|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 4, 2013 22:21:00 GMT -6
So some of the other Rings have started to pencil out ideas for organization of the Ring's hierarchy and such things. I think that makes a heap load of sense for Steel, Light, Gold, etc. They have some really thought out plans and such.
I was trying to put a little effort into doing something like that for Wood. But nothing really struck me as fitting. I am wondering if it feels the most right to the rest of you for our Ring to be the one that doesn't have as much structure? More organic, wild, go with the flow type characters? Follow the unspoken code of the wilderness? We would certainly still have a Guardian, but perhaps not any other kind of heirarchy system? No formal training other than initiates should feel free to shadow Keepers and Wardens and learn on the job?
I am not suggesting this cause I'm lazy, but I just wonder if you guys feel like it fits too?
Though I am lazy. I won't argue against that, mostly because it would take too much effort to try and prove it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calhoun Farstrider on Jan 4, 2013 22:31:04 GMT -6
I agree I need to reword it but I did type up a bit of an organization to the Ring of Wood. I like the wild, unorganized though. I'll post what I typed up and let my fellow brothers and sisters of the Wood comment on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zaluke on Jan 15, 2013 14:58:38 GMT -6
Do animals sit around talking about who should lead who? Do plants give concessions and rotate positions of sunlight amongst themselves? No, the natural order is one of action. The strong lead by example. When they become unable or a better leader is presented they are replaced.
I say we follow the natural order of the wild. Allow our actions to dictate our intent and capabilities. Those that become mentors will be so because they have earned the respect themselves and not because someone else has dictated that they should receive it to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 15, 2013 15:23:20 GMT -6
Zaluke, your response should certainly be met with raised fists, but I'm not sure if with a huzzah or a rawr.
It is certainly an inspiring way of phrasing it.
(if I wasn't clear I'm not sure if it should be met with a civilized cheer, or a wild roar)
|
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 16, 2013 11:55:06 GMT -6
Do animals sit around talking about who should lead who? Do plants give concessions and rotate positions of sunlight amongst themselves? No, the natural order is one of action. The strong lead by example. When they become unable or a better leader is presented they are replaced. I say we follow the natural order of the wild. Allow our actions to dictate our intent and capabilities. Those that become mentors will be so because they have earned the respect themselves and not because someone else has dictated that they should receive it to others. This seems a little too confrontational to me. I would like to think that the Ring of Wood should be a place that would invite members of a broad range of playstyles, from casual to hardcore. I would like to think that players could be a part of the Ring of Wood and not worry about other members continually trying to make them their famale dog. |
|
|
|
Post by Zaluke on Jan 16, 2013 12:40:18 GMT -6
I fail to see where what I proposed mandates that people impose their will onto others. I myself plan on avoiding conflict whenever possible and plan to spend quite a bit of time playing casually.
Perhaps how I expressed my idea is the point of confusion. I did not propose that people constantly fight for the ability to call themselves a leader of this or that. What I proposed was not having any "official" leader positions.
Those that work hard and often will have their effort show through in what they do. If someone asks where to go to learn X, the person they are asking is likely to send them to either (A) whoever helped them or (B) whoever they learned they should send people to.
I want more of A and less of B. If someone comes to me for mentoring on herbalism, for example, I want them to approach me because they have been referred by word of mouth from someone I have already helped or has seen the quality of my creations in effect. I don't want them to come to me because they look at a office board and it lists me as the herbalism teacher.
The end result is the same in either case, but one way has a significantly more enjoyable journey.
That is what I meant by leaders being made through action. If you do good work people will gravitate towards you and want to be associated with you. I don't want anyone to feel forced to be working with me because they were told to do so. That is what I meant by earning the respect of others.
Forcing others to follow you because you brow beat them into submission, as your message implies, is quite far from my intention.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 16, 2013 13:12:56 GMT -6
Zaluke "The strong lead by example. When they become unable or a better leader is presented they are replaced."
This is where I think things could be confrontational. I believe that if a member goes against the spirit of the Circle or Ring of Wood there should be reprocussions. The "better leader is presented" opens the door to players continually getting into pissing contests over who can amass the largest groups of followers to brag about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zaluke on Jan 16, 2013 15:04:11 GMT -6
Bragging about how many "followers" you have is not the characteristic of a leader though.
To me, by the time a person has earned enough renown among his peers to establish that kind of support he would be a warden of wood at least. In order to get to that point I would like to think that their character would have been tested and anyone who doesn't uphold the spirit of the ring or circle would have been weeded out and unmasked for the fraud that they are.
Perhaps it is a bit too naive of me to think that everyone in our ring, let alone the circle, would be mature and respectful of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 16, 2013 15:07:28 GMT -6
Doody-head  |
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 17, 2013 11:05:43 GMT -6
Here’s my concern for the structure of the Ring of Wood as I believe it is proposed at the moment. Hopefully the Keepers of the Circle and the Ring of Wood will grow considerably. I would imagine that the Ring of Wood will become too much work for one person (the Guardian) to run efficiently without help. Large organizations like what I hope the Ring of Wood (RoW) will become need a support structure. It wouldn’t have to be oppressive or overly complicated, but I think something a little more substantial needs to be in place.
