Changes to the Stormrage Guild system

[Tal]

Hi Pete -

Since, from where I sit, it is exactly this point that you and Mongo disagree on, I don't see how any progress can be made until that point is resolved.  Or even before it is well defined.  What does 'being a member of' or 'contributing to' the LL consist of?[right][snapback]64525[/snapback][/right]

I wish I had an answer for you. My earnest desire throughout all of this was to provide the means for Lurkers, and their friends and family, to play WoW together. The ranks were put in to try to make sure that those folks that were wearing the Lurker tag were not the sort that would do anything that reflected poorly on the site.

The problem may that that while a chat channel is too little, a guild may be too much.  Already I'm hearing things like 'guild activity'.  My hope had been that the Lurkers would not be that organized.  That someone looking for that level of 'guildness' would look to the AB or other more organized organization.[right][snapback]64525[/snapback][/right]

I think that you may be reading more into my statements or that I have misunderstood what folks in the Guild desired from their play experience.

But all that is an aside.  The question that needs resolution is simple: "To be in the Lurker guild, one must be an 'active' participant on the site."  Yea or nay?  Of course, if the yeas have it, then the non-trivial task of defining 'active participation' stares you in the face.  But that bridge does not need to be burned till you come to it.
Looking forward to your ideas.

--Pete
[right][snapback]64525[/snapback][/right]

I think it is counter-productive to Mongo's vision to require people to be an active particpant on the site. The guild has always been the means for Lurkers to play the game together. If I turn friends and family members away from the guild then I doubt too many Lurkers will stay. If I allow in friends and family as I have, then I have to put in some sort of framework to maintain the reputation of the Lurker Lounge. The proverbial rock and a hard place.

[LavCat]

You've made your disagreement very clear.  I, for one, understand that you don't agree with the decision.  However, I would encourage you to find a way to constructively reply, perhaps suggesting some sort of middle ground.  We all don't have to agree, but it does help when we all get along to some point, and show some respect for each other.
Past the first sentence, this paragraph is going completely off point.  No one ever said anything, one way or the other, about who the Lounge will or will not accept.  Additionally, no one made you sound like anything.  Your posts are reading (and perhaps it is not your intent) as antagonism, not discussion.  I would suggest that it's this 'tone' that may be inspiring any perceived friction.

We all want people in the guild that will contribute on both the site and in the game.  However, an MMO's culture is not the same as the culture following a game like Diablo or NWN or Warcraft.  The pool of people playing at any one time on the same server is larger, and interactions have more lasting effects.  Social connections are not only important -- they are critical to success.

What we are trying to allow for is the possibilty -- not the surety -- that we will, at various rare points, want to invite my theoretical daughter, or Tal's wife, or that rare truly exceptional player that we (collectively, not individually) run into.  My first response, given such a situation, would be to point them to the site, so that they can get a feel for what our little subculture is like, to make sure that they think it's a good fit for them, as I think it may be.

However, as I cannot measure how much someone does or doesn't read the site, and I am not willing to use post count as a measure of contribution, I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to turn someone away because they're not part of what some might perceive as an 'in crowd' here.  And even though you've said it's not about post count, I feel like that's what you're asking us to do.  I'm not sure how else 'history' would be measured.  If I am wrong, then please let me know what standard, in concrete terms, you would like to use as a ticket to guild membership.
[right][snapback]64512[/snapback][/right]

I don't think I can use the quote function well enough, but in his post above of 12:08 am, Tal said: "No I am realistic in my expectations of the folk that play on Stormrage that they will want to guild with their friends and family. Rather than creating a hostile environment by informing people they cannot do this I have made what I feel is a fair compromise. Thanks for kicking my good intentions in the teeth." Correctly or not I took this statement as an accusation that I proposed excluding people (specifically family and friends of guild members) from the guild, and hence painted me as an exclusionist.

In contrast, I argue that just as the lounge is an inclusive place, so to is the guild, since the guild is open to everyone here.

The site faq is intentionally vague as to lurker -- and rightly so -- but your question to me about criteria for guild membership is a fair one, and I will attempt to answer it:

1.) Someone asking to join the guild should be a registered member of the lounge.

2.) Any lurker who has not previously posted should be expected to post a note of introduction prior to joining the guild. Further, if someone is an infrequent poster it would be polite to post a similar introduction.


I am aware that current lounge policy discourages posts of introduction. I am not advocating such posts. I would hope that people wanting to play WoW in a guild with fellow lurkers would be known through their participation in other types of threads, so that no further introduction would be necessary. I lurked for a good while before I felt comfortable registering and posting here. This site and more recently the basin are the only two message boards I have ever registered for or participated on. Having an introduction thread, as someone (I think Lochnar) suggested would possibly make it easier for people to get up the courage to post.

I am not in favor of cliques, in groups, hierarchies, or post counts. I regret that my words above would lead anyone to think so.

