Changes to the Stormrage Guild system

[swirly]

It seems to me that the core problem is that people are getting into the guild who shouldn't have been allowed in to start with. So I guess the question to ask is, who should be in the guild? Maybe a broader question needs asked first though. What is the point of the guild? Basically, there needs to be a mission statement.

The Lurkers on Stormrage is a collection of friends who embody what the Lounge is about: discovering the mechanics and strategies of the game while having fun and playing honorably.

Alright, so it seems like the mission of the guild is to provide people with a way of finding other people of like mind to play with. So basically, the guild is like a friendslist. Its a bunch of people who you consider good to play with. I think this is the root of the disagreement between what you and what mongo are saying. Let me see if I can try and sum up the two views.

Mongo: The guild should only have active posters on the site in it. This is not a collection of people with similiar quality of play or interest. This is just a way for active members of the site to more easily find each other and keep in touch.

Tal: The guild is for people with a similair style of play. Its a way of finding other people to play with who you can trust to be up to a certain standard. People who play honorbly and who are interested in the details of the game.

Basically, for Mongo the guild is a kind of friendslist for the site. For Tal the guild isn't so much about the site, but rather the purpose behind the site. This difference is kind of what I was talking about when I said

with that Vision it means you can make the guild however you want to make it. It doesn't have to be how Mongo thinks a guild should be. He has already said that the Lounge itself is hands off with the guild.

I didn't mean that things shouldn't be ran by Mongo or that one can do anything they want wit hthe guild. I more meant that the guild doesn't have to be exactly what Mongo was invisioning. It just has to meet the quality level of the lounge so as to cast a good light on it.

So taking all of this in, it seems that what is really trying to be done is to come up with a way of structuring the guild so that only players of lounge quality get into it. Basically its not so much a lurker lounge guild as it is a lounge quality guild. So then what ranks are needed to accomplish this?

Guild Master: the leader

Officers: a group of members who are responsible for organizing raids, groups for dungeons, and such like that. Main difference from members group is ability to set the MOTD to be used for those resposibilities.

Members: people who are verified as quality players

Try outs: people who are unverified, but are being given a chance.


Of course, with names more appropriate to the guild, but for now I think its best to use names that are clear. The main point to all of this seems to be that there needs to be a step between not in the guild and being in the guild. This is where hte "Try outs" rank comes in. Its the group of people who seem to have potential, but are unproven. I also put the officers rank in because it seems like Tal does want the guild to actually behave somewhat like a guild with organizing raids and such like that. I think Mongo's view on this would be that it is not needed. That everyone in the members group should be trusted enough for the same responsibilites as the Officers.

So am I about on the mark with the difference in view for the guild? I think this needs to be clarified before any real structure can be determined. One needs to know what the purpose of things is.

[Tal]

Thanks, Tal.  You're awesome.  I want you to know that, and I want to publicly acknowledge how great your help has been.  [right][snapback]64300[/snapback][/right]

:blush: Thanks sir. I am trying to do the best that I can for the Site and my friends on Stormrage. I hope you don't view my statements in this thread as counter to your authority in these matters. My intentions align with your own, we just disagree on how best to implement it. :)

However, I would like to clarify this point by quoting from the "Vision for the Lurker Lounge: World of Warcraft" post:
This is not the same as letting people do whatever they will with the in-game Lurker guilds.  If someone were to start a kill-on-sight or hacker guild called the Lurker Lounge, I'd certainly be upset.  And in this less extreme case, while I would prefer a "hands-off" policy on minutia like tabbard design and the discipline of individual players, I feel that it is important that I weigh in on this overall policy discussion on the recruitment of new players, since it does impact the way that other players will perceive the site.
[right][snapback]64300[/snapback][/right]

This is indeed true. I believe our recruiting and my present course of action preserves this vision. I would like to sit down with you at some point and discuss the Lurker Lounge behavior list.

