PDA

View Full Version : Co-Leader Position



Vachau
09-02-2013, 02:57 PM
At this point, most successful guilds like The Sailor Scouts have an established leadership full of officers. We make decisions and strategize together with the Founder as the one who makes the final decisions. The Founder is also the only one has the ability to make changes within the guild. However, the Founder goes to work, sleeps, lives life, loses wifi or battery power, goes on vacation, and does things outside of this game. Every army had a commander in chief, a No. 1 or XO or vice president, and layers of leadership.

I think it's time for GREE to establish a Co-Founder or Co-Leader position so the game can still move while the Founder is unavailable. The Co- position can be defined as leader between the officers and the Founder. The position, like the Officers, does not have to be used, but can help the game move at the speed that is often necessary.

What are your thoughts?
How can this position be defined?
Should it have the same power as the Founder?
If not, what power should it have or not have?

Darth Randy
09-02-2013, 03:02 PM
Good idea, same power as founder except could not demote/kick the founder.

KM KAge
09-02-2013, 03:33 PM
Good idea, same power as founder except could not demote/kick the founder.
EXCELLENT idea and clarification.

leek
09-02-2013, 04:08 PM
Good idea, same power as founder except could not demote/kick the founder.

What if the founder went bonkers? Surely, its a right of democracy to boot him out.

Darth Randy
09-02-2013, 04:14 PM
What if the founder went bonkers? Surely, its a right of democracy to boot him out.

I guess if you get a Charles Manson for a leader, thems the breaks. There is no perfect solution and its no small matter to create and build a guild that people want to stay in. Just because the wind blows the wrong way is not enough reason to undo what someone has done. If they go bonkers then the guild fails. This idea wasnt to address that, rather to address absentee or lack of access by the founder at time sensitive periods.

Rastlin
09-02-2013, 04:19 PM
Good idea, same power as founder except could not demote/kick the founder.
What if there is a Mutiny?? And the Founder needs to walk the plank!! LOL j/k!!

Rastlin
09-02-2013, 04:22 PM
What if the founder went bonkers? Surely, its a right of democracy to boot him out.
Depends on which Country you are playing in, if there is democracy! Remember there are players here from all over the world, so please no political views. ;)

AndOne707
09-02-2013, 04:27 PM
Depends on which Country you are playing in, if there is democracy! Remember there are players here from all over the world, so please no political views. ;)
Very true, as with different countries you have a complete opposite interpretation on a political topic.
Now, great idea by the OP.
as people attend to have a life outside the game; a co-founder would make things easier.
Especially when u have guilds with 48 members plus.

Krayt
09-02-2013, 05:00 PM
What if the founder went bonkers? Surely, its a right of democracy to boot him out.

If the founder went bonkers you leave the guild. There is no reason to need to demote your founder. The only question is could you boot out the founder if they are MIA

Vachau
09-02-2013, 05:06 PM
The founder is always the founder, but can transfer the position to another member if needed. I have been given the Founder position to take care of business when the actual Founder was busy or away during transition times. My Founder trusted me to give the position back, which I did.

If you get stuck with a crazy Founder, then leave the guild. Mutiny should not be an option. A guild can easily fall apart and the founder can find him/herself without a guild.

I like the idea that the co-leader cannot demote the founder, but has all other Founder abilities.

Krayt
09-02-2013, 05:08 PM
I like the idea. It can only help the guild

larrydavid
09-02-2013, 05:23 PM
Great idea.

horse
09-02-2013, 08:33 PM
You can turn the position on/off. You should be able to select permissions.

Capitalsfanatic
09-02-2013, 09:04 PM
Very good idea. Certain founder functions should have redundancy...a back up person. Helps continuity and guild operations when founder is away. Also agree with limitations mentioned in this thread.

It's all a dream
09-02-2013, 11:45 PM
very good idea which has been circulating since the faction wars started in MW. So dont get your hopes up.

Colony Colonel
09-03-2013, 12:00 AM
You can turn the position on/off. You should be able to select permissions.

I like it. Create as many groups as you like in the groups tab and set permissions on them. put players inside their respective groups and you have the guild EXACTLY as you would like it.

Vachau
09-03-2013, 03:20 AM
As of right now, this post has 515 views and 16 comments and 2 are mine. If you like this idea or have any thoughts about it, please leave a comment. A big thread may get some attention from the people that can do something.

Colony Colonel
09-03-2013, 04:14 AM
As of right now, this post has 515 views and 16 comments and 2 are mine. If you like this idea or have any thoughts about it, please leave a comment. A big thread may get some attention from the people that can do something.