Lastly, my expectations for the guild were not solely based on my imagination. I urge you and anyone following this discussion to read the following two threads that pertain to the formation of the guild:

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/lofiver....php/t4599.html

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/lofiver....php/t4711.html


I feel angry and betrayed. I thought we had reached consensus. I apologize that my tone in this thread has been antagonistic.


Edit: misspelled "function".

[LavCat]

If we'd followed your idea of who could be in the guild and who couldn't be then you would never have met Catlyn.
[right][snapback]64546[/snapback][/right]

That conclusion does not follow at all, but I am very happy to have done so.

[Skandranon]

I would prefer a Lurker guild to be a loose association of people who play together, little more than a chat channel.  But you are right, that cannot endure as people that we don't wish to play with discover and 'infiltrate' the channel.  The problem may that that while a chat channel is too little, a guild may be too much.  Already I'm hearing things like 'guild activity'.  My hope had been that the Lurkers would not be that organized.  That someone looking for that level of 'guildness' would look to the AB or other more organized organization.
[right][snapback]64525[/snapback][/right]

Never mind the rumbles of "guild activity". The last time I was on, which I will admit was two weeks ago, we were just what you described - a loose association of people who play together (and failing that, at least chat together, or at least sling bad puns). We use the trappings of a guild because a chat channel in a different colour from the usual pink spam is nice, and because the guild window is a good way to see who's who. Guild "officers" aren't exactly giving orders, not that any of us would be of a mind to follow them anyway. The most coordinated thing we've done is a general check to see who's interested in (insert elite quest here). I don't see that changing even with a more formalized rank structure.

[Skandranon]

OK, after having reread most of the posts, what I see is that Tal and Mongo have very divergent ideas of what a Lurker guild should be. 
[right][snapback]64516[/snapback][/right]

I think the real issue at stake here isn't so much the structure of the guild so much as whether it can be a direction through which outreach should take place. Mongo's position seems more consistent to me when I look at it this way.

Basic objective, upon which we can all agree: We'd like more people to join our little corner of the web...but they have to be the right people. Let's leave the determination of what is or isn't "right" to another time. What's clear is that we all have this concept of a division between those we want here and those we don't. Therefore, it needs to be part of our outreach efforts to the community at large.

Mongo's view is that outreach is a function completely within the purview of the site, at least from what I can read out of his statements here and in the vision statement. New players should be drawn here for the very reason they've been drawn here in the past - good, detailed discussion about anything and everything game-related. Therefore, the Lounge shouldn't be tied to a guild (since discussion should be the drawing point) and yet a Lurker guild's members need to be well-behaved representatives of the site (because guild behaviour cannot be allowed to reflect poorly on the site). I think the distinction you made that "the guild not being tied to the site" and "the site not being tied to a guild" are different things is important. and I think Mongo wants the latter and not (necessarily) the former.

I don't see Tal's view as all that divergent. It only differs in that he thinks that outreach is a function that can be partially assumed by the in-game guilds. Not wholly, or mostly, only partially. The site's still very important - and it should be - but there should be nothing wrong with starting with guild first, site later, especially since it's exponentially easier for in-game Lurkers to reach out to people in a proactive manner (which is less like kicking the gate down than site adverts). Tal isn't talking about a stampede of script kiddies, just leaving the door open a crack for any opportunity that happens along, therefore requiring organization to ensure that such opportunities aren't abused.

Altogether, I don't see the difference here being necessarily about structure so much as it is about the underlying ideas which shape it.

Two pennies in the box.

[Tal]

I don't think I can use the quote function well enough, but in his post above of 12:08 am, Tal said: "No I am realistic in my expectations of the folk that play on Stormrage that they will want to guild with their friends and family. Rather than creating a hostile environment by informing people they cannot do this I have made what I feel is a fair compromise. Thanks for kicking my good intentions in the teeth."  Correctly or not I took this statement as an accusation that I proposed excluding people (specifically family and friends of guild members) from the guild, and hence painted me as an exclusionist.

In contrast, I argue that just as the lounge is an inclusive place, so to is the guild, since the guild is open to everyone here.[right][snapback]64549[/snapback][/right]

Your earlier statements would indicate that you are in favor of excluding people:

Now that I have read subsequent posts, I can add that I don't want guild folks inviting family and friends, or neat people they have partied with!  When I have had inquiries I have told people that the guild is open to "people known as posters on the lounge."  I am happy to answer questions about the lounge and to direct folks to us.
[right][snapback]64333[/snapback][/right]

I believe guild members should come from the ranks of the forums.  Clearly we have a difference of opinion.

I would be delighted if our lurkers guild drove quality participants to the forum, but you put the cart before the kodo.
[right][snapback]64363[/snapback][/right]

This in itself is a contradiction. All members should come from the ranks of the forums but the guild is supposed to drive quality participants to the forum? I'm assuming you mean people from outside the guild when you state this but to me this is just asking for the "wankers" that Mongo doesn't want to show up.