I do think that these changes are being blown out of proportion. No one is any more important as far as Lurkers go in the Lounge. I wouldn't be human if I didn't say that some folk's opinions mean more to me than others. For example, Treesh has been a person I go to for consul and to talk over matters. You will notice though that I didn't ask her to be a Lounger. In the same vein I frequently don't agree with Lissa on the best way to do things in game but I value his opinion and trust him to know what a "Lurker" looks like, to give sound advice (even if I don't always agree) and to help mediate personality conflicts and therefore he was tapped to be a Lounger. The position of Lounger is really meant to help me out with the day to day operation of the guild and to keep the fun rolling. I'm trying to look down the road and provide a framework now to keep the Lurkers on Stormrage from collapsing due to entropy or worse yet a blow to the reputation of the Lurker Lounge.

[Kevin]

Alright this is what I see this all boiling down too.

The guild is run on trust. Everyone who is a member of the Lurker Lounge website is welcome because well we aren't a guild, we are a group of friends. Everyone who is in the guild can add members to the guild because well it is your friends you are dealing with. That is great, we all like that.

I'm going back to rule number one in Skandranon's Mage's guide. Things will go wrong. I see Tal wanting to have something in place for when that happens yet tryin to keep things as loose as possible. Administration will have to happen, even if we aren't a guild, but a group a friends. I know my friends bicker. I know some of my friends are intimidated about asking others of my friends things, or just don't deal with them well. I know things go wrong. I know who I can talk to when they do as do they. But I don't have 200 friends. The guild could easily get that big easily, the site got big after LoD, and there were a lot of those people who were good people. We want the site to get bigger. As it does so will the guild.

Tal wants to make it clearer who you can go and talk to when rule one crops up, and keep things off the forums, because we aren't a guild site. Not everyone wants to be that someone who helps with the admin or is the person that you go talk to. It took him some time to have me accept the "rank" of Lounger, but ultimately I felt it was a good way for me to contribute to the web site albeit through the guild. I don't post a lot because most of what I would want to say has been said, but I do take it all in. I agreed that we do want some in game way of knowing who to talk to when rule one happens and I figured I could do well with that.

The other point that Treesh raises is that in game we are seen as a guild because we are a guild to everyone else in the game. We are generally better players because we read the forums and we can apply that knowledge we pick up here and elsewhere. That is going to attract attention. It isn't easy for some people to say "sorry I can't invite you, but check out the forums" and the rest of that conversation to someone who is clearly a good player and could easily do good things at the forums. But most could say "I can't invite you in, but you can talk with so and so about it" after checking the list for an online "officer". I know some people are going to come back and say "What member won't want to talk about the site!" you're being silly with this point. Not all Lurkers are the same; some are more Lurkers than Loungers if you will. If the guild is only active posters, you just set up a clique on the forums. There are already discussions in the general forums about this site being intimidating for new members. If you have a guild that you can only be in if you are an active poster, you just made that worse. Of course Mongo isn't saying you need to be an active poster to be in the guild and I think we all agree with that as well. So, how do you get in the guild? How, if you have read the forums and learned but haven't really wanted to post, but you want to play with these people do you get in the guild? We have to be prepared to deal with the rest of the game that sees us as a guild, which is another reason why the rest of this thread is a good thing we are dealing with that now. Having a friendly mechanism to help facilitate things like this is a good thing I feel.

I would think most good players that get invited into the guild and are then shown the forums are going to at least lurk at the forums if not contribute a whole lot. I like having a way to start someones association with the site from the guild side of things. We want the site to grow, we expect it to grow, I think the members in the guild can be trusted to recruit for the website if you will from within the game. However rule one will crop up so we want something to handle it.

When I get fully caught up I'll respond directly to points as well, but I wanted to get my general thoughts out there.

[--Pete]

Hi,

This is an ugly situation all around. Ranks are a problem for a number of reasons. They give the impression, and even foster the reality, of cliques. They raise the expectation of 'promotion'. They lead to charges of incompetence, indifference, etc., against the percieved 'leaders' which can lead to great internal strife. Those are just the ones I've personally seen. I'm sure there are more.

On the other hand, lack of an administrative structure of some kind is anarchy, which we all know only works if everyone follows the rules. Since the very existance of the LL is indirectly due to the fact that most do not follow any rules, this is also not a viable solution.

