Avian Gamers Network

Forum
It is currently Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:04 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Public Avian Gamers Forums » World of Warcraft

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Rocklar
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:23 pm 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:23 am
Posts: 5587
WoW is a completely different game from SWG and the gameplay is completely different as well. When I think Star Wars, I think of combat but I also think of the political machinations of Coruscant, the multitude of planetary governors and the alliances that were hammered out throughout the OT, the prequels and all the EU books. When I think of Warcraft, I think of "Og smash humie!" and "Die, orc-spawn!" Sure, there may be a subtle layer of alliances in the game and there clearly is in the fiction but the focus is on action and conflict. Similarily, I hope to find the Warcraft government simple and very streamlined - three layers at the most.

Personally, I plan on spending little down time in WoW. I want to smash and kill and main and plunder as much as possible. Thus, I want to spend as little time as possible participating in (as governmental representative) or responding to (as a guildee) governmental matters. I'm not saying I don't want us to have a government form, I just want it to be very simple, very non-cumbersome.

Current suggestion:
  • 1 General
    • Placeholder name but means the top of the food chain
    • Can accept people into the guild
    • Can grant Lieutenants (see below) their rights and abilities in-game
    • Can set guild tabard details
  • 2 Lieutenants
    • Placeholder name but means those that enforce, follow-up on execution of decisions
    • Can accept people into the guild
  • 4-6 Sergeants
    • Placeholder name but means those that enforce, follow-up on execution of decisions)
    • Can form/lead raids (we very well may not even want to specify this layer...I don't really like it but added it for the sake of completeness)
Key
Olive = removed
Red = added

Ideas for better names for the ranks?

_________________
Liro
"The english language is not a wedding gown, it doesn't get better the more lace you add. It is instead a thong. Less is more." From /.
I need to remind myself of this regularly.


Last edited by Rocklar on Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:42 pm 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
I read your post in the naming forum and no one wants things to be simple more than me. But there is a difference between simple and nothing. We do need to hash this out, quickly, before we start naming the tribe and deciding servers and factions. As far as the example above, I like it, but I would eliminate the bottom layer. There can't be restrictions on who can start and lead groups. We'll all help each other and get good enough with it that any of us could lead a group. I like naming the leaders in keeping with "clan" type names. Chieftain for a leader perhaps. Heirs for his subordinates, seeing they could take over if he is incapacitated.

The idea of leadership I envisioned was mostly on the boards. Someone who moderated. Anyone should be able to organize a raid, lead a group etc.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Rocklar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:10 pm 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:23 am
Posts: 5587
tobiasds wrote:
I like it, but I would eliminate the bottom layer. There can't be restrictions on who can start and lead groups.
...
Anyone should be able to organize a raid, lead a group etc.


I agree completely, done. <Edited above>


As for Chieftan and Heir, I like the thought but do you think those names, actually just "chieftan," sound a little too Horde-aligned? But then as I sit here thinking about an alternative, most names seem to lean towards or suggest either Alliance or Horde.

_________________
Liro
"The english language is not a wedding gown, it doesn't get better the more lace you add. It is instead a thong. Less is more." From /.
I need to remind myself of this regularly.
Top
 Profile  
 
Barcalla
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 1:00 pm
Posts: 291
Location: West Lafayette, Indiana
I like this simple hierarchy. It suits WoW well. There are some suggestions I wanted to throw out that are based more on daily guild functionality rather than the government structure but I thought would fit in this thread:

Have a weekly or bi-weekly meeting INGAME. I stress the ingame aspect because, even though we could just as easily discuss things whenever on the forum, having a standard meeting place and time encourages ingame activity and cohesiveness within the guild.
Advantages
  • It provides a time when everyone is together to talk, vote on issues, and organize parties.
  • Issues would be voted on only during these meetings. That way everyone knows exactly when voting occurs and it's time is not up in the air.
  • Would be helpful to members who don't play as much to be able to hear a recap of issues discussed in the guild chat or forums when they weren't around.
  • Keeps everyone in the loop
Disadvantages
  • Would have to decide a time where most of the members could meet most of the time
  • Possibly less convenient than the usage of forums. Though I believe sole reliance on forums wouldn't promote ingame cohesiveness as much.


Another issue which I stressed back in SWG beta days would be member activity. Specifically in getting as many members as possible to participate in meetings, jobs, and/or organization of activities. I don't think this is a huge issue for current members as you all seem to participate and discuss with each other a lot. It'd be geared more towards new members which we meet ingame and accept into the guild. The question is:
  1. How do we get those people to stay with us?
  2. How do we keep them involved?