I do expect that someone invited into our guild would have some history with the lounge (or from the basin).
[right][snapback]64408[/snapback][/right]

Lastly, my expectations for the guild were not solely based on my imagination.  I urge you and anyone following this discussion to read the following two threads that pertain to the formation of the guild:

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/lofiver....php/t4599.html

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/lofiver....php/t4711.html[right][snapback]64549[/snapback][/right]

If you look at those threads I stated that I would prefer there be no hierarchy in the guild. I still would prefer that there be none - hence my statements that the Officer rank were not any more special than the Lurker's rank.

I feel angry and betrayed.  I thought we had reached consensus.  I apologize that my tone in this thread has been antagonistic.
[right][snapback]64549[/snapback][/right]

I am sorry that you feel angry and betrayed as this was not my intention in the slightest. But I hope you can imagine my feelings of anger and betrayal to be approached by an outsider about the behavior of one of our Lurkers. To twice have blue bind-on-pickup items snaked out from under the group by another Lurker. We're just over a month into retail and have had more incidents than all of Beta. I'd be a fool to not put into place some kind of security net to protect the interests of the Lurker Lounge. As Mongo stated - the Lurker's guild is a walking advertisement for the Lurkers Lounge. I'm trying to fufill that mandate the best I can.

[Tal]

That conclusion does not follow at all, but I am very happy to have done so.
[right][snapback]64553[/snapback][/right]

It does follow directly from your statements:

Now that I have read subsequent posts, I can add that I don't want guild folks inviting family and friends, or neat people they have partied with!
[right][snapback]64333[/snapback][/right]

I believe guild members should come from the ranks of the forums. 
[right][snapback]64363[/snapback][/right]

I do expect that someone invited into our guild would have some history with the lounge (or from the basin).
[right][snapback]64408[/snapback][/right]

Catlyn had none of these prior to being invited into the guild. Maybe she might have posted on the boards if not invited in. She might not have. *shrugs* I for one am glad that things worked out as they did.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . but there should be nothing wrong with starting with guild first, site later, . . .
[right][snapback]64558[/snapback][/right]

On this, I agree with you in principle but I don't really see it working in practice. Everyone the guild recruits is (duh) a player of the game. If the recruits are limited to people who already visit the site, then they will also be Lurkers. But if they are just people who are met in game, then there is nothing forcing them to become Lurkers. So, the only thing wrong with "guild first, site later" is that in many cases it will become "guild first, site never".

I am not saying that this is a bad thing (or a good thing). I'm simply trying to inject reality into this discussion. If one wants the Lurker guild to reflect the Lurker Lounge, then the only way to assure that is to require that people become active members of the Lounge first. But then you have the whole problem of what 'active' means. As soon as a set of rules are established, there will be people who will comply with the rules, become members of the guild, and never show up at the site again. Whether those people could be considered Lurkers is questionable. Again, I am not making a judgement here, simply pointing out the reality.

Altogether, I don't see the difference here being necessarily about structure so much as it is about the underlying ideas which shape it. 

I agree completely. If the guild is based on people who play the game and are Lurkers, then no structure is required. If the guild is based on people who play the game and might eventually become Lurkers or are potential Lurker material, then structure and entrance requirements become necessary. Sure, the first round of recruitments outside the Lounge may be of people who reflect the Lounge ideals. But what about the recruits of these people? And the next group after that?

Again, this is not a judgement issue. It is not a moral issue. It is simply a reality check. If the guild limits membership to established Lurkers (whatever the hell that means) it will miss out on a lot of great people who just can't be bothered to be active on a website. That might mean that the guild will not be able to maintain critical mass. Since a character can only be in one guild, players might leave the Lurker guild for one that is bigger, more active. That's a danger with being exclusive. On the other hand, if any good person is invited, then pretty soon the majority of players will be unacquainted with the site. If they represent the ideals of this site it will be fortuitous. If the persons they in turn recruit also do so it will be amazing. The guild will get further and further detached from the site.

There may be a middle way, but making it work will take a lot of commitment and time and organization -- thus killing the informality of the guild as it exists.

None of these choices are good, none evil. But in order to avoid strife downstream, the ramifications must be considered and a choice must be made. Indeed, a choice *will* be made, the only question being whether that choice will be made with care and thought or by just stumbling into a 'solution'.

--Pete

[Kevin]

What we know: There is a website. There is a guild. They have an association right now of some sort.

What we all want: The website to be the primary focus of everything.

There are several forces at play. We have a guild and it isn't like many (maybe any, but I wouldn't say that just yet) other guilds. Questions come up like why do we have the guild. This was clarified by Mongo as easy in game way for Lurkers to hook up, but it runs into problems in practice because of how the rest of the game community sees a guild and how you get into the guild. As Pete pointed out the question of "What the Hell is an active Lurker?" comes up.

