Raiding as we go forward

[Skandranon]

I was talking to some IA members today and they do have a hidden point system.  As I understand it there are numbers that are assisgned to those priorities to help keep them straight.  Points are never subtracted though they are just weighed against loots already won.  It's not a traditional point system but numeric values are used to help make the decision.

That's true. I should have clarified: statistics are kept so that the members who end up in the loot channel can look up the attendance and previous loots in order to decide according to the criteria. But, as you said, points are not deducted or bid or anything; they're just sort of a measure of dedication, since no member can be expected to perfectly recall which other members were or weren't there (and what they did or did not get) on a large number of previous raids. Is it a point system? I wouldn't call it that.

I personally like an idea like this as well which is why I was talking to IA members about it.  It also plays a bit to our alliance set up.  Guild Master (or designated member) from Lurkers, CA, HH, Forces of Will, the Basin, whoever else get to do the decision stuff.
[right][snapback]86438[/snapback][/right]

While I personally think the loot council is the best loot system I've ever seen in use, I'm not sure it plays to the guild alliance quite as much as you think. Especially in a council appointed as one member from each guild, there's enormous potential for drama; after all, guilds are of different sizes and bring a different contribution to the raid, and one or more guilds may feel shorted on representation and loot. If there's a multiple-way fight over a particularly prized piece of loot, like the Staff of Dominance, it may very well be that each council member votes for their own guildmate, resulting in a massive tie. Then there's collusion and quid pro quo votes. And even if all the guildmasters are upright and honest and impartial (which, I hasten to say, is very likely with the quality of player you have) the potential is there for some bitter member to accuse the council of any of the previous potential abuses and ignite a drama firestorm.

The loot council relies on the total abnegation of the "loot-for-me" instinct in favour of the less common "loot-for-the-guild". For you it is slightly harder: one must push aside "loot-for-me" and "loot-for-my-guildies" in favour of whatever the loot council decides is right, which some of you may not choose to do. There's nothing wrong about it, and it's not, although some might want to portray it that way, more selfish, either.

You are a coalition of guilds and you are that way because you want to maintain separate guild identities, to a certain degree. Again: nothing wrong with it, and it's even admirable, in a sense. But you do need to be aware of the additional difficulties it brings up. Yes, it may very well be that every single person in the alliance is happy when someone gets loot, no matter who that person is or what guild tag they wear - but I wouldn't count on it. And given your structure, they are not "wrong" for feeling that way; indeed, there is no right or wrong where such things are concerned, only the inevitability that some will feel differently from others. Any system you use, loot council or not, will have to find mechanisms to resolve it.