DeletedUser115381
Sure.
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...
Why not on the creation of Guild then the Guild Founder must nominate an Assistant Founder,
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.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.
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.
Founders can demote other founders. Niot every guild has 2 or 3 founders, so useless.
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.
Once again, as long as a founder can demote other founders and remove members your idea is totally useless.
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.
How exactly can you state that, unless you have the raw data that backs it up?
At least I have some experience with it. Can you say the same?
Note the words ... "when" "always"when it happeens the circumstances always seem to be extreem
Yeah I'm not surprisedIt happened to me twice
It happened to me twice. At least I have some experience with it. Can you say the same?