You also have the issues of the other benefits of a guild that I haven't seen really come up in this conversation. Sure they only really apply to the less social lurkers like myself who really only want to play with known quantities and provide help to those known quantities using the guild for those purposes, otherwise you could join another guild. I don't want to be in a different guild because I don't have the time, inclination, and possibly the skills, to get to know those other people. I do want to use the guild for other benefits besides finding my fellow Lurkers online and being able to chat with them easily. Things like easily finding someone to give all the extra silk I have to, or all the leather armor I made for skill-up. Guilds in D1 and D2 were pointless to me because the game didn't really have anything where the extra social interaction really mattered, or the need for a party for an instance, or anything of that nature. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who wants the Lurker guild to be able to provide the benefits a guild can provide besides just finding people to play with. This game has more too it than that. That starts to make your Lurker guild more like other guilds.

On this, I agree with you in principle but I don't really see it working in practice. Everyone the guild recruits is (duh) a player of the game. If the recruits are limited to people who already visit the site, then they will also be Lurkers. But if they are just people who are met in game, then there is nothing forcing them to become Lurkers. So, the only thing wrong with "guild first, site later" is that in many cases it will become "guild first, site never".

Why? With the proposed structure you have a means to get rid of people who don't become active Lurkers. Sure you still have to answer the question "What the hell is an active lurker?" but I think that question has to be answered regardless because we have a guild and we all seem to want it, in the end, to only contain that type of person. Yes, you can get rid of non lurkers without the structure and the structure may not make that easier, but it doesn't make it any harder. The informal structure also gives you benefits to help run the guild so it can provide the other benefits being in a guild in a game like this has. Again things that weren't present with D1 or D2 (common in game chat channels, interfaces to see who's online and where they are, just dealing with the vastly larger number of people in the game with you, guild halls in the future, finding a friendly craftsman to make you something, etc) which is part of the reason I feel this site never had a guild, there just weren't that many benefits to one, and there were a lot of drawbacks.

I also don't see why you have to be an active member first guild second as the only way to insure it reflects the Lounge. We need to answer the question "How is the Lurker Lounge reflected by the guild." To me the answer is that it is reflected in the quality of play of the person wearing the banner, their better knowledge of the game and it's tactics and the desire to share that knowledge through the forums, and now since we have it, through the guild as well. That is all the other non Lurker players in the game will see. I know we want to divorce some of the discussion from the details of the set-up to the questions of do we need it, but the limited structure says that we trust everyone that has met the definition of "active Lurker" to decide who these people who reflect our ideals are. It also has the means to handle it when "Rule One: Things go wrong" comes up without tying up the forums too much. It helps formalize the ability to get rid of people who want guild first, site never. You find that someone just doesn't seem to be reading (and we are stuck with reading because we all seem to agree on the principal that posting doesn't matter) the lounge because of a discussion you have in game where you talk about a point that has been made a lot on the lounge, and hence should have been read, and they don't recognize it or other things repeatedly. You talk it over with the officers, they remove or keep based on that. Without the "officers" you have to talk it over with what? the whole guild? the whole site? Control mechanisms as you pointed out in another post become more important the larger and organization gets.

I expect the guild to get larger just because the Lounge draws people like me. I'm a soloer just because I don't have enough time or trust to deal with people I don't know, and that includes our good friends at the Amazon Basin, but I still want to be the best player I can and help others be the best player they can which is where reading the Lounge comes in. I also don't want a highly structured guild (and we don't have one) because I don't want to be somewhere were a lot of structure is needed. Since it will get larger and it does exist I think early and mild control mechanisms are appropriate. I don't think the guild will ever die now that it is here and I think it is only a good thing for the site as well. I think it can be very loose and not take away from the site even if it gets huge. But it still needs some structure if it gets much larger and it may be large enough. There are day to day things to deal with, that is reality too since the guild is a reality.

If the guild is based on people who play the game and are Lurkers, then no structure is required.

I don't think this is a given. I think because of the nature of the game that I touched on earlier where a guild holds other benefits and the fact that there are plans to make guilds have more benefits and add more enjoyment factors to the game coupled with the fact that even with Lurkers that "things go wrong" that a mild structure is something that will become more necessary. Structures generally helps to fix things when they go wrong. Yes, a plan helps more, but structures help make plans become realities in my experience. If you don't have something in game to handle dealing with what a guild is, that means it would have to end up on the forums because the discussions will happen. If we want the site to be about the game and not about the guild I think you need something in game to deal with the guild.

I do not disagree with your sentiments that a plan should be made before a structure is created. Of course a plan was made, Tal did talk to people and then he posted about it here to let people know as well as to get feedback to change it if need be. Maybe the big mistake was not running it through the wringer first, but then again there were issues that needed to be addressed now and as guildmaster Tal has the power to make those decisions to address the issues. So he compromised on that situation as well. Maybe the guilds on the two servers they are on shouldn't have been created without more discussion first, but they were and now we have to deal with them or disband them. I don't think anyone wants them to go away.

