If they let the GM speak on their behalf within the guild, then the GA and GC are not doing their job by default, no?

Cronyism is certainly a valid outcome of the system. There have been quite a few cases where one of the 3 guild leaders has subordinated the other two, either through threats, subterfuge, or sheer charisma. It's all part of the political intrigue that can engulf guilds!

If it's such a problem the GA or GC could always make a point of de-moting anyone promoted without their approval.
And if people have enough of a problem to be willing to push back other projects then perhaps it would be nicer if GA's and GC could make official recommendations for promotion and the GM could confirm them. Similar to the way a minister is confirmed within a commune or city.

like
Guild recommend for

Guild confirm as

where the GA can only recommend/confirm undersecs and the GC security, while the GM can recommend/confirm for both positions but still requiring the recommendation or confirmation of the other guild leader to complete it.

But that's not really realistic unless it was simplistic to code in and people actually have enough of a problem with the situation.

QUOTE(Morgfyre @ Sep 1 2006, 04:08 AM) 326268

Cronyism is certainly a valid outcome of the system. There have been quite a few cases where one of the 3 guild leaders has subordinated the other two, either through threats, subterfuge, or sheer charisma. It's all part of the political intrigue that can engulf guilds!

I believe the hartstone laws give the right for any guild leader to speak for an absent one(I'd have to double check, I don't believe it's long-term absence or in emergency situations only). Unfortunate that we have had inactive GAs and I don't think anyone blames them, but this may also be why Nessa is taking charge of Secretary appointments if she didn't the hartstone would be having a much harder time getting the new path system set up, then again Yini would be within her rights to do so if she wished to press the issue.

I think the only valid complaint was calling the GM the GM and not calling it something else. Like Guild Leader, or Guild Liason, or Guild Regent or whatever.

But in all honesty, thats not really anything worth worrying about. If I was GC, GM or GA I probabbly would have acted almost exactly the same, becuase of my personality and the goals my charachter had.

That's already how it does work, in essence!

The GA "recommends" a person for a potential Secretary appointment by making them an Undersecretary (the first step in the process of becoming a Secretary). The GM can then, at any point in the future, promote that Undersecretary to a Secretary.

If the GM or GA disagree with that person holding the position, for whatever reasons, either can simply remove them. Secretaries only hold that position by the ongoing mutual consent of the GM and GA.

Hmm...that's a good explanation. I'm too much of an idealist to ever agree with it, though. My concept of valid leadership is leadership towards a mutually agreed goal, rather than for the sake of leadership itself (such as powermongering), which I don't consider leadership at all. The purpose is more important than the result.

Nessa totally threw a fit anytime I tried to edge into admin duties (or just called her on stupid suggestions), so it's amusing to see how she acts as GM. I feel bad about thinking she's a crap leader, when she's mostly nice to me, but I swear she has massive mood swings; tantrums one day, but nice as can be when she gets her own way.

I'm so conflicted. I honestly believe I'd do a better job, but I'd feel horrid for coming back to the guild and contesting so soon, for either GA or GM. Especially when I'm only gr3 by virtue of being ex-GM.

Darth vader as an idealist young jedi thought cronism was great because then stuff gets done, and there isn't so much uselss bickering

What I find amusing, is that the Administration now finds itself with a problem regarding novices.. and yet here, they are defending one of the reasons that such a problem exists.

Creating a "cross contamination" effect in the chain of command leads to confusion, as well as stagnation, aaand a lack of responsibility.

GAs dont have the power to promote Ministers and assign Aides for a reason. That reason is that Commune/City business is not their concern, and this allows them to focus on the guild. Why aren't GMs held to this same logic? Yes, the communes have the check & balance of other leaders, but GA will always have the check & balance of being ousted from their position. To have a check & balance on something like secretary appointment is silly, when the GA needs no check for anyting else they do. It just creates a Beurocratic bull system that serves no purpose.

It sort of reminds me of the quest in Eris's Pyramid in Achaea.

Bickering and Cronism stem from the same root, they are in no way opposed...and Anakin was one hell of an ignorant pansy. He was unworthy to become Darth Vader.

I certainly can't see the causal relationship you are claiming exists between the system of checks and balances that exists within Lusternia's guild system and the problem of newbies being ignored. They seem incongruent to me, at least based on the evidence presented in your post.

