We don't need your officer chat, we don't need your guild control
by Matthew Rossi 
Nov 16th 2007 at 3:30PM
Tipster Nurz from guild Hellscreams Mercenaries emailed us to mention that his guild has a very interesting policy. He claims that their intention from the start was to form a 'differently run guild', one without officer chat or hidden decision making processes invisible to the rank and file membership. So they abolished guild chat and make all decisions in a guildhall channel open to all members, discussing recruiting, member performance and other such topics openly and in front of everyone. If you visit their website, it seems to be working out for them so far.What this makes me ponder is, are they just lucky or is this kind of transparency something you could apply to any guild? I mean, I like my current guild a lot but even so we have personality clashes from time to time, feelings are hurt, people feel slighted, runs go bad and the temptation to point a finger is always there. Are the Mercenaries simply on a countdown to some player or another going ballistic over a hurt ego or have they in fact found a way to avoid guild drama altogether by doing everything out in the open, in front of everyone? Could this work for your guild? It's tempting to imagine a guild where everyone has a say in what happens, but at the same time when I've been in dedicated raid guilds it's always been my experience that a few people who work the hardest preparing strategies and gathering the proper mats for every encounter end up running the show. Is it inevitable, or has the better way just never been found until now?
As long as it keeps working for the Mercs, more power to them. I don't know if I'd be able to function in such a guild, but I know I'm debating bringing it up with my guildmates in the future as we move into more serious raiding.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, WoW Social Conventions, Guilds, Odds and ends
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
rick gregory Nov 16th 2007 3:38PM
Some points to think about:
What do you need to talk about that NEEDS to be kept secret?
People can always trade email/IM or other out of WoW information, so you can always have backchannels going. But why do you need restricted channels within WoW (officer chat, etc?)
If someone won't say something publicly, doesn't that indicate that they perhaps shouldn't say it at all?
Doesn't this encourage a feeling of transparency? If there's some discussion about, e.g. how to progress thru raids or how to get people keyed for Kara, having that discussion openly serves 2 purposes - 1) it lets members know that plans are, in fact, being made and 2) it lets people get involved in those plans vs feeling like a cog in a wheel.
Physical Original Nov 16th 2007 3:39PM
We use /g for IC and /o for OOC
/g doesnt get used much...
I think people generally are involved in decision making as much as they want to be and ignore if they are not interested.
Blatzkowitz Nov 16th 2007 3:42PM
We did this in one of our last guild. We just gave everyone privileges to see/talk in officer chat. Worked great until there were 100+ level 70's and we were getting into serious endgame content.
IMO, works great with a smaller guild (around 30 players). It completely cuts out any doubt in members' eyes about fairness of rank, loot distribution, etc.
Where it fails is that some players see the position as they are in-charge.
Ghen Nov 16th 2007 3:42PM
I came from an extremely successful guild that had tons of friendly people in it. Unfortunately all the officers thought themselves better than the rest (using /o for LFM calls, etc) so I think this system has as much chance as any other system of working. It all depends on the people.
rgirty Nov 16th 2007 3:51PM
I've seen this attempted before.
A group of people would just setup their own channel and use it instead, or resort to whispers or outside of game IM communication.
Cailleach Nov 16th 2007 3:57PM
We have /g chat and /o chat, but we use /o chat to SAVE people's feelings, not dish dirt. When a complaint, say, about a member is brought to our attention, we'll let the other officers know what's going on. Often one of them is closer to the person involved, or might know more. The officers will talk to the person and any other parties, investigate, and mediate the situation before assigning any blame or discipline. Discipline is always our last resort.
By keeping it among the officers, we can give our guildies the benefit of a doubt without putting negative thoughts in the general membership's minds. Too, we plan FUN things, and they'd not necessarily be surprises, now, would they, if in G chat.
We also have rather a lot of officers, but we tend to promote anyone who is interested, active, and level headed during a crisis. ALL of our guildies have at least one, often two, of those qualities. In other groups, other things work, too.
