The matters that follow are from a member perspective.
Sunday I realised that my GM was finally back in-game after a 30 days inactivity for personal reasons. I was shocked to understand that he was no longer in the guild, except from some alts. An Officer had been present most of the time and another member besides me.
Today, while speaking to the former GM I understood that none of us has ever seen the current Guild Master and so it is till this moment - not even logged in.
The Officer hasn't received any warning from available GM position, nor have I or any other of the active players.
The guild log indicates an hypothesys of guild take over taking oportunity from GM absence and officer absence - demoting chars and promoting others in a sequence that gave rise to the new GM char. We have no clue who he is.
We are a small guild but we do have a guildbank that none of those chars involved in the take over contributed for - except for recent withdrawls of money and some items. I have the screenshots of the logs - both of the guild bank and guild.
I have submited a ticket, email to the present GM, and emails to the contributors of guild bank and most active players.
The Game Master can't lock the access to the guild bank, or intervene in such ways. How I wish that he could...
I do understand the damaging of a leaderless guild in big guilds and the implementation of a 30 day rule, but do the means justify the ends to all?
From this experience I am forced to answer with a no:
1. I say no to a 30 day GM demotion either for big guilds or smaller ones. The officers in big guilds have always assumed the roles in the absence of a guild master. I say this from experience since I used to raid and make friends with equally big guilds.
2. I say no to a week Officer evalution of taking GM position. It is his by righteous choice and agreements that do go far extended from game rules. They are settled in the principles of trust, communication and pre-agreements envolved with guild rules and common sense.
3. I say no to a random take over from which it can come more harm to a guild and their members then being without leadership from a GM for a while.
4. I say no to immediate demotions and promotions from new GM's. Let them have a month before they can have access to dev's/prom's. This measure can buy you time from poor intentionated individuals.
5. I say no to an unprotected banking system of the guilds in game. Let them have another month before they can have access to the most valuable guild bank slots/vaults. Guild Bank must be organized in order to permit so.
6. I say no to a measure of immediacy that with a sole clause of "leadership absence being a cause of great distress" windowed room for all kinds of distress within a guild - from theft, to demotions to ban's and dissolutions.
7. I say no to a rule (it is not a law) that perils every guild member and leaves them unprotected, as it shakes the very foundations of such institutions - trust.
Please do take the time to consider the many flaws of a rule that gives only, and only one clause.
I would like to take this oportunity to ask for the re-institution of the former GM, and with him the abuse being given to the members of this small guild that work hard for her.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
p.s. - i double posted sorry.