Again, this is not a judgement issue. It is not a moral issue. It is simply a reality check. If the guild limits membership to established Lurkers (whatever the hell that means) it will miss out on a lot of great people who just can't be bothered to be active on a website. That might mean that the guild will not be able to maintain critical mass. Since a character can only be in one guild, players might leave the Lurker guild for one that is bigger, more active. That's a danger with being exclusive. On the other hand, if any good person is invited, then pretty soon the majority of players will be unacquainted with the site. If they represent the ideals of this site it will be fortuitous. If the persons they in turn recruit also do so it will be amazing. The guild will get further and further detached from the site.

I don't think critical mass matters with the guild. Especially if it is just a facility for friends to get together. But I think that definition misses out on other things a guild can do for the members of the Lounge who play the game. Like I said because of the nature of the players and this site and the nature of the game I don't think the guild will ever go away, even if we don't have an official one, someone will start one somewhere else and just invite all the Lurkers to it. I don't think the guild missing out on people who can't be bothered with the site is a problem either. We don't need them and the changes to the guild have nothing to do with that. Characters going to other guilds isn't a bad thing, in fact it's something that is encouraged if they want something else out of the guild other than what the Lounge guild offers. While I have talked about the Lounge guild offering other benefits because of the nature of the game, it still doesn't have to be like the Basin guilds or guilds where being a higher rank or playing well gets you rewards and such. Finally just because we invite someone who didn't start as a Lurker, but through their play and their manner still gives the in game representation of a Lurker, it doesn't follow that that will be the majority of the players. The structure is there, in fact, to insure that exactly that doesn't happen. If they don't represent the ideals of the site (which involve learning and sharing what you learned or discovered on your own) then they won't stay in the guild. With the way it was proposed you don't get to a level where you can invite people until you have proven you do embody the ideals of the site. The only way I can follow your argument is if you get invited and you can also then invite. That won't happen with the structure, it could without it though. With the structure everyone could invite and then what you say could happen if just one or two non Lurkers get invited because we trust that everyone will make the right choices and that Rule One will never happen.

I think we need to decide how the guild relates to the site and how the guild reflects the site in game or we need to get rid of the guilds. I think regardless of how the guild is set-up we have to tackle the definition of "What is an active lurker" or decide on how to deal with that on the fly. We have to decide how much like a typical guild the guild will be. How many benefits of a guild do we want ours to offer? Can all those desires be controlled and keep the site the focus?

Personally I think the structure proposed answers them the way I would like to hear them answered. We determine an activer lurker through oberservation of how they play and they interact. If someone questions that we put it to the officers of the guild to deal with, using the forums if necessary. We aren't like a typical guild we don't have formal events, but we do get to take advantage of the benefits of being in the guild without dealing with as many of the problems because we are exclusive, but open about our exclusivity. The officers are there to facilitate, but really don't have any ultimate authority. If there is abuse, the type of people this forum attracts and holds will deal with it. But there could be other ways to handle it. But things will need to be handled and we need to agree on it.

[LavCat]

Your earlier statements would indicate that you are in favor of excluding people:
This in itself is a contradiction. All members should come from the ranks of the forums but the guild is supposed to drive quality participants to the forum? I'm assuming you mean people from outside the guild when you state this but to me this is just asking for the "wankers" that Mongo doesn't want to show up.
If you look at those threads I stated that I would prefer there be no hierarchy in the guild. I still would prefer that there be none - hence my statements that the Officer rank were not any more special than the Lurker's rank.
I am sorry that you feel angry and betrayed as this was not my intention in the slightest. But I hope you can imagine my feelings of anger and betrayal to be approached by an outsider about the behavior of one of our Lurkers. To twice have blue bind-on-pickup items snaked out from under the group by another Lurker. We're just over a month into retail and have had more incidents than all of Beta. I'd be a fool to not put into place some kind of security net to protect the interests of the Lurker Lounge. As Mongo stated - the Lurker's guild is a walking advertisement for the Lurkers Lounge. I'm trying to fufill that mandate the best I can.
[right][snapback]64565[/snapback][/right]

I see no contradiction in my statements. I would exclude no one who shares the interest and values of the lurker lounge. Here is an example (from memory and not verbatim) of how the guild could drive people to the site: a few nights ago I was in a party with Zippyy. Someone had asked about lurkers. Zippyy responded: "We are from the lurker lounge!"

I fully agree with you that the guild is a walking advertisement for the Lurkers [sic] Lounge. I disagree with you about the direction that the guild is going. As a compromise I will drop my proposed introduction of new people. I know introductions can be hard to write.

I ask that you:

1.) Stop inviting people from outside the lounge. And, no, I am not wishing anyone now in the guild to leave.

2.) Go back to the guild structure of a few days ago.


You hold a non-elected position of some responsibility and power. Use it wisely.

[Occhidiangela]

1.)  Stop inviting people from outside the lounge.  And, no, I am not wishing anyone now in the guild to leave.

2.)  You hold a non-elected position of some responsibility and power.  Use it wisely.
[right][snapback]64590[/snapback][/right]

LavCat:

At the risk of unintentionally adding fuel to an ember, it appears to me that point 1 is still a matter of discussion: this discussion. I am undecided on how I feel other than complete support of Mongo Jerry's guiding principle that we who wear the the Lounge tag wear it well. That is common ground that I think everyone in this conversation agrees on, so at least it's a start.