Making full use of the note system and giving members guild duties is the way to go with this. Perhaps each Sergeant could have a specific duty. They could be meeting speakers, event organizers, voting officer, etc.. Each Sergeant could have the title Sergeant but with an addition to their specific job. Like "Sergeant - Event Organizer". The note system would be used such that when there is an event, the event coordinator would have it posted as a note under his player name. That way everyone only has to look under that one persons name for all of the events that are going to be taking place in the near future. (I havn't seen how guild notes work ingame so correct me if what I said isn't plausible for some reason)

Rocklar, I respect your want in having as little government down time as possible. Guild meetings would create government down time but I believe would be counter balanced by a greater guild cohesiveness ingame. The biggest problem I find with many guilds is that they end up not doing much with each other. The guild just turns into some sort of blubbering chat room with a lack of interactivity.

I didn't go through all of my ideas here because I find most people don't like reading such long posts. But, the main point is that there should to be a weekly/biweekly guild meeting to create further interactivity. Everything else in this post was just supporting details. :) So feel free to discuss, adapt, denounce anything I said and I'll try and give a response.

_________________
"There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Top
 Profile  
 
Locke_Trinmin
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:52 pm 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 8:01 pm
Posts: 3053
Having weekly meetings is a GREAT idea Barcalla! It would definitely be a great way to monitor ingame activity. We just have to find a suitable time and date for everyone to participate.

I usually have nights free during the week, and on weekends.
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:46 pm 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Too lazy to do quotes tonight.

As far as chieftain I always think of native tribes and Scottish Highland Clans when I hear chieftain. I think it could work both ways but if someone suggests something better I am wide open to change.

Love the idea of weekly meetings, just not to discuss business. I am hoping we won't have a LOT of business to discuss and whether we wait for a week to meet ingame or if we have a week long voting session the results will be mostly the same. The advantage to voting on here is a person can do it when away from the computer containing the game client.

Let's make sure that once a week we get together and go hunting someplace that will be doable for the minimum level character in the group. That one time a week might not be valuable for higher level members to earn experience but we will be ensured of staying together.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Rocklar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:53 pm 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:23 am
Posts: 5587
Barcalla,

Wow - great post! Lots of great input and I really do like the idea of in-game meetings. They certainly would be an excellent cohesiveness builder (heh, that make sense? :P). Having said that, I have one major concern and two other kneejerk reactions. They follow, but here's my biggest concern: We have a variety of races that will be starting. That means our population will be spread out so these meeting may have to take place in guildchat instead of an actual specific location. Comments?

Further, two other reactions (and I suspect others will have a similar reaction) I had were, "Ack - how will make it to every meeting?" and "Ack - I don't want to spend in-game time in a meeting!" but I think there are very doable solutions to both of those concerns. So, lemme address my own concerns in reverse order as I think the answer to the first lies in answering the second.
  • I don't want to spend in-game time in a meeting.
    1. Let's make these meetings short. The idea of having a speaker is cool but to what end? If it's shortcuts and helpful hints for use in-game, let's put that stuff on the boards so everyone, not just those at the meeting can benefit.
    2. Let's make these meetings short.
      • Meeting agenda
        • Review of previous meeting (3 min)
        • Vote on any business pending from last meeting (2 min)
        • Call for new business (1 min)
        • Discussion of same (5 min)
        • Announcement of votes for next meeting (2 min)
        • Group/Raid arrangements (imminent and forthcoming) (2 min)
    3. Let's make these meetings short. One person, the ranking member or their designee, speaks and only that person. Minimal interruptions, minimal time invested, maximum effect of that time. Total attention is given to the meeting, no spatial, no /whispers, no crafting. Sounds dictatorial but the fact remains this communication is important so let's get 'er done.
  • How will I make it to every meeting?
    • By keeping these meetings short, short, short, we can have more of them, maybe twice even three times a week. If we do that, we should move votes to the boards but the benefit would be that we would bring more people, across multiple gaming times together.

I like the idea of in-game meetings...I really do. I say that again because I don't want all the babbling I just did :P to suggest otherwise...I'm just brainstorming with ideas to make them work for as many as possible, be effective and not waste anyone's time.

_________________
Liro
"The english language is not a wedding gown, it doesn't get better the more lace you add. It is instead a thong. Less is more." From /.
I need to remind myself of this regularly.
Top
 Profile  
 
Arindel
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:20 am 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 3:45 am
Posts: 6302
Location: Raleigh, NC
in-game meetings could be tough for some us old/married with 2 kids kinda people (pecifically me).

