Guild Structure discussion

Your thoughts on leadership, amount of officers, house vs. pool systems, or anything else you can think of. This, imo, is top 3 important first points to flesh out, along with name and side in RvR.

Personally, I think there should be an officer group. No Leadership tier, just a collective of management. Beyond that, I don't really like the House system. But again, this is all my opinion.

Personally I like the pool system better, especially since this guild size will be around 50 members max (or not much over).

I think there should be a main director, and officer setup. With that said, I do feel that the officer group should be very much involved in the decision making process etc...but when I say officers, I'm speaking like that would be very much like a BM would have been in Exodus.

... - Solis (sorry about posting with wrong damn user name)

Here are my thoughts on the leadership core.

Guild leader
There needs to be one. There has to be an ultimate tie breaker. There needs to be a person who will combine all info and make the decision on the direction to move. Without that, there is endless debate and argument when a tough decision needs to be made. One of the reasons ExGS was down to 1 manager was because a pool system doesn't work. Lex was the founder, and he felt he was final say, regardless of whether we were all "equals". To avoid that, there needs to be the ultimate parent.

Officers.
The officer core should be kept small, with each having specific responsibilities. There should be no question for the members on who they should go to depending on their problem. Also, there should be no question who is responsible for recruiting, or website administration, and so on. If we are looking for a guild of about 50 people, then we really only need 4 officers and 1 Guild Leader at most. That would be a recruitment officer, a raid leader, a pvp leader and and human resources guy, just as an example. They should all have an equal say in decision making, but realize that they may not always get their way.

Keeping your job.
I seriously think that the officers should be nominated from the people and voted on. I also think there should be a way for officers to be voted out if the people think they are doing a terrible job. Just something to think about.

I agree with that, so long as we keep our company the way it is (as in when we get to recruitment we're making sure there's no filler, and the same people we have are of the variety we pick up.)

I just wouldn't want to see something stupid like "Welllllll, I don't agree with that officer decision! Lets get him overthrown!" People disagree.

SneakyJes wrote:Here are my thoughts on the leadership core.

Guild leader
There needs to be one. There has to be an ultimate tie breaker. There needs to be a person who will combine all info and make the decision on the direction to move. Without that, there is endless debate and argument when a tough decision needs to be made. One of the reasons ExGS was down to 1 manager was because a pool system doesn't work. Lex was the founder, and he felt he was final say, regardless of whether we were all "equals". To avoid that, there needs to be the ultimate parent.

Officers.
The officer core should be kept small, with each having specific responsibilities. There should be no question for the members on who they should go to depending on their problem. Also, there should be no question who is responsible for recruiting, or website administration, and so on. If we are looking for a guild of about 50 people, then we really only need 4 officers and 1 Guild Leader at most. That would be a recruitment officer, a raid leader, a pvp leader and and human resources guy, just as an example. They should all have an equal say in decision making, but realize that they may not always get their way.

Keeping your job.
I seriously think that the officers should be nominated from the people and voted on. I also think there should be a way for officers to be voted out if the people think they are doing a terrible job. Just something to think about.

- I agree. This is my viewpoint and better worded.

Personally, I've always been a fan of a house system. Based on what we have heard about SWTOR so far, small dedicated groups would accomplish a lot. If you play with the same guys over and over again, you learn their game play, etc, which increases your chance of winning any pvp encounters. To be honest, I am tired of grouping up with people that haven't played too much together. Those groups are unorganized. That does not mean that I don't like those people.
On top of that, having houses creates more control options for leader and takes off some of the workload from leader by not having to deal with every member's problems, because that's what an officer of each house would do.

After thinking about it more though, I don't think we should have 20 man houses though. Since (as far as we know) there are 4man groups in SWTOR, it would be better to have maybe 6-8 people per house.

Bled wrote:I just wouldn't want to see something stupid like "Welllllll, I don't agree with that officer decision! Lets get him overthrown!" People disagree.

I agree with that, which is why there should be a process. For example off the top of my head:

1. The person or people who think the person is terrible should post it and the reasons why.
2. Discussion happens and it's either resolved or it's put to a vote.
3. If 75% of the population agrees this person is terrible, they are gone. 75% is a pretty huge # and if that many people hate you, then you're doing it wrong.