I also see very clearly your disappointment with the RoE changing in what appears to be less notice, or discussion, than you feel is warranted. A rock in the shoal water that a "guild that is not really a Guild" sails in, perhaps? I think we have a quality crew and will weather the storm.

On point 2, I think that Tal is in his "un-elected" position because

a ) he volunteered

b ) he'll do the work

Part of doing the work is communicating with the Stormrage Guild members. That is what we are doing now, as I see it: communicating. I was not a beta person, so I have no point of reference to that experience that so many of you other folks do.

That last fact, and the fact that my game hours in Stormrage are woefully low, means that at present all I can offer any of the Stormrage Guild is mediation and facilitation in this discussion. And perhaps some poetry. :rolleyes:

Stormrage Guild Haiku

Who is Lounging now?
Who is discretely lurking?
Let teacup storms rage!

OK, it ain't Robert Frost, but it will have to do for now. :D

Warm Regards

Occhi and the caffeine

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . if they are just people who are met in game, then there is nothing forcing them to become Lurkers. So, the only thing wrong with "guild first, site later" is that in many cases it will become "guild first, site never".

Why? With the proposed structure you have a means to get rid of people who don't become active Lurkers.
[right][snapback]64585[/snapback][/right]

That is an even bigger can of worms.

Your proposal is that we allow someone in, and if he turns out to be the nicest person in the world, a great person to game with, someone passionately interested in all aspects of the game, but he does not become active in the Lounge, then we kick him out? Did you think that one through? Let's say we tried that. Then we would be forcing a lot of people to pick between a friend and the Lounge. Do we really want to do that? Just by cracking that door open, we've already got bickering, whinning, and the formation of a clique. Can you imagine the hell this place will be if we slam that door open? I can, I've seen it happen and it drove me out of the only guild I'd ever even considered joining.

How about the person who is already an active member of the Lounge and gets into the guild. Then because of nauseating bickering threads like this one decides that the Lounge is no longer worth the time and effectively drops out. Should this person be kicked from the guild?

Remember, it is always easier to keep someone out in the first place than it is to force them to leave later. In principle, both just take the dictum of one of the guild 'gods'. In practice, kicking causes a lot more grief for all.

--Pete

[Ruvanal]

Gnollguy,
Thank you, Treesh and Roane for delivering what I feel are well articulated responses in this thread that reflect well my own feelings on these maters. I can do well enough writing on some of the technical stuff, but tend to flounder some on writing in disscussions such as this.

[Ruvanal]

You hold a non-elected position of some responsibility and power.  Use it wisely.
[right][snapback]64590[/snapback][/right]

My feeling is that Tal was implicitly elected by everyone that stepped forward and signed the charater at the start. Everyone was free to hold back at that point and voice any objections if they had any on his being the one to hold the highest ranking position. And as Occhidiangela pointed out:

a ) he volunteered

b ) he'll do the work

He had posted his intentions prior to the game going live and the servers up. There was plenty of time for comments or objections then. I saw none at that time, nor shortly after the formation of the guild.

From what I know of the Guildmasters screen, there is an option of some sort to allow the passing of the Guildmaster position to another character. Do you propose that there now be an election? A rather formal and structured thing to do in light of a desire to have a laid back approch to all of this. As for a vote, I would just cast mine now for Tal to take that potentially ungrateful postition to be in ("the buck stops here").

Also keep in mind about your references to the beta guild. When all the guilds in the beta test were disolved; it took the combined players of both the beta1 and PvP servers AND recuiting players on the street to get the guild restarted. With such a small group (less than 9), it is a lot easier to get by with no structure to the guild. And since there was effectively no addition of new players coming in, there was not much need to address being able to offer any of our friends a decent playing environment. If it is to be an overly restrictive environment for being in the guild; I have a different approch I will take, removing my characters from the guild and my presence from the server.

[Kevin]

Hi,
That is an even bigger can of worms.

Your proposal is that we allow someone in, and if he turns out to be the nicest person in the world, a great person to game with, someone passionately interested in all aspects of the game, but he does not become active in the Lounge, then we kick him out?  Did you think that one through?  Let's say we tried that.  Then we would be forcing a lot of people to pick between a friend and the Lounge.  Do we really want to do that?  Just by cracking that door open, we've already got bickering, whinning, and the formation of a clique.  Can you imagine the hell this place will be if we slam that door open?  I can, I've seen it happen and it drove me out of the only guild I'd ever even considered joining.

How about the person who is already an active member of the Lounge and gets into the guild.  Then because of nauseating bickering threads like this one decides that the Lounge is no longer worth the time and effectively drops out.  Should this person be kicked from the guild?

Remember, it is always easier to keep someone out in the first place than it is to force them to leave later.  In principle, both just take the dictum of one of the guild 'gods'.  In practice, kicking causes a lot more grief for all.

