guild's growth, and be carried on the backs of their hard working coleaders and officers or people who assume roles as such in their absence.

Would that leader still rightfully be leader?

We definitely need more democracy, because if 20 members make the guild into what it is and build it piece by piece while building their legacy and welcoming new members- it should not be readily at threat of a manipulative leader who'd ask for donations and favours in return for just merely being leader.

elder ivy
# high anvil I'm not a lawyer and I don't read the fine print like many people... but it shou...

Guilds SHOULD be the property of the game.

If the game reserves the right to intervene if a guild's name or activities violate trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights, guilds arent meant to be considered property of the guild leader either ways.

This suggests this has mainly been set up as such due to convenience and priorities.

And that is where all arguments and voices fall short.

light rose
#

If 20 guild members build a guild that the leader has no real part of, it begs the question ‘why are they still there?’ and ‘why did they tolerate an idiot at the helm for so long?’. Form their own guild and set their own rules. Find or form a good guild, don’t waste time or effort on one with a corrupt or lazy leader. I see any drama in a guild, I am outta there - not worth the stress, life is hard enough without bringing our ‘relaxing entertainment’ into the stress pile.

Of course I come at this at this from the perspective of leaving a guild I didn’t feel part of, and moving to a great guild,with absolute zero stress and drama.

hidden swan
#

Imagine being allowed to troll and sabotage a GuildWars and ruin it for 24 other players, now wouldn’t that be a sight.

hidden swan
chrome crow
# light rose If 20 guild members build a guild that the leader has no real part of, it begs t...

Honestly, I can see it happening a lot. Leaders check out but still log on.
Refuse to give up leadership.
However people don't want to leave right away because it negatively impacts their GW rewards for the next war.

GW has changed the dynamics of these things because ranks in GW can determine the amount of rewards you get, so you hold out home a GL will comply and instead they kick everyone on D5 of the war

loud plover
# light rose If 20 guild members build a guild that the leader has no real part of, it begs t...

Consider the guild being lvl 80, actively playing in War Masters. There is no drama. There is a leader who lost interest in the game for months, but can’t let go of his "baby“ though.
Guild leadership tries to negotiate on a good faith basis with that leader while keeping up guild operations as well as they can for the benefit of all members. They come to an agreement which that leader subsequently ignores and avoids all communication.
There are a few more attempts to contact that leader. Backup plans are being made. Then, in the last guild war before activating contingency plans that leader throws a fit of rage and kicks all guild members in the middle of guild war.

elder ivy
#

Moving is never too easy especially when it impacts community, camaraderie, and morale.

hidden swan
elder ivy
#

This is not just trolling, Lynsey

It comes under a very negative and nefarious umbrella of sabotage known as griefing.

And along with cheaters, those are the most toxic members of any community.

wanton cliff
#

I’d like to see “suspend knight from GW” capability to leads/co-leads in the game.

When a knight is suspended, all orders are frozen, and the knight cannot spend any more orders. When they try, they see a message, “Your guild leader suspended your war actions. Check the chat to find out why” or something to that effect.

I’ve had multiple occasions where non-communicative players took independent actions that hurt the team objectives. In two of those occasions, I had to kick them to “stop the bleeding,” even though I wished to keep them on the team and talk to them about the importance of communication/coordination.

If we have “suspend” option, we do not have to resort to kicking in situations like this.

signal hull
signal hull
#

@elder ivy your point about the need of more democracy in the guild system is valid and I want to clarify in advance that inherently I support it. At the same time, active guilds mostly communicate via messengers like discord, WeChat, line, or any other social media.

Major reason to that, as I see it, is incomplete and mediocre social system implemented in the game. You can’t see the chat history, messages are lost due to notifications about drops, no screenshots, no proper ping system in gw etc etc. Ultimately, if the player does not like the guild he is currently in, he always has the option to leave and change the guild. In the scenario where the player likes his current guild but it suffers from poor leadership, I believe that it’s possible for the player to coordinate and contact other guild members and either
(a) create their own guild
(b) join other guild together
(c) try and communicate with the guild leader
(d) contact midoki (discord, Reddit, in-game ticket)

Coming back to the democracy part, there isn’t much to implement. If the guild leader wishes to make it more democratic, they will appoint more members as their co-leaders and officers.
If they wish to keep the power to themselves - that’s also fine. As long as they are committed and the players who joined don’t mind and aren’t affected negatively.

Again, no one is held hostage. Different styles of leadership exist and there is no best way to lead a guild. Especially when the leadership in this game comes down to naming the guild, designing the logo, writing description, summoning bosses, promoting/demoting ability, and kicking ppl out. That’s kinda it. Pretty sure a lot of players don’t even care that much and this situation only affects the most active guilds. But again, those same active guilds discuss everything relating to the game outside of the game, which is out of Midoki’s control

chrome crow
# signal hull <@637126486423371778> your point about the need of more democracy in the guild s...

You have great points. The biggest issue that this thread is trying to bring up is if a leader throws a fit mid-war, the guild's fun is ruined. The potential competition's fun is ruined. The entire guild of people then have to decide to move to different guilds or move into a new or inactive guild, which means fewer rewards in GW.

Pre-GW if someone threw a fit, you lost accolades you donated to the guild decorations, you lost access to bosses, and you had to restart with 0 contribution points. However you didn't lost access to major rewards in a GW.

We've all seen GW catapult junior Knights into the developed Knights. Everyone in my guild has dramatically benefited from GW rewards. Whether that was unlocking all of the legendary heroes, max staring them, unlocking unique heroes, unlocking their mythics, helping with the mythic grind, or acquiring side pieces. (Or in my case, all of the above)

Therefore those kicked lose access to so many potential rewards by starting over in a new or inactive guilds. The multiplier is reduced and they risk not completing the reward track because they are matched with inactive guilds. It can take 2-3 wars to climb back to the rank they were in prior to the mass kicking or departure, with at least one of those at risk of completing the reward track.

Sure they could all find new homes, but if someone is trying to work with a leader who is mostly inactive and most of the guild would prefer to stay together... it's a tough decision to lose out on the possible rewards above by doing so.

Regardless, kicking an entire guild of people should always be seen as toxic behavior. I can't wrap my head around why anyone would do it. I would love to hear reasons why someone would be accepting of the behavior. If they didn't want to transfer leadership, fine. Say so and then people can make the decision if they want to stay with an inactive leader or break off. However to kick everyone is incredibly toxic.

If they didn't appreciate someone challenging their leadership style and didn't want to transfer it, and another member wouldn't leave it alone, I could understand removing the dissenting voice. This still feels immature as I think most who play this game can talk and work out their differences. However most knights probably don't even care who is the leader, they just want to play with their guild mates.

A leader who kicks everyone mid-war is just trying to ruin the experience for everyone because they got angry at some members, and wanted the punish the guild for the actions of a few. The only reason they did not do it before the war was because they either weren't mad yet or they wanted to intentionally sabotage the guild's rewards.

elder ivy
#

Its an otherwise massively toxic option in a game where not much else exists as a means to do so.

high anvil
#

Lynsey? just for that Guild we all know we talk about now..? Is it just possible for Midoki to just do a Copy Paste of that Guild and Give it to is old High Co-Leader "." Close the Deal đŸ€”

hidden swan
#

You can be blessed with a Marcus Aurelius or you can be cursed with a Nero or a Commodus..

vivid meadow
high anvil
#

ok