Changes to the Stormrage Guild system

[Bolty]

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.
[right][snapback]64320[/snapback][/right]

Ah Pete, your memory is short. It did happen once. The Lurkers slapped me back into line on one major occasion years back.

Anyway, that people would debate Mongo's role on the LL saddens me. He is insanely passionate not just about playing the game, but writing about it (which is the major key). Lack of content cannot be blamed on him - it was my fault for taking over a month post-release to get the site up and running in the new system, which all admins were waiting for.

If there is a perceived lack of WoW content here, the blame is entirely on me.

-Bolty

[LavCat]

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]
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.
Clearly since I have already stated as such.
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.
[right][snapback]64375[/snapback][/right]

It has been more than ten months since Ynir first posted on the lounge. In addition he and Spangles would have been well known to anyone playing in basin DII games on USEast or attending basin weekly chat, and at least recognized by someone more than casually reading the basin forums, as many lurkers do.

I certainly am not asking that qualification for guild membership be based on post count. I do expect that someone invited into our guild would have some history with the lounge (or from the basin). I don't wish to kick anyone or their good intentions in the teeth. However I despise what you call a compromise.

[Tal]

I do expect that someone invited into our guild would have some history with the lounge (or from the basin).  I don't wish to kick anyone or their good intentions in the teeth.  However I despise what you call a compromise.
[right][snapback]64408[/snapback][/right]

The door has already been left open on that barn. We've invited in folks that were just friends and family of Lurkers and I have no intention of kicking them out. I also have no intention of making a rule that no one who hasn't been on the Lounge can be in the Stormrage Guild. I think I've pointed out (at least to me) endlessly the flaws in basing membership on something as mercurial as "history with the website" or Basin Games or Diablo 2 on USEast. I much prefer to think that quality folks (those who post regularly on the boards) will attract quality folks to the in game Guild. So I stand by the statement that any friend of a Lurker will be a friend of mine in the game. To protect my naiveté and the Guild I decided to add a buffer rank. I'm sorry that this decision is despicable to you but it still seems less restrictive and more fun based than me taking the ability to invite away from everyone and leaving it in my hands.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ah Pete, your memory is short.  It did happen once.[right][snapback]64395[/snapback][/right]

It is, indeed. I guess the excellence of the Lounge over the years drove that incident out of my mind. And, having been reminded of it, I shall attempt to once again forget it as soon as possible.

--Pete

[LavCat]

The door has already been left open on that barn. We've invited in folks that were just friends and family of Lurkers and I have no intention of kicking them out. I also have no intention of making a rule that no one who hasn't been on the Lounge can be in the Stormrage Guild. I think I've pointed out (at least to me) endlessly the flaws in basing membership on something as mercurial as "history with the website" or Basin Games or Diablo 2 on USEast. I much prefer to think that quality folks (those who post regularly on the boards) will attract quality folks to the in game Guild. So I stand by the statement that any friend of a Lurker will be a friend of mine in the game. To protect my naiveté and the Guild I decided to add a buffer rank. I'm sorry that this decision is despicable to you but it still seems less restrictive and more fun based than me taking the ability to invite away from everyone and leaving it in my hands.
[right][snapback]64411[/snapback][/right]

I don't recall ever having disagreed with you before, but I think you are making a big mistake. Maybe have made a big mistake.

You make me sound like an exclusionist. The lounge is based on a common interest and on shared values. Last I checked it was open to all who were able to communicate (in English, of some sort) -- without regard to age, national origin, sexual orientation, or political affiliation.

[Tal]

I don't recall ever having disagreed with you before, but I think you are making a big mistake.  Maybe have made a big mistake.[right][snapback]64488[/snapback][/right]

That is certainly your prerogative. I don't believe I have made a mistake and feel that time will show that what I'm doing is with the best interest of the Guild in mind.

You make me sound like an exclusionist.  The lounge is based on a common interest and on shared values.  Last I checked it was open to all who were able to communicate (in English, of some sort) -- without regard to age, national origin, sexual orientation, or political affiliation.
[right][snapback]64488[/snapback][/right]

I see you have once again missed my point entirely. Perhaps someone else can jump in and explain it better to you.

[Catlyn]

It has been more than ten months since Ynir first posted on the lounge.  In addition he and Spangles would have been well known to anyone playing in basin DII games on USEast or attending basin weekly chat, and at least recognized by someone more than casually reading the basin forums, as many lurkers do.