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

What if you had a guild with 1 nominal GM to handle interguild and community relations, and no officers.

What do you really need officers for?

Recruitment? X-Con showed that peer review works. If more than a couple people strongly oppose someone getting in, there's likely a damn good reason.

Raiding? A group poll can set likely raid dates. If it comes to choosing who goes/doesn't go to raids, then you might need a raid "officer"... someone the group agreed would be the decider. If loot council was going to be used, then you'd need 3 people to act in that role, but the people could change from raid to raid, as long as they were selected from a pool of people approved by the raid team as a whole.

PvP? That's probably the one spot where having a few individuals calling the shots pays off the most. But, again, those could be selected by each group. If i'm grouped today with brux, kami, and solis, we'd agree "ok, solis calls the strats" and it's done.

We planned on doing something similar with EXGS in TOR anyway, with changing pvp teams.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that thought out for discussion. After years of MMO's, I'm not convinced that management is even needed, as long as the guild members all have the same interests and goals.

If officers were considered necessary, I'd recommend Sneaky's idea of having them nominated and voted on once the membership is set.

I agree with SneakyJes.

A Quorum (or council) of 5, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum one being the "ie-breaker" and Guild Leader. This role can or cant change every 3 to 6 months. 4 Officer roles, in each area, but if the GL isn't on line or isn't in TS. Then a majority would be 3 (Quorum of 5)to make a final decision. This keeps the Leader and the organization organic in nature but power is not consolidated in to one person, as in Lex's case. Since GL is rotated and not one person is overwhelmed. Officer's can be removed by a 100% council vote. I don't feel or believe members should be able to remove an officer. They can bitch about it and use the chain of command. but removal is only allowed by the council. This keeps the "I can do better" or "I don't like him/her, lets find me a forum/an audience where I can gang up on one officer to get him/her removed" approach.

As for the "house" system. I think that name is gay, bty. But the system can be accomplished by having Team Leaders of 6. Each officer is responsible for his/her team leaders and each team leader is to group/play with his team. Team leadership has no real power. Its like the group leader in an MMO. It might be too much responsibility/confusion of having a TL system. But it would accomplish the goal of the "house" system. Making sure people are grouping up and playing in an organized way.

Personally, I think that a collective with different views and the maturity to come to decisions is simply beyond the capabilities of one man.

I know we're focusing more on tight nit, no bullshit. But still, I know numbers are being thrown around from anywhere of 35 to as high as 50 members. That's still a large guild. It's not a mass guild, but it's large, that's a lot of weight and responsibility for one man. Plus, personally I think that having that conflict in disagreement is healthy in that you get several view points.

Acer wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here.

What if you had a guild with 1 nominal GM to handle interguild and community relations, and no officers.

What do you really need officers for?

Recruitment? X-Con showed that peer review works. If more than a couple people strongly oppose someone getting in, there's likely a damn good reason.

Raiding? A group poll can set likely raid dates. If it comes to choosing who goes/doesn't go to raids, then you might need a raid "officer"... someone the group agreed would be the decider. If loot council was going to be used, then you'd need 3 people to act in that role, but the people could change from raid to raid, as long as they were selected from a pool of people approved by the raid team as a whole.

PvP? That's probably the one spot where having a few individuals calling the shots pays off the most. But, again, those could be selected by each group. If i'm grouped today with brux, kami, and solis, we'd agree "ok, solis calls the strats" and it's done.

We planned on doing something similar with EXGS in TOR anyway, with changing pvp teams.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that thought out for discussion. After years of MMO's, I'm not convinced that management is even needed, as long as the guild members all have the same interests and goals.

If officers were considered necessary, I'd recommend Sneaky's idea of having them nominated and voted on once the membership is set.

I like where you are headed with that Acer. This is WAY more Organic Organization. It could work IF, and only if new members and everyone understood the guild's goals and the "why we do things around here" reasoning. And of course maturity.

SneakyJes wrote:Here are my thoughts on the leadership core.