When I am in-game, I think we need to keep to the topics of in-game. It usually takes long enough to organize raids and the like (from SWG experience). I would like to move as much out of game as possible in order to maximize in-game time

It might sound a bit harsh, but usually there are people straggling in late and others wait (unless it starts at the appointed time and lasts for the defined time limit)...meaning no fat to the schedule.

Also, my play time varies and I doubt there is 1 consistent night a week that I can make it (thouhg I am planning to institute gaming night 1/2 times a week...which if I am successful should make all this much easier for me). Also, if we have both Horde and Alliance does that mean we will have 2 meetings?

As for Chieftan/leader names. I imagine we may derive those based on our group name. I would delay those titles until we choose a name :P. Chieftan might make sense for one group, but I could see different names for different groups

Avian Sentinels: The Watchman, Perimeter Guards, ...
The Griffon Guard: Captain, Lt, ...
Warbirds of Avian: ???

You get the idea.

_________________
Dalaran: Arindel - Frost Mage (Mining/Alchemy)
Dalaran: Roran - Paladin (Weaponsmith/Blacksmith)
Dalaran: Baine - Rogue
Top
 Profile  
 
Cyrus Rex
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 9:01 pm
Posts: 2417
Location: Baton Rouge, LA / Kuwait / Kandahar
You guys rock. Lots of good stuff in here.


I would love see all of you in game, as much as possible. I quit SWG partly because I could never find people to do things with. I am hoping this tighter group of friends will foster the team play I am looking for. I hope WoW does not turn out to be the solo-fest SWG ended up being.

Sometimes my wife and family keep me busy. Other times I have nothing to do besides game and chat on the forums. I guess my life is hit of miss right now and I am afraid I would end up missing important in-game meetings. I feel like important stuff should be handled in the forums as much as possible just to accommodate everyone’s random schedule… and to have a tangible record of events.

That being said, I think meeting up in-game should be attempted as much as possible just to foster better guild bonding. I would love to have a meeting of the guild for no other reason than to RP out our teamwork and duty to each other. (the Fellowship of the Ring comes to mind) My time is not so busy that even game minute must devoted to questing. I can spare time just to hang out… and maybe help be productive.

Right now a few of us have been chatting and using teamspeak. I am loving it because it reminds me of the early days of Avian. We sometimes get a lot done quickly that would otherwise take a much longer time. Until we can meet up in-game, I welcome all of you to join me whenever possible in our teamspeak server or over IMs.
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:04 am 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Cy's mention of teamspeak reminded me there is a stickied instruction thread in the Avian PA private issues thread. I would appreciate it if a total newbie went there, followed the instructions, then gave me some feedback on whether they were clear, helpful, etc. Here's a direct link.

http://www.swg-avian.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12846

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Cetera
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:54 am 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 9:01 pm
Posts: 4118
Location: Laramie, WY
I, for one, really dislike the idea of in-game meetings, for a couple of reasons.

1.) It adds layers of bureaucratic and time consuming red tape, for little possible gain in my opinion.

2.) It limits my play time. My play time is going to be short enough as it is, and when I'm on, I want to be adventuring, not standing around waiting for everyone to show up, then for the meeting to start, wait for everyone to type everything out, and then just have to come back to the forums to vote anyway. The forums are nice because you can do it in a spare moment anywhere that there is an internet connection.

This means that more people can participate on their own schedule, with more time to think about their posts and the issue at hand, and do it any time of the day or night, which will probably take less time to get stuff discussed than if we had a meeting in-game every week.

3.) Almost certainly I will make less than 10% of the in-game meetings.

I just don't see any real benefit from having them, aside from having all of us together to chat once in a while. I don't see that as necessary to building a cohesive, close-knit group in-game.

_________________
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
Top
 Profile  
 
Rocklar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:14 am 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:23 am
Posts: 5587
Cetera wrote:
I want to be adventuring, not standing around waiting for everyone to show up, then for the meeting to start, wait for everyone to type everything out


I understand you there, Cetera, because my own in-game time will def be limited. That's why if in-game meetings are desired by the group, I'm going to strongly and aggressively lobby for very structured (as suggested above), very timely meetings (if you're late and you wanted to vote on something...tough :P). If we can make these meetings 15 min or less, I do not have an argument against them while I do see their potential to keep us together in-game.

