• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Proposal to modify the way a guild can be deleted

DeletedUser99438

Alternately instead of all of this fuss and coding, you could just not join a guild where you don't have confidence in the founder...

The founder could be sound when you join but later become volatile, for whatever reason over time.

Why not on the creation of Guild then the Guild Founder must nominate an Assistant Founder,

The assistant founder idea seems like a great one, but it still doesn't give a safeguard against the founder dissolving a guild. Many guild members invest a lot into the guilds between GvG, GE Cups achieved, Goods/Medals to the treasury .... seems a shame that one person can come along and destroy all that hard team effort.
 

DeletedUser115027

To be honest, the only reasonable way I can see to lower the amount of guilds deleted on a whim would be to limit guilds to 1 founder only. More people = more points of failure. For other privileges of the founder rank (demoting the founder obviously not included) that may be required for multiple people, the assistant founder rank suggested earlier is a good solution.

This obviously would not prevent all of such incidents, but at least it means there is only 1 person in a guild you need to trust not to blow everything to kingdom come.
 

DeletedUser653

He has to be. With 2 founders and one going inactive he has to be able to remove that founder.

Besides that, as stated in the other thread, you do not need multiple founders. You can use leaders.
No. If 2 founders both must agree to dissolve a guild, so if one goes inactive it's not possible for the remaining founder to dissolve the guild and the founder must invite another founder to make 3 and the the 2 active ones could dissolve the guild. Read the proposal before replying please.
 

Agent327

Overlord
No. If 2 founders both must agree to dissolve a guild, so if one goes inactive it's not possible for the remaining founder to dissolve the guild and the founder must invite another founder to make 3 and the the 2 active ones could dissolve the guild. Read the proposal before replying please.

You better read your own proposal. With 3 founders, the 2 active ones can no longer dissolve it. It needs a majority, unless you worded it poor and mean a majority amongst the founders. Then still a founder can simply delete all members.
 

DeletedUser653

You better read your own proposal. With 3 founders, the 2 active ones can no longer dissolve it. It needs a majority, unless you worded it poor and mean a majority amongst the founders. Then still a founder can simply delete all members.

Your still not reading my proposal or perhaps the problem is you cannot understrand them, so i will post the simple idea again and explain your misunderstanding

1) if one founder - they have the right to disband as they want
2) if 2 founders, then there must always be 2 founders in the guild at all times and both must delete the guild or it is not deleted
3) if 3 or more founders, a majority must delete the guild

Of course I assume you understand that we are talking about founders as these are the only level of players which can dissolve guilds, so assuming you understand this then, if there are 3 founders and as one of those founders I delete 1 of the founders then there is 2 left in which case both must agree to dissolve the guild. I think you are missing the point #2 above.

As i have said 3 or 4 times now please read the proposal before posting and I really mean this as I am fed up posting the same thing because you cannot understand the original post or are you just posting disagreements for the heck of it and not caring if you bother to understand or not after you have now admitted to not even playing the game.
Someone who posts hundreds of posts about a game which they admit to not playing = TROLL
 

DeletedUser653

BUMP: Please + 1 and lets see if we can improve the problem of guilds being disolved. thanks

Many guilds have been deleted by a moment of madness and this effects many players who have invested a lot of hard work and time, DragonStorm in EN10 or K being the latest guild to be deleted in a moment of madness.

Theres at least 2 other theads discussiing other ways to add some control on how a guild is disolved and i do not like those proposals as they are very complicated and difficult to code.

So i would like to propose the following

1) if one founder - they have the right to disband as they want
2) if 2 founders, then there must always be 2 founders in the guild at all times and both must delete the guild or it is not deleted
3) if 3 or more founders, a majority of the founders must delete the guild


No Serious big guild will have just one founder, the jobs too big these days for one person, so suspect 2 and 3 above would be the most used solutions. These are simple ideas and easliy implemented by the dev team.
 

Emberguard

Legend
Question @HRC

Supposing someone creates a guild and puts a second guild founder. Hypothetically if for whatever reason it ends up just the two of them, if one goes inactive how does the active of the two leave the guild? Given you've said once there are two there can never be less

(love the idea btw, just needs any kinks taken out)
 

DeletedUser115027

I suppose he would need to invite another person, promote them to founder, then do a vote to dissolve the guild (which can now be passed with a 2/3 majority).
 

Emberguard

Legend
While that may sound logical, is it practical? It can be near impossible to get someone to join a guild for more then a couple seconds if it's only 2 players unless you start interacting with them first. Having to convince them to join and then dumping them would be a rather jerk move if you're not honest about it, and rather awkward if you are and can't get anyone to join (because they know you won't be staying around and it'll be just them essentially)

Re-reading your post I see I misread on first read. Yeah that would be doable. Only problem then is.... how likely is it that someone would join so the guild can be dissolved? Would be hit and miss as to how long it takes for someone to agree to the procedure. Guess it's something we'd need to test out on Beta to gauge how well that'd go

Alternatively.... founders can see how active other players are in the guild. Perhaps if a founder has been inactive for a month they no longer count towards majority, and would not be required for if there's only 2 founders
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Founders can demote other founders. Niot every guild has 2 or 3 founders, so useless.

