Because guilds paralyzed by absent leadership are a good thing?

Don't take that extended vacation you were planning then.
:)

I really do not like the way it appears to be done.
1- 30 days is too short a time. I'd consider it if it were half a year
2- Instead of the game deciding which players are eligible, the Guild Leader should have an option to choose the order in which the Leadership should be awarded. Some people just are not the right kind of people to be leaders and that can just destroy a guild.
3- Before awarding Leadership to someone else, the original Guild Leader should have a word on the change even if he's not in the game.
4- Players can always just create a new guild. If the problem is the guild bank, my first reply is that they shouldnt have placed the items in the bank in the first place. my second answer is that a GM could just decide how to deal with the items in the bank, example, split the gold between the 2 guilds.

This will cause problems with players knowing that the Guild Leader has to stop playing for a couple of months and requests a Guild Leader change followed with stealing everything from the guild and leaving.

@relmatos

1- A half a year is way too long. I was part of a guild with an inactive leader and guess what happened, after a couple months everyone left. 30 days seems just right to me.
2- In a way the GL doed decide this, it goes to the next ranked person. Typically that is either a CO-GL or a high ranking officer. Seems pretty solid to me.
3- The problem in they aren't in game, if they were then there'd be no problem. This whole process comes from a GL that isn't able to function as the GL due to not being there.
4- There's an even bigger problem with just building a new guild. The guild system itself. The Cata guild system is designed to where once you are invested in a guild you lose quite a bit by leaving it. Sure, you could build up everything all over again, but how many people want to go through that repeatedly?

A responsible GL will pass lead to someone trusted if they are going to be gone for an extended period of time. If a GL doesn't do that then there is something wrong and this system seems to be the best solution as far as Blizz is concerned, and I have to say it looks like it's a good one. And as the article said, if you are an active GL you have nothing to worry about.

@relmatos:
Guild bank, in the past, was mostly a minor inconvenience.
The two main roadblocks for re-forming the guild are losing the name - and thus whatever recognition the guild had on it's server - and losing the guild level, which nowadays can spell doom to a guild, as most players won't even consider joining a low level guild.

"This will cause problems with players knowing that the Guild Leader has to stop playing for a couple of months and requests a Guild Leader change followed with stealing everything from the guild and leaving."

If the GL has to be gone for two months, he can give guild leadership to a trusted officer until he returns. Alternatively, he can create a rank just below guild leader called "successor" or "trustee" and then promote a single trusted officer to that rank. (Said officer would need to absent for no more than a week.) Thus even though the system would activate, there would only be one person with the ability to exercise it.

Or are you saying there is absolutely NO ONE you can trust in the ENTIRE guild? Wow. What kind of guild do you HAVE?

Looks like I'll be booting 500 members from my guild this December so I can play SWTOR. Sucks for them, but there's no way I'm gonna let someone take over while I'm on a break. If that's the way it's gotta be then so be it. I worked too hard to get that guild to level 25 and get all the perks.

Now, how long until I break the news to them all? Hmmm....

You guys downranked wreckless but, as a guild leader that is the first thing I thought of as well. Now I have never taken more than a day or two away from WoW since I started playing but believe you me, If I had to leave the game for 30 days and knew I would be back, I would have to consider that. Many GMs don't put much effort into the guild. But I would imagine that the majority put a lot of time and gold and put up with a decent amount of BS to see their guild thrive.

As far as this goes, "once accepted, will transition leadership from the inactive guild leader to the first player to request leadership" - complete crock of shit. I know if the guild got to that point, chances are it is already in turmoil. But seriously? The first officer to click on it? Tell me that is going to go over well? I don't have the best answer for a solution on this, but rolling it out how it is now is going to cause more problems than fix. Yes, an inactive GM could be a festering wound, but this is ripping off the bandages and leaving it open.

The thing is, this was already kinda in place for those in the know. I know 2 guilds who got new guild leaders by talking to a GM who, after checking if the guild leader was inactive for 30 days, passed it to the highest ranking active officer. That's why my guild has specific structure in place that's based on SOCIALIZATION, not progression. If our current guild leader's inactive, the last guild leader is able to take things up. If he's inactive, we have a "successor" rank in place. If they're inactive, we're in some trouble, but the officers are all voted on by the members, so it wouldn't cause a huge amount of drama.

Read officer quarters more. 90% of the issues can be solved with making an explicit guild structure and outlining intents. This is another case of that =)

Unfortunately for me, the only people I could trust to run my guild while I'm away are taking some time off to play SWTOR with me as well in December. All my best officers are coming with me and we could be gone for months. I'll be damned if I was to come back in a couple months to find I was booted from my own guild by some low-ranking Joe Schmo just cuz he was the only person left online to mooch my guild. Sorry, but screw that noise. I'll be letting the entire guild know very shortly that the guild will be put on an indefinite break this Christmas and I'll be removing every single member. It's just not worth the risk in my opinion.

@Wreckless:

Then let your guildies know now so they can leave and find a guild that has a leader that isn't going to quit on them.

@Wreckless Thank Christ you're not *my* guildleader. Then again, when ours took a hiatus, she had the courtesy to pass the top spot off till she returned.

I think what burns me is the idea that a big guild belongs to any one person. You're saying that *you* leveled that guild to 25 by yourself, that *you* are the only one depositing money and mats into the guild bank, that *you* soloed each any every achievement the guild has earned. It would be like a Fortune 500 CEO claiming that the company is his and his alone.

@WrecklessMEDIC

The problem with your assessment of this situation is that people can already boot you right now as guild leader if you're absent for more than 30 days. Even if this automation doesn't make it to live and you take off for another game, the remaining active guild members can call a GM to take over the guild. This automation changes nothing except removes one additional duty that a GM needs to perform.

@Wreckless
orrr.....instead of kicking all your members and permanently destroying your guild... you could warn your guild, outline procedures to be followed in your absence, and log in every couple days to check on things/be seen as active by the game...

As I've said before I will definately be warning all guild members at our next guild meeting that I will be removing them all this December due to the new "Guild Leader Replacement" feature. They can either leave now or continue to use all my level 25 guild perks until "The Great Purge". Doesn't matter to me what they do, but I'm not taking any chances on losing my guild while I'm away. If I have to rebuild it when I come back then so be it. I've done it before and I can do it again.