[Poll] Alternative to seeking?

[Sparkles]

In further discussion, it came out that the GL didn't 'trust me' as a new character and felt that they'd be held negatively accountable by the pbase for letting a 'new character' enter at a higher rank if I did anything wrong.

With all respects, ICly that is often what happens. GLs are held responsible for the failures of their underlings and that mindset is held IMHO as much IC as OOC. Where people often expect you to -fix- your guildmates and their various foibles and troubles. If people discover you hire and/or or kept a mage in your Guild you are automatically seen as suspicious or equally guilty. If someone at a higher rank 'acts off' you get held accountable.

CEOs don't get to approve line workers in real life or elsewhere.

Except IRL the line worker is also unlikely to discover things about the CEO that can get them murdered by a theocratic state. The fact is that the theme and setting of TI and how the revelation of secrets can be lethal goes hand in hand with a certain degree of paranoia.

My concern with being able to purchase in ranks with QP is that eventually the 'new player experience' becomes so remote from older players they might completely lose perspective on realizing what it's 'like in the trenches' so to speak.

[galaxgal]

I'm going to be frank, these 'consequences' for GL's are really vastly overstated in my experience.

Count the number of gambits you've seen; now count the number of gambits you've seen that weren't related to inactivity.
Count the number of non-criminal GL's we've seen in the red zone of approval.

"People give a highly public and powerful figure some side-eye or a complaint over a mistake" is... well, I'll be honest, when it happens to me I think how for thieves and mages get full-on permadeath for far less intentional mistakes, and idk, I appreciated that some of my subordinates were a source of IC drama when I GL'ed.

I know not everyone gets to be lucky in this department; I understand that if you have a Guild that attracts certain OOC personality types you want to vet that you aren't giving a griefer the keys to the pyre/arrest commands.

[galaxgal]

I say that maybe guild apps should be open more often, then closed when, say, there's at least 2 active PCs of every rung of the ladder.

I think in general it should be considered something of a serious issue, IC and OOC, if a Guild can't house 1 or 2 active non-GL rank 3's to provide the service the Guild provides.

[Sparkles]

Count the number of gambits you've seen; now count the number of gambits you've seen that weren't related to inactivity. Count the number of non-criminal GL's we've seen in the red zone of approval.

First accepting the idea there truly is anyone in Lithmore who isn't a criminal of some kind. But ... I'm not sure that Gambits occurring or not occurring is the best measuring stick for whether or not something is troublesome or worrying. Considering that at base Support is a popularity measurement and not always 'is good at your job' measurement. (That could be an entirely different forum topic.) There are plenty of GLs who have long held on to spots despite being barely active.

[Kinaed]

I personally like the idea of 'if a person is active and sitting in a role long enough, they should auto promote unless the GL has put a blocker on it some reason' (at least to a certain level in the guild).

Whether other people's experiences match mine is fair enough to question.

I agree with Galaxgal's 'I think the consequences to GLs are overstated' - a bit of sideye and a rumor are about as impactful as a fart in a room... annoying to deal with sure, but at the end of the day, not worth speaking of.

I also think from the current state of the votes we're looking at - more people agree than disagree with the proposal, even if a few people are more vehemently against it.

I also think it's a fair point that entry into the guild may be the wrong focus, and that promotion of players in guilds in a way that makes them feel like they have progression might be 'more bang for the buck' in terms of giving people a good play experience. I'd love to hear more thoughts on that.

[Dreams]

I personally like the idea of 'if a person is active and sitting in a role long enough, they should auto promote unless the GL has put a blocker on it some reason' (at least to a certain level in the guild).

Whether other people's experiences match mine is fair enough to question.

I agree with Galaxgal's 'I think the consequences to GLs are overstated' - a bit of sideye and a rumor are about as impactful as a fart in a room... annoying to deal with sure, but at the end of the day, not worth speaking of.

I also think from the current state of the votes we're looking at - more people agree than disagree with the proposal, even if a few people are more vehemently against it.

I also think it's a fair point that entry into the guild may be the wrong focus, and that promotion of players in guilds in a way that makes them feel like they have progression might be 'more bang for the buck' in terms of giving people a good play experience. I'd love to hear more thoughts on that.

I have had people who I would not promote because of IC circumstances and behaviors.

Others because they never actually did anything guildlike - they just... existed.

Others I would not promote because they were inactive, so I don't think "time" is a appropriate way to go as far as autopromote.

I have also had people who get upset because they aren't promoted weekly.

I have also, in the past, done promotion projects, where after they finish a project, they promote. (And had people choose to do nothing on the project for months.)

I do not know if autopromote is the way to go.

[nemovonfish]

Isn't there already a system in place like auto-promote? I'm pretty sure you, as a GL, need to give a monthly reason why you haven't promoted someone to an open slot... I have no personal experience with this though, only second hand.

Being part of a guild gives your character legitimacy in the world. It gives you a reason to speak to other people, other guildmates. It is in and of itself an RP hook without the awkward "Hello, I'd like to RP as a nurse/priest/apprentice. Do you, fellow player with no OOC authority over me, permit me to play the character I want to play?"

Call it a vNPC that has suddenly awakened to Playerdom. There's theoretically hundreds of them in a guild at any given moment, why are we ignoring them? Why should being a player make you less likely to be part of a guild, not more?

[Deedee]

Isn't there already a system in place like auto-promote? I'm pretty sure you, as a GL, need to give a monthly reason why you haven't promoted someone to an open slot... I have no personal experience with this though, only second hand.

There is auto-promote and auto-induct in place when there are no active GLs, but otherwise it's pretty much up to GLs. They are expected to consider promotions OOCly monthly, but they can set their own guidelines on qualifications.
Current policy:

                            Helpfile for Promotions

In general, it is a Guildleader's responsibility to promote members of
their guild according to thematic AND game appropriate principles.  Once a
month, on the first of the OOC month, GLs are required to review their
guildlists and determine promotions as follows:

   1. Review their guildlist.

   2. Promote any members that are promote-able, then write them a
      congratulatory mail (they can do both things whilst the player
      is offline).

   3. Write a note to all players they are not promoting to state
      that their rank has been reviewed, and that they are required
      to do <insert actions> before next review to be promoted. For
      those not active as the reason for not promoting, they will
      make a statement about how the absence within the
      organization has been noticed.

   4. Players that are at a terminal rank do not need to be promoted
      but do need to be cnoted. Note: A terminal rank is a rank
      right below GL as opposed to 'I think this person is not the
      right material to be promoted'. If GLs have players like this,
      they must discuss them with the staff. Staff will then exempt
      those characters from this process by agreement if appropriate.

One week after the reminders, staff may audit reviewing whether or not
GLs have done their rank reviews.

In general, players may not be promoted more quickly than once an OOC
month, but should not have to wait more than two months unless they
are inactive, failing to RP their role, or otherwise in a specific
IC situation that would preclude their promotion (for example, in
trouble with their GL).

(Subject area: policy                 Last modified: Thu Mar 15 14:01:06 2018)

[Kinaed]

With regards to auto-promote, it's technically a policy, but it's not proactively policed or enforced. It's more like the guidelines we'd like GLs to stick to and theoretically was intended to give people some recourse to ask why their GL isn't doing something if they felt it wasn't being adhered to. In practice, it's 100% in a GL's control unless the GL is inactive, in which case seekers will be auto-guilded and the guild alerted.

[Deedee]

Good to know, because I don't think we strictly follow that. But I think our members do know what's expected for promotion, and we try to arrange review RP monthly.