I certainly am not asking that qualification for guild membership be based on post count.  I do expect that someone invited into our guild would have some history with the lounge (or from the basin).  I don't wish to kick anyone or their good intentions in the teeth.  However I despise what you call a compromise.
[right][snapback]64408[/snapback][/right]

I didn't post to the lounge before I was a member of the guild.

Want I should leave?

Don't wanna stay where I'm not wanted.

[Catlyn]

My worry about ranks is that they can become a slippery slope.  The idealist in me feels that the only ranks the Lurker Lounge needs are those that one earns by reputation throught creating articulate posts with well thought out information and arguments.  The idealist in me sees no need for formal ranks at all.  The practical side of me, however, realizes that some structure is necessary.  Still, that structure should only be what is necessary to meet the needs of the community and shouldn't be overly complicated.  I especially want to avoid new people feeling that the Lurker Lounge in-game "guild" is some sort of clique.

Again, I must emphasize that the Lurker Lounge is not a guild and that the only reason we have these in-game "guilds" is to make it easier for Lurkers unaffiliated with a guild to find one another in game.  These "guilds" are meant to be casual affairs.  If a person wants a more rigid structure with a more formal vetting process for new members, then that person should join a more formal guild like the Amazon Basin.  Our goal here is not to duplicate the work of the Amazon Basin or any other guilds.  Instead, we are a site dedicated to bringing together players of all guilds and backgrounds together to intelligently share information and ideas with one another.  If we formalize some sort of guild structure that looks too much like a formal guild, it could look to others from the outside that we are simply yet-another-guild-site.  I want to avoid this strenuously.

To that end, I want to hear a good justification for the proposed rankings.
The game requires that there be one and only one of these, so obviously this has to stay.
It's here I don't understand.  What is the difference between these two groups and why does there need to be a distinction between them?  As I read it, the officer group has the additional ability to set the motd and promote people.  But if we can't trust a person to be able to handle the responsibilities that come with those abilities, then would you want to play with them?  If you don't trust them to be responsible members in the guild, then don't invite them into the guild in the first place.

It's this differentiation between some "better" officer group and the general Lurker group that makes me queasy.  What is your justification for making this seperation?
I see no difference between these two groups.  Both are new members whose only priviledges are being able to read and write to the guild chat.

The difference lies in that I am encouraging Lurkers to invite folks that they meet in the game into the fold if they feel like the candidates could be Lurkers.

I agree that there is a potential problem, but I think this is an utterly bad solution. What you propose, Tal, seems far different from what we had in beta that worked so well.

People in the guild should be limited to posters on the forum. If we don't want them in one, we don't want them in the other. I can live with having a period of initiation if you believe such is necessary, but beyond that I ask you to reconsider making any changes to the guild structure.

Here, I agree strongly with LavCat. If you feel a person is Lurker material, then that person should be encouraged to look at the website and become members of the forums. That person should not be recruited into the "guild" first. Only after the person joins and participates in the forums should they be encouraged to join the "guild." Members of the "guild" should only be those Lurkers who are known quantities on the site and to a lesser extent close friends and family. The focus of the Lurker Lounge is the website and forums -- not the individual "guilds" on the individual servers.
[right][snapback]64280[/snapback][/right]

That's two so far that don't want me around...

Shall I pack my bags?

[Catlyn]

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

I'd've never been invited. Want me gone?

I can put Hykim and Pavis and Leeah, and Flyndar, and a few others on my friends list and work that way.

[Roane]

I am reasonably sure that no one wants you gone, Catlyn. I definitely, do not.

[Tal]

I didn't post to the lounge before I was a member of the guild.

Want I should leave?

Don't wanna stay where I'm not wanted.
[right][snapback]64496[/snapback][/right]

Absolutely not. As far as I am concerned you are the good folk I am talking about and are an example of what is good about our "recruiting" practices such as they are. :rolleyes:

[Roane]

I don't recall ever having disagreed with you before, but I think you are making a big mistake.  Maybe have made a big mistake.
[right][snapback]64488[/snapback][/right]

You've made your disagreement very clear. I, for one, understand that you don't agree with the decision. However, I would encourage you to find a way to constructively reply, perhaps suggesting some sort of middle ground. We all don't have to agree, but it does help when we all get along to some point, and show some respect for each other.

You make me sound like an exclusionist.  The lounge is based on a common interest and on shared values.  Last I checked it was open to all who were able to communicate (in English, of some sort) -- without regard to age, national origin, sexual orientation, or political affiliation.
[right][snapback]64488[/snapback][/right]

Past the first sentence, this paragraph is going completely off point. No one ever said anything, one way or the other, about who the Lounge will or will not accept. Additionally, no one made you sound like anything. Your posts are reading (and perhaps it is not your intent) as antagonism, not discussion. I would suggest that it's this 'tone' that may be inspiring any perceived friction.

