Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
The situation I'm going to expose here is taking place as we speak. I'm not an officer - nor am I a guild master, I am a simple member of a small guild with a few players I grew fond off.
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.
Edited by Snowpath on 14/02/2012 19:57 GMT
All i will say is...
A/ someone MUST have invited him.
B/ you can only be promoted to the level underneath the character doing the promoting.
and C/ there must be something wrong with the set-up of the guild if this was allowed to happen, unless there is something suspect about it. (and i might have different suspicions to what you think is suspicious.)
cant you delete it?
Edited by Dysnomia on 14/02/2012 20:34 GMT
yes I aggree with you on the subject that someone invited him, most probably as the guild log indicates - someone allready in the guild, a very casual player that probably waited quietly for something like this to happen.
Besides what you think is suspicious probably allready crossed my mind - I focus the post on a rule that requires deep improvement for the sake of everything and everyone. That is in fact my true appeal - and on that basis to restore the harm done by a flawed measure that doesn't protect the guild as an institution nor their members as it was supposed to - as I make the points from 1 to 7.
So your saying that you dont like the dethroning feature?
I'm saying for someone to be in the guild, and in such a position to be able to take over it, well, without beating around the bush, its either the GM, or an officer. And they aint being honest with the rest of you guys (that was my suspision).
I dont know the why's and wherefores of your guild in question, but if someone is being underhand with you then they might be exploiting the system, but they would probably do that anyway.
A few questions for you first, if you'll indulge me.
How well do all the players know each other?
I mean, why do you think this is some kind of insidious takeover...
Have you asked the gm outright if he sold the guild? Or even just swapped characters or let a 'friend' into the guild. Or is he flatly denying any knowledge of this mystery player?
Either way I cant see a Games Master being able to help/interfere in anyones guild politics/business.
I would like to point out some things.
Even if anyone in your guild could invite a mystery player the player can only ever be promoted to the rank below the person promoting. So if a random member has the right to promote, he can only make the mystery player the rank below random member. If you, a member, and also your officer have been actively online during your GMs absence, the dethrone feature can never be activated for any lesser rank than what your officer has (assuming he is the higher rank of the two of you). Since he never had the option of dethrone, it's clear that the mystery person had a higher rank than him. Whoever promoted the mystery person to a higher rank than officer must have an even higher rank in your guild. GM maybe?
After promoting the mystery person to a rank higher than officer the person who promoted must go inactive for 30 days - if it was the GM promoting and the mystery person has rank 1 - or 7 days if it was another player between GM and officers doing the promoting - for the mystery person's rank to be eligible to click the dethrone button. So if it was another person than the GM promoting he must invite the mystery person, promote him to a rank below his own, and then make sure he himself has been offline over 7 days at the time your GM has been offline 30 days.
But how would the mystery person, who has never been seen online by anyone in the guild ever before, know exactly when the 30 days had passed for the GM and know to be logged in at that point?
Is it maybe your GM who has logged into one of his never played alts and taken over the guild with that character while pretending to not know anything? Is your old GM the mystery person? Maybe he wants to sell the guild while not getting the blame?
Hello again Dysnomia and Luria,
I unfortunately have putted all those cards on the table, evaluated the logs and spoken to everyone - in some cases only possible via in-game mail. I have made a lot of questions, in order to get clues of what happened. And the best I came from all those efforts relies in facts - logs, names and events.
So after considering those I simply can't go over suspecting people like that, even for matters of loyalty. If I want trust, I have to give trust. It's like this everywhere.
Even suspecting with strong indicators of a guild take over, like Dysnomia said, taking advantage of a system !@#$ch, I have to keep options open.
Everyone is innocent till proof in otherwise.
So please, and according to facts, how can a member promote someone to GM?
Upload screenshot of your log (assuming it goes back far enough) & it should be easy enough to tell you what happened, but the information you have given isn't very clear.
I don't think its really the systems fault though, that is like blaming matches for setting fire to a car.
The GM decides which ranks are allowed to invite, promote and demote in your guild. IF your GM has set it so all ranks, members included, can promote they can still only promote to the closest rank beneath their own. You can never promote a member to the same rank as yourself or to a rank above yourself. That is impossible.
