Guild Covenants

2

Comments

  • EritheylEritheyl ** Trigger Warning **
    Oh, this is beautiful. I'm so happy this is being considered, and like the sound of it all so far!

    Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."

    -

    With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
  • Reading through, I'm rather for this. While the Institute has been on a slight novice upswing, it has been [at least when I'm around of late >.=.<] a bit quiet and empty.

    And the RP potential inherently intrigues me, though admittedly not directly in favour of the obvious Institute/Sentinels pairing. I'm actually more fond of re-encouraging the Aeromancers into a College of Science >.=.>

    As for what mechanics I'm in favour of/would like

    GT, GNT [though I might like to see the Covenants get fancy names that override the GT]
    Newsboards [we've enough clans to keep things quiet if we like]
    Novice Advance
    Guild Favours
    GC Rescue
    Shared Covenant specific helpfile, to outline the nitpicky bits [bureaucracy and such]


    .oO---~---Oo.

    "Perfect. Please move quickly to the next post, as the effects of prolonged exposure to the signature are not part of this test."

    NARF!

  • EritheylEritheyl ** Trigger Warning **
    Maellio said:
    Shared Covenant specific helpfile, to outline the nitpicky bits [bureaucracy and such]

    I hadn't thought of this, but it would be nice if the possibility exists.
    Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."

    -

    With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
  • EveriineEveriine Wise Old Swordsbird / Brontaur Indianapolis, IN, USA
    Maellio said:
    Reading through, I'm rather for this. While the Institute has been on a slight novice upswing, it has been [at least when I'm around of late >.=.<] a bit quiet and empty.
    It's you. It's all your fault.
    Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"

    Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.

    Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
  • edited December 2012
    I don't like the idea, but perhaps that's because I can't see the Blacktalon forming a covenant with anyone else. I imagine the Nekotai would be the same. We are both very private guilds, which have skills and philosophies that centre around stealth and spying, and guild-specific means of communication (crow speak, signing), which wouldn't mesh well with the idea of having 'outsiders' read our news, logs and listen in on GT.

    If the covenant were limited to the following, I think I'd be okay with it. Even consider pairing with another guild:
    • GNT (not GT or GTS)
    • GCT (a separate aether for both guilds to speak on)
    • GCWHO (a who list for the covenant guilds)
    • Guild advance (to promote people out of novicehood - definite big tick on this one. Being stuck with learning skills because no one is around to advance you out -- that's an issue.)
    • Projects (covenant-specific)
    • Covenant scrolls (GCHELP. Oh that could get confusing for dyslexic people! So that key information can be shared between the covenanted parties)
    • Guild rescue
    • Guild favouring (I'm really wary of this, and it's almost on my "do not include" list. How can a person outside of the guild test things which are guild-specific? Like... the GR1 task for the BT which is to tour the Aspects of Crow with their teacher and learn what the guild is about. Who could I trust outside of the guild to do that properly (except Xenthos)? I'm totally down for covenanted guild people to help with novicehood advancement, but guild rank advancement? Not keen. It has the potential to dilute the meaning of favours. If it were a system where a covenanted guild person favours someone from the other guild, and then someone from the person's actual guild had to approve the favour before it was given... meehh, complicated, but I really don't like the idea of sharing favours.)
    • Logs (another one I'm not overly keen on -- but I suppose seeing who has been favoured/disfavoured/advanced can only help the other covenant party assist the guild, so sure.)
    Things I believe it shouldn't share:
    • GT / GTS (a guild's culture should remain its own. Sure, it'd be great to be able to talk with your covenanted members to relieve the silence, but let these stay so that guild-specific conversation can be had (like reprimanding someone for doing something out of line) without involving outside parties)
    • GHELP scrolls (a guild's scrolls are their own. Share what needs to be shared with GCHELPs, but keep these separate)
    • Leadership and/or the ability to appoint people to positions in other guilds (guilds appoint their own people)
    • Enemying to the guild/guild-spirit (if someone needs to be enemied to Crowspirit and there is no one around to do it -- a message would suffice. No need to share this ability)
    • News - either reading or writing (guild affairs should be strictly that. Maybe there could be a shared newsboard?)
    As for how it is done:
    • Needs to be agreed on by all six guild leaders. If one GA is VERY opposed to the bonding, but the majority of everyone else is excited over the idea... I can see a very unhappy GA. If the guild leaders agree to it, as representatives of the guild, it should be able to go ahead. If the guild doesn't like it, they can elect a new person.
    • It must be allowed to be broken. There might be covenants which remain and have no need to be separate because they mesh so well, but if things don't work out, guilds need a way out (and potentially pair up with another guild).
    Personally, being a member of a small guild (which has had fewer active members in the past), I don't see an issue with a guild suddenly being without a GM and no one to fill the spot immediately. This is why we play a roleplaying game. Were that to happen, I'd ... I don't know, interact with people and ... er, maybe have a conversation and get them to contest? Poach someone from another guild? 