**edit**

Maybe my comments about being late seem overly harsh but it comes down to the fact that I'm in-game to primarily hack and slash, not chat/listen in a meeting (I get plenty of that at work). I'm happy to oblige the wishes of others but not at the sacrifice of my own fun in-game. I don't think that's selfish but if you disagree, tell me so. Like I've said before, I'm not opposed to the meetings, in fact I see their value, but if having them means my play time is slashed in half...what's the point?

_________________
Liro
"The english language is not a wedding gown, it doesn't get better the more lace you add. It is instead a thong. Less is more." From /.
I need to remind myself of this regularly.
Top
 Profile  
 
Cetera
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:37 am 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 9:01 pm
Posts: 4118
Location: Laramie, WY
I guess I just don't see the point of meetings in-game. I think everything can be discussed more completely and more efficiently on the boards. Informal meetings are great, especially when you are hunting or whatever, and I'd be all for a weekly group activity that is regularly scheduled or something. But not for discussing our guild. We can even do some of that via WoW's equivalent of guild chat, hopefully. I just don't see any benefit at all to an in-game governmental meeting, unless it is for role-play purposes only, and maybe a challenge or two. But I suspect that would be fairly rare.

To me, in-game meetings make things overly complex, and don't shoot for the quick and dirty government I was hoping to have in WoW. And from my experience in SWG, its impossible to get more than 3 people together anywhere and have them arrive within ten minutes of each other. This will take all day, and turnout is going to be horrible.

With as few people as we are going to have in WoW, I certainly don't see the need for anything more structured. Admittedly, a whole "tribal council" thing sounds kinda cool, but I'm dead set against it.

_________________
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
Top
 Profile  
 
Talon1977
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:57 am 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 11:41 am
Posts: 5201
Location: South Carolina, USA
I agree with Cetera. In my opinion, that's the reason we have these boards, to care of business without taking away game time.

Just as an update, here's what's currently being reviewed in the BoD. We're discussing how the sub guilds should be formed in an organized way. (in otherwords, how to officially start this WoW guild and install some leadership).

Here's the deal:
Quote:
Currently, the idea on the table is, a committee of 3 must bring a petition to the Board of Directors requesting the creation of the sub guild. That petition must have 6 other names on it, for member participation in this sub guild.

Once granted existence, that committee of 3 will discuss and solidify, however they see fit, the structure of the sub guild's government.

That Committee of 3 will only maintain leadership until a permanent form of leadership is decided upon and instituted.

This method of sub guild creation will be written into the new Parent PA Charter.


The reason I bring that up here, is to motivate those who are interested in this to decide who that Committee of 3 is going to be and get it organized and get your participating members on board. Good luck! (I'll be a participating member, but not on the committee, btw).

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Top
 Profile  
 
Rocklar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:27 pm 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:23 am
Posts: 5587
This is good - keep the opinions and support for those opinions rolling in. I'm going to continue to try to present the requests related to the WoW government in an objective manner but be advised, my personal opinions will likely pop up here and there. I will do my best to frame my opinions as such. Call me on it if I'm not doing that.

I'm volunteering for one position on the committee of three. Let's hear from a couple more volunteers and then we need another 5 names to add to Talon's. Let's try to have these names ready so as soon as the BoD cuts the ribbon on this, we can be well prepared and ready to go.

I've split this conversation off to another thread.

_________________
Liro
"The english language is not a wedding gown, it doesn't get better the more lace you add. It is instead a thong. Less is more." From /.
I need to remind myself of this regularly.
Top
 Profile  
 
Acritus
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 4:36 am
Posts: 1110
Location: Virginia, US
Rocklar wrote:
We have a variety of races that will be starting. That means our population will be spread out so these meeting may have to take place in guildchat instead of an actual specific location. Comments?


I only have in-game input but it is very easy to make it from the southern tip of Azeroth to the most northern Alliance outpost in less than 10min. As long as we dont have a meeting in the first 3 days when everyone is far away from a flightpath then everyone should be able to make, if they are in-game.

I love the idea of in-game meetings. The reason why is it makes us look good as a guild when we have 10+ members standing around chatting. There were a few guilds that did this in the Beta, one had their meeting every Sunday in the afternoon in Stormwind and I would always see like 50+ of them with the leaders talking and stuff, very cool.

I also agree that we do not want these meetings to take long but 15min should be enough to get things done, or even set up a raid right after the meeting. Cetrea's views on the red tape I can see happening if these meetings took alot of time or were in fact business meetings. But I really just see it as a way we can all get together and then go do something. From experience it is always easier to get things done when people are 'physically' there with you instead of saying, "Ok I will meet you in South Shore, in 5min, im headed to the grif right now."