We all want people in the guild that will contribute on both the site and in the game. However, an MMO's culture is not the same as the culture following a game like Diablo or NWN or Warcraft. The pool of people playing at any one time on the same server is larger, and interactions have more lasting effects. Social connections are not only important -- they are critical to success.

What we are trying to allow for is the possibilty -- not the surety -- that we will, at various rare points, want to invite my theoretical daughter, or Tal's wife, or that rare truly exceptional player that we (collectively, not individually) run into. My first response, given such a situation, would be to point them to the site, so that they can get a feel for what our little subculture is like, to make sure that they think it's a good fit for them, as I think it may be.

However, as I cannot measure how much someone does or doesn't read the site, and I am not willing to use post count as a measure of contribution, I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to turn someone away because they're not part of what some might perceive as an 'in crowd' here. And even though you've said it's not about post count, I feel like that's what you're asking us to do. I'm not sure how else 'history' would be measured. If I am wrong, then please let me know what standard, in concrete terms, you would like to use as a ticket to guild membership.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Please, let us try to keep this thread on a discussion of ideas level and not let it devolve into an argument about individuals. I am sure that anyone who got into the guild and has not been kicked out is wanted. Let us put that red herring aside.

OK, after having reread most of the posts, what I see is that Tal and Mongo have very divergent ideas of what a Lurker guild should be. Each has some good points to make and each have a cadre of support. My understanding is:

Mongo wants a Lurker guild to be the in game representation of the Lurker Lounge. As such, a non-Lurker, no matter how good a person, should not be a member. If, in playing, we run across such a person, we should point them to the site. This ties the site and the guild tightly together and yet Mongo would like the guild not to be tied to the site (or, perhaps, the site not to be tied to a guild).

Tal wants a Lurker guild to be a collection of people who enjoy playing together with no connection to the site necessary. This is much more in keeping with the traditional concept of a guild.

Determining which of these two concepts should be the foundation of the WoW Lurkers will then solve some of the problems and bring on others. For instance, if Mongo's viewpoint prevails, then ranks will not really be needed -- the (effective) two tier system of the beta will be enough since all the members will be known people. But if Tal's viewpoint is adopted, then means need to be generated both to have an evaluation period and, unfortunately, a means to fix errors (i.e., kick people out).

Indeed, many other problems come up. Such as guild communication. Is the MotD sufficient, or does the guild need a forum of its own. Or should guild business be transacted on one of the established Lurker fora? Is it even rational to expect the guild to be both independent of the site and yet somehow tied to the site?

I think that it will save a lot of grief and anger downstream if these questions are hashed out now. And I think that "Should I leave?" posts are counterproductive.

--Pete

[Tal]

Mongo wants a Lurker guild to be the in game representation of the Lurker Lounge.  As such, a non-Lurker, no matter how good a person, should not be a member.  If, in playing, we run across such a person, we should point them to the site.  This ties the site and the guild tightly together and yet Mongo would like the guild not to be tied to the site (or, perhaps, the site not to be tied to a guild).

Tal wants a Lurker guild to be a collection of people who enjoy playing together with no connection to the site necessary.  This is much more in keeping with the traditional concept of a guild.

[right][snapback]64516[/snapback][/right]

Actually what I want is a compromise of what Mongo wants and reality. The reality is that folks will want to play with their friends. They're going to want their friends to have the same benefit of being in the guild as they do. As such they're going to want to extend invites to them. This has actually happened. I'm also certain that at some point someone is going to group with someone often enough (certainly not a small number such as 3 or 4 times) that they think they'll be good folk to have in the guild. I had a warrior who was like that for me in Beta. If he hadn't had been in a guild I would have inquired to the rest of the Lurkers about his inclusion. The creation of the ranks will allow us the means to seperate the wheat from the chaff and be the in-game representation of the site. These folks would hopefully contribute to the site as part of their inclusion in the game.

As far as your other questions, I have some ideas but I've not set them down yet.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't really see that what you said and what I said are different. While you say that,

Actually what I want is a compromise of what Mongo wants and reality. [right][snapback]64522[/snapback][/right]

The reality is that,

These folks would hopefully contribute to the site as part of their inclusion in the game.

This is a pretty weak statement if this is the basis by which the guild and the site are to be tied.