Consider this, in the beginning the RoW was simply one Ring with the Guardian as its leader. Probably too simple to work like I said earlier one person to run the whole RoW is probably not doable in the long run. With the introduction of the unofficial categories things became more complicated IMO. The thing is that even though these categories are that even though membership to one is not mandatory, they are presented in a way that there is a lot of pressure to join one IMO. As I see it now, the implication is join one or be antisocial and reject them all. As a side note I believe that there should be general category that people not wanting to join Strider/Whisperer/Wolf Pack can join and not feel that way. Even so that really doesn’t solve the problem.
That’s why I think that the majority of the members of the RoW will be a part of a sub category. This would mean that each category would hold substantial power, and of course the person leading each category would wield that power. I am aware that the current proposal has the categories with ought official leaders, IMO that just means that there will be unofficial leaders of the categories. Like I mentioned earlier I believe that the RoW will become too large for one person to manage, they’ll need help and a leader of each category is a logical way to divide the workload. With no structure to resolve who leads Strider/Whisperer/Wolf Pack (S/W/WP) they will need to find some other way to resolve the conflict. In most cases I see this devolving into mudslinging politicking, like you see before a Presidential election. Except Election Day will never come, it will just be never ending bickering over who rules the S/W/WP. Not a friendly atmosphere I would imagine, it’d be too unwieldy to work IMO.
It’s logical to assume that if there are subcategories there are leaders for them. If an ally needs caravan protection and wants the RoW to help the Guardian of Wood is probably the go to person, but what if they are too busy with other RoW obligations, who would they contact? Maybe they could give a general shout out on the WP sub forum to the effect of caravan protection and those interested could give a response. Workable maybe, not too efficient since it means that if too many jump on one caravan others will have a shortage of WP member support. Related Note: Most of this needs to be kept secret though or else you wind up telling potential bandits the exact details of when/where/how many guards ect. For a caravan.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 17, 2013 11:06:52 GMT -6
Doody-head Who are you calling a Doody-head and why? |
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 17, 2013 11:12:52 GMT -6
Doody-head Who are you calling a Doody-head and why? Zaluke said "Perhaps it is a bit too naive of me to think that everyone in our ring, let alone the circle, would be mature and respectful of others." I was Just being silly and immature, trying to make a joke. I was in a goofy mood that day, not trying to be taunting. |
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 17, 2013 11:21:11 GMT -6
Who are you calling a Doody-head and why? Just being silly and immature. I was in a goofy mood that day. Well that happens to me quite a bit too, so no problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 17, 2013 11:29:09 GMT -6
You bring up lots of valid points. I had not really considered needing to manage how many people protect what caravan, but that is certainly something that will be needed. I originally was thinking that a leader for each one was needed but didn't know how to suggest it while maintaining a loose structure. So if we did institute internal leadership there are several ways we could go about it.
Firstly, we could leave a lot of the pressure on the Guardian and make him/her responsible for delegating where needed. Instead of having one go to person in the Wolf Pack he could call on any Warden who chooses to be one and ask them to carry out specific tasks. This would rely heavily on a) everyone being ready and willing to do their part when called on and b) everyone respecting anyone else authority when they are called on to lead something.
Secondly, we could have formal internal elections. This all but requires you to pick a sub-group though. The elected person would hold a title (The Whisperer, First Whisperer, something more creative than I can think of, etc.) and would have the responsibility of overseeing the activities governed by that subgroup. They would share the responsibility of delegating authority to other Wardens within their subgroup. I would suggest that the Guardian maintain the ability to step in and ask any member of that subgroup to do something for them. It would give the Guardian a council of three to help in making decisions or bouncing around ideas before they are brought to the Wardens, or the Ring as a whole.
I'm sure there are other ways but my mind stopped after two apparently.
As for a fourth group that remains group-less, I'm not sure how to handle that. I do agree that having it this way does highly encourage a member to choose a sub-group. I would sugest adding a line in where it talks about not all Keepers falling in one of these categories. We could mention they are fondly referred to as Generalists (or a better title) and are highly valued within the Ring for their versatility and adaptability. There could even be a lead position for the Generalists, though that runs the risk of them seeming more of a 4th group. But if we did have one, option #2 would then create an internal council of 5 people instead of 4, which is better for voting purposes imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 17, 2013 12:05:14 GMT -6
I'm liking your proposals Nymerias. The first proposal would work great in cases where there's not a lot of operations underway. The more operations the more possible scheduling conflicts could come up. Nothing that couldn't be ironed out by discussion, but it could get complicated in practice. Foe example the Guardian nominates Warden A to oversee project B while Warden A had already been asigned to task B by Warden C. Warden A could just tell Guardian they are on another pronject it doesn't mean it's undoable.
Second proposal, having a visiable leader for the subgroups would go a long way towards orginization. I'm not yet sure which I like more than the other, I think they could both work.
The forth subgroup, I agree it's strange to say to the effect of if you don't want to be a member of a subgroup be a member of this subgroup, but I don't know how else it would work. I'm pretty sure there is a line stating the subgroups are unoficial and such but there is still the pressure to join one IMO. The only advantage is that a vague fourth group could have less restrictions.
|
|