_________________
Avian Football League 2007 Forum Thread
Top
 Profile  
 
Rocklar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:40 pm 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:23 am
Posts: 5587
Good stuff, Acritus. It's excellent to have an in-game point of view, particularly on that of travel.

If we were to shift the focus of the meetings away from business (maybe we should leave that for the boards) and focus more on RPing a squad meeting before a raid. Maybe the meeting should be more of a simple discussion/decision on where to raid based on the levels of the players present.

_________________
Liro
"The english language is not a wedding gown, it doesn't get better the more lace you add. It is instead a thong. Less is more." From /.
I need to remind myself of this regularly.
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:06 pm 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
I think you guys may be underestimating the usefulness and enjoyment you will get out of teamspeak if you haven't tried it yet. During down times we can chat real time. Parties will organize easier and they will be more cohesive because you can tell everyone what you are doing without typing. An organized party may be a defacto meeting without it seeming like a meeting.

I've previously stated my opinions on guild business but let's not get to down on meetings. We might be able to call a short one to order in between killing the enemy, or when we are on a run toward a specific target.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Locke_Trinmin
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:35 pm 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 8:01 pm
Posts: 3053
I wouldn't mind using Teamspeak, as long as it's not forced.
Top
 Profile  
 
Arindel
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:23 pm 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 3:45 am
Posts: 6302
Location: Raleigh, NC
I'm all for Teamspeak

_________________
Dalaran: Arindel - Frost Mage (Mining/Alchemy)
Dalaran: Roran - Paladin (Weaponsmith/Blacksmith)
Dalaran: Baine - Rogue
Top
 Profile  
 
Rocklar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:38 pm 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:23 am
Posts: 5587
/turns to his closet and starts digging for a headset mike.

_________________
Liro
"The english language is not a wedding gown, it doesn't get better the more lace you add. It is instead a thong. Less is more." From /.
I need to remind myself of this regularly.
Top
 Profile  
 
Daishus
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 6:44 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Washington State - US
I use Teamspeak nearly daily for BF1942 so I already have it all setup

_________________
Section 6
Top
 Profile  
 
Barcalla
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 1:00 pm
Posts: 291
Location: West Lafayette, Indiana
It's good to see so many ideas brought up. I see the concern with long meetings so I'm all for short meetings. Those who don't have much ingame time like Cetera want the most battling/adveturing time as possible and no ingame meetings. But there is also a lot of support for them so we can't throw the idea out the window.

I propose something like this. I'll call it a Meeunt(meeting+hunt)8). It'd be a time to trade things with other players and discuss any issues or concerns before going on a hunt:
-- ingame meetings would be structured around a weekly guild hunt.
-- meeting would be at or near the hunt location.
-- meeting would be 10-15 minutes and would follow a structure similar to what Rocklar has suggested. Then after that the guild would go on the hunt.
-- The meetings could be even faster than than that if there are no extra concerns or discussion.
-- The hunt and meeting are voluntary and wouldn't be required for any guild member to attend.
-- One of the upper guildsmen would note any important information or concers that were discussed at the meeting and post them on the forum. If nothing was brought up, they could also post any extra info they want about the hunt and how it went.
-- Those that couldn't make it to the hunt can read on the forums whatever they missed.
-- No specific decisions that would change the guild in any way will occur at ingame meetings.
-- Any guild change or voting process would all be done on the forum.
How does this sound to everyone?

I like the idea of using teamspeak and I'd be willing to invest in a headset.
But a problem in the future might be that some people wouldn't want to use teamspeak. I think it's important that everyone is at least able to see and participate in any discussion related to the guild. Teamspeak just has potential to divide the conversation. As long as teamspeak is voluntary and isn't used for guild/governmental affairs then I'm all for it.

_________________
"There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Top
 Profile  
 
iJasonT
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 4:33 am
Posts: 6698
Location: Silver Spring, MD
I think you are dead on with this plan. Some games (SWG) can have complex gov systems but if you dont need it there is no reason to have it.
I think your system will enhance the gameplay while not being a burden on anyone.

I hope this proves to be a model for and other game (EQ2) that comes around to Avian.

_________________
Moge
Top
 Profile  
 
ExarKun809
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 9:26 pm
Posts: 1338
Location: Chicago, IL
Put me on the list with Talon, but I don't think I have the time to be involved in the committee.

I am actually for in game meetings. It may not sound like much, but it's really fun to get together for a few minutes and catch up. Don't think of it as a government proceeding, just like a get together.