Guild leader
There needs to be one. There has to be an ultimate tie breaker. There needs to be a person who will combine all info and make the decision on the direction to move. Without that, there is endless debate and argument when a tough decision needs to be made. One of the reasons ExGS was down to 1 manager was because a pool system doesn't work. Lex was the founder, and he felt he was final say, regardless of whether we were all "equals". To avoid that, there needs to be the ultimate parent.

Officers.
The officer core should be kept small, with each having specific responsibilities. There should be no question for the members on who they should go to depending on their problem. Also, there should be no question who is responsible for recruiting, or website administration, and so on. If we are looking for a guild of about 50 people, then we really only need 4 officers and 1 Guild Leader at most. That would be a recruitment officer, a raid leader, a pvp leader and and human resources guy, just as an example. They should all have an equal say in decision making, but realize that they may not always get their way.

Keeping your job.
I seriously think that the officers should be nominated from the people and voted on. I also think there should be a way for officers to be voted out if the people think they are doing a terrible job. Just something to think about.

Ye, this is what i would like to see aswell.

SneakyJes wrote:

Bled wrote:I just wouldn't want to see something stupid like "Welllllll, I don't agree with that officer decision! Lets get him overthrown!" People disagree.

I agree with that, which is why there should be a process. For example off the top of my head:

1. The person or people who think the person is terrible should post it and the reasons why.
2. Discussion happens and it's either resolved or it's put to a vote.
3. If 75% of the population agrees this person is terrible, they are gone. 75% is a pretty huge # and if that many people hate you, then you're doing it wrong.

Yeah, a process sounds good, in that case.

I am for a small house system, and or the suggestion sneaky has come up with

SneakyJes wrote:Here are my thoughts on the leadership core.

Guild leader
There needs to be one. There has to be an ultimate tie breaker. There needs to be a person who will combine all info and make the decision on the direction to move. Without that, there is endless debate and argument when a tough decision needs to be made. One of the reasons ExGS was down to 1 manager was because a pool system doesn't work. Lex was the founder, and he felt he was final say, regardless of whether we were all "equals". To avoid that, there needs to be the ultimate parent.

Officers.
The officer core should be kept small, with each having specific responsibilities. There should be no question for the members on who they should go to depending on their problem. Also, there should be no question who is responsible for recruiting, or website administration, and so on. If we are looking for a guild of about 50 people, then we really only need 4 officers and 1 Guild Leader at most. That would be a recruitment officer, a raid leader, a pvp leader and and human resources guy, just as an example. They should all have an equal say in decision making, but realize that they may not always get their way.

Keeping your job.
I seriously think that the officers should be nominated from the people and voted on. I also think there should be a way for officers to be voted out if the people think they are doing a terrible job. Just something to think about.

This.

We do need someone in PR. that's a necessity imo.

Acer wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here.

What if you had a guild with 1 nominal GM to handle interguild and community relations, and no officers.

What do you really need officers for?

Recruitment? X-Con showed that peer review works. If more than a couple people strongly oppose someone getting in, there's likely a damn good reason.

Raiding? A group poll can set likely raid dates. If it comes to choosing who goes/doesn't go to raids, then you might need a raid "officer"... someone the group agreed would be the decider. If loot council was going to be used, then you'd need 3 people to act in that role, but the people could change from raid to raid, as long as they were selected from a pool of people approved by the raid team as a whole.

PvP? That's probably the one spot where having a few individuals calling the shots pays off the most. But, again, those could be selected by each group. If i'm grouped today with brux, kami, and solis, we'd agree "ok, solis calls the strats" and it's done.

We planned on doing something similar with EXGS in TOR anyway, with changing pvp teams.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that thought out for discussion. After years of MMO's, I'm not convinced that management is even needed, as long as the guild members all have the same interests and goals.

If officers were considered necessary, I'd recommend Sneaky's idea of having them nominated and voted on once the membership is set.

Everyone country, company, organization, club, religion and carpool has a leadership structure. It's doubtful that anything would get done without it.

As far as a house system, I have mixed feelings on that.

I like a council with or without a guild leader. I don't think houses would be the most appropriate structure as we will likely not exceed 50 members. that means we probably won't have more than 40 people on at one time.