Since, from where I sit, it is exactly this point that you and Mongo disagree on, I don't see how any progress can be made until that point is resolved. Or even before it is well defined. What does 'being a member of' or 'contributing to' the LL consist of?

I would prefer a Lurker guild to be a loose association of people who play together, little more than a chat channel. But you are right, that cannot endure as people that we don't wish to play with discover and 'infiltrate' the channel. The problem may that that while a chat channel is too little, a guild may be too much. Already I'm hearing things like 'guild activity'. My hope had been that the Lurkers would not be that organized. That someone looking for that level of 'guildness' would look to the AB or other more organized organization.

But all that is an aside. The question that needs resolution is simple: "To be in the Lurker guild, one must be an 'active' participant on the site." Yea or nay? Of course, if the yeas have it, then the non-trivial task of defining 'active participation' stares you in the face. But that bridge does not need to be burned till you come to it.

As far as your other questions, I have some ideas but I've not set them down yet.

Looking forward to your ideas.

--Pete

[Catlyn]

Absolutely not. As far as I am concerned you are the good folk I am talking about and are an example of what is good about our "recruiting" practices such as they are.  :rolleyes:
[right][snapback]64509[/snapback][/right]

Thanks, Shar... or Tal... er... whatever. ;)

I'd like to hear from Tribade, er... LavCat though.

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks, Shar... or Tal... er... whatever. ;)

I'd like to hear from Tribade, er... LavCat though.
[right][snapback]64526[/snapback][/right]

Welcome, in any case. I personally love the pirate look. We had a nice thread in September on The Lounge forum concerning "Talk Like A Pirate Day!" For your amusement, may I suggest a quick look at that bit if silliness to put a grin into this entire conversation? :rolleyes:

Talk Like A Pirate Day Thread with Link to things Piratical

[Occhidiangela]

I didn't post to the lounge before I was a member of the guild.

Want I should leave?

Don't wanna stay where I'm not wanted.
[right][snapback]64496[/snapback][/right]

For what it's worth: One of the finer nuances of the Lurker Lounge is that Lurking is a highly desired activity by many members. Lurking, as in dropping by but not posting.

This raises the question of how to quantify a Lurking event, versus a Posting event, which leaves a rather obvious footprint. *mumble bloody Occhi and 3000 bloody posts mumble*.

Since neither Bolty, nor Gris, nor Mongo, nor Lemming, nor Refrigerator, nor I, nor anyone I can think of (Mav, I don't see you signing up to be the Thought Police!) have the time or inclination to emulate secret police who snoop at site access, read only as it were, and then archive and post stats to determine if anyone in particular rates a minimum participation score, the answer is "we won't be able to measure that."

This takes us back to the challenge in Mongo Jerry's stated aim, that of maintaining a solid rep and an aim that I endorse. The idea proposed is that the site and the Guild take the Lounge as the Egg and the game activity as the chicken. (Assuming of course that the egg came first in that old chetsnut, the inconsiderate pig!)

The key guiding principle that Mongo Jerry has provided is that anyone bearing the tag "Lurker Lounge" wear it well. I cannot agree more. I for one am not about to wander about Stormrage flaming and griefing people, nor ninja looting, s that will advertise the Lounge negatively. The tension in this discussion is what level of risk we as a group of friends, who love to play and BS together in the WoW context, are willing to take regarding the odds that a new fresh face "seems fairer but is fouler" than first impressions indicate.

Risk and trust.

You trust your friends. How to welcome a new member into a circle of friends is a fascinating human dynamic. Friends can also have falling outs. No one likes that.

I will suggest that we, collectively, are going through a "storming, forming, norming, performing" process as the Lounge takes on some, but not all, elements of a Guild-like social entity. The WoW Loungers are induced to depart from old Lounge habit on that score due to the advantages that accrue from a WoW game mechanics perspective.

We were NOT a Guild in Diablo nor Diablo II, the seminal games we obsessed over initially.

We were a center of excellence. That too is a guiding principle, per Bolty's vision.

Time for another pull on the Guinness, that was yet again verbose.

Occhi

[LavCat]

Thanks, Shar... or Tal... er... whatever. ;)

I'd like to hear from Tribade, er... LavCat though.
[right][snapback]64526[/snapback][/right]

I have no disagreement with you Catlyn and would not want you or any others to leave the guild or the site. Welcome.

[Tal]

I have no disagreement with you Catlyn and would not want you or any others to leave the guild or the site.  Welcome.
[right][snapback]64536[/snapback][/right]

If we'd followed your idea of who could be in the guild and who couldn't be then you would never have met Catlyn.