Certainly! I'm referring to cronyism in the form of one of the 3 guild leaders influencing the guild to elect their loyal cronies into the other guild leadership positions (or otherwise subordinating the other 2 leaders) so the leading politician can effectively rule as autocrat, without the interference of an independent set of guild leaders who would instead promote a cooperative governance dynamic based on compromise between the 3 leaders and their objectives, ideals, and beliefs.

This still leaves the contradiction of a cooperative system facilitating internally competitive outcomes.

To recopy the edit I did after you replied...To clarify what I am taking exception to, both you and Estarra implicitly state that inter-guild conflict is desirable. Fallen is stating the opposite, which position I agree with, that it is not desirable and negatively impacts the entire guild...by necessity including novices.

This is the thrust of both Fallen's and my own argument.

Interesting.

Well, unlike others, I really like how the GA/GM/Champion thing works. I think it encourages the appointments of quality individuals, rather than just who the GA/GM/Champion's friends are. I think it encourages teamwork and communication between leaders. I also think it discourages any one leader being the sole authority in a guild.

In the Shadowdancers, I cannot think of one time when there has actually been an issue. certainly NEVER an arguement. If the GA recommends someone for Secretary, or the Champion recommends someone for Security, I listen, bring up any concerns I might have (which is rare), and run with the recommendation of the elected officials I trust. Shayle recommends people for undersecretary and protector when she sees potential, and the other officials consider and act accordingly.

I'm of the opinion that the leaders (including undersecretaries and secretaries) are a political statement in themselves, and I do think the GM should be part of deciding who is part of that statement.

Maybe, just maybe, if your guild leaders are having trouble agreeing, the problems are a lot deeper than just who can edit the guild scrolls and who gets to delegate that power.

In your time, Shayle, that's true. But remember what happened before that, when "Gwynie" was GM and Jasper GA, and she constantly got in his way?

You are an exceptional leader, and because of that, I wouldn't call the Shadowdancers a prime example of what i'm talking about. You need exceptional leaders to make the current system work, and you are proof that it can work, however, over half the other guilds are examples of how easily it can go horribly wrong.

I didn't figure there'd be all this disagreement with the idea when I raised the point O.o

Guess the I'm used to higher levels of trust between GM and GA than most of you, as I'd never appoint anyone without Tsuki's agreement unless she were dormant, which is why I'd like the failsafe, in case the GM goes somewhat dormant, and the only way to replace a sec is to have someone contest them or wait for them to come back.

If you remove these checks, you have the opposite problem. A bad leader, with no one to 'get in their way'.

Yikes.

While I thank you for the praise, I don't think that anything I do is that exceptional. Leading is 80% observing and listening and 20% making logical decisions based on what you see and hear. And I really think that anyone can do that if he or she wanted to.

I think too many guild elections are popularity contests, and that is the root of the problem. Popular does not a leader make...or something like that.

I think you've misinterpreted our statements to some degree. Inter-guild conflict, in and of itself, isn't necessarily desireable, and I don't believe our guild system encourages it. Inter-guild compromise and cooperation, however, is in my opinion a very desireable outcome.

I believe our system encourages the latter rather than the former because in cases of cooperation or compromise between the guild leaders the business of the guild is conducted more easily. In the example this topic pertains to, namely appointments to the secretariat, both the GM and GA must cooperatively agree (or compromise) in order for the secretariat to function and carry out the business of the guild. If the guild leaders are competing or conflicting, such as by dismissing secretaries on which they have not mutually agreed, then the business of the guild is hindered in the absence of cooperative governance. So while inter-guild conflict and open competition is certainly viable, it will continually disrupt and delay the structure and function of the guild. This negative effect, in essence, encourages cooperation and compromise. It has been seemingly successful, thus far, in that I don't know of any instances where an extended conflict between the GM and GA has occurred (though there are instances of of such protracted conflict). Even when the GM and GA disagree on fundamental levels, we continuously see their differences being either set aside, or negotiated, and the business of the guild running fairly smoothly, all things considered.


Edit: Yeesh, one sentence there made no sense.

And that is what makes you exceptional. Most people are in the position because they didn't want someone else to have it, or it was required because no one else wanted it. Its rarely because they want to take care of and nuture their guild. It takes an exceptional leader to want to do that. The average person just wants the perks.

1: The separation of role between the GA, GM, and GC---to the extent that separation exists---is what would prevent one leader from being the sole authority in a guild. Separation requires cooperation...it is the ability to affect processes outside of your role that allows powermongering.