--Pete
[right][snapback]64604[/snapback][/right]

Well maybe that is my idealism and an attempt at a compromise as well. We want them with the site, but with my thoughts on the guild as an extension of the site if the hold the ideals of the site in the game and never post here, I don't think the decision would be to kick them. I don't believe you have to post at all to embody the spirit of the lounge. If you impart some of the knowledge you read here to someone you meet in the game, guild or not, you are being part of the Lounge. And yes I realize this does have the ability to push the guild in front of the site, but I don't believe that will be the case. As a case in point I have not met anyone in game that I have grouped with, with the exception of one Lurker who doesn't currently want to be in the guild, that I would consider inviting, and I assume it is the same with other members. But I do believe that you can be a great player and not be active here at all. So yes I thought it through, but maybe I didn't make it clear. By my definitions of a good Lurker, you can just Lurk. This is why I really don't think much of this is nearly as big a deal as it has been made out to be. This is why I said that things should be discussed and as they come up should probably be discussed more. This is why the "officers" really aren't that big of a deal. We are having this discussion, we will continue to have discussions like this one, though hopefully not all that often and hopefully not as painfully as this one has been.

As to the second part, that is a bigger worry, and Tal has already touched on it. There are people who have been at the lounge who many feel don't embody the lounge. In most case they were banned from the forums. We can ban them from the guild too. And if someone doesn't like a thread like this and it is enough to make them quit (and I can understand why I'm tired of all the drama already but I'm still participating, I know) the forums, enough for them to say in post "I'm done, I don't want to be at the forums anymore." Then yeah, I don't think it would be that big of a deal to remove them from the guild. Why? Because things that happen on the forum do and will get discussed in the game. I've see it happen. I've seen threads in the lounge refered to in game. I think that is a good things.

Yep, being exclusive is easier. I even said we should be exclusive, but in an open fashion. It isn't going to be trivial to be a site with a guild that isn't a guild site. But it isn't going to be as hard as reading this thread makes it look. We are a group of reasonable people. I put my trust in that. But I also know that crap goes wrong an I like to have things in place to help deal with it. If things didn't go wrong, we wouldn't need mods and admins on the forums. I frequent a board that doesn't have any mods that works wonderfully. It's the site I refere when I make my comments about the Lounge not being the best boards I've been too. But if that site gets any larger, it will require more than the board admin to deal with it. That is really all I'm getting at.

This whole thing isn't a big deal. It's lead to some enlightening discussions, it's pointed out some flaws in the process, and it may not be fully settled. But I don't think it is doom and gloom. I don't think any of the choices that are made out of all this can lead to doom and gloom or hell holes.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . .  We are a group of reasonable people.  I put my trust in that.
[right][snapback]64610[/snapback][/right]

Why, then, if I may, I'll borrow some of your optimism and say no more.

Thanks,

--Pete

[Nystul]

I keep rambling and deleting my replies. Let's try again:

The Lurker Lounge is a public site. It has a relatively public forum with required registration and etiquette standards. This site focus is very broad, as strategy and game mechanics are fields which all gamers have an interest in so that they may use them to reach an end. The site has no gaming standards that I know of, except that cheating is forbidden (which may be virtually irrelevent with respect to WoW). In so far as the Lounge can even be called a gaming community, the flavor of Lurker Lounge gaming could be described as mainstream.

Then, the standards of the Lurker Lounge guilds can easily go beyond that of the Lurker Lounge site and forums. Therefor, what we really have here is a discussion of the standards of the Lurker Lounge guilds. Longtime Lurkers may view strategy discussion as an end in itself (such that they don't get bored discussing strategy even after they quit playing the games), but the site is designed also to accomodate people who are just interested in strategy and game mechanics in order to figure out how to play the game effectively. If the WoW section of the site becomes as hot as the D2 section once was, those people fluxing in and out will be the majority.

I say, then, that filtering people through the site is like filtering water through a hula hoop. This is not like the Asylum, where you could just discuss the nature of the site and 90% of the people would run away screaming. This isn't much of a niche group, until you get to the point of people who stick around here for months without losing interest.

The bottom line is that it becomes very difficult to discuss standards here and at the same time maintain that this isn't a guild site. Are we going to have discussions on this forum about whether someone should be kicked out of the guild? Are we going to kick someone out of the guild and yet they are still posting on the site? Are we going to have discussions on this forum about whether new poster Jimbo is fit to join the guild?

This leads me to suggest that the LL guild standards have to relate to the LL site standards, which pretty much means open to everyone except in cases of cheating, poor etiquette, or abusing the guild. If it is going to be any stricter than that, I would suggest spinning off into a more private community with it's own rules and forums, and possibly a different guild name (e.g. Angels of Hell in relation to the DSF). Or alternatively, drop the charade and make the LL an actual gaming community with a large public section and a small private section for discussing guild issues.

