Inactive Guild Leaders

[Ayrisa]

So I read on the website that if a guild leader is inactive for 30 days, the next highest rank has the option of becoming the leader in 4.3.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3278811224

I, for one, don't think this is fair to the people who invested time, energy, and resources into forming it. Other high ranks are there for delegation in my opinion.

Real life should not dictate a person losing there guild leader spot. A good example is me for instance. In the next few months, I'll be going into the hospital for a bone marrow transplant. At the MINIMUM, I'll be there for at least a month. So what, I come back just to find someone took over the guild? I don't mind leaving advisors in charge, but to lose my rank in the guild I created?

This doesn't sit well with me at all.

[Nubhorns]

I think the important word here is 'option'. They have the option to take over, from what I understand - they're not forced to. If you're leading a tight-knit guild full of people who don't hate you and you tell them ahead of time when you may be absent, then I don't think there's a real issue - although if someone is going to be gone for months, it's probably best to assign a stand-in gleader anyway, at least until the original leader returns.

[Cryptography]

You've been able to petition Bliz to take over a guild after 30 days of guild leader inactivity for a long time now. I've gained control of a number of alt-guilds that h ave been neglected using this method. Now that guilds have banks and other "assets", people are more likely to want to take over a guild rather than establish a new one when the current leader leaves without passing on the role.


If you are a guild leader and will be away from the game for an extended period, you really should pass over the role to someone else while you are away.

[Miyon]

Time to kick that one other player in my bank guild, so I don't lose everything I own.

[Kayb]

It should really be more than a month before being able to petition for this.

In any case, I was part of a guild where the GL and Officers all ahdn't been on for 6months+. The guild was mostly running on fumes, but it wasn't going to be long before it came to a complete halt. I hit Blizz up for it to be switched over, but the GM I spoke to wouldn't give it to me. He told me that only an Officer could make the call and be turned into the GL, which clearly wasn't going to help us. Despite all the officers also being gone for ages, he said there was nothing else they could do.

Well what could we do with that? All we could do was help kill what left of the guild and jump ship.

[Mychelle]

My personal opinion is, that if the Guild leader's account still has paid time on the account itself, then his or her position shouldn't expire until "after" their game time on the account has run out. I understand that for some people this could be 6 months time, but at the same time I am hoping that anyone who would even pay the 6 months reoccurring time are a little more serious about actually staying in the game or not. But for a game we all pay money to play, while my money is in the game, if I don't want to play for 30 days because I'm going on vacation or something, I don't want anyone to be able to take over my Guild. (This is referring to a number of guild owners who don't raid, pvp, or do anything else other then run a casual guild. One of my bosses here at work owns a Questing / Leveling guild. And I know my Horde alts are in another one as well. Sometimes my boss doesn't log in for awhile and it doesn't hurt the guild any. And I know that on my horde alts, I haven't seen the leader for over a month before and it again doesn't hurt my experience in this guild.)

All in all I think this new "expiring guild leader" thing is going to be good for *SOME* situations, while hurting others. I really hope they find some way to fine-tune this somehow. 30 days "period" just seems far to extreme.

[Kurasu]

To me, I actually think this is a very smart idea. If you're running a guild, and you are suddenly inactive for 30 days? What happens to the rest of the guild? They might not be able to access the bank. They can't change anything. In a more regimented guild, they can't bring people in or let people go.

If you're in a casual roleplay guild, this isn't a problem. However, for raiding guilds, who rely on their guild leader to handle stuff? The guild leader isn't just the one who created the guild. They are the one that *runs* the guild. if they disappear for 30 days, things fall apart.

Ayrisa: you say that you're going to be away for over a month, because of being hospitalized. Can you make someone else leader in that time, and get it back? If so, then there's a good option, and one that I would definitely be considering.

People worry about what will happen when the leader idles out, and the points go to the 'second in command'. Well, in a case like that, might you want to reconsider the guild you happen to be in?

