That's a really neat read, I couldn't help but think of my experience as a Sylvan in Achaea. Had to write lots of essays, each on how great water/air/earth/fire was. My experience there has definitely affected how I feel about requirements now... they should be made in such a way that the person can complete them -while still- playing the game, because that's what they're logging in for. A few compulsory tasks I'm not opposed to as long as they're core to the ideals of the guild.

How everything relates to Glomdoring though... I can kind of get the idea, but can't really put my finger on it. Abstract thinking escapes me after a summer of letting my brain stagnate.

The best time to get in on a new MUD is the open-beta. Make sure you stand out as quickly as possible before advancement policies are implemented. I made it to GR10 in the Moondancers with never having done any sort of written requirement.

Politics in MUDs is just another form of competition. It is a very visible way to define your level of achievement. Not unlike xp or combat rankings. Once you get to the top as in many other things you fight to stay there. Advancement requirements is a good way of doing this because of the GR restrictions on voting and contesting. Stagnation in politics has a human element. It does not occur naturally but is perpetuated by those in power because they don't want their work to be wasted.

This is relevant to Glomdoring because said stagnation is seen as the culprit of low newbie retention.

So since we have guilds with low reqs, such as Spiritsingers and Harbingers and Ebongaurd, and we have guilds with higher reqs like Nihilists and Celestians, can we see a correlation between guild members and reqirements? (i.e. numbers)

It seems to me that guilds like the ebonguard and harbingers failed with low reqs.

I don't think there is a direct correlation between difficulty of tasks and membership, just a relationship. About three people join the Harbingers per RL week, so if the interest isn't there in the first place, the tasks don't matter whether they are difficult or not.

Wow, what an excellent discussion! I agree with many of the observations pointed out, but I think Phred had a very important point too, in that maintaining the status quo is partly an extension of trying to encourage roleplay.

Looking back on my time as the 'psychotic novice master' when trying to throw new advancement systems at my guild, my goal was always exactly what you're describing, to produce people at the end who were well versed in the philosophy and thought process advocated by the current leadership. I'm not sure I'd consider that, even now, to be a bad thing. Obviously there are bad methods, which you've pointed out, but is the actual process unnecessary? In games which are defined by very iconic archetypes and groups and place so much responsibility for world cohesion on players, it seems to me quite logical that if the game environment itself cannot attach enough significance and role induction to the process of initializing a character in a particular place, players will step in to try and do so themselves.

That is my justification of why it happens so often and is so widespread, at least. I'm sure in many cases it is a matter of power, and control, but I think that's probably less than we might think.

I wonder if this enforced conformist pattern would be quite as evident in optional player interest groups?

I agree with Avaer about novice programs creating better guildmembers, encouraging roleplay, providing a good basis for the world. The thing is that when you've been playing for months or years, you sometimes forget what it was like to log into a strange game with a complex world and complex commands and whole volumes of history and lore. That is really where the problem starts. I'm sure most of the people who do that don't intentionally mean to bog down others. If I was a great combatant, sparring a bunch of people as a novice req would sound like an awesome idea to me, because I would enjoy that. Same thing if I was a scholar, writing a little essay wouldn't be so bad. Not everyone enjoys combat or writing or that, so you have to avoid falling into the experienced mind trap.

And, at the same time, making sure the real newbies get their feet wet so that they can experience a wide enough range of what Lusty has before committing to the path that seems easiest to them at the outset.

One thought that did just occur to me in relation to Glomdoring - is it possible that this pattern is more noticeable there in some measure because the roleplay setting behind it is so much more obscure and ill-defined? That so much more work is required to fully induct new people into the lore and atmosphere, it is almost unavoidable that the poor people tasked with keeping the roleplay on track have to crack down much more strongly on wayward ideals running counter to the established culture, such as it is?

Why yes, it does just happen to fit my ranting theories nicely.

The Docet is pretty straightforward, I think. Can't speak to of our sister guilds in that regard.

This is the first time I've posted here, but I'll share my experience.

I've been playing Achaea for roughly 10 years. I've been a GM, cityleader, the works there, and I think that this thread strikes a chord with me. There's a reason I've stuck around Lusternia, and it's beause it's a lot closer to the Achaea I loved from a long time ago.

Yes, there is a tendency to stagnancy in politics. But this happens in a democracy for several reasons.
-the incoming blood either: does not know what's possible, does not share the same goals enough to achieve change, or does not care enough about those goals to (or have the patience to) dispose of leadership.
-the opportunities for political leaders to affect true change in the environment goes away. Either this is because the game itself is at a stage of development where change might be unwelcome, or because the organizations are at a stage where change might be risky.
-the organization has grown to a level where the scope "politics" changes so that individuals have lesser say. This isolates the political leaders from the people they're leading. The organization's various factions end up doing their own independent thing without ever coming into conflict.

having terms and regular election would achieve a lot, in my opinion, even though it was unsolicited. A democracy requires that the losing side not quit and give up. This is a game, so the option to just quit is very viable. The losing side in an election has to believe that an election's coming up in the future that they may actually win. Regular elections and terms would solve that problem. Plus, as a player that loves politics, it's much more satisfying and memorable to win election after election than to win one election and scare people away and rule uncontested.

in the end, as long as guild administrators remember that this is a game (a very deep and complicated game), they'll find their jobs rewarding

back to lurking

The job's really not that rewarding at all... none of the leadership ones are, except perhaps Champions. Very little's required of you there.