I feel like the structure houses provide exist to give you the connection to fellow guildies to cultivate friendship and unit cohesion. in a guild of only 50 people, that structure isn't needed and is more like to impede social structure than promote it.

I don't like the house system in that it's segregated. We want more tight and close guild then we had, which is why we're here. I guess I wouldn't see how house could be managed in a guild of this size.

Acer wrote:

Anyway, I just wanted to put that thought out for discussion. After years of MMO's, I'm not convinced that management is even needed, as long as the guild members all have the same interests and goals.

This.

Raiding loot = Usually it will be the same group of people rolling for the same stuff all the time, have them determine among them selves who needs what to benefit the guild the most. I'd be willing to pass on an upgrade to a good player that is in blues as long as he/she is active and will put in the time to earn it.

Acer wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here.

What if you had a guild with 1 nominal GM to handle interguild and community relations, and no officers.

What do you really need officers for?

Recruitment? X-Con showed that peer review works. If more than a couple people strongly oppose someone getting in, there's likely a damn good reason.

Raiding? A group poll can set likely raid dates. If it comes to choosing who goes/doesn't go to raids, then you might need a raid "officer"... someone the group agreed would be the decider. If loot council was going to be used, then you'd need 3 people to act in that role, but the people could change from raid to raid, as long as they were selected from a pool of people approved by the raid team as a whole.

PvP? That's probably the one spot where having a few individuals calling the shots pays off the most. But, again, those could be selected by each group. If i'm grouped today with brux, kami, and solis, we'd agree "ok, solis calls the strats" and it's done.

We planned on doing something similar with EXGS in TOR anyway, with changing pvp teams.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that thought out for discussion. After years of MMO's, I'm not convinced that management is even needed, as long as the guild members all have the same interests and goals.

If officers were considered necessary, I'd recommend Sneaky's idea of having them nominated and voted on once the membership is set.

I like this but think this would only work if the guild remained small (i.e. around 50 people, max 100) Otherwise I don't have any real strong opinions about either the house or officer system.

Bled wrote:I don't like the house system in that it's segregated. We want more tight and close guild then we had, which is why we're here. I guess I wouldn't see how house could be managed in a guild of this size.

You can have 50 people that respect eachother but you won't have 50 peole that would create one cliq. There will be few cliqs.

A group of leaders that are nominated or elected based on who the membership wants.

I am not necessarily interested in an "officer" position or having any kind of authority. But what I am interested in having is a more active role in serving this gaming community and helping to make it a better place.

SneakyJes wrote:Here are my thoughts on the leadership core.

Guild leader
There needs to be one. There has to be an ultimate tie breaker. There needs to be a person who will combine all info and make the decision on the direction to move. Without that, there is endless debate and argument when a tough decision needs to be made. One of the reasons ExGS was down to 1 manager was because a pool system doesn't work. Lex was the founder, and he felt he was final say, regardless of whether we were all "equals". To avoid that, there needs to be the ultimate parent.

Officers.
The officer core should be kept small, with each having specific responsibilities. There should be no question for the members on who they should go to depending on their problem. Also, there should be no question who is responsible for recruiting, or website administration, and so on. If we are looking for a guild of about 50 people, then we really only need 4 officers and 1 Guild Leader at most. That would be a recruitment officer, a raid leader, a pvp leader and and human resources guy, just as an example. They should all have an equal say in decision making, but realize that they may not always get their way.

Keeping your job.
I seriously think that the officers should be nominated from the people and voted on. I also think there should be a way for officers to be voted out if the people think they are doing a terrible job. Just something to think about.

Great ideas Sneak. I would also like to add that the smaller the officer/Council commitee, the better. Lets keep things smooth and simple. I think at the most 5 officers with 10 Guildies each and maybe a Guild Leader and co leader....Like an Alpha and Beta.

Maximum 50 active members give or take a few is more than enough imo.

I really want our group to be tight knit, I want to really know all of our members to the extent of being able to jump headfirst into anything with them and successfully hit the ground running. I want to recognise someones voice the moment they speak on TS/Vent. Essential stuff.