[Lisaara]

My personal opinion is, that if the Guild leader's account still has paid time on the account itself, then his or her position shouldn't expire until "after" their game time on the account has run out. I understand that for some people this could be 6 months time, but at the same time I am hoping that anyone who would even pay the 6 months reoccurring time are a little more serious about actually staying in the game or not. But for a game we all pay money to play, while my money is in the game, if I don't want to play for 30 days because I'm going on vacation or something, I don't want anyone to be able to take over my Guild. (This is referring to a number of guild owners who don't raid, pvp, or do anything else other then run a casual guild. One of my bosses here at work owns a Questing / Leveling guild. And I know my Horde alts are in another one as well. Sometimes my boss doesn't log in for awhile and it doesn't hurt the guild any. And I know that on my horde alts, I haven't seen the leader for over a month before and it again doesn't hurt my experience in this guild.)

All in all I think this new "expiring guild leader" thing is going to be good for *SOME* situations, while hurting others. I really hope they find some way to fine-tune this somehow. 30 days "period" just seems far to extreme.

I agree 100%. :/

[GormanGhaste]

The way I see it, if you want to Own a guild, then make a bank guild and /gkick everyone else after registering the charter.

If you actually want to run a guild that has other players, then it's rude to leave the game for an extended time without appointing someone else guild leader.

The proper term is guild Leader after all, Not guild owner.

[Mychelle]

The way I see it, if you want to Own a guild, then make a bank guild and /gkick everyone else after registering the charter.

If you actually want to run a guild that has other players, then it's rude to leave the game for an extended time without appointing someone else guild leader.

The proper term is guild Leader after all, Not guild owner.

Well the only issue I have with that is not EVERY guild actually needs to be "run". Because some guilds don't actually do anything other then give someone a place to play the game in without being harassed. Which is exactly how the guild my horde is in right now. They don't raid, they don't PVP, its just a guild that people do their own thing in. There is nothing needing to be "ran" or "run" by anyone. We are just happy to enjoy the guild perks and do our own thing. (The guild is lvl 22-23ish I think) But all in all, its still the guild leader's guild. I just don't think its fair for situations like this one for the guild leader to have to sign in just to keep the guild they made and they started when we aren't even doing anything.

[GormanGhaste]

If the current guild leader doesn't Do anything, then it shouldn't matter if someone else becomes guild leader. Guilds deserve to have an active leader. If signing on once a month is too strenuous, then you don't deserve to be guild leader any more. And if you aren't signing in once a month, why even care who's guild leader? Leave it to the active players.

[Lisaara]

The way I see it, if you want to Own a guild, then make a bank guild and /gkick everyone else after registering the charter.

If you actually want to run a guild that has other players, then it's rude to leave the game for an extended time without appointing someone else guild leader.

The proper term is guild Leader after all, Not guild owner.

Well the only issue I have with that is not EVERY guild actually needs to be "run". Because some guilds don't actually do anything other then give someone a place to play the game in without being harassed. Which is exactly how the guild my horde is in right now. They don't raid, they don't PVP, its just a guild that people do their own thing in. There is nothing needing to be "ran" or "run" by anyone. We are just happy to enjoy the guild perks and do our own thing. (The guild is lvl 22-23ish I think) But all in all, its still the guild leader's guild. I just don't think its fair for situations like this one for the guild leader to have to sign in just to keep the guild they made and they started when we aren't even doing anything.

Exactly. Thats what a Social guild does. It kinda runs itself. The guild leader shouldn't be replaced if their account is active.

[Chimera]

This is why, if i make a guild, im usually on long enough to really get to know the guildies in it (if there are any) and i'll give the one i trust the most powers to take over the guild without actually having the 'Guild Leader' title. Ive been in some guilds where it falls apart cause of a guild leader that vanished without a trace and we end up making a new guild. With guilds having levels and reputations, people are less inclined to do this but in a dead guild i can see why many will be happy about this, but, i am a bit miffed that theres the option to overthrow the guild leader instead of giving the option to gain guild leader status without actually having the title.

What happens to the guild leader then when they return? What happens if a jerkass with a high status gets to control the guild, destroys the guild, and the original leader returns to see the carnage left behind? What if the person the leader trusted to run the guild when they're away turns on them and decides to keep the powers, the original leader cant do jack all cause they've been stripped of their powers.