Candina@WH Nov 16th 2007 4:00PM
Here is a blatant troll -- Why belong to a guild anyway, as a casual?
I have been part of 4-5 guilds, none of which have been of any help to me?
I will never be geared well enough to run end game instances, and I have no interest in arena. So, I ask you, why bother with the drama?
Spenda Nov 16th 2007 4:09PM
@7:
If you don't enjoy the friendships, then you really would have no reason to be in one.
Seperioth Nov 16th 2007 4:10PM
it doesn't work.. i can't even comment on a bad run in the guild i'm currently in..
if i do.. people think i'm bashing them.. and inturn the guild.. and inturn other guilds... and their family members.. and those family members pets...
i think you get the point..
Sloane Nov 16th 2007 4:19PM
We have a very similar setup in my guild. It works quite well for us. The guild has a number of 'ranks', but they all just have funny names and the same permissions. Nobody uses officer chat, or any side channels.
We say that the point of a guild is to play a game that you enjoy with your friends, as equals. Squabbling over favortism, ranks, officers, loot, etc. just takes the fun out of the game.
Maybe a hierarchy is necessary for 'serious endgame progression', but I don't think so and I'm not concerned about it anyway. I'd rather run 10-mans with my friends than 25-mans with drama.
Shameless plug: If you're a fun and friendly player looking for a guild like this, on Trollbane [A] is open to all classes, levels, and specs. We rerolled there in August and are getting keyed for Karazhan now. Check us out at http://trouble.guildlaunch.com
windex Nov 16th 2007 4:22PM
After we lost half our guild to an expected exodus, we removed officer chat entirely, and removed hidden officer forums. All guild affairs are now dealt with the entire guild as a whole. We held onto coordinators who have more secretarial work than anything, taking care of guild banks/raid signups/applicants/etc.
Each class has a representative, to make sure things are intact, but that rep isn't really any higher power in the guild.
Its been working out very well for us. We changed our policy to the current scheme back while making AQ40 progress. And how are we doing now? Well, we just killed Kael last night!
Evil M Nov 16th 2007 4:42PM
You cannot run a 100+ account raiding guild with an open system like this. Even with a smaller guild, getting those 10 Kara spots filled can be just as drama-inducing as the 25 spots for SSC and beyond.
I can also see it taking forever to get anything done if you (the guild leader) wants consensus on guild issues.
It just doesn't seem like a practical way to run a guild.
Dave Nov 16th 2007 6:06PM
I think it's a great idea.
Unfortunately though, too many people have a problem with being honest, and similarly with honesty. At the same time, too many people have a problem with being polite.
Do you NEED to frame your criticisms in such a way about your guild members that they'd get mad about you saying it? If so, maybe you don't need to say it at all. If you can't offer help to someone who may not be pulling their own weight in a bad run of any kind, you're definitely not doing ANYONE any favors by talking shit about them behind their back. It makes you look petty, and it doesn't help them at all.
As for spots in a kara run, are you playing favorites for a 10-man? Seriously? Can you not be honest about your desire to play with your buddies instead of some random guildies? If someone's feelings are hurt, it's usually not that bad if you're honest. If they're upset with you being honest then that's their issue ultimately.
But most people in this game have some sadistic need to lie lie lie lie lie. We're all so far removed from honesty in this game, even though it's only a fucking video game.
Inequal systems create inequality. Unless you can manage to find a lot of pups willing to follow the big dog, ultimately you're going to just push a flawed system as far as you can until you have to find new people willing to put up with it. I was never any more unhappy, than when I was in a guild that wouldn't make me an officer/class leader despite being the only L60 Warrior at the time. Instead they gave it to some guy leveling a Warrior as an alt in his 30's. I'd really never been more insulted that they couldn't tell me what the problem they had with me happened to be, and double insulted by the fact that they were most likely talking shit about me behind my back.