As regards a general "confusion, ... stagnation, and a lack of responsibility," that is certainly a case you could argue to your guild and try to convince your electorate and the guild leaders of. That seems to be the case in the Hartstone that Sylphas is arguing against, where the balance between the sitting leaders has been subordinated by a primarch into a despotic government, and which the electorate is content with (or maybe not, according to certain other posters!). Your position that a system of checks and balances is inferior to the singular authority of an autocrat is, in my opinion, no less valid than any other viewpoint.

However, I do think that Lusternia's guild system is a strong point in the game design, and stands out as unique among the other IRE games. You can certainly try to subvert the system if you disagree with it, and succeed if there is enough widespread support with your position, but the system will continue to inherently exist and function as a basis (and perhaps, impetus) for cooperative governance to flourish.

I definitely would not call the guild system a strong point. It has a huuuuge number of flaws, including the lack of abilities given with certain positions, enforcing the beurocracy further.

You may not see it, and that's fine, but it is a reason for it. You said yourself that Cronyism is an outcome of this system, and with Cronyism comes elitism and self-promotion. None of those traits really lend themselves to helping the young, when everyone knows that newbies are more likely to leave than to stick around, so those people interested in power have no reason to be concerned with novices until after they've stuck around beyond the orientation anyway.

Its a sad fact, but its the same reason why in the US government, which has plenty of checks and balances, the everyday person who needs the help doesn't matter and doesn't get it. If you think that Cronyism leads to good government, where the people who need to be taken care of find the help they need... you really need to open your eyes.

Secretaries are not necessarily GA helpers only. When Nessa and I sat down to appoint secretaries after my election, they were about evenly split between us.

Making the GA alone able to appoint secretaries pushes the GM even farther from the guild. It would do nothing to stop cronyism at all, as the GA could just seed all the secretary positions with his/her friends. As it is now, the GM has little to do with the guild, beyond being interfacing with the commune on guild matters. GAs have the lion's share of the power over the guild that guildmasters in other IRE games do.

GM has more priviledges, but GA has more power.

I don't see how cronyism is any less likely in an autocratic guild system, and I think it is actually far less likely to occur in our guild system because the guild leader who is acting as autocrat needs to maintain continuous support from the other two guild leaders (both of whom are also answerable to a general electorate) in order to function in that despotic dynamic. I would think it far more likely that elitism and self-promotion would occur if, for instance, the Guildmaster made all the guild's position appointments (as they do in other IRE games) without the need to consult anyone else regarding their chosen delegation of authority.

To address your final point (which I did not quote), I think it's a very spurious claim to make that I am supporting or endorsing cronyism. In my earlier posts I did note it was a legitimate outcome of the system (among many other outcomes), but I made no claims that it was desireable or that it promoted a healthier guild. I do, however, support the Lusternian guild system, with which you evidently disagree. I won't try to convince you of its strengths, as you are entitled to your dislike of the system, but I do think it has many strengths over the othe IRE guild systems which are self-evident.

Just because its better than other IRE systems doesn't make it inherently good.

And in a situation where a GA was held fully responsible for inner-guild activities, it is much easier to contest them when they fail to do their job. Otherwise they can and will use the simple "Well, we are working on it" where we tends to represent the GA, GM, and GC.

The ability to shirk responsibility does not in any way inspire work to be done.

Buut, i'm not going to argue it. Clearly there is a problem with novices. Undersecs are responsibile for novices. GAs are responsible for Undersecs, and in turn, responsible for novices. If there is a problem with novices, it is, unavoidably, the fault of the GA.

So you can go ahead and say that the guild system has more chance for positive outcomes than negative outcomes... but if almost every guild in the game is having novice problems.. maybe that should say something to you about the leadership of said guilds? Just maybe?

In this context, cronyism represents a form of competitive governance. Competition, by definition, cannot be cooperative. Your statements appear contradictory. Can you clarify your meaning?

EDIT: To clarify what I am taking exception to, both you and Estarra implicitly state that inter-guild conflict is desirable. Fallen is indirectly stating the opposite, which position I agree with, that it is not desirable and negatively impacts the entire guild...by necessity including novices. Please address our concern.

Nowhere have you even come close to linking the inability of GAs to appoint secretaries with bad novice training. The fact that you keep claiming such a result is therefore laughable.

Huh? I'm not talking specifically about GAs inability to appoint secretaries. That is a symptom of the probem, not the actual problem. I never said it was, as that would be pretty stupid. I said the form of Beurocracy is the problem, of which that is an example.

That's your opinion then. Autocracy has its own set of problems. Nothing is perfect.

And thus dies the glorious search for betterment.

"If it broke, there's no point in fix'n it 'cause it'll just break later!"