Guild usurp

[SirShen]

From the release notes - Officers can now usurp a guild after 60 days if there is no successor, or if the successor has been inactive for 60 days.

So can i ask is this the oldest officer (officer that been in the guild longest) or any officer?

[Cordovan]

Should be any officer, once both the leader and successor are inactive for 60 days. If there is no successor, then it is when the leader is inactive for 60 days.

[SirShen]

Should be any officer, once both the leader and successor are inactive for 60 days. If there is no successor, then it is when the leader is inactive for 60 days.

I was so hoping it wasnt the first officer to log on, it really should be the oldest office in guild. I can see this causing problems were all players in the guild are officers and the leader and successor have been inactive for 60 days. That means a person that was only in the guild one week could become leader. Am i the only one to find this wrong?

[gerardIII]

I was so hoping it wasnt the first officer to log on, it really should be the oldest office in guild. I can see this causing problems were all players in the guild are officers and the leader and successor have been inactive for 60 days. That means a person that was only in the guild one week could become leader. Am i the only one to find this wrong?

It's not possible to usurp after being in the guild for a week, it has to be at least 60 days: when the leader last logged on he promoted that Officer.

Also if it was only the oldest Officer: what if the 3 oldest Officers are the Leader's alts?

[kinar]

I was so hoping it wasnt the first officer to log on, it really should be the oldest office in guild. I can see this causing problems were all players in the guild are officers and the leader and successor have been inactive for 60 days. That means a person that was only in the guild one week could become leader. Am i the only one to find this wrong?

It sounds to me like the hypothetical guild in question already has bigger problems.

I approve of the new system 100%

[SirShen]

It's not possible to usurp after being in the guild for a week, it has to be at least 60 days: when the leader last logged on he promoted that Officer.

Also if it was only the oldest Officer: what if the 3 oldest Officers are the Leader's alts?

OK i got that wrong but i mean why should an officer thats only been with the guild two months just log on first when U11 hits and become leader? When other officers have been in the guild for years?

Yes and if those 3 officers have not been on it would be passed onto the 4 oldest ect.

[kinar]

OK i got that wrong but i mean why should an officer thats only been with the guild two months just log on first when U11 hits and become leader? When other officers have been in the guild for years?

imo, yes it does make sense. You shouldn't be just arbitrairly assigning officer status to people. The officers of a guild should be people who represent the guild well and are capable of leading if the need arises. There is already a mechanic for the 2nd in command to handle the situation that you are bringing up. You are now trying to argue for a 3rd/4th/5th/etc in command which is just silly.

[elraido]

Yeah, I don't know how I like the idea of someone being newer to the guild being able to usurp power like that. Personally, I think the Leader should be able to designate like 5 ranks down (not alts), and if they don't log in for 60 days then it should be up for grabs.

[Gkar]

An officer can destroy your guild in a few minutes by booting all non officers.

If don't trust people to take over after 60 days without the leader and the second being present then those people really shouldn't be officers.

The original plan of letting MEMBERS take over was a really bad one, but this solution is quite good.

[Extispex]

I was so hoping it wasnt the first officer to log on, it really should be the oldest office in guild. I can see this causing problems were all players in the guild are officers and the leader and successor have been inactive for 60 days. That means a person that was only in the guild one week could become leader. Am i the only one to find this wrong?

No, I find it wrong too. You should only promote people you trust to officer.
If you make every random Joe an officer you're just asking for trouble, and if something happens, you can only blame yourself.

[Jahmin]

Am i the only one to find this wrong?

Yes

[Qezuzu]

Am i the only one to find this wrong?

Yes.

If your leader logs in at least once 60 days, everything is fine.

Theoretically, a member who has been in the guild for 61 days, was promoted to officer upon arriving, and then the leader left for 60 days, they could become the leader.

But an officer can already ruin a guild by booting every non-officer.

There's nothing wrong with this system.

[AZgreentea]

Am i the only one to find this wrong?

The solution is simple enough. Before U11 is released, that leader needs to go through and demote people to member if he dosent trust them.

Nothing can prevent guild drama. Even someone you think you trust and make a 3rd or 4th successor can go through and boot everyone, destroying the guild. Thats why its so important to only give access to higher functions to people you know you can rely on, and hope for the best. This update only increases the importance of not making everyone an officer. Its just not necessary.

[donfilibuster]

An officer is an officer, the current way to make sure there's no unwanted usurp is to appoint a successor.
If they are both missing then any officer is fine, just have to trust they'd all respect any guild rules.

[Corwinsky]

That's a great idea and there's nothing wrong about it.

Only a dumb leader would appoint anyone in his guild as officer, even people that just joined the day before so don't ask Turbine to fix people stupidity.

[Satinavian]

When a leader plans to be absent for more then 60 days, he should give leadership over or name an successor (not of his alts) anyway. Can't be good for any guild that has fluctuating members to have no present leader for such a long time.

If he doesn't, he is either incompetent and doesnt care for the guild or it was not planned to be such a long time. If it was not planned usually the whole guild does not know, when he might come back or if he will come back at all. Very bad for any guild.

This is why we must have succession. And 2 months is a good compromise.

If we need a successor, how can the system know who is more suited from the members ? It can't. In most cases the missing leader is (for leaving without a trace) not a good leader anyway and most likely his promotions quite arbitrary. And even if he did only promote competent people, why assume that anyone he promoted a bit earlier is more competent then someone promoted later ? The oldest officer might even be a long player that lost interest and is rarely on nowadays and retains his status because good old times and because the leader was lazy demoting before vanishing. The last officer was probably at least active around the time the leader was seen last and did make a good impression.

Any Officer should be able to become leader. In the off chance that the officers turned against each other in the time without leader and none being able to demote/kick anyway one side will be kicked, yes. But that is best for the guild and nothing says that the side with the oldest officer is better. Well nothing says that the side with the first succession option noticing oficer is better either, but without implementing something like an election there is not much the system ca do.

Well, an election could be nice.