First time I've ever de-guilded someone

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:14:24 GMT in
<Xns95F0B98C9B8B2Rumbledorhotmailcom@216.148.227.77>, Rumbledor
<Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> graced the world with this thought:

>So sure, there is a possibility that the guy wasn't really as he had
>portrayed himself to date. It's just not likely enough for debate.

The guy could also be from another dimension, too. Or perhaps from a
distant galaxy.
Of course, maybe he was just an immature, lying little prick that's
only interested in himself no matter what he has to do to accomplish
those purposes, and got caught this time.
I, personally, am not willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt
unless I gauge the possiblility of a different scenario I don't know
about rates higher than about 33%. And even then I might tell the guy
to get bent. Since when does someone owe it to <anyone> to let them
into their guild, <even on general purposes>? Bob doesn't need an
excuse to let the guy in, "you're wearing brown shoes," is enough of a
reason. It's his guild.
His guild, his rules, just like Sony's game, Sony's rules.
It's certainly no loss, and definitely not worth the inane debate that
Faned is putting up.
Unless, of course, he was this guy, or identifies with him very
closely for some reason....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Dan Harmon" <deharmon@bigfoot.com> wrote in
news:26-dnf5s4Jx1Y53fRVn-2A@giganews.com:

> "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in
> message news:10vj693n9pa6t77@news.supernews.com...
> <snip long but good post>
>
> Taking it in the order that I remember.
>
> I used to be a GL in EQ for 3 years (pity me). It was our
> cast-in-stone policy that you have to post before getting a tag (we
> had other requirements of course, but nothing else germane). A strong
> guild MUST communicate outside the game and if the person doesn't
> prove smart enough to post we're better off without him/her ("I don't
> have TIME to visit boards AND play" is bull when reading the board can
> be done WHILE playing and only takes 5 minutes to scan at least
> subject lines (which were required to be descriptive if you wanted
> anyone to read them)). Anyway, back on topic it's a good
> policy...stick to your guns.
>
> The main point of this post is this (changing the subject):
>
> It's your guild. Regardless of rules that you've set up about
> inviting or deguilding people YOU are the one who is in the unenviable
> position of being in charge. YOU can delete anyone you like,
> regardless of reason. Obviously you have to be pretty sane about it
> (and you CERTAINLY were in this instance) or you'll lose members but
> it IS within your right.
>
> I probably wouldn't have discussed it with the officers or him. As
> soon as he admitted he was the same guy I would have probably deleted
> him, put him on ignore, and told the guild that it was either him or
> you, and you weren't going anywhere. 😛
>

Bad idea, explain why you did it, don't want people thinking you deguild
people for arbitrary reasons.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 23 Dwarven Mystic, 21 Sage
Aviv, 12 Gnome Brawler, 14 Craftsman

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F16B09E8C0Brichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...
>> I probably wouldn't have discussed it with the officers or him. As
>> soon as he admitted he was the same guy I would have probably deleted
>> him, put him on ignore, and told the guild that it was either him or
>> you, and you weren't going anywhere. 😛
>>
>
> Bad idea, explain why you did it, don't want people thinking you deguild
> people for arbitrary reasons.

Well sure, but the only thing you really have to explain is "the guy is a
jerk and a KSer that I knew from beta. 'nuff said." Don't open the matter
up for debate...it's your guild, your decision. A guild run by committee is
a guild doomed to failure (or at least stagnation).

--
EQ: Binnen 65+ enc - Zeb
EQ2: Cyro 20+ shaman - Kith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"David Navarro" <david@alcaudon.com> wrote in message
> Quoth Bob Perez:
>
> > The guy remembered me from Beta, which isn't too surprising since I
> > had exactly the same name and character model (in fact, I saved the
> > character file and re-used it in release)
>
> Are character files stored client-side in EQ2???!!!???

Character description files, height, hair type, beard type, skin colour,
things like that. That's how the pre-order character designer program
allowed people to pre-design their characters.

Alas, alack, all the other information's stored server-side (untrusting folk
that they are; we'd NEVER give ourselves instant L50 and rubicite armour,
would we?).

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <1102i7unj2v11e0@news.supernews.com>,
myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE says...
>
> "Dan Harmon" <deharmon@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:26-dnf5s4Jx1Y53fRVn-2A@giganews.com...
>
> > I probably wouldn't have discussed it with the officers or him.
>
> Discussing the matter with the officers is a professional courtesy I extend
> to them, it's not to be confused with asking for permission. Of the many
> types of decisions a leader must make, here's how I usually break them down:
>
> 1) Command decisions. On these I consult no one and make the rules as I see
> fit pursuant to my responsibilities. I will usually communicate to my staff
> before announcing a decision, just as a point of communication and
> professional courtesy so that they are not compromised by having to hear
> about it for the first time from someone else;
> 2) Consultative decisions. These are decisions which I am responsible for
> making, but for which I entertain input before making my decision. I will
> usually inform staff when this type of decision is being made to make clear
> to them that I'm seeking their input but making the decision myself; and
> 3) Consensus decisions. These are decisions that the group must agree to as
> a group.