Like my 'Forum Moderators' thread, and poll that Sirius said himself that he was interested in and nothing happened... lets just pretend we are fantasizing!

E-I
09-03-2013, 05:38 AM
Like my 'Forum Moderators' thread, and poll that Sirius said himself that he was interested in and nothing happened... lets just pretend we are fantasizing!

Sirus also said that they were looking at changing CP scoring because it punishes high level players. When did that happen?

Well, not punishes since "Leveling is not a punishment." Maybe 'severely handicaps' is a better phrase?

Oh, and hackers... what's going on there? I thought the admins said they will be more open about what they are doing with hackers. Nope.

Colony Colonel
09-03-2013, 05:46 AM
Sirus also said that they were looking at changing CP scoring because it punishes high level players. When did that happen?

Well, not punishes since "Leveling is not a punishment." Maybe 'severely handicaps' is a better phrase?

Oh, and hackers... what's going on there? I thought the admins said they will be more open about what they are doing with hackers. Nope.

They have told us everything that is happening about hackers. Nothing.

anyway. good idea Vachau :)

Vachau
09-03-2013, 06:00 AM
I don't know if Sirus is interested in the feedback from the users/customers, but I'm interested in ideas that will help everyone.

Alexius
09-03-2013, 01:57 PM
I like having a leader to make final decisions, I think there should be a 2nd in command that has the power to make walls and remove members that are ranked below them and the same number of officers to accept or deny requests.

SOG Will
09-03-2013, 02:48 PM
Excellent idea.

We had a leader in MW that went MIA. Gree finally swapped the leadership to an officer but it would have been much quicker if we had a 2nd in command. Even the idea of people being able to boot the leader isn't too terrible of an idea (just don't tell the guys in my guild.) LOL

Klassenr@hotmail.com
09-03-2013, 05:31 PM
Great idea

Spydrax
09-03-2013, 06:05 PM
When I became a founder, this is how I developed my guild:

Founder = General
Solely responsible for allowing and removing players. (All founder abilities)
Final say in guild matters.

Lt. General
#2 in guild and in charge when General not available.
Reminds players of donation or other contribution deficiencies, when/if they occurred.
Reiterates guild procedures and makes sure everyone knows what their roles are.

Financial Secretary
Responsible for logging and distributing a weekly financial report
Responsible for making sure all member have guild associated communications.
Posted guild upgrades and order of progressions.

Guild Advisor
That level headed and clear head that the founder or any other guild member can turn to and bounce thoughts off of.
Person responsible for resolving conflict or issues within guild.

2 Recruiters
Players responsible for evaluating perspective members. (We did not have an open door policy). A person must first be backed by an active member and then the recruiter took it from there.

These are described in brief but you get the idea....

Vachau
09-03-2013, 07:11 PM
Exactly what I'm thinking now, Spydrax. Why are we limited by the confines of GREE's prescribed system? It would be nice if we could define our kingdom as needed. We just need one more layer of leadership between the founder and the officers. These would be the capos, xo's, VPs, number 1s, first mates, or whatever title you give to them. GREE could call it the co-leader and we would use it for that one person who can help the guild when needed.

My2cents
09-03-2013, 08:06 PM
I'd agree with having an cofounder, but I'd still be apprehensive on allowing that person the ability to remove a player. If they make a cofounder position I'd like to see normal members NOT have the ability to start a war. Or even a probationer that wouldn't be eligible for rewards until they show they've contributed.

Krayt
09-03-2013, 09:27 PM
2nd in command should be able to kick people.
I will agree that declaring war and such things should be left to officers and founder

Vachau
09-04-2013, 03:36 AM
Since we have taken a slight turn in topic, I will pipe in again. The Saigoth Boss event worked very well. It required coordination among the members with an officer leading. On officers were allowed to summon a boss. That is the way the wars should run, as well. Only officers and founders should be able to declare.

It's all a dream
09-04-2013, 03:44 AM
Since we have taken a slight turn in topic, I will pipe in again. The Saigoth Boss event worked very well. It required coordination among the members with an officer leading. On officers were allowed to summon a boss. That is the way the wars should run, as well. Only officers and founders should be able to declare.

o yes worked very well :D Gree please give me all the loot units i still havent received

danny fishcharge
09-04-2013, 11:58 AM
i agree, would be a brilliant idea. is there any way at the moment for the founder to give founder responsibilities to another guild member in said founders absence?? i ask because i am probably equivalent to 2nd/3rd in command and i have asked our founder on a number of occasions if they can pass this responsibility on to me when they know theyre gonna be absent for a while. prime example was we were 1million short of health regen bonus when founder went on holiday for a week, next event was a boss event and the rest of the guild just had to sit there and watch as we could afford to buy the bonus, but couldnt actually buy it, the extra 5% couldve made a difference to a few players. our founder has told me they cant do it, but i wouldve thought there was a way round this. frustrating as hell, when they are away for periods during wars and no one else can buy walls if we run out.

Kronous
09-04-2013, 12:42 PM
the founder is able to promote another to the spot and reliquish


i agree, would be a brilliant idea. is there any way at the moment for the founder to give founder responsibilities to another guild member in said founders absence?? i ask because i am probably equivalent to 2nd/3rd in command and i have asked our founder on a number of occasions if they can pass this responsibility on to me when they know theyre gonna be absent for a while. prime example was we were 1million short of health regen bonus when founder went on holiday for a week, next event was a boss event and the rest of the guild just had to sit there and watch as we could afford to buy the bonus, but couldnt actually buy it, the extra 5% couldve made a difference to a few players. our founder has told me they cant do it, but i wouldve thought there was a way round this. frustrating as hell, when they are away for periods during wars and no one else can buy walls if we run out.

Spydrax
09-04-2013, 06:51 PM
Just for point of reference, 'Capo' or Caporegime, is like a Captain, so, an officer could theoretically be seen as a Capo... Now, what you may be looking for, in those terms, might be an 'underboss'.

Anyway,
Regarding the starting wars and such, our guild never had that problem. We didn't need to designate someone to press it, I was in most battles, and freely told someone prior to each battle, go engage this guild in war. Everyone likes to do it and it helps make everyone feel a part of the whole. Idk, maybe this is an issue in other guilds, I've never seen it though.

I believe GREE should make at minimum, a co-founder position; worse case scenario, what if the founder well, stops playing for any number of RL situations, what happens? Who knows this person to say what happened or they're not coming back? When do you petition GREE and can they remove a founder?

I don't believe any one person should ever have absolute power.

Sim
09-05-2013, 02:35 AM
Excellent idea. Why hasn't this been done already?

Vachau
09-05-2013, 04:44 AM
So far, no one has brought an argument against this idea. Everyone who commented has approved a co-founder position. Now, how to we get GREE to make that change? Do we just hope They are listening here and will think about it? Doe we have another avenue to petition for the addition?

danny fishcharge
09-06-2013, 11:08 AM
thanks kronous. i will ask again!

the founder is able to promote another to the spot and reliquish

zach123
09-06-2013, 05:46 PM
Lets launch a boycott:):D

Vachau
09-09-2013, 03:45 AM
Has anyone had an experience during the Besieging of Buried City that would have been made easier with a co-leader?

Miranda6900
09-16-2013, 02:47 PM
I think this is instrumental for the guild. My guild has been bouncing the founder role around to ensure someone is on to organize the guilds efforts.

Voxker
09-16-2013, 04:47 PM
Kingdom Age is a side thing for Gree, a more minor game for them... they can stop whenever they want.

Baela3
09-16-2013, 06:50 PM
I like it. A co-founder would be excellent. I could have gotten a LOT more sleep all these months had that been available. :)
Great suggestion, Vachau!

Rocco69
09-16-2013, 07:23 PM
in the interim developing a good sharing plan with your founder is your work around.

LegoLass
09-16-2013, 08:00 PM
This would be very handy for those times that phones/pads don't work, there are connection issues or the founder has an unexpected RL issue.

If it were like an officer position, then the assignment would be optional. It would be even neater if the founder could set what the Co-founder permissions are: buying bonuses, kicking players, assigning GG or promoting officers. I think with guild jumping, the reassignment of officers and GG would be very helpful to delegate.

Vachau
09-17-2013, 03:39 AM
I think with guild jumping, the reassignment of officers and GG would be very helpful to delegate.

Not that they mentioned anything about it, but I'm sure GREE is against the guild jumping.

AllFather Odin
09-17-2013, 08:11 AM
I support the co-founder position too. I read from another thread that some guild was taken over by some group of players because they were doing this founder rotation thingy. Maybe if there is a co-founder it can eliminate the stealing of guilds and/or gives the founder some sleep time or away time from the game......

MrsSith
09-17-2013, 12:56 PM
A co-founder should be able to do everything the founder can - Except demote a founder!

Whatdoyoumakeofit?
09-17-2013, 01:36 PM
It's not mandatory to stay with a guild when you don't like the leadership. Just find another guild :)

Vachau
09-17-2013, 07:13 PM
Of course it's not mandatory to stay with a guild. This idea is to give the founder some much needed help and retain the Founder position. In its definition how can a Founder give that title to another member?

Jomama1
09-17-2013, 07:28 PM
I think this idea is critically needed