2A and 2B: I would argue that such a positive system as you describe exists despite rather than because of the coded system.

3: The GM, as part of the ruling body of the host commune or city, already makes the strongest political statement of anyone within the guild, with the exception of a guildmember who actually leads the commune or city...in which case the duty of that person is not to their guild but to their host organization, which is outside the purview of what we are talking about. Further, undersecretaries and secretaries are internal to the guild, not external to it...I don't understand how these positions can be seen as political from a city/commune perspective, since the equivalent at that level would be Ministers and Aides, yes?

And Morgfyre, you really expect a lot out of people. This is a game. The average guild member doesn't care if their guild is functioning.

They have their people to RP with, and they have their skills to bash with. Most people don't care about politics, and that's where your whole thing breaks down.

And in a situation where people don't much care about the politics, beurocracy creates a great excuse for lack of progress and lack of order and control.

HELP SHADOWDANCERS

If you don't think the people listed there as aides and able to inguild don't make some political statement, I suppose we disagree on what politics are.

But I think that the people chosen to represent the guild to the basin is part of politics, whether we want it to be or not.

I used to get upset and annoyed that the Hartstone was less a unique guild with a clear ideology and array of goals and more a default organization for non-moondancers/serenguard to join. I thought about making an effort to change that but then I discovered that I could just immerse myself in aetherspace and forget that the whole thing existed. This decision has led to a much more satisfying experience.

I don't think I have, but you're free to correct me. This is what I am referring to:



And your statement, Morgfyre:
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!


We all know that Lusternia was originally created to be more conflict-intensive than the other IRE realms. The whole point of all this is just to observe that this theme of conflict was also built into the system of guildstructure, where it has a detrimental influence. The statements both you and Estarra make above tacitly acknowledge this in-built inter-guild conflict mechanism as a positive aspect of the game.

I disagree for three reasons.

You admit the possibility of players that are interested in politics, but you seem to discount the fact that these players will be (of their own interest) drawn to political positions. I think in many cases, the guild leaders are those players that are interested in politics. The "average guild member" you cite as not caring if their guild is functioning is unlikely to be the guild member that will run for an elected office.

My second point of disagreement stems from the assertion that guild members don't care if their guild is functioning. I would argue that guild members have a vested interest in their guild functioning because it's an environment in which they must reside in order to enjoy the full benefits of their guild skills, in addition to being an environment for socialization and roleplaying. Most people would not care to reside in an environment that is extraordinarily dysfunctional, and will, when the environment becomes sufficiently disruptive to their interests, take steps to remedy that situation (whether that be voting in an election, contesting a guild leader, leaving the guild, etc.).

My third point of disagreement is in your implication that I (or, perhaps, the overall Administration - though your comment was directly leveled towards myself) expect too much from players, and presumably, from guild leaders. I think there are fairly strong incentives for guild leaders to work cooperatively towards ensuring their guild is running smoothly, and I think that these have proven successful thus far, judging by the comments of Shayle regarding the Shadowdancer leadership, and Laysus regarding the Moondancer leadership. I think the other guilds observably function with relative cooperation and with relative ease.

The context of your orginal statement I was replying to compared the political influence of the guild to its host city/commune.

You are taking my reply out of context.

I haven't read any of the debate between you and Melanchthon but I saw this and thought I'd quote the post I just made for emphasis.

I do acknowledge that it can prove interesting or engaging for players who find enjoyment in political intrigue, strife, and conflict. However, I think the theme is fairly consistent that there is a strong incentive for these conflicts to remain of a protracted or muted nature, simply due to the inherent disruption of the internal guild function caused by such open conflict. I think it is also worth noting that the case where a GM or GA would be leveraging their authority to unseat (or simply not appoint) secretaries is a worst-case scenario of such conflict, and is extremely uncommon. The threat of it is usually sufficient leverage to encourage compromise between the conflicting leaders (or encourage an election to unseat one of the opposing leaders).

I don't agree with this. A large percentage of people in political positions here don't really have all that much of an interest in politics.

I think a lot more are interested, but when they find out that it's a LOT of work for very little actual gain, most just drift away or "idle". There's not really any benefit from it, and I only really know one person who enjoys it as "fun"... and that's not even all the time. Quite often, it's stressful and more like a job than a game.

The way the game is set up, though, it's required that somebody be doing these things.

Maybe the issue is that there is a relatively small playerbase, so there just isn't enough of a sampling for those with the political drive to be a significant number. Either way, the job still needs to get done.

Actually, you just misunderstood my original context.