[Lisaara]

This is why, if i make a guild, im usually on long enough to really get to know the guildies in it (if there are any) and i'll give the one i trust the most powers to take over the guild without actually having the 'Guild Leader' title. Ive been in some guilds where it falls apart cause of a guild leader that vanished without a trace and we end up making a new guild. With guilds having levels and reputations, people are less inclined to do this but in a dead guild i can see why many will be happy about this, but, i am a bit miffed that theres the option to overthrow the guild leader instead of giving the option to gain guild leader status without actually having the title.

What happens to the guild leader then when they return? What happens if a jerkass with a high status gets to control the guild, destroys the guild, and the original leader returns to see the carnage left behind? What if the person the leader trusted to run the guild when they're away turns on them and decides to keep the powers, the original leader cant do jack all cause they've been stripped of their powers.

This, yes. This is what I fear most. This is gonna do more harm than good.

[Nubhorns]

What happens if a jerkass with a high status gets to control the guild, destroys the guild, and the original leader returns to see the carnage left behind? What if the person the leader trusted to run the guild when they're away turns on them and decides to keep the powers, the original leader cant do jack all cause they've been stripped of their powers.

I think this is being played up way too much. Focusing on the 'what ifs' just makes things seem much worse than they likely will be. As legitimate as the concerns are, they can be solved by not giving idiots and jerkasses officer status in the first place. Even if you think you'll never ever ever have a time when you'll be away long enough to get demoted, it's still a good idea to keep several people in mind who can take over - preferably good friends(who have some semblance of leader material) who have proven to be reliable in the past. Generally, these people are your Officers anyway.

Even if you're not in game, you can still keep tabs on the guild if you're that worried about it - call or text your would-be stand in if you have the opportunity to do so. Just because you can't play doesn't mean you can't get in touch other ways.

In the long run though, if you disappear from the game for extended periods of time(and I'm talking months - I can't say I really agree with the 30 day limit, but eh) without telling anyone and somehow never appointed anyone or have enough people who hate you enough to destroy the guild in your absence, you probably shouldn't be leading a guild in the first place. A lot of the situations people are worried about can be solved and prevented by using common sense and not giving cackling Snidely Whiplashes officer/stand-in leader status.

[Chimera]

Not everyone in the game is willing to share their personal info for talking outside the game though and say, if i was running a very popular guild and i had to stop playing for several months to go to school (which i am and im thankful the guilds i own are personal storage boxes), if i forgot to appoint my most trusted member the status and some officer that while i dont particularly like (but has the officer status cause they've proven to be an asset in some way to the guild) decides to take that status cause its now being waved around like a freebie, theres the chance i'll never get the guild back.

Same for that 'most trusted officer', if im gone because of pressing matters like trying to further myself in life for longer then i particularly want, the officer might find themselves too comfy and shape the guild into what they want and no longer is the person holding the spot but has now actually taken full control and most likley in that case i'll never get the guild back.

Im always in casual guilds, i perfer to raid on my own time not others schedules (specially if their a few hours ahead of me, early morning raids are the bane of my raid life) but that also means that the players are very laid back and not always are they going to be playing, lotta times as im going through the roster there are ppl who havent logged into al alt for a few months, these guilds dont depend on the guild leader as much as say a raid guild but if the guild leader said that they were gonna take some time off, while everyone is fine with that cause we dont depend on them, someone might swipe the status and drive the guild into the ground.

Guilds are far too importaint now with the reputation and the perks through leveling the guild to just willy nilly leave and find a new guild but i will be in a very uncomfortable spot between a rock and a hard place if a very awesome guild leader is replaced with an awful one and the guild happens to be high leveled and i have a very high rep standing.

[Lisaara]

Not everyone in the game is willing to share their personal info for talking outside the game though and say, if i was running a very popular guild and i had to stop playing for several months to go to school (which i am and im thankful the guilds i own are personal storage boxes), if i forgot to appoint my most trusted member the status and some officer that while i dont particularly like (but has the officer status cause they've proven to be an asset in some way to the guild) decides to take that status cause its now being waved around like a freebie, theres the chance i'll never get the guild back.