I agree that seems pointless unless people trust eachother so well that it’ll used as safe fail but that has to be with someone really trusted.
On the other hand why a safe fail if such is at hand I suppose there are probabilities via support.
If not the reason for the safe fail is likely futile in comparison to situations we can think of in which such is needed.
 

Agent327

Overlord
No Serious big guild will have just one founder, the jobs too big these days for one person, so suspect 2 and 3 above would be the most used solutions. These are simple ideas and easliy implemented by the dev team.

That is just your assumption. You can not support that in any way. Same as that it can be easily implemented. Just your assumption.

Once again, as long as a founder can demote other founders and remove members your idea is totally useless. You can bump it as many times as you will. That does not make it better.
 

DeletedUser

Once again, as long as a founder can demote other founders and remove members your idea is totally useless.

Yep, the “crown” is not needed at all the star can make you do everything needed without destroying everything and demote other founders in a tantrum.
I’d agree if a founder can’t demote an other: they should be equal.
 

DeletedUser99588

The founder created the guild and it is their prerogative to end it. I know that isn't great for the members but if you don't like taking the risk create your own guild and have the power to control what happens. I do think that there should be a cooling off period from the point of activating the dissolve guild and it being implemented for an established guild. Maybe a two week period and a message is automatically sent to all members that it has been activated. That would allow some breathing space for the founder to reconsider or be persuaded to hand over the reigns to someone else to continue. No guarantees though if the founder decides that is it then time to move on. I leave it to the developers to define what is considered an established guild but I would imagine it would take into account guild level and number of active members.

In addition to this I think it would be helpful for a founder to be able to nominate up to 2 members to take over should they become inactive for a set period of time. Maybe a month would be good. These could be designated co-founders (a step up from leader) but do not have any extra rights than a leader until their nomination became active. There would need to be a way to set the priority of which became founder first but I'm sure the developers could but something in place with relative ease.

In the scenario I have given there would only be one founder position instead of the multiple allowed at the moment.

There isn't a perfect solution to the problem as there are different perspectives involved. I think the above would allow some middle ground. Forgive me if anyone has already suggested similar I didn't go over the whole thread to check although I did read it some time ago.

I'm sure there are many holes to pick and they will undoubtedly be picked. Like I said I know it isn't perfect but maybe a little better than we currently have in place.
 

Agent327

Overlord
The founder created the guild and it is their prerogative to end it. I know that isn't great for the members but if you don't like taking the risk create your own guild and have the power to control what happens. I do think that there should be a cooling off period from the point of activating the dissolve guild and it being implemented for an established guild. Maybe a two week period and a message is automatically sent to all members that it has been activated. That would allow some breathing space for the founder to reconsider or be persuaded to hand over the reigns to someone else to continue. No guarantees though if the founder decides that is it then time to move on. I leave it to the developers to define what is considered an established guild but I would imagine it would take into account guild level and number of active members.

In addition to this I think it would be helpful for a founder to be able to nominate up to 2 members to take over should they become inactive for a set period of time. Maybe a month would be good. These could be designated co-founders (a step up from leader) but do not have any extra rights than a leader until their nomination became active. There would need to be a way to set the priority of which became founder first but I'm sure the developers could but something in place with relative ease.

In the scenario I have given there would only be one founder position instead of the multiple allowed at the moment.

There isn't a perfect solution to the problem as there are different perspectives involved. I think the above would allow some middle ground. Forgive me if anyone has already suggested similar I didn't go over the whole thread to check although I did read it some time ago.

I'm sure there are many holes to pick and they will undoubtedly be picked. Like I said I know it isn't perfect but maybe a little better than we currently have in place.


Seems like a sound proposal to me, however I do not think it will make a difference. It does not happen often a guild gets dissolved and when it happeens the circumstances always seem to be extreem. No waiting period will change that.
 

DeletedUser99438

Seems like a sound proposal to me, however I do not think it will make a difference. It does not happen often a guild gets dissolved and when it happeens the circumstances always seem to be extreem. No waiting period will change that.

How exactly can you state that, unless you have the raw data that backs it up?
 

DeletedUser

I feel we need to tackle something first.
If there is more than one founder in a guild which should be justifiable in some cases but it shouldn’t be possible that one founder demotes the other.
Should a founder quit the game for an extended period of time I feel it should be taken to support if felt that way.

I am in Agent’s guild and the trantrums one can have, one fine day, can dismantel an entire guild.
No surprise to me that he as real founder decides to remain the only one.
Founders can have leaders in their guild who can do everything but demoting the founder.
Should something happen to the founder “God forbidding” it is soon enough to contact support as leader of such guild.
Personally this is completely irrelevant to me, who gives damn when crap hits the fan that bad!

Edit problem remains what if one of those founders pulls the plug because of a bad hairday as is (gained guild level) this can be really defistating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top