When I was in guilds in EQ, we had in-game meetings. It was fun to see everyone's char and we usually followed it up with a fun raid. Meetings should be leniently mandatory, and all important information should be reiterated on the boards or further expanded upon on the boards.

_________________
- Wiegraf Terrik
SWG: Human Commando/Pistoleer
WoW: Dwarvish Rogue (Herbalism/Alchemy)
EQII: Alazin, High Elf Wizard

Former Section 4 Director

"Please, if anyone were to play Obi-Wan it would be me, with the 'Luke, Luke save me' and the lightsabers going 'Vvvwiinnngg, vvwinggg, vvvWING!' -- Professor Frink
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:15 am 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
ExarKun809 wrote:
Meetings should be leniently mandatory, and all important information should be reiterated on the boards or further expanded upon on the boards.



I'll put you on the spot and say this. I have started a draft of a charter and I am approaching the part where we determine how to pick the gov. etc. How do you propose wording this. I could incorporate it in my draft if you come up with someone.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Talon1977
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:58 am 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 11:41 am
Posts: 5201
Location: South Carolina, USA
You doing the WoW charter Tobias? or the Parent Charter?

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Top
 Profile  
 
TheMole
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:01 pm
Posts: 1700
Location: Atlanta, GA
I like where we're headed here. One thing about the post-meeting hunts is we'll have to make sure that whoever wants to go hunt is of the appropriate level range... this is not like SWG where novices and masters can hunt together, it's like the EQ system where you have to be within a few levels of the creature to get XP. Not a big deal though, we could form multiple groups for the appropriate ranges or whatever.

Also, I do not have Teamspeak and do not plan on getting into it unless I absolutely have to. I think this would be a restrictive method of meeting as I'm sure I'm not the only one without it. However, if you all really want to do it I won't be totally opposed.

_________________
TheMole
Section 5
Section 5
Section 5
Now Playing: WoW
--------------------
Top
 Profile  
 
Talon1977
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:43 am 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 11:41 am
Posts: 5201
Location: South Carolina, USA
Just curious, but why wouldn't you download a free program so you can at least hear what's being said?

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Top
 Profile  
 
TheMole
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:01 pm
Posts: 1700
Location: Atlanta, GA
Oh, wasn't aware you could do that... I suppose that would be OK, but I just don't think we should require people to buy anything aside from the game to participate in meetings. If we can use guild chat to communicate while you guys are all talking that would be fine with me.

_________________
TheMole
Section 5
Section 5
Section 5
Now Playing: WoW
--------------------
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:46 pm 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
I would never require a person to buy something just for meetings. I am encouraging people to use teamspeak because I think that once they try it they will like it. I have purchased dedicated server space solely for the purpose of hosting teamspeak for Avians. It runs 24/7 and the server has not failed once in 2 months. Monitoring the channel at the very least is little to ask of members since the program is free and requires very little in the way of processor requirements. I remember some large hunts in SWG and some smaller ones in the WoW ST and I think teamspeak would be so handy for keeping the integrity of the group solid without ever having to type. Yelling for help is SO much easier than typing it even if you have some macros used for this.

This thread took about 3 minutes for me to type but I bet could read it aloud in about 30 secs.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:57 pm 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Talon1977 wrote:
You doing the WoW charter Tobias? or the Parent Charter?


The parent charter has taken on a life of its own and it's fairly apparent the BoD isn't all that interested in my version of a new charter. I just began yesterday dabbling on a WoW guild charter. It's really raw and short right now because I am no longer paraphrasing another charter but writing it off the top of my head. My home network is fried right now so I will likely have to go to town tomorrow to buy new CD-R's just so I can transfer what is on my old laptop to my home PC. I have reached the section where I am describe the government but I am not sure what the consensus is for our government so I am stumped at the moment. My comment to Exar wasn't meant to be smart-assed or anything like that. I am just aware that members proposes things occasionally that seem like good ideas but are extremely difficult to implement. How would we decided a "leniently mandatory" policy for meetings.

I would probably be happier with being insulted if we held a meeting and members were elsewhere in game playing rather than force people to come to a meeting they were not interested in. If someone writes a policy though, that seems fair and makes sense I will include it my draft if they allow me. I would love for people to write sections of the charter concerning government etc. I could then rip them straight into my draft and move that much faster.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Barcalla
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 1:00 pm
Posts: 291
Location: West Lafayette, Indiana
tobiasds wrote:
How would we decided a "leniently mandatory" policy for meetings.
I would say that we refer to meetings as highly encouraged. We wouldn't necessarily have to have any specific rules for attending meetings. We could just take an approach similar to how the Avian charter describes roleplaying:

CHARTER OF AVIAN TECHNOLOGY AND TRADE wrote:
Roleplaying is HIGHLY encouraged but not enforced. Talking about your recent baseball game or the new video game your're are going to purchase should be left to private channels. This is to keep the atmosphere true to what we see in the movies and novels.



