Skip to Content
8-24-2009 @ 1:46PM
Seems like the overall effect will be to make guilds more powerful. The downside is that GMs end up having a lot more power over the resources of a guild. Resources that many member have taken a long time in helping to accrue. The potential for mismanagement is therefore going to be bigger, and have a more profound potential negative effect on players. In order to balance this potential, I would love to see some additional (and voluntary) checks and balances put into place. For example, a guild could turn on certain features that could then only be turned off by a large majority vote (75% or something) of guild members. These features could include something like replacing a GM by making another officer a GM, or requiring a majority vote of officers to kick out a guild member, or other types of things like that. These would be optional, so a guild would have to choose to activate them, and would only be able to be deactivated if the vast majority of the guild is in favor. I am much more quick to trust that the vast majority of the guild will act in the guild's best interest than just one GM or a couple officers. The group, as a whole, however, will probably do a better job of keeping its members in line, even if those members are the GM or an officer. Just my 2 cents.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.