    If new people (and I mean to say... people who have played less than us dinosaurs and the fossils who came before me) step up to take leadership roles -- why is this a bad thing? People -do- fill roles eventually. And having the same people in positions of leadership is what, I believe, makes this game stale at times. Their opinions of things rarely shift, they are often burned out and over-committed and can't come up with new things to make their guild flourish. But they're there because... they know what's what, right? Potentially, I'm one of them. 

    My two cents.
  • Celina said:

    I don't think it's as linear as that. I'd pair SDs with Harbingers before anyone else, maybe Ebonguard (If I wasn't plotting Xenthos's death IC). Likewise, I can see Illuminati and Minstrels getting along swell, and Cantors with Celestians. I think the odd man out will kind of depend on the org.


    :-c

    I see a lot of potential here for guilds that are interested.

     I think it would take two guilds with strong mythos and a lot of negotiation to pull it off without one guild being subsumed by the other, but it also opens up some very interesting avenues for developing the roleplay.
  • edited December 2012
    Svorai said:
    My two cents.

    If you don't want to use it then don't. Don't try to twist something you are opposed to into something you could tolerate and muddle things up for people who would actually use it and benefit from it.

    It would be 'covenant' not 'a couple of people sitting in akward silence'

    As long as there are no material gains and it is purely social then the guilds should open up as much as possible with each other. It would be a great way for a more established guild to help bolster strugling guilds or for two low pop guilds to band together.

    I think it's a great idea.


    image
  • edited December 2012
    Llandros said:
    Svorai said:
    My two cents.

    If you don't want to use it then don't. Don't try to twist something you are opposed to into something you could tolerate and muddle things up for people who would actually use it and benefit from it.

    It would be 'covenant' not 'a couple of people sitting in akward silence'

    As long as there are no material gains and it is purely social then the guilds should open up as much as possible with each other. It would be a great way for a more established guild to help bolster strugling guilds or for two low pop guilds to band together.

    I think it's a great idea.

    Giving one's opinion is about as much as anyone else is doing in this thread. 

    There are reasons for suggesting what I have -- which centre around a covenant being just as you've said -- a way to interact and socialise with one another and provide support to one another, without overstepping the boundaries of what makes a guild what it is. 

    Whether others agree with what I've said or not is up to them!
  • Frankly, I'm with Svorai about not sharing guild news. Something written before this point might not have been meant to ever leave the guild, and adding in that other guilds can get access to your newsboard just feels... wrong.

    Sharing GT would be fine in my eyes (one less channel to keep track of compared to including GCT), but GTS should be separate.

    GHELP... Well, I'm frankly split on this issue, since what would be added to GCHELP would basically be copies of GHELPs, but since guilds might not want to share them all... yeah. Plus, there's the whole "how would it work functionally", but it's not like that's our headache anyway.