The concept that "any friend of my friends is also my friend" is nice but unrealistic. Friendships are much more complex than in game behavior. A person who is willing to play with both legits and griefers may have friends amongst the griefers. We might be willing to play with that person, but not with his friends.

As to the "representative of the site" argument, that is a nice concept in principle, but not in practice. Although we have some 2261 members, most of them are inactive. Over a quarter of them (686) have made no posts. Eighty percent of them (1861) have made fewer tha 20 posts when the average is around 30. To expect a 'candidate' to become a active poster is to expect the unlikely. Besides, the criteria for recognition on the forum and for being a good partner in game are largely unrelated.

So, we (well, 'you' until I get the chance to play) want to be both inclusive and exclusive. The first thing we have to realize is that it will take some compromise. And the second is that every compromise will displease many and fully please no one.

I would prefer a totally rankless guild, with all decisions made by the membership at large. However, that is unrealistic. Take the simple case of inducting a new member. A simple vote would not work if most ot the existing members had not had a chance to meet the inductee. Simply accepting the recommendation of a member leads to the 'friend of a friend' scenario that I mentioned above. Black ball methods lead to pettiness and strife.

However, using ranks raises a whole new set of problems. Again consider the inductee. To progress beyond the probational rank, this poor sod has to somehow get the attention of the 'officers' of the guild. But, either the officers will be active in the game and probably way too high a level to play with the inductee or they will be inactive and not be playing with anyone. Again, this leads to strife.

One solution is to have guild committees and let a formal committee determine the induction and eventual promotion(s) of a new member. This is a structure way beyond what I see as being in the LL interest. And it is a structure that, while it may lead to a great guild, would also probably lead to the 'closing' of the Lounge to 'outsiders'. A path strewn with dangers.

I have no solution. As a lifelong GDI, I distrust all organizations. But I distrust them in proportion to the complexity of their hierarchy.

--Pete

[Kevin]

Hi,

This is an ugly situation all around.  Ranks are a problem for a number of reasons.  They give the impression, and even foster the reality, of cliques.  They raise the expectation of 'promotion'.  They lead to charges of incompetence, indifference, etc., against the percieved 'leaders' which can lead to great internal strife.  Those are just the ones I've personally seen.  I'm sure there are more.


[right][snapback]64309[/snapback][/right]

What, like that conversation in guild chat one day about the poor job Mongo was doing on the website and the 'should we take a vote' comments?

[--Pete]

Hi,

What, like that conversation in guild chat one day about the poor job Mongo was doing on the website and the 'should we take a vote' comments?
[right][snapback]64311[/snapback][/right]

As I've said -- I haven't had a chance to play since sometime before the end of the beta. So I have no idea of what's been going on on-line. I don't know if you are joking or serious.

--Pete

[Kevin]

Hi,
As I've said -- I haven't had a chance to play since sometime before the end of the beta.  So I have no idea of what's been going on on-line.  I don't know if you are joking or serious.

--Pete
[right][snapback]64312[/snapback][/right]

I'm serious but it wasn't directed at you, and I didn't make that clear. I debated on even mentioning it, but well your opening to the post was simply too good.

There was a conversation on Stormrage along the lines of who the hell is Mongo anyway and why does he get to admin the WoW section? Do you think we should have a vote about it? There was also explanation of who Mongo was and why he was there. The people who were saying who is he and can we get rid of him went offline shortly after. Though I don't think anything serious was really going on.

So, you without having played the game and without having seen any of it hit the nail on the head. I realize I should have made that clear in the first post. Sorry about that (to everyone in general).

[Tal]

I'm serious but it wasn't directed at you, and I didn't make that clear.  I debated on even mentioning it, but well your opening to the post was simply too good. 

There was a conversation on Stormrage along the lines of who the hell is Mongo anyway and why does he get to admin the WoW section?  Do you think we should have a vote about it?  There was also explanation of who Mongo was and why he was there.  The people who were saying who is he and can we get rid of him went offline shortly after.  Though I don't think anything serious was really going on.

So, you without having played the game and without having seen any of it hit the nail on the head.  I realize I should have made that clear in the first post.  Sorry about that (to everyone in general).
[right][snapback]64314[/snapback][/right]

I'm glad to hear that folks stood up for Mongo and his suitability to be the WoW Admin but truthfully it isn't for them to decide. Bolty put out the call for an admin and chose Mongo for the position - the decision lies with Bolty.

[Thenryb]

Tal's plan is similar to the one in place in a guild I play in on Lightbringer and seems to work pretty well. As I see it, the only reason to have any sort of structure is to remove players who have turned out to be bad apples. A case in point involves a beta guild I was in (sort of the predecessor to the Lightbringer guild I play in now). After phase 1 of the beta, Lurkers moved to the Horde. For various reasons, I did not like playing the Horde side so I moved back to the Alliance and started what turned out to be my beta main there. I met several friends and joined a nice guild there. As the guild got bigger and many of us began doing high level instances, the guild master began receiving complaints about some of our members "ninja looting" . It got to the point that some of our members would be rejected for instance groups because of the actions of these few. The Guildmaster decided that rather than removing those which he had concluded were responsible for this "bad reputation" he would reform the guild under a different name and start over. In contrast, the current retail guild master took the steps to remove a member who was regularly doing those kinds of activities. This caused some hard feelings for a short time, but things returned to normal withing a day's time. Obviously, you cannot set about removing someone every time you hear a complaint about that persons play, and you would never want to do that if the complaint referenced the player's skill vs his or her character, but there needs to be some mechanism to insure that guild members are not denied grouping opportunities just because of the guild tag.

[Tal]

Tal's plan is similar to the one in place in a guild I play in on Lightbringer and seems to work pretty well. As I see it, the only reason to have any sort of structure is to remove players who have turned out to be bad apples.
[right][snapback]64317[/snapback][/right]

This is exactly the reason for the a structure but my compromise was to allow folks to invite those they deemed were good members and still allow for the ability to remove them. The Guildmaster having sole discretion over invites was not an option so I compromised.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm glad to hear that folks stood up for Mongo and his suitability to be the WoW Admin . . . [right][snapback]64316[/snapback][/right]

I am too. He is both articulate and passionate -- the perfect choice to generate a great WoW section for the LL.

. . . but truthfully it isn't for them to decide. Bolty put out the call for an admin and chose Mongo for the position -  the decision lies with Bolty.

Yes. And no. This is Bolty's site and a great deal of credit must always go to him first and foremost. And since it is his site, he gets to pick whom he wants for any and all positions. His choices have been excellent and have contributed much to the site. But, should Bolty screw up and make a bad choice, or should one of Bolty's choices turn from good to bad, then the Lurkers do indeed have the right to vote -- if only with their 'feet'. Although I think (and hope) that people would point out the problem and Bolty correct it before the situation became a disaster.

It has never happened yet. I hope it never happens. But the 'Divine Right of Kings' was never a valid argument and it remains even more so on a medium as fluid as the Internet.

--Pete

[Roane]

Attempting to reply to the thread as a whole, rather than to individual points -

Regarding the need for ranks at all: In a perfect world, they wouldn't be necessary, and I'd love that. In beta, we could make do without them without any problems because we had a limited number of people from which members could come. Now that we're in retail, there is essentially no limit. The guild could easily grow to 100 people, all Lurker quality. However, from personal experience in nearly every MMORPG out there, as guilds increase in size so do the problems, regardless of the quality of the people. Having an officer rank allows us to do two things:

1) It gives everyone, inside and outside the guild, a visible list of people to go to should there be a personality conflict, a problem that needs resolving, advice about a situation, direction towards resources, etc. It's not that those outside the officer rank cannot do those things. It merely gives people an easy reference point on who to go to for mentoring or conflict resolution.

2) Officers being allowed to promote helps us keep an eye on any newcomers to the guild. It allows us to manage invitations. There is no intent to restrict invitations, beyond our restrictions about player quality. If that were so, only officers would be able to invite. There was more than one situation where Tal and I would see someone on the guild list or in guild chat and wonder who it is, and why they were invited. Had they just not put their board name on their player note or were they not someone from the boards (family member, etc.)? We had no idea. And yes, we could ask and find out, and we did, but in larger numbers, such a thing could be a problem. No one would be denied a promotion. This just allows us to watch the inflow of new members.

Regarding the particular ranks which were created: The current game mechanics require a minimum of five ranks. I think we all agree that we want as few distinctions between members as possible, that ranks are about functionality, not prestige. We're all equals here. However, you cannot delete (even if that function was working for Tal) enough ranks to have less than five. When coming up with the rank list, the Guildmaster/Lounger/Lurker ones were obvious. I puzzled for a while over what to do with the other two ranks. Initiate could stay as it was -- a rank that one would quickly be promoted from. So, though I figured its use would be uncommon at best and possibly never used, I proposed the Lounge Lizard rank in the odd case where we wanted to invite someone but weren't sure of them for whatever reason. Then, and now, I don't think this will be needed. However, I believe in preparing for future possible situtations, and having the rank in case we need it wouldn't hurt from what I could see.

Regarding recruitement: I don't think that I or anyone else is planning a recruitment drive, and I feel like that's where the fear is we're going to take things. Most of us don't invite people that we group with a time or two and think well of. I have not yet met anyone in game that I would think of inviting who was not already a Lurker. I'm picky like that. I'm selective about the people I choose to play with.

At the same time, there is the possibility (again, I like preparing for future possible situations) that one or more of us may meet someone who is a solid and honorable player, who discusses strategies, who embodies the vision of the Lurker Lounge. I do want the ability to invite these people, to the guild and to the site. I agree with the earlier stated opinions that telling people we absolutely can't invite them because they aren't vocal on the site comes off as cliquish. And we all know that there are many of us that are as prone to lurking as to posting. I don't want to have to exclude these people that may be great contributors just because they've not been hanging around this site for the last however many years. People contribute in different ways. To this end, I like Loch's suggestion of adding one thread that people can introduce themselves in. As it stands, the site does not encourage new posters, and the environment can read as a little antagonistic to the uninitiated.

I think I'm a great example of someone who lurks more than they post. In fact, prior to the WoW beta, I don't think I had posted once or even registered, though I'd lurked often, had the site bookmarked, etc. I had to be encouraged to join the beta guild. It even took me a while to work up the courage to actually talk and discuss strategies in guild chat. I still rarely post, as I find someone else has usually made my point before I get to posting. And yet, I'd like to think I make an okay Lurker, and that I'm an asset to the site and the in-game representatives of the site in the form of the guild. If we did restrict to highly active posters or those who write up strategy guides (I'm working on mine, but it's my first attempt writing up a strategy guide instead of a history/mythology guide, so it goes slowly.), people such as myself would be excluded, and I'd like to think that'd be a loss.

[LavCat]

Actually the only power you had in Beta that you don't now possess is the abillity promote someone. If a guild member is an established member of the community or a friend of an established Lurker (such as yourself) they will get promoted to Lurker. I'm still trying to maintain the easy going guild we had in Beta while still protecting the best interests of the Guild.[right][snapback]64259[/snapback][/right]

Tal, you misunderstand my objection. I am not complaining of loss of power, I am complaining of a change in the nature of the group. There has to be a guild leader, but I was not advocating any other hierachy, not even initiate.

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.

[Tal]

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."[right][snapback]64333[/snapback][/right]

This statment would bely my experience. As MagicBag was in the guild during Beta (and a very good addition to the guild) prior to being known on the forums and Spangles was in the guild before quitting and moving onto another guild. When asked Spangles stated she was a friend of yours.

At any rate I am not in favor of limiting the membership of the Stormrage Guild to just known Lounge members.

I am happy to answer questions about the lounge and to direct folks to us.
[right][snapback]64333[/snapback][/right]

To what purpose though? So they can post on the forums in order to get enough "rep" to join the Guild? Would these posts be guaranteed to have a high enough content ratio to not be spam?

[LavCat]

This statment would bely my experience. As MagicBag was in the guild during Beta (and a very good addition to the guild) prior to being known on the forums and Spangles was in the guild before quitting and moving onto another guild. When asked Spangles stated  she was a friend of yours.

At any rate I am not in favor of limiting the membership of the Stormrage Guild to just known Lounge  members.
To what purpose though? So they can post on the forums in order to get enough "rep" to join the Guild? Would these posts be guaranteed to have a high enough content ratio to not be spam?
[right][snapback]64335[/snapback][/right]

Tal, get your facts straight:

MB (family) joined this iteration of the lounge 5/13/2003, which was well before you or I were in the beta. He would be pleased to tell you (or at least he is pleased to tell me) that he had been active on the lounge long before I ever was.

Ynir (friend) enquired of me how to apply for membership in the lurkers guild. I said membership in the guild was available to posters on the lounge. Ynir subsequently introduced himself and has since posted content. Besides, at the time he asked for membership with us Ynir was in the basin guild and I thought we had a cross licensing agreement with that organization?

I enjoy playing with friends and family (sometimes) but I invited neither MB nor Ynir. I have invited no one to the guild. 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.

[Skandranon]

I'm going back to rule number one in Skandranon's Mage's guide.  Things will go wrong.
[right][snapback]64307[/snapback][/right]

Heh. I didn't even think about Rule One, and I was going to make the exact same argument.

I don't think it's possible for us to find a perfect system that keeps undesirables out while letting in those who really want to play and contribute. I don't think that a litmus test of any sort, forum-related or not, can set this standard for us; as Roane noted, sometimes playing comes first and contributing comes later. Ultimately, if we must err, and I believe we must, I prefer erring in favour of inclusivity. Sometimes trial and error has to go error, error, error. As long as we have effective, quick, open, and responsive mechanisms in place to deal with the inevitable misbehaviour by a member of the guild, we won't go far wrong.

[MongoJerry]

Attempting to reply to the thread as a whole, rather than to individual points -

Regarding the need for ranks at all:

I'm coming around to the idea that the population of Lurkers on Stormrage is becoming large enough that some more formal guild-like administration is probably necessary. So, for that server, having a set of officers to mediate conflicts and administer the guild is probably a necessary evil.

Taking the last part of your post and throwing it into the middle:

I think I'm a great example of someone who lurks more than they post.  In fact, prior to the WoW beta, I don't think I had posted once or even registered, though I'd lurked often, had the site bookmarked, etc.  I had to be encouraged to join the beta guild.  It even took me a while to work up the courage to actually talk and discuss strategies in guild chat.  I still rarely post, as I find someone else has usually made my point before I get to posting.  And yet, I'd like to think I make an okay Lurker, and that I'm an asset to the site and the in-game representatives of the site in the form of the guild.  If we did restrict to highly active posters or those who write up strategy guides (I'm working on mine, but it's my first attempt writing up a strategy guide instead of a history/mythology guide, so it goes slowly.), people such as myself would be excluded, and I'd like to think that'd be a loss.

Let's nip this concern in the bud. When I say that someone is a participant in the Lurker Lounge, that does not mean that they have to write strategy guides or post a minimum number of messages on the site in a given amount of time. A participant can simply be someone who "lurks" and reads the site. I will absolutely defend a person's right to "lurk," and no one should ever be excluded because of a lack of posting.

Regarding recruitement: I don't think that I or anyone else is planning a recruitment drive, and I feel like that's where the fear is we're going to take things.  Most of us don't invite people that we group with a time or two and think well of.  I have not yet met anyone in game that I would think of inviting who was not already a Lurker.  I'm picky like that.  I'm selective about the people I choose to play with.

The trouble is that comments from Teesh and Tal cause me to be afraid that this is exactly their intention -- to use the in-game "guild" as a way to recruit new website members rather than the other way around. I do not want people to be inviting a person into the in-game "guilds" just because they had a decent couple of instance runs with that person. It would be far better to refer the person to the website first and let the person get indoctrinated to the Lurker Lounge ways before having a banner over their heads advertising the Lurker Lounge.

To this end, I like Loch's suggestion of adding one thread that people can introduce themselves in.  As it stands, the site does not encourage new posters, and the environment can read as a little antagonistic to the uninitiated.

Agreed. The devil's in the details in this sort of thing, but I have an idea of how to do it. More ways of making new members feel welcome definitely need to be added. Give me a couple of days. I finally have some time after the holiday rush to add some content to the site. Also, I have to get used to the whole Mambo site administration system that the site is using.

[Treesh]

The trouble is that comments from Teesh and Tal cause me to be afraid that this is exactly their intention -- to use the in-game "guild" as a way to recruit new website members rather than the other way around.  I do not want people to be inviting a person into the in-game "guilds" just because they had a decent couple of instance runs with that person.  It would be far better to refer the person to the website first and let the person get indoctrinated to the Lurker Lounge ways before having a banner over their heads advertising the Lurker Lounge.

[right][snapback]64367[/snapback][/right]

Let me set this to rights right now. I sure as hell am not going to be inviting anyone to the guild. Ever. You can ease that fear right now Mongo and get it out of your head.

Edit: One last question, you say it doesn't have to just be active posters allowed in. Good. But how do you know who actually lurks and who doesn't when you are in the game? Is it simply because they know to go to the lurkers channel? That can be spread word of mouth easily. If only people who are LLers get in, but they are true lurkers, how do we know? Could be friends of friends of LLers, could be family members of LLers, could be random people who happened to hear about it from "some guy". If you're going to say only people from the forums (even those lurking) can join the guild, you need to say how we know that they really, truly are from the forums. Answer me that and I'll stop harping about the cliquishness.

[Tal]

Tal, get your facts straight:

MB (family) joined this iteration of the lounge 5/13/2003, which was well before you or I were in the beta.  He would be pleased to tell you (or at least he is pleased to tell me) that he had been active on the lounge long before I ever was.[right][snapback]64363[/snapback][/right]

This is why I don't believe in questioning someone on how long they've been a Lurker just to play with us. Though if I wished to be snarky I could question the use of "Active" to describe a handful of posts prior to the WoW Beta. But this is what I get for trying to be a nice guy and thinking well "LavCat is a name I recognize. Anyone who is related to Lav MUST be a good person to be in the guild." Damn me for my trusting ways! :rolleyes: [/sarcasm]

Ynir (friend) enquired of me how to apply for membership in the lurkers guild.  I said membership in the guild was available to posters on the lounge.  Ynir subsequently introduced himself and has since posted content.  Besides, at the time he asked for membership with us Ynir was in the basin guild and I thought we had a cross licensing agreement with that organization?[right][snapback]64363[/snapback][/right]

He was a member of the guild prior to posting on the Lounge. I have no idea if he was a member of Basin or not. When I inquired to him about how he got into the guild he indicated he was a friend of yours.

I enjoy playing with friends and family (sometimes) but I invited neither MB nor Ynir.  I have invited no one to the guild.  I believe guild members should come from the ranks of the forums.  Clearly we have a difference of opinion.[right][snapback]64363[/snapback][/right]

Clearly since I have already stated as such.

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]

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.

[Tal]

The trouble is that comments from Teesh and Tal cause me to be afraid that this is exactly their intention -- to use the in-game "guild" as a way to recruit new website members rather than the other way around.  I do not want people to be inviting a person into the in-game "guilds" just because they had a decent couple of instance runs with that person.  It would be far better to refer the person to the website first and let the person get indoctrinated to the Lurker Lounge ways before having a banner over their heads advertising the Lurker Lounge.
[right][snapback]64367[/snapback][/right]

No. My intention is to allow others the freedom to invite friends and family into the guild. If they perennially group with certain folk and feel they would make good Lurkers than I have set up a means for them to do so without bringing about worries about what kind of Guild the Lurkers has turned into. I will be just as happy with the guild if it stays the same size it is now. But it is folly for me to not view the long range picture that eventually we are going to start getting people who join the site simply to get guilded. This is my intention with the rank system.