I quit that guild shortly after, found a guild that treats everyone the same and it's been all good ever since. i'll never go back to an officer/class leader/etc type guild ever again, since it's just not conducive to a good environment of friends playing a game.
Whenever this thing turns into something that too closely resembles a job structure, I'm not interested anymore.
Sky_Paladin Nov 16th 2007 6:24PM
The issues of trust and transparency are important to any guild, becuase if members don't trust your guild leadership and if the leadership doesn't trust the members, it's a recipe for pain.
There are other ways to buoy trust in the guild without having to have everything 100% transparent. I have written about it on my blog at http://togethertovictory.blogspot.com/. Trust is critical - the way that trust is built ultimately doesn't matter.
Ray V Nov 16th 2007 6:32PM
The last guild I was an officer in used the more traditional method - officer chat as for officers. Unfortunately, it was also used to trash other players and as an LFG channel; basically, the trusted 70s were officers, and the ones that weren't had officer-chat access, and the rest were relegated to guild chat status. It worked well for the 70s, I guess, and nobody seemed to mind, but in retrospect it seems kinda jacked.
I'm a fan of this more open method - hopefully I'll be in a position to try it / experience it at some point. I don't really see much point in having a private officer chat, other than creating an "old boys club" - if its something that really NEEDS to be discrete, then use whispers. Seems less.. underhanded.
Corvikkan Nov 17th 2007 1:56AM
I've not seen it done in WoW, but one of the most stable, successful, and long-lasting FPS clans I've ever encountered used a similar system. We had one guy who was nominally "in charge," but we elected that person every six months, and all major decision were put to a vote. It wouldn't have worked, though, if we had recruited traditionally. Instead of going on skills or ability, recruited based on personality and behavior (if you couldn't stand being the butt of a joke now and again in this group, you were pretty much doomed to hate it) and let everybody in the clan vote on new applicants. Before long there were 80 or 90 of us, we all had fun, and what-do-you-know we were also a top-ten competitor in our game. It's been five or six years since the thing was founded, and the game we played died out a couple of years ago, but we all still chat and hang out on the old website. We call it Viral Banzai; you just can't get that kind of esprit-de-corps out of your system. (Team Banzai was the name of the clan... kudos if you catch the reference.)
I don't see why the same thing couldn't work in WoW... if you were cautious about who you recruited. Hierarchical systems do a good job of keeping useful jackasses in line and harnessing their skills without letting them run amok, but if you recruited a group of laid-back players with a sense of humor and no big egos, and provided enough interaction (whether in-game or via forums) to keep people of different levels or interests from getting overly cliquey, people could mesh enough to keep the guild going without a formal rank system.
Dipstick Nov 17th 2007 3:42AM
We used officer chat, but only for the 'officers'. Officers were those who carried out administrative tasks (not necessarily class leaders), had most experience, and who put in the most effort of running the guild.
There was no real distinction between /g and /o, the officers would chat in Guild as much as they did in /o. /o was however very useful when controversial subjects arose (like discussing guild mergers, punishments, or loot rules).
It very much depends on the officers running the guild to be honest. /o shouldn't be used to make the people in it 1st class citizens and everyone else in /g chat 2nd, but it is extremely useful for running a guild.
In my opinion, running a guild where power, expertise and information lies at the centre is still the best way to do it. From reading other peoples' comments I see I'm in a minority.
corwyn Nov 17th 2007 10:05AM
And we shall call it Democracy.
Theserene Nov 17th 2007 10:26AM
The only time we use officer chat in the guild is when discussing complaints/disciplinary/bootings.
AG Nov 19th 2007 2:23PM
dunno if anyone else noticed this, and i may be making a gross overgeneralization but...this guild is on a european server. somehow i tend to think that europeans would be a bit more civilized and mature in the game. i can't really imagine such a setup working very well for americans - i am american but lived in europe for several years, which in no way makes me an authority on the matter but i can't help but think that has something to do with it...