YanariFollow

re: parlimentary approach

Having tried things both ways several times each in the past, I'd argue that the only viable system for guilds is a benevolent dictatorship. Democratic systems, including parlimentary systems, tend to run into a classic problem: if you can't work with one ***[gold][/gold]hole's quirks, what makes you think you'll manage with four, or six, or eight? They're cumulative and do not cancel each other out.

You always need a way to shift the lead out, though. It's usually best for an embattled lead to step down and give other folks a shot at the helm, let 'em see what it's like to try and run the zoo. Sometimes they'll do a worse job. Most times they'll do better, as more than 90% of all leadership failures are with the leader themselves, rather than the guildmates at hand.

It's hard to accept, but true.

This is essentially how my guild was run in EQ and it worked splendidly. Any major decision was talked about and voted on, be it someone being removed from guild or other important issues. Each person was in charge of one aspect of the guild: banker, RL, etc, but when situations happened nothing was done until it was discussed and voted on, either in officer shat or on the forums

Yeah, it was going to be another sweet job where I sat on my *** playing on the computer most the day. But I'd be working in the same area as my mother though different department. So they said they couldnt hire me. Fucking fucktards.

Getting closer to 10k!

If everyone stops being a singular assho[red]le and starts working like a collective sphincter, a system where no one person was the overlord of everything, it can work. Many Guilds and Linkshells function well this way. With Officers or Pearlsack holders making decisions and voting on them. Seems a smart way to go to me.

Edited, Thu Mar 2 13:02:53 2006 by Kaelesh

The major problem, aside from people's personality quirks running into one another, is officer activity. If you have a group that is actively interested in what's going on, a parlimentary system can be good. When you have officers who don't read the boards, don't vote on issues, don't play except with a couple friends, etc., the system starts to break down.

You have to begin kicking officers from their seats at that point, which has a way of turning people hostile (even if they were completely inert prior; threaten to take away their perceived status and you may find you've made an enemy).

I just always found it easier to give someone the torch and have an advisory group around to help discuss issues/etc. A senate to rein in the consul. Having a group of people around also provides a good reality check if you start going completely bonkers, too.

Unfortunately, it's just about exactly as interesting as I feared it could be when we decided to start a guild, lol.

Nexa

Edit: My post count is my birth year!! In other news, I'm easily amused!!

Edited, Thu Mar 2 13:22:00 2006 by Nexa

But I *did* just have a birthday, so I'm not as young as I was last week!

Nexa

Of course, as I continue to post, those reading this thread later on will think I'm getting younger and younger, haha. Anyone who doesn't read it until tonight will see that I'm only 3 years old.

Nexa

I already looked at you rpost count and was thinking there was no way you were born in 1981. You and I are the same age!