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.
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.
One day, the Champions of the Fierce Bunny will ride again...<!--sizec--><!--/sizec-->