Hi,
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.
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
Skandranon,Jan 5 2005, 11:07 PM Wrote:. . . but there should be nothing wrong with starting with guild first, site later, . . .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".
[right][snapback]64558[/snapback][/right]
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.
Quote:Altogether, I don't see the difference here being necessarily about structure so much as it is about the underlying ideas which shape it.Â
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
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?