The governmental format that Rocklar laid out looks good and I agree with the removal of the 3rd rank Sergeants. But in their place we need to specify the rest of the members basic privledges. Also I think we should specify exactly what guild abilities each rank gets. Here's the guild abilities from WoW website which is followed by my suggestions on what powers each rank has:
WoW Community Site Guild Rank Permissions wrote:
Guildchat Listen - Player is able to listen to conversations in Guild Chat. You would uncheck this option if you wanted to prevent a rank from being able to read conversation in guild chat.
Guildchat Speak - Player is allowed to type in the guild chat channel.
Officerchat Listen - Allow players to listen to conversations in the special officer chat channel.
Officerchat Speak - Allow players to type messages into the officer chat channel.
Promote - Players can promote other players in the guild.
Demote - Players can demote other players in the guild.
Invite Member - Players can invite other players to the guild.
Remove Player - Players can remove players from the guild.
Set Motd - Player is able to change the guild message of the day.
Edit Public Note - Player is able to edit public notes. If you uncheck this box the player is not able to edit public notes.
Edit Own Public Note - Player is only able to edit their own public notes.
View Officer Note - Player is able to view special notes on each player written by officers or other authorized members of the guild.
Edit Officer Note - Player is able to modify hidden officer notes under each player.


My suggested updated items are in red

Quote:
* 1 General
-- Placeholder name
-- Can grant Lieutenants (see below) their rights and abilities in-game
-- Can set guild tabard details
-- Has all guild rank permissions
-- Can lobby complaints or suggestions for reviewing
-- Can vote on issues (1 vote)

* 2 Lieutenants
-- Placeholder name but means those that enforce, follow-up on execution of decisions
-- Has all guild rank permissions except Remove Player and Demote
-- Can lobby complaints or suggestions for reviewing
-- Can vote on issues (1 vote)

* Remaing Clan members
-- Placeholder name
-- Has guild rank permissions: Guildchat Listen, Guildchat Speak, and Edit Own Public Note.
-- Can lobby complaints or suggestions to upper ranks for reviewing
-- Can vote on issues (1vote)


Three issues:
  1. Do you agree or disagree with the lieutenants and clan members guild rank permissions that I've posted?
  2. I figured every rank should have the same amount of votes on issues. Else if anyone thinks that Lieutenants and the General should have weighted votes(ie extra votes) please post your reasoning.
  3. I think all voting procedures should be based on majority rules(ie greater than 50% wins). Anyone in disagreement state your reasoning


We can always create/edit new ranks later if we feel a need for them. But for now, because of our small player size, I think this system will get us up and going quickly.

_________________
"There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:16 am 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Regarding the issues. I like the two tiers of rank. What I've brainstormed is the guild picks a chief and a second and the chief also chooses a second, so you have the chief and two LT's.

I gave equal votes to all members but in the event of a tie there is no revote. The side of the issue the chief voted on wins. In all other cases the majority wins.


Edit: How about the title War Eagle for the head guy, War Hawks, for his lieutenants and War Birds for members?

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Rocklar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:24 am 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:23 am
Posts: 5587
Great stuff, guys. I like that one LT is voted on and one LT is selected by the General.

Tobiasds,
You mentioned that your charter is still fairly short and I think you'll find a lot of agreement in that a short charter is not a bad thing. Would you mind showing us what you have so far (once you get it transferred)?

Edit: Oooooh...I like the proposed titles! Frankly, I think they work well from an Alliance or a Horde point of view. Great ideas!

_________________
Liro
"The english language is not a wedding gown, it doesn't get better the more lace you add. It is instead a thong. Less is more." From /.
I need to remind myself of this regularly.
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:26 am 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Rocklar wrote:
Great stuff, guys. I like that one LT is voted on and one LT is selected by the General.

Tobiasds,
You mentioned that your charter is still fairly short and I think you'll find a lot of agreement in that a short charter is not a bad thing. Would you mind showing us what you have so far (once you get it transferred)?

Edit: Oooooh...I like the proposed titles! Frankly, I think they work well from an Alliance or a Horde point of view. Great ideas!