Probably late to respond, but I agree with some of what has been said by Avaer and others and I think Elostian must've been really affected to write it down..

I started IRE on Aetolia and the requirements there were pretty bad so the admin told them to wind them back, same with probation, like here I guess. However, I don't think Lusternia is that bad, although I am a guild admin so I am speaking from a certain view. I agree with Xenthos too, although Guild Master also has the added rank bonus admin does not.

No matter where one joins a certain amount of research or understanding is required to get the RP of the place, when I started in the Geos I didn't do any advancement things until I understood ideology behind the city and guild. Understanding something like the Taint ot Wyrd can make things alot easier, althougth shouldn't be too intensive. I don't think everyone does this though, as Arel said earlier people do enjoy certain things more, even though some activities or requirements are more beneficial in the long run. The requirements in a guild are often to instill this, which may be the case with a place as divergent from normal rp as Glomdoring (Although I have never had more than a novice there I admit).

I disagree with regular elections like Carameshian mentions, as in the Geomancers almost always people step down or open contestation rather than disrupt guild, which makes relations alot easier. Constant elections are VERY destabilising, the Geomancers had almost a couple of yeurs of constant elections, it wasn't ghelpful. Similarly strongly supported incumbant members tend to keep off petty contestation (which I guess always happens once election thats) in which the person has no chance to win but they want to try anyway, which adversely effects their morale at times and the relations in guild.

That's my view anyway, but added structures wouldn't help, families, clans (ooc and not) and guilds are already divided as it is, although system would sound alot like 'Game of Council' in Empre Trillogy from Feist and Wurts, which might be interesting.

Regular elections would not really accomplish anything when such an end state has come into existance. In such a society only those who think largely the same as the current leadership would rise to positions where they might be able to influence and change the guild. There might be a number of voices that would wish a change things but since the system selects people on agreeing with the current majority they would not be capable of doing so. Any manditory elections would merely be superficial as worship of the leader would be high among those that do make it through the system.

Voting isn't still a GR5 priv, is it? I thought it was 3 here.

1 might be nice, but we have enough of a problem with inactive people calling their friends to vote out of nowhere, letting random alts participate would be a pain.

I'll jump straight into the discussion, not quoting other people's posts but rather commenting on the OP of Elostian.

What you describe is true. For Achaea. I find it most silly (or, speaking more directly, downright retarded) that even after the houses replaced the guilds, these requirements are still so severe. However, Lusternia is far more relaxed when it gets to guild requirements, and that is good. Even the most strict guild I had an alt in (the Nihilists) was still pretty laidback.
I believe what helps most is that you advance from novicehood automatically, with time alone. What helps too is that guild rank very rarely affects stuff outside of your guild - you reach your "class" at GR 1, as opposed to GR 3 for pre-house Achaea, there aren't skills you aren't allowed to choose at GR 1, and finally - city/commune rank is far more important than guild rank.
As a guildless (not saying rogue - rogue means guild- and cityless) in Achaea, you're a lone wolf. A lone wolf who is additionaly shafted as access to some skills is restricted (crystals, karma, poisons, churchy stuff or whatever). In Lusternia, as a guildless you are still a valuable member of your community - if you do stuff for your org, that is. Because of this fact, that you don't really need a guild as long as you're in the city/commune, guild leaders have less power, which means they are less likely to become corrupted and drunk with this power.

Finally, even Lusty has most of guild people at GR 1. But since in most guilds I have been in, there are reasonably difficult tasks to advance in rank (tasks you are not forced to take, I might add), then I assume many of these GR 1 people simply aren't interested in advancing inside their own guild. Some value socialising, PvE or exploring the game higher than advancing in the guild, and that's okay for me. What isn't okay is a situation when one wishes to advance but cannot because the requirements are too severe or the leaders are power-hungry maniacs - but this isn't the case in this game. And trust me, you know how prone I am to criticising leadership decisions, player or admin.,

My problem is we have 20 GRs to use, and the amount of %!@$ you need to go through to get to 5 is insane. Most people only naturally get to 5 or 6, unless they've been a secretary forever, then maybe 10. I've never seen anyone higher then 10. That's -half- our guild ranks. Use the rest!

It's not quite that simple. Heck, no one in the Moondancers ever got higher than me other than 19s, and I got 12 over -years-. It gets to a silly amount of favours to actually raise people's ranks that way. The formula makes it harder to get a rank each time.

Which is why the Hartstone tasks need to warrant more than a low favour.

Even if they did you wouldn't get anywhere, frankly. I haven't thought this through too much yet, but it might just be better to say that anything deserving of a favour should instead push you up a rank.

Maybe someone should envoy that. Take away the geometric advance so every GR20 favor is always worth a rank. (Or a half-rank, maybe, but consistent whatever it is.)