[LavCat]

My feeling is that Tal was implicitly elected by everyone that stepped forward and signed the charater at the start.  Everyone was free to hold back at that point and voice any objections if they had any on his being the one to hold the highest ranking position.  And as Occhidiangela pointed out:
He had posted his intentions prior to the game going live and the servers up.  There was  plenty of time for comments or objections then.  I saw none at that time, nor shortly after the formation of the guild. 

From what I know of the Guildmasters screen, there is an option of some sort to allow the passing of the Guildmaster position to another character.  Do you propose that there now be an election?  A rather formal and structured thing to do in light of a desire to have a laid back approch to all of this.  As for a vote, I would just cast mine now for Tal to take that potentially ungrateful postition to be in ("the buck stops here").

Also keep in mind about your references to the beta guild.  When all the guilds in the beta test were disolved; it took the combined players of both the beta1 and PvP servers AND recuiting players on the street to get the guild restarted.  With such a small group (less than 9), it is a lot easier to get by with no structure to the guild.  And since there was effectively no addition of new players coming in, there was not much need to address being able to offer any of our friends a decent playing environment.  If it is to be an overly restrictive environment for being in the guild; I have a different approch I will take, removing my characters from the guild and my presence from the server.
[right][snapback]64609[/snapback][/right]

You inferred something from my words that was not implied.

And as to the number of players at the start of retail, I got my copy of WoW and was on line the first day, but the guild was already in place by the time I logged in. I doubt I was the last one. The small number of people you cite was probably underestimated.

I never had anything but appreciation and warm regard for Tal's work until two days ago. Why would I have expressed objections earlier when I was in agreement with Tal's stated feelings and with what I thought was the group consensus?

I pointed out to Tal that his was a non-elected position, e.g. one from which he could not be removed. I had no knowledge that there was a mechanism to change guild leadership. I was not asking (nor am I asking) for a guild election. I was not asking that Tal step down or be removed. How can I be more clear to you that I do not favor a hierarchy, elections, a governing body, politics, or any such?

If you feel that being registered on the lounge is overly restrictive, then, yes, sadly, we have a difference of opinion.

[Occhidiangela]

The Lurker Lounge is a public site.

*Snip*

I say, then, that filtering people through the site is like filtering water through a hula hoop.  This is not like the Asylum, where you could just discuss the nature of the site and 90% of the people would run away screaming. [right][snapback]64624[/snapback][/right]

Nystul:


You had me chuckling out loud (COL?) thank you so much for that grin.

In keeping with the theme of people running away screaming, I will echo one of Pete's sentiments and suggest that if we get into too much bickering and head banging on Guild issues, we risk doing just that: inducing folks to run away screaming.

You also identify accurately the context of this discussion. What made the Lounge so good, even when the noise of some of the arriving goons induced me to put on "ear plugs" now and again -- my old idiots list -- was the volume of folks who came by and some of the nice folks who stayed. Nico, where are you? In that spirit, the argument that we vett new Guild membership is not disagreed, but what is disagreed is method.

I will do what I can to pour some salt on the wound, oops, oil on troubles waters

*Hey, rogue, watch what you are doing with that torch!!!!*

just as soon as I clean up the coffee I spilled when I read your ref to the Asylum. :lol:

Warmest Regards

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

If you feel that being registered on the lounge is overly restrictive, then, yes, sadly, we have a difference of opinion.
[right][snapback]64634[/snapback][/right]

If the only requirement is registration, then my comments on the Thought Police tool, which would not be enacted anyway due to no one wishing to perform that role, are vacated and were perhaps vacuous to start with. ;)

I think you will agree that registration alone is a screening method that lacks sufficient filtering beyond Nystuls "hula hoop" model. :)

Here is how I see a transaction taking place, correct me anyone at all if I am wrong.

1. Lurker has friend, family, person on Friends list who is a legit and upright playing.

2. Discussing Guildness in game, conversation comes up 'hey, check out the Lounge, nice folks there, good place to continue with the WoW obsession."

If person chooses to register.

3. Undecided as yet further vetting process, if any.

4. Guild eligible on the Server in question.

If person chooses not to register

5. No further vetting, if there is any agreed, takes place?

6. Not eligible?

Person can still Lurk, being technicallly "a Lurker" even though not registered, and will be excluded from the Lurker Guild on that server until such time as they feel like registering. No posting required.

Registering is not rectal surgery, for sure.

Warm relations with good folk and a good rep preferred for any Guild member, but

There is no escaping risk.

As I see it, registering does not aid risk based decision making for a host of reasons offered by a number of posters in this thread. It does, in its defense as a step, indicate intent to participate in the general community, which I think Mongo Jerry prefers for site interests, and which may or may not be germane to Server Specific Guild administration matters.

It may also indicate, "Hey, if that is the hoop I have to jump through, OK, not all that hard to do." Sort of a "check for a pulse" step.

*scratches head*
*finds small critter*
*slips into mouth when no one is looking*

Hmm, was that a nit I just ate? :whistling:

Occhi