Same for that 'most trusted officer', if im gone because of pressing matters like trying to further myself in life for longer then i particularly want, the officer might find themselves too comfy and shape the guild into what they want and no longer is the person holding the spot but has now actually taken full control and most likley in that case i'll never get the guild back.

Im always in casual guilds, i perfer to raid on my own time not others schedules (specially if their a few hours ahead of me, early morning raids are the bane of my raid life) but that also means that the players are very laid back and not always are they going to be playing, lotta times as im going through the roster there are ppl who havent logged into al alt for a few months, these guilds dont depend on the guild leader as much as say a raid guild but if the guild leader said that they were gonna take some time off, while everyone is fine with that cause we dont depend on them, someone might swipe the status and drive the guild into the ground.

Guilds are far too importaint now with the reputation and the perks through leveling the guild to just willy nilly leave and find a new guild but i will be in a very uncomfortable spot between a rock and a hard place if a very awesome guild leader is replaced with an awful one and the guild happens to be high leveled and i have a very high rep standing.

^ This, again. If we didn't have perks and stuff, this wouldn't be such a big deal.

[Chimera]

Its moreso the reputation as well im concerned about, ive worked too hard to get exalted status with my druids guild to drop it for another one but no way will i suffer a guild that is different (not in a good way either) then what i originally joined, the perks, well, they're perks.. im not as concerned if the guild im in is lvl 11 or lvl 25 but the reputation..

If they made it so we didnt lose all that hard earned work then i would have one less quarrel against this, but of course many of my current quarrels will remain. Changes like this push me out of getting to know my guilds, its pushing me to see guilds as an easy way to advance through the game rather then to socialize and make friends cause it makes me lean more towards not wanting to get to know the people incase after however long it takes from me joining to an unfortunate end, i find myself losing the people i became so fond of because the guilds missing a leader and everyone has the notion that the guild they joined would change with a new leader being in place.

I much perfer the idea of asking GM's to hand over the status of a leader to someone else if the leaders been inactive for too long but the GM would have to listen, not just say no and dismiss it but it would require a handful of the guildies to also send in tickets requesting for <name here> to be the new guild leader regardless of rank. Ranks are what puts the GM off from handing the status over to someone else and thats bullcrap, there can be a stubborn asinine officer that did who knows what to get up there or was put up there because hes the friend or maybe even family of the guild master and then the newbie ranked player who has amazing ideas, great personality, a solid grip on the game and because the newbie ranked player is that particular rank he isnt allowed to have a chance.

Allow the Game Masters to have the power, have say, 5 guildies petition that <name here> should be the new leader, and <name here> petition that he should be the new leader and the guild master offline for a month minimum and things can still continue on as they should be without the scare of having the guild go to hell.

[Ashaine]

Honestly, I'm of mixed feeling on this one. While I think it's a decent 'start' idea, I believe it needs some serious fine tuning. Not every guild is a raid guild that needs day to day leader moderation, etc. Being a guild leader of a role-playing guild, I can tell you with certainty that my guild can run itself when I take vacations, etc. Granted, I have officers that have been given nearly all the abilities that I have in order to run things when I am away and I would never intentionally leave the guild hanging for a 30 day or longer period of time. (I WISH I could take vacations that long). *chuckles* But the fact is, we never really know what might happen. On that same thought, if something did happen to me, I'd like to know that the guild could be provided for, but this new system (IMO) doesn't quite seem to be the best solution for this. 30 days seems a bit short to me and the notification/voting system just seems a bit..archaic. Also, has anyone heard a clarification if it's the guild leader character that needs to log in or if it's just the account that needs to log into the guild? Being an admitted altoholic myself, it would be good to know. (Not that I don't plan to log in once a month on the gl toon, but it does pique my curiosity).

[Ryannie]

Well the only good news is that we can techically tets this. Because if you look at my signature I'm the GM of the guild but my account is locked out so thats how we could test it.

On topic, I think that this could be a good idea but it could also be a bad idea. I really don't know what to say honestly.