It's short now because it's not finished, I believe it will still be that way when finished, and I will post on here tomorrow.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Talon1977
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:53 am 
Offline
Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 11:41 am
Posts: 5201
Location: South Carolina, USA
Just a question,

Is there any reason we can't just go with an elders council of 3? And that's it? I mean, that elders council can then decide 1 chief out of the 3. But if you want simple, that's about as simple as it gets. None of this tier stuff, and no complicated voting or whatever.

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:27 am 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Talon1977 wrote:
Just a question,

Is there any reason we can't just go with an elders council of 3? And that's it? I mean, that elders council can then decide 1 chief out of the 3. But if you want simple, that's about as simple as it gets. None of this tier stuff, and no complicated voting or whatever.



Problem number one is that the committee of three was chosen on a first come first on basis. What if someone else is interested?

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Cyrus Rex
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 9:01 pm
Posts: 2417
Location: Baton Rouge, LA / Kuwait / Kandahar
A rotating, elected, council of three... I think that is what talon is talking about…. Not the first come first serve committee that was made up this weekend. The first come first serve is for brainstorming and facilitating the creation of what ever form of government we all choose.

Last night on TS we were talking about how through the history of Avian there was usually not one guy stepping up to the plate, it seemed to always be a team of sorts. I was telling him how my best work has always be when I have a guy or two there to help make things happen. Usually I need guys to run my ideas by and to shoot the bad ones down, or refine the almost good ideas. Likewise it is with the help of others that my most creative ideas are born.

Teams have the ability to keep things going even when one member is on vacation, having tests, or out of town. Progress does not stop when that happens; the other guys pick up the slack, or keep the streets safe. Teams have a natural VP, deputy, or what ever you want to call it in the form of the other team members. i.e. built in AWOL control.

Teams have a natural check and balance system, which is important. I am more scared of a guy with good intentions, yet no teammates to keep him from going buck wild. Too often what seems sound to an idea creator, is not so sound to guys that are not so emotional involved.

I just think back of the most progressive times we had in Avian and I think of the times when Rom was CoB and later President. As a director I worked with Rom almost on an hourly basis. Later when I was CoB and Rom was President we continued to work as a team. I was much better with his help, and together we managed all the issues and woes that came our way. He kept me from doing something crazy, and he inspired me to produce my best work.

There have been other great teams in Avians history. I feel safer knowing a team is managing the top government rather than one guy. If I was on top all by my self, even I would be afraid for our WoW clan. :)
Top
 Profile  
 
tobiasds
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:37 pm 
Offline
Spammer

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 2593
Location: Ashburn Virginia
As promised here is what I have come up with so far. IT IS NOT COMPLETE. I have yet to rip off ideas from this very thread, some of which I like. This is only my brainstorming and should not be viewed as anything that is official.

Quote:
<Insert Name>, for the purposes of this document, the guild, is founded as a guild of Avian. All members are subject to the rules of the parent Association. The guild shall always be guided by the principals of Avian, primarily that we are here to have fun and while roleplaying is encouraged it is not required. Leaders of the guild should always remember to make simple logical rules and to ensure the enjoyment of the gaming experience of members. Members will always have respect for guildmates and others that we share a game environment with.

The government is founded on the principals of fairness, logic, simplicity and ease of change by it's members. Changes to the government or the charter must be voted on by the current membership during a one week vote by the members. The week shall begin the moment the vote is posted on the board in the appropriate section of the forums. All votes should be worded so as to be voted on in the affirmative or negative. Votes may be started by the current guild leader or after a member proposes a vote and five additional members support the vote with a responce in the proposal thread of the appropriate forum. All votes shall be decided by a simple majority of the members who voted. The guild leader votes as a normal member but the vote of the guild leader will determine the outcome of ties.

The <leader> of the guild is chosen by members and shall serve a term of two calendar months. Within a week of election the leader shall choose a <vice leader>. A second <vice leader> of equal rank in all respects shall be chosen by the members under the same terms and at the same time as the <leader>. For purposes of succession should the <leader> be unable to complete his term, the <vice leader> with the most time served in his current post shall be the new leader. When a <vice leader> position is vacated for any reason, the <vice leader> shall be replaced by the method that the individual post was originally filled. If an elected <vice leader> post is vacated there shall be a one week period of campaigning followed by a standard one week election. The process starts the moment the original post is vacated. Should an appointed <vice leader> become the <leader> he shall within one week name a new <vice leader>



I don't number anything so someone might want to do that. The thoughts are still rambling but at least one might see where I am headed this.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » Public Avian Gamers Forums » World of Warcraft

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group