Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease can it be made so guild administrator can appoint secretaries, as it does seem more their area than the GM's.

Discuss.

That would mean that the GA can basically usurp the GM and they don't have to work together.

At the same turn then, GCs should be able to make someone security.

I disagree, Daganev. It would mean that there would be less dependance, sure. But if the two GR20s are at each other's throat, all hell will break loose so it will still be in their best interests to work together. Also if the GM keeps the priveledge to appoint and unappoint secs, I don't see a problem there.

If you are asking for GAs to make secretaries than there is allready a problem with the GM and they need to either be replaced, or you need to come to an agreement.

Each person should be allowed to choose their minions rather than have someone planted there. If there is a problem within the guild, then there's going to be a lot of cutting at each other's ankles while the political people are giving those fake smiles that make you want to backhand them with a brick.

Mm, I also think that anyone running in an election has his abilities to Favour, Disfavour, and Appoint people in that group to be disabled to avoid the obvious bribing and the possibility to be called out and framed for bribing.

Also, in the Ebonguard the secretaries answered to the GM not the GA, it was a different role than super novice aide.

The secretaries are a vital part of what this says, yet, the GM is relied upon to appoint them, despite the fact that the GM, as stated here, is a political position for the guild rather than administrative (although it is an administrative position within the relevant city/commune).

Hrm,

I've always thought of it that the Guildmaster is the Voice of the Guild, the Admin was the Brain of the Guild (assigning various tasks to the rest of the "body"), and the Champion is the strong arm.

When I was GM, my secretaries helped me communicate with other people in the commune, and didn't do internal guild stuff.

Just for point of clarity, secretaries aren't appointed per se, they are undersecretaries that are promoted. The GM cannot make someone a secretary who the Administrator hasn't first made an undersecretary. Thus, it is the Administrator who chooses his staff and makes recommendations to the GM on who can be appointed. The GM then can decide whether or not to make the appointment. Also note that both the GM and Administrator can oust a secretary, but only the Administrator can oust an undersecretary. There really is no question that the Administrator has the upperhand with secretaries and undersecretaries. (Same is true, of course, with Champions and protectors/security.) In other words, this is a system of checks and balances.

The only reason I can think of why there could possibly be an issue is if the GM is not promoting the undersecretaries that the Administrator recommends on a regular basis. This indeed could cause friction between the two guild leaders and one has to wonder how the guild members feel that the important position of secretary is being used as political leverage between the competing egos (especially those that the Administrator wants promoted but GM is refusing to promote, or the ones the GM is promoting and the Administrator is knocking back to undersecretary).

Ah, but that's politics!

Makes me glad Vesar, Geb and I got along well, back in the day

I really like the fact that the GM can promote undersecs and protectors. The GA and CH still have full control over who gets to those two positions, and it forces cross polinated chains of command, providing for a dynamic guild structure.

To be honest, I think recycling the 'Guild Master' appellation from other realms when their role here is supposedly so different was a mistake. The system of checks and balances Estarra mentions relies on the assumption of conflicted interest between branches of leadership, rather than the fulfilment of a role of responsibility. According to the roles of each leader, both secretaries and undersecretaries should be under the jurisdiction of the Guild Administrator.

There are places where mechanics for conflict belong, and places where they do not.

My only complaint is that Nessa thinks she's playing Achaea, and that the GA is the head of novices, and the GC is just some bully who she orders around. Because she can apoint secretaries and security, she assumes she's in charge of secretaries and security, and even has applicants send her letters directly, saying they don't have to be undersecretaries/protectors, she'll get them appointed if she thinks they should be secretaries/security.

Meh, I really don't have the time to commit to contest her right now, with my thesis and all.

This is exactly why I think porting the GM term to Lusternia was a mistake. How much of our playerbase is new to IRE, and how much is crossover? Too many preconceptions, unfortunately also supported by illogical power structure.

Ugh, I do feel sorry for Nessa though. Ok the security side maybe, but remember hartstone has had quite a few inactive GAs recently

We sadly might need someone to contest, if Avaleigh doesnt return soon.

Someone will be soon /mysteriousness...ness

That's why the system of checks and balances exists. The GM can't "get" Secretaries and Security appointed without the explicit consent of the GA and GC in the form of Undersecretary and Protector appointments, and if the GM is promoting people to Secretary and Security that are not mutually agreed with, then the GA and GC are able to dismiss those Secretaries and Security officials, respectively.

I wouldn't say there'a flaw in the design in the case you're describing, simply that the GA and GC either aren't doing their job or they agree with all the decisions that the GM is making and prefer to let him/her speak on their behalf.