And like has been explained before the dethrone feature opens for the highest rank with active players. For a mystery player to have gotten that option, while members and officers where playing actively, he must have had a higher rank than officers, or possibly the same rank if he was fast at clicking the buttons before anyone else saw the option. The person promoting the mystery player to this rank must also have been a higher rank player than the rank the mystery player got. And for the dethrone feature to show for the mystery players rank, the higher rank, who invited the mystery player, must have gone inactive.
This (or a version of this) is how it must have worked in order for your scenario to have happened.
Then you should show the screenshot of that happening to us so we can learn. According to how it has worked before, and is working now for every other guild, you cant promote a person to or above your own rank. Clearly your guild have had some spectacular happenings. Share the screenshots?
If indeed a member promoted another person in the guild to a rank higher than the rank they had themself, it's not a flawed system. It's a bug, because the current system does not allow for that to happen in any other guilds. Blizzard should be able to instantly see this bug happening in the logs and undo the event. If you have ticketed a game master and they didn't help you already, it's because there was no bug and the series of events that you are describing was not what happened in your guild. You might have misunderstood the logs, and that is what sounds most likely to me.
No worries everyone!
I was kicked from the guild today by the very good intentioned new guild master, without previous notice, word or anything.
But that was not gentle enough for him, so he also kicked the officer and active players.
A very, very good intentioned individual would do something just like this, as anyone here can understand.
So thank you for a rule that is working so great! for me and other players.
Yay! working as intented yet?!
Are you still trying to blame dethroning here?
It sounds like the GM just up and sold the guild, which is something entirely different.
It looks like its going to be a twink guild too.
No worries everyone! I was kicked from the guild today
Gotta admit you do sound quite chipper about it though.
I wish you better luck with future guilds mate!
90 Draenei Shaman
It is still the case that you can only promote to the closest rank below you, if your rank is able to promote/demote.
When 'Dethrone' is selected, it will show the CURRENT GM, as demoting himself and then promoting the person who has activated dethrone. The current GM will demote him/herself to the lowest rank.
Using me as an example inactive GM, and Smith as an active member dethroning (exactly as shown in game Guild log):
-Nubbin promotes Smith to GM
-Nubbin demotes Nubbin to New Member
Hope that helps.
Edited by Nubbin on 17/02/2012 22:43 GMT
How come this kind of "disaster poster" is never able to show the facts that they are saying they have ?
Every time you call the cards it turns out to be scam.
We all know exactly how the system works. What the OP is trying to make people belive is not possible.
And when people started asking for the screenshots that he points to as proof that what he says is true, then he took the easy way out.
Instead of sending the facts to people that had offered to help and wanted to learn about this new weird bug or unknown function in the dethrone system, he immediately turned on them, blaming them for his supposed suffering ... I think Luria has already given the final comment to the whole thing.
Thank you for your contribution. I am really glad that finally someone pointed the core of this system of the 30 day rule.
Like Nubbin stated - and very well - the logs show a bizarre situation where a lower rank player gets to promote someone to Guild Master.
It's how it works - there is no bug - but the candid facts are that a lower rank promotes another to a higher rank.
It's a massive contradiction rooted in the system, and should be validated in logical terms as "False".
Lower ranks can not promote to higher ranks then themselves.
None of us in guilds can do that - but this system can and does.
Which leads me back to the initial point, which is, this action can not be validated as "True" since it's based on a "False" statement (or else everyone could promote everybody). So the actions taken by this "False" statement should have null value and not take effect.
As for the points from 1 to 7 I hope they can be taken into consideration aswell, because I think in my best knowledge that they would deeply protect the guilds and their members.
Thank you all and my best regards.
Nubbin explained what a dethrone looks like in the log. I haven't seen one so thanks for the explanation. However if you actually read the example from Nubbin, Snowpath, you see that it's the GM that is being dethroned that is doing both the promoting and demoting in the log. Not a low rank member.
Also it's still a fact that the dethrone feature will only open for the highest active rank. In your situation you claim a mystery person bypassed the officers (who were playing actively) in rank and got a hold of your guild through being promoted by low rank members.
Your scenario is still a bug or a lie.
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.