    Other than that, I'm finding myself agreeing with Svorai.
    image
  • In my opinion, news, helps, logs, these would and should all be added to give the meaning of the covenant some weight, something you wouldn't quickly step into without a lot of thought. 

    Additionally, I'd like it if covenant beginnings and endings were noted in the politics section.
  • CyndarinCyndarin used Flamethrower! It was super effective.
    Svorai said:
    I don't like the idea, but perhaps that's because I can't see the Blacktalon forming a covenant with anyone else. I imagine the Nekotai would be the same. We are both very private guilds, which have skills and philosophies that centre around stealth and spying, and guild-specific means of communication (crow speak, signing), which wouldn't mesh well with the idea of having 'outsiders' read our news, logs and listen in on GT.

    If the covenant were limited to the following, I think I'd be okay with it. Even consider pairing with another guild:
    • GNT (not GT or GTS)
    • GCT (a separate aether for both guilds to speak on)
    • GCWHO (a who list for the covenant guilds)
    • Guild advance (to promote people out of novicehood - definite big tick on this one. Being stuck with learning skills because no one is around to advance you out -- that's an issue.)
    • Projects (covenant-specific)
    • Covenant scrolls (GCHELP. Oh that could get confusing for dyslexic people! So that key information can be shared between the covenanted parties)
    • Guild rescue
    • Guild favouring (I'm really wary of this, and it's almost on my "do not include" list. How can a person outside of the guild test things which are guild-specific? Like... the GR1 task for the BT which is to tour the Aspects of Crow with their teacher and learn what the guild is about. Who could I trust outside of the guild to do that properly (except Xenthos)? I'm totally down for covenanted guild people to help with novicehood advancement, but guild rank advancement? Not keen. It has the potential to dilute the meaning of favours. If it were a system where a covenanted guild person favours someone from the other guild, and then someone from the person's actual guild had to approve the favour before it was given... meehh, complicated, but I really don't like the idea of sharing favours.)
    • Logs (another one I'm not overly keen on -- but I suppose seeing who has been favoured/disfavoured/advanced can only help the other covenant party assist the guild, so sure.)
    Things I believe it shouldn't share:
    • GT / GTS (a guild's culture should remain its own. Sure, it'd be great to be able to talk with your covenanted members to relieve the silence, but let these stay so that guild-specific conversation can be had (like reprimanding someone for doing something out of line) without involving outside parties)
    • GHELP scrolls (a guild's scrolls are their own. Share what needs to be shared with GCHELPs, but keep these separate)
    • Leadership and/or the ability to appoint people to positions in other guilds (guilds appoint their own people)
    • Enemying to the guild/guild-spirit (if someone needs to be enemied to Crowspirit and there is no one around to do it -- a message would suffice. No need to share this ability)
    • News - either reading or writing (guild affairs should be strictly that. Maybe there could be a shared newsboard?)
    As for how it is done:
    • Needs to be agreed on by all six guild leaders. If one GA is VERY opposed to the bonding, but the majority of everyone else is excited over the idea... I can see a very unhappy GA. If the guild leaders agree to it, as representatives of the guild, it should be able to go ahead. If the guild doesn't like it, they can elect a new person.
    • It must be allowed to be broken. There might be covenants which remain and have no need to be separate because they mesh so well, but if things don't work out, guilds need a way out (and potentially pair up with another guild).
    Personally, being a member of a small guild (which has had fewer active members in the past), I don't see an issue with a guild suddenly being without a GM and no one to fill the spot immediately. This is why we play a roleplaying game. Were that to happen, I'd ... I don't know, interact with people and ... er, maybe have a conversation and get them to contest? Poach someone from another guild? 

    If new people (and I mean to say... people who have played less than us dinosaurs and the fossils who came before me) step up to take leadership roles -- why is this a bad thing? People -do- fill roles eventually. And having the same people in positions of leadership is what, I believe, makes this game stale at times. Their opinions of things rarely shift, they are often burned out and over-committed and can't come up with new things to make their guild flourish. But they're there because... they know what's what, right? Potentially, I'm one of them. 

