Hello,

I'm trying to figure out a good, productive make-up for our guild. How the guild works (which is shown in rank below) is that there are two guild leaders (who make the ultimate decisions). There is a rank below us that breaks ties, who also is there for the general well-being of the guild like a counselor (we already have someone in mind for the position.) We have four major officer ranks, one for each purpose, PvP, PvE, Crafting, and Roleplay, which are elected by officers, below that we have officers, who are hand picked by both guildleaders, as needed, one per 8 players. Then we have members and recruits. Members and above are allowed to recruit, recruits are not.

Jake(guild leader 2)-Robert (guild leader 1)

(recruits)

If anyone has any suggestions, I would appreciate it.

Ok, so you have two leaders. If they agree on a subject, it passes or denied (depending on their similar answers). If they disagree then Gee-Ma-Dee has complete and total control of the final decision.

To me this sounds like the Seer almost has more power and control than Jake and Robert.

Why not 1 guild leader, and 2 seers. The seers vote, and if they both agree (or disagree) then the rule is passed (or denied). If they disagree with one another, the 1 guild leader makes the final decision.

Show me a benevolent dictator, then I shall decide.

Gee-Ma-Dee only gets a vote, if the vote between Jake and Robert is split. This is similar to city and county government, where the County Judge or Mayor only gets a vote if the commissioners or aldermen are in a split decision. Does this give gee-Ma-Dee more power? No. But, typically in county and city government, the judge or mayor is seen as the one in power. This is never the case, in reality. I just placed the ranks as they truly stood. Gee-Ma-Dee is there to break up disagreements and counsel guild members. Not to make decisions, otherwise.

Does that clarify?

That is why we have a 2 guild leader rule, with a tie breaker if needed. We are trying to be as fair as possible, in this guild. Major officers will make most leadership decisions.

That is, of course, your choice.

True, but what other way is there to run a guild? Democracy? the guild must be made by one person, so ultimately the one creating it decides to allow democracy. Again. We are trying to be fair.

Benevolent dictatorship.

Eh...good luck with that.

Thanks.

Yeah I guess it makes sense, the Seer doesn't actually have any more power than the leaders. Gee-Ma-Dee has the exact same amount of power (with a different title). It just seems like an unnecessary extra rank to me. The Seer might as well be a third guild leader.

As is:

A vote comes up. GL-1 and GL-2 agree, it passes

or

GL-1 and GL-2 disagree's. Seer sides with GL-2, so their decision passes.

Why not just include the Seer in the original vote...skip the extra rank and vote?

GL-1 and GL-2 agree, Seer disagree... GL 1/2 vote passes

GL-2 and Seer agree, GL-1 doesn't...GL-2/Seer vote passes

Am I missing something still?

Nope. That is pretty much how it is. The only reason she is a different rank is that we should rarely need her vote, the rank is going to be utilized in the counsel of members (ie: telling GLs the concerns of the members and officers and being diplomatic), and we discuss decisions with her. So she will rarely come into play, other than to inform us of guildies' concerns.

Might I ask how you know this, without being "her"?

I might just not be following this thread properly.

Because, she will only have the power to if needed. It would be more appropriate to ask how I know this without being the other guildleader, because it is only if the other guildleader and myself disagree that she has power. The other guildleader and I are on somewhat fantastic terms, as is the seer with us.

See, this is alarm bells to me.

Decision-makers should be responsible for the decisions they make.

hi, the co leader of said guild here

allow me to clarify, ge-maw-de will definitely play teso, as she loves playing mmogs since anarchy-online release. gee-ma-dee will most definitely not play as much as i or holydrumstickoflove with that said she has untold wisdom and foresight that any guild could benefit from.

Multiple leaders being on good terms opposed to a single leader being in charge? Ok. Thanks for your input. Have a nice day. Your opinion is no longer needed.

haha that decision was voted on, troll

Not a troll. Asking legitimate questions, as I am looking for guilds.

Might I know who voted in such a short timeframe?

@Deserves-to-Die - You seem more confrontational than constructive. I hope you find the guild you are looking for. It isn't ours.

I know it isn't yours, by actually being "confrontational", as you call it (I'd call it critical).
May those who you would otherwise repress find the sense to ask questions too.

One officer per 8 members sounds too many imo

And no offense, but if you and your co-leader get along famously, it may as well be one guild leader and one opinion. I understand though it is a friend and 50/50 split.

We came to this decision after reading up on it. it isn't as many as it sounds. It is actually only 10 per 80 members. 80 members is quite a bit, when you don;t count alts. Also, four of those officers will be dedicated to raid leading in PVP and PVE, moderating Roleplaying, or assisting people in Crafting. We think it is about right. BUT, if after the guild gets on it's feet, we have too many officers, we will reduce numbers or stop selecting officers.

I've run several guilds, and per 80 members I usually only have around two to three officers, and never had a problem. In a guild which had 500 members I had around 9 which itself was satisfactory. If your officers are consistent and active you need far less. I pick my officers on that and character.