I don't think 1) & 2) really exist in video game associations.

All decisions are effectively, if not explicitly 3). If a unilateral
action is taken that doesn't get approval from the group the guild
disintegrates or re-organizes. Note the approval can be, and usually is
*tacit*.

A guild leaders power of command is totally unenforceable. His job is
really to mediate, negotiate, and build consensus. This applies from
policy, to loot distribution, to selecting raid targets.

Generally, a good guild will have the illusion of 1) & 2) decisions,
because the leader *has* tacit approval. That's why the people stay in
the guild; the leaders direction is harmonious with their own
preferences and goals. But the reality in my experience is that a
'command decision' that fails to meet tacit consensus rarely survives.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6af66a9aa6ceda989a04@shawnews...

> I don't think 1) & 2) really exist in video game associations.

They do, they're just very different from their real life counterparts. In
real life you have considerably more "or else" backing up your authority but
even in gaming guilds there still is some. A guild leader can make clear
that there are certain types of behaviors that won't be tolerated and there
will be some members who disagree with the prohibition and would choose to
do otherwise but forgo doing so because of their desire to remain in the
guild.

> A guild leaders power of command is totally unenforceable. His job is
> really to mediate, negotiate, and build consensus. This applies from
> policy, to loot distribution, to selecting raid targets.

If you think that raid loot distribution is always done by consensus, then
you haven't seen some of the loot distribution soap operas that I have lol!
My time flagged guild from EQ survived every challenge surrounding
unhappiness over command decisions of the loot council. I doubt that any of
the unhappy would call the decisions "consensus", even if they abided by
them. ;-)

> Generally, a good guild will have the illusion of 1) & 2) decisions,
> because the leader *has* tacit approval. That's why the people stay in
> the guild; the leaders direction is harmonious with their own
> preferences and goals. But the reality in my experience is that a
> 'command decision' that fails to meet tacit consensus rarely survives.

Yes, but that's always the case, whether in gaming or real life. Machiavelli
made the point 500 years ago on the topic of ruling conquered peoples and
the cascading fall of communist governments in the modern world provides a
more current example. All regimes, organizations, countries, and gaming
guilds exist at the pleasure of the participants. The cost to break away
from some is higher, but the option is always there and the direction taken
can always be characterized as a choice. It might be a Hobson's choice, but
it's a choice. Even a soldier can decide to go AWOL rather than fight what
he considers an immoral war. To argue from this that all military command
decisions are "consensus" because all soldiers who comply are are agreeing
"tacitly" I think just strips away all meaning from the words. And anyway it
doesn't really diminish in my mind the utility of characterizing decisions
into these three broad categories for the purpose of deciding how best to
approach a particular one.

--
Redbeard
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <1102tb0j5b3e9d2@news.supernews.com>,
myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE says...
>
> "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c6af66a9aa6ceda989a04@shawnews...
>
> > I don't think 1) & 2) really exist in video game associations.
>
> They do, they're just very different from their real life counterparts. In
> real life you have considerably more "or else" backing up your authority but
> even in gaming guilds there still is some. A guild leader can make clear
> that there are certain types of behaviors that won't be tolerated and there
> will be some members who disagree with the prohibition and would choose to
> do otherwise but forgo doing so because of their desire to remain in the
> guild.

Their desire to remain in a guild that isn't being run to their liking?

That's rather like desiring to wear a shirt that doesn't fit. You might
like the idea of wearing the shirt, but actually wearing it? Forget it.

> > A guild leaders power of command is totally unenforceable. His job is
> > really to mediate, negotiate, and build consensus. This applies from
> > policy, to loot distribution, to selecting raid targets.
>
> If you think that raid loot distribution is always done by consensus, then
> you haven't seen some of the loot distribution soap operas that I have lol!
> My time flagged guild from EQ survived every challenge surrounding
> unhappiness over command decisions of the loot council. I doubt that any of
> the unhappy would call the decisions "consensus", even if they abided by
> them. ;-)

Consensus doesn't imply universal agreement. If the loot regularly were
arbitrarily given to someone the majority of the guild disagreed with
it, (not just the alternative recipient and their best freinds) things
would have to change.

