GLing can be a thankless job. Are gambits making it doubly so?

[Geras]

Hey all - this isn't a gripe on my personal part - I fully expect to be gambited out at some point and knew that going in - but I think the ease of gambiting people out is becoming a problem for the game. Not to touch on any specifics too much, but when a single one of your members going inactive takes you from disliked to hated, I think that's a problem. And the gambits themselves... I just feel like it should be harder to remove a sitting GL. The threshold is what, 50% of points right now? Could we up it to 60?

Either way, I think GLs have a rough enough job to begin with. I'm not saying remove gambits, but I think making them a bit less common would be benefitial to the game.

[Hawke]

I agree with what's being said on gambits. They seem to come just too easily. My personal suggestion would be that a GL can be gambited only after they've been in the negative approval ratings for a number of days, either fixed (1-2) or depending on the severity of the disapproval (so 1 day if you're despised, 2 if you're hated, 3 if disliked.)

[LonelyNeptune]

There have been a lot of gambits over the last few months, so I understand why it might seem too easy to enact one. However, many of those GLs were inactive or unengaged and needed to be shuffled off. This is the gambit system doing what it was supposed to do.

Members of the guild in question have much greater influence over their GL's approval and have more votes in a gambit. If a GL is doing their job and pleasing their guildies, they don't have anything to fear from gambits. Active, engaged GLs are much more difficult to topple than inactive ones.

The current gambit is a different situation. There's significant RP and effort surrounding it that I won't go into, ongoing RP and all that.

Only opening gambits after 24+ hours seems reasonable to avoid getting hit during those weird temporary support fluctuations that nobody understands. But the actual mechanics determining the difficulty of the gambit are fine.

[Geras]

If a GL is doing their job and pleasing their guildies, they don't have anything to fear from gambits.

This is simply not true. There are GLs with 100% approval from members that have been gambitted.

[LonelyNeptune]

This is simply not true. There are GLs with 100% approval from members that have been gambitted.

That's a very negotiable claim. The support system is opaque.

[Geras]

It's not that opaque when your guild is small.

[LonelyNeptune]

If you're referring to the current gambit, I'd rather not discuss ongoing RP, but I know that you are mistaken on this.

I'm speaking as a long term GL who has faced significant external opposition and never come close to being gambitted because I do my job and have the support of my guild.

[Geras]

It’s not just the gambit that just ended. There have been a lot of gambits. It used to take 3 weeks to remove a GL for inactivity. Now an active GL can be gambited out in a week.

[Buzz K[ir]ill]

If you refer back to gambit helpfile, you'll see there are a few different requirements that have to be met in order for staff to approve a gambit, including:

- Gambits must be triggered by one of the following things:
1) An IC Event that thematically calls a GL's IC authority or behavior
into question
2) A GL expressing disregard for their guild, guild members, or theme
3) GL inactivity or inaccessibility

Thus, it's not enough for a GL to simply have low support and be vulnerable to a gambit. As a GL, you either have to show disregard for your guild, go inactive, or be involved in some pretty heady IC Event stuff as well.

In recent memory, I think most GLs have been removed due to inactivity. GLs being removed due to political maneuvering and IC upheaval seems much rarer. In the case of the former, especially, swifter is better -- no one wants to wait around for 3 weeks to replace an inactive GL, especially if there's a willing and active replacement.

[Geras]

I think the thing about sustained support is worth considering. I don't like that a blip in activity in one player can dip a GL into gambit territory. Could we required the despised/disliked/hated status to be sustained for a couple of days at least?