    My two cents.


    Aren't all guilds, by the definition of being a guild, private? No one is out sharing guild scrolls and secret guild knowledge with eachother. I think you're overplaying that card a bit, especially since Glomdoring of all orgs is xenophobic and secretive by nature. There are avenues already in place to keep secret knowledge and discussions secret. Private guild libraries, for instance. GTS. Clans. Plus I already have seen and read the BT guild scrolls, among dozens of other Gloms and no one is ICly concerned about a security crisis. How much private information is really exchanged over logs and GT? Hardly any, if any at all.

     

    I mean, come on, I think if people are competent enough to get to GM or GA, they are probably competent enough to discuss the Aspects of Crow intelligently. ICly, I can see why your character may have qualms with "outsiders" explainging the tenets of your guild.(not sure about the internal glom xenophobia, but eh). OOCly though, I don't know how you can imply that Xenthos is the only non BT capable of speaking about Crow. You're not talking about upper tier conversations, you're talking basic gr1 conversations about generic Glom knowledge.

     

    As I said earlier, guidelines for favors and such can be established between the two guilds. They are in the same org between people that are already used to working together. I think it's safe to say that it'll be a lot more stable than the Celest/Glom alliance where everyone lines to push eachothers buttons and boundaries. I really don't forsee a willy nilly drama filled favour war between the BT and whoever else.

     

    I guess what you aren't getting is that some guilds don't have new people to draft into leadership. There is no RP workaround. It's just a void. A visible void where they suddenly don't have a vote on the org council, among other things. Yeah, that'll attract new members, an impotent guild looks really appealing to newbies.

     

    It's an opt in system. I feel like you don't like it because it's not molded to fit you or the BT. I don't know if that's a good reason to oppose that much stuff.

    image
  • edited December 2012
    Svorai said:
    [Important things to be considered]
    GT/ GTS: This will vary by guild, but for the Harbingers, basic advancement ends at GR5, so sharing GT would mean that those in advancement would have lots of people to talk to, and then once they finish advancement- which is when Harbingers make a hooplah about being a full Harbinger- they would then have access to the guild-only GTS. That said, if GTS becomes a more commonly used guild channel, I think GTSTELLS would definitely be needed.

    GHELPs: I do think some GHELPs need to remain independent, but adding GCHELP onto things would just be confusing. Would it be possible to make it so that GA's could flag some GHELP files to show up in both guilds? Perhaps have the name appear with a * in the index, so the file explaining why the Harbingers are so totally more awesome than the Shadowdancers would appear as ghelp bardsrule* if a Shadowdancer looked GHELP INDEX.

    This would also make it easier on poor GAs or archivists, since they wouldn't have to remember to update two different files if changes were made.

    Leadership/enemying: I 100% agree that these should remain independent.

    News: I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I think guilds need to be able to keep some business private, particularly elections and guild drama. On the other hand, being able to quickly and easily share information- without taking up a clan spot that won't ever be used for anything but occasional news posts- seems like too much. I would lean towards either completely separate newsboards or having a separate joint newsboard.
  • edited December 2012
    Celina:

    Of course it's an opt-in system. And I didn't oppose that much stuff. Instead, I gave a framework of how it could work with every guild, not just those guilds that would mesh really well together. 

    If the SDs want to pair with the HBs and they're comfortable giving them all the privs that have previously been discussed -- awesome, go for it, power to you. But that leaves those guilds who might want to pair with another guild on a lesser scale at a disadvantage. If these privs were investable, like clan privs then I'd be all for everything being available.

    If this is a blanket change that is inflexible in its approach, then I opt for the conservative side, as its more inclusive. 

    Eliron:

    I think flagging GHELPs to be shared is a great idea rather than GCHELP. 

