Length of Play

[Gintigael Gemweaver]

A good question was brought to us by Grendel. How often do we expect members to play?
I don't think that we should expect a Keeper to be regularly active if they don't wish to be.
I think that someone who is a Warden should be playing at least a few times a week to show a desire to be a leadership role in the Guild.
A Guardian or higher should be able to be on at least once a day.
These would be loose guidelines because I don't expect us to be an incredibly hard-core guild. Emergencies, work and RL are obviously much more important than this game. But if you want to be a leader, you should be online.
Thoughts?

[Dario Tashavan]

This discussion will be much more fruitful once we define these ranks, but I think expecting anyone to be online daily is excessive.

[hark]

Expecting anyone to be on-line everyday is a little excessive. However, it would probably be a good idea to establish a chain of command so decisions can be made if the person that normally makes them is unavailable.

The obvious one is the Watcher takes on the role of the Sentinel should the Sentinel be unavailable.

[Hroderich Gottfrei]

Everyday activity won't/can't work for some of us. My schedule is pretty hectic and there are times it would be irresponsible of me to log on for a serious length of time. I could hop on to check that box and hop off, but that's not what you're talking about, I don't think.

[Gintigael Gemweaver]

Actually, that is what I'm talking about. As long as you don't disappear, and are on at least more times a week than not (4 to 3 on average). I'm not saying that if I don't see you on tomorrow that you shouldn't be a Guardian anymore. Real life happens. But if your chaotic schedule is making someone else do your job as Guardian for you then you should think about giving that job to someone else (and when I say you, I don't mean you Hrod, I mean the collective you).

[Nymerias]

I think the hardest part of when RL comes up is when people don't drop the rest of the group a line and just let them know what is up. The only thing I would want to see is some kind of informal strike system for leaders who are gone for a period of time without saying anything to anyone. Now know things come up and there will be times when you simply can not give anyone advance warning. I am talking about a chronic behavior of not bothering to let anyone know.

What I'm talking about might seem like common sense, and I might sound like I'm nit-picking. Yet from running a guild in WoW, you would be surprised how many people will agree to this, and then violate it all the time.

[Gintigael Gemweaver]

No, Nym, it needs to be said, and this is the forum to say it in.

[Fruben]

My two coppers on this topic:

I would like us to create an environment, which would encourage us to be online as often as real life allows (by providing as much guild related activities as possible). The more we enjoy our time in game the more often we are bound to log in (and the longer we will stay logged).

However, I would prefer as few formal requirements as possible, and whatever requirements we may end up enacting arising out of either functional requirements (what we need to keep the wheels rolling smoothly) or game mechanics (maximum number of members).

The following is based upon Dario's proposal for the rank structure:

Inner Circle (Sentinel, Watcher, Guardians)

These positions are basically the top management of the guild and the elected players should therefore ensure that all both guild and ring related matters under their responsibilities are handled either by themselves or appropriately delegated during their absences. It is not how often or long you play, it is whether you take care of the tasks entrusted upon you or not.

Extended or repeated unannounced cases of AWOL could be dealt with through a vote of no-confidence (should the player be unwilling to voluntarily step down).

Wardens

Extended (particularly unannounced, and I am thinking of months rather than weeks or days) absence could lead to demotion back to the keeper rank. Returning ex-warden could of course regain her/his status as a warden (which should normally be a formality).

Keepers

With regard to the keepers I would only consider removing the keeper status (i.e. kicking a player from the guild) due to an extended absence provided that the game mechanics place a limit on the maximum number of members and we would be approaching that maximum number. The "last seen, last out" -principle could be used while making room for new members. A "house cleaning" for people not seen for example for 6 months could be worth considering too.

As with the warden rank, returning ex-keepers could retain their status (which should normally be a formality for ex-wardens).

As Nym said, while most of this may seem like common sense, I would also prefer whatever policy we eventually decide to adopt to be as clear and transparent as possible.

[Crag30]

I plan if all is right in the world to play 15 to 20 hours a week. That being 4 to 5 days out of the week.