> > Generally, a good guild will have the illusion of 1) & 2) decisions,
> > because the leader *has* tacit approval. That's why the people stay in
> > the guild; the leaders direction is harmonious with their own
> > preferences and goals. But the reality in my experience is that a
> > 'command decision' that fails to meet tacit consensus rarely survives.
>
> Yes, but that's always the case, whether in gaming or real life. Machiavelli
> made the point 500 years ago on the topic of ruling conquered peoples and
> the cascading fall of communist governments in the modern world provides a
> more current example. All regimes, organizations, countries, and gaming
> guilds exist at the pleasure of the participants. The cost to break away
> from some is higher, but the option is always there and the direction taken
> can always be characterized as a choice. It might be a Hobson's choice, but
> it's a choice. Even a soldier can decide to go AWOL rather than fight what
> he considers an immoral war. To argue from this that all military command
> decisions are "consensus" because all soldiers who comply are are agreeing
> "tacitly" I think just strips away all meaning from the words. And anyway it
> doesn't really diminish in my mind the utility of characterizing decisions
> into these three broad categories for the purpose of deciding how best to
> approach a particular one.

So we agree. The leader always exists at the sufference of the
participants and the 'empowerment' of the leader is proportional to the
cost of breaking away.

The cost of breaking away from a guild is invariably quite low. So
'relative' power of the leaders is proportionally quite low.

Decisions characteristic of 1) & 2) can really only exist when there is
considerable empowerment, because you can rely on the 'cost of breaking
away' to discourage dissent.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6b29564ff91e2989a0a@shawnews...

>> even in gaming guilds there still is some. A guild leader can make clear
>> that there are certain types of behaviors that won't be tolerated and
>> there
>> will be some members who disagree with the prohibition and would choose
>> to
>> do otherwise but forgo doing so because of their desire to remain in the
>> guild.
>
> Their desire to remain in a guild that isn't being run to their liking?

No, a guild that is run *to* their liking, even if they're not happy with
some of the decisions. If it's not to their liking they're long gone.

> Consensus doesn't imply universal agreement. If the loot regularly were
> arbitrarily given to someone the majority of the guild disagreed with
> it, (not just the alternative recipient and their best freinds) things
> would have to change.

Of course! And I wasn't talking about consensus qua consensus, I was using
the term to characterize a *type* of decision and in that regard feel free
to use whatever the consensus definition is for the word consensus. ;-)
Whether that's "universal" or just "most everyone" really doesn't matter,
the point is that a consensus decision is one in which the specific decision
is made by the group rather than by an individual. Having the guild leader
alone decide who gets a guild invite is a command decision. Putting it up to
a vote of the membership is a consensus decision.

> So we agree. The leader always exists at the sufference of the
> participants and the 'empowerment' of the leader is proportional to the
> cost of breaking away.

> The cost of breaking away from a guild is invariably quite low. So
> 'relative' power of the leaders is proportionally quite low.

Yep, up to here we're in agreement.

> Decisions characteristic of 1) & 2) can really only exist when there is
> considerable empowerment, because you can rely on the 'cost of breaking
> away' to discourage dissent.

It's not necessarily "considerable empowerment", it's "empowerment
sufficient to discourage dissent" whatever that threshhold may be. And even
in a gaming guild that threshhold will vary widely depending on
circumstances. If I were the leader of Fires of Heaven in 2001, I might be
able to demand that everyone in the guild be available and on call for
raiding 40 hours a week and abide by my loot decisions or else they get the
boot, and yet find that I'm able to wield enough empowerment to have a long
waiting list of applicants and no dissenters. There may be some who hate the
fact that some disproportionate percentage of my loot allocations are made
to friends and officers, but the fact that they have a shot at it at all
keeps them from dissenting. That's sufficient empowerment to change
behaviors, even in a gaming context.

--
Redbeard
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Dan Harmon" <deharmon@bigfoot.com> wrote in
news:h4KdncOjt6Lvz5zfRVn-qA@giganews.com:

>
> "Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95F16B09E8C0Brichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...
>>> I probably wouldn't have discussed it with the officers or him. As
>>> soon as he admitted he was the same guy I would have probably
>>> deleted him, put him on ignore, and told the guild that it was
>>> either him or you, and you weren't going anywhere. 😛
>>>
>>
>> Bad idea, explain why you did it, don't want people thinking you
>> deguild people for arbitrary reasons.
>
> Well sure, but the only thing you really have to explain is "the guy
> is a jerk and a KSer that I knew from beta. 'nuff said." Don't open
> the matter up for debate...it's your guild, your decision. A guild
> run by committee is a guild doomed to failure (or at least
> stagnation).
>

The guild I am in is run by a council of officers, of which I am one. We
seem to manage just fine, we've been steadilly progressing, and
attracting a fair number of folks who are sick of full time raiding, but
don't want to give up raiding completely. All decisions regarding
inviting people, granting full membership, deguilding, loot are made by
the officers, not by an individual.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 23 Dwarven Mystic, 21 Sage
Aviv, 12 Gnome Brawler, 14 Craftsman