    The problem I'm seeing is that every guild is structured differently -- HBs end newbie advancement at GR5, BT end it at GR4. GT/GTS are used differently. I suppose having GT be shared and then have GTS be guild-only (removing the GR5 requirement) might go a way to reduce confusion? If leadership need to talk -- there are clans and private rooms enough for that.
  • CyndarinCyndarin used Flamethrower! It was super effective.
    Svorai said:
    Celina:

    Of course it's an opt-in system. And I didn't oppose that much stuff. Instead, I gave a framework of how it could work with every guild, not just those guilds that would mesh really well together. 

    If the SDs want to pair with the HBs and they're comfortable giving them all the privs that have previously been discussed -- awesome, go for it, power to you. But that leaves those guilds who might want to pair with another guild on a lesser scale at a disadvantage. If these privs were investable, like clan privs then I'd be all for everything being available.

    If this is a blanket change that is inflexible in its approach, then I opt for the conservative side, as its more inclusive. 

    Eliron:

    I think flagging GHELPs to be shared is a great idea rather than GCHELP. 

    The problem I'm seeing is that every guild is structured differently -- HBs end newbie advancement at GR5, BT end it at GR4. GT/GTS are used differently. I suppose having GT be shared and then have GTS be guild-only (removing the GR5 requirement) might go a way to reduce confusion? If leadership need to talk -- there are clans and private rooms enough for that.

    I think the point is that those things, like invested privs, are what Estarra was referring to that would come further down the line. What you're suggesting is a verly slightly expanded collegium.
    image
  • CyndarinCyndarin used Flamethrower! It was super effective.
    Celina said:
    Svorai said:
    Celina:

    Of course it's an opt-in system. And I didn't oppose that much stuff. Instead, I gave a framework of how it could work with every guild, not just those guilds that would mesh really well together. 

    If the SDs want to pair with the HBs and they're comfortable giving them all the privs that have previously been discussed -- awesome, go for it, power to you. But that leaves those guilds who might want to pair with another guild on a lesser scale at a disadvantage. If these privs were investable, like clan privs then I'd be all for everything being available.

    If this is a blanket change that is inflexible in its approach, then I opt for the conservative side, as its more inclusive. 

    Eliron:

    I think flagging GHELPs to be shared is a great idea rather than GCHELP. 

    The problem I'm seeing is that every guild is structured differently -- HBs end newbie advancement at GR5, BT end it at GR4. GT/GTS are used differently. I suppose having GT be shared and then have GTS be guild-only (removing the GR5 requirement) might go a way to reduce confusion? If leadership need to talk -- there are clans and private rooms enough for that.

    I think the point is that those things, like invested privs, are what Estarra was referring to that would come further down the line. What you're suggesting is a verly slightly expanded collegium.
     
    **edit: The point of the original idea was to involve the whole guild. Not just the newbies.

    image
  • TurnusTurnus The Big Bad Wolf
    If there were to go in, I would really want a command to turn off the other guild's channel. If guildA is bonded with guildB and a player in guildA really doesn't want to hear guildB's channel, but keep guildA's on, they should be able to do that.

    ~--------------**--------------~

    The original picture of Turnus is still viewable here, again by Feyrll.
  • Hmm, I don't agree with that, especially as it would leave the communication on your own GT a disjointed half-conversation. I think having to listen to the other guild is something that you accept when you make the covenant, and if you want to turn GT off, you have to turn all of it off. I think there comes a level where - what's the point of making a covenant with another guild if you can turn everything off and make it seem as if you weren't.
  • EritheylEritheyl ** Trigger Warning **
    I don't see why just having a different channel/help index would be a problem.
    Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."

