01-04-2005, 05:16 PM
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
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
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?