    -

    With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
  • TurnusTurnus The Big Bad Wolf
    edited December 2012
    Astraea said:
    Hmm, I don't agree with that, especially as it would leave the communication on your own GT a disjointed half-conversation. I think having to listen to the other guild is something that you accept when you make the covenant, and if you want to turn GT off, you have to turn all of it off. I think there comes a level where - what's the point of making a covenant with another guild if you can turn everything off and make it seem as if you weren't.
    The leaders make the covenant, but an individual in a guild should have that choice if they find the other guild's chatter to be annoying.

    Edit: Or as Eritheyl suggested, separate channel could work.

    ~--------------**--------------~

    The original picture of Turnus is still viewable here, again by Feyrll.
  • I do like this idea, and there are guilds that don't mesh as easily and thats understandable its not exactly going to force every guild to have a convant going on. I just can't see the Illuminati conventing with the Templars anymore than I can see the Blacktalon conventing with anyone else. Though I'm a bit iffy on the sharing of Newsboards between Guilds, of course it also would require alot of thought and can't be entered into all willy nilly as well. So in the end it does balance out I think.
  • EritheylEritheyl ** Trigger Warning **
    What exactly is the intended purpose behind sharing newboards? It seems more like a 'just because'. I can't think of a practical application that would also warrant sharing as opposed to just making anew, if anything really needs to be done in this area at all.
    Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."

    -

    With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
  • Personally, I think this will be a great first step toward some of the problems raised about the number of guilds. The exact implementation of which will affect which guilds will want to use it, and which guilds will not.

    For this reason, it is important to do what Estarra has suggested, start small, with minor but important mechanics, and then add things to tweak the system as we go. This requires feedback from the game population as well as continued admin surveillance and adjustments.  This is something I want to stress right from the get go, if we're serious about making a semi-permanent or permanent solution to the problem of player spread.

    Personally, what I hope to see is that a covenant can allow a guild to support the lack of a core set of members of another guild. Therefore, something like what Turnus requested:
    Turnus said:
    If there were to go in, I would really want a command to turn off the other guild's channel. If guildA is bonded with guildB and a player in guildA really doesn't want to hear guildB's channel, but keep guildA's on, they should be able to do that.
    should NOT be a part of what we're trying to do. Instead, I believe what we need is to a combined GHELP and combined GT channel. We do not want this arrangement to be something where the more populated guild is used as a temporary crutch to tide over the other guild's lack of members, and then thrown away the moment the other guild gets enough core members. If you segregate the guilds to the point where people in either can ignore the existence of a covenant, then you create an environment where one side is seen as the burden and the other is seen as the disposable tampon, used and discarded for certain times of the month.

    This should be something guilds do not enter into lightly. Svorai is right in saying private, secretive guilds will be very wary of opting in. It should be something that guilds in very dire situations, like what Celina was describing in the previous thread. Something they opt into when they observe prolonged, unsustainable lack of members.

    How the guilds want to organise themselves in a covenant is up to them, but ideally, it should be a relationship where neither side is going to feel pressured to "help" out the other or provide some form of recompense. It should be one where a geniune effort to merge or cooperate lore is made. Remember, part of the problem of player spread is the lack of RP interaction that comes with being a non-functional guild. A Serenguard doesn't need to revere the Old Man Bull, but he does need to see the Shofangi as a comrade he can RP, engage in debate and interact with. For that end merged communications and advancement is of utmost importance.

  • Guild Projects, too.

    I approve of the Covenant idea. 
    If it's broken, break it some more.
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods
    GT sharing is fine, but GHELP sharing goes a bit far, in that it'd just get really bloated and confusing. 
  • My two cents is that it should start small and expand from there. To that end, I suggest the following:

    Upon implementation, allow guilds to form a covenant with a unanimous vote of all six guild leaders. This allows both sides do the following:
    -Hear the other guild's GNT aether.
    -Hear the other guild's GT aether.
    -GUILDMESSAGE and GUILDMESSAGE LIST but not GUILDMESSAGE ADD, REMOVE or BUMP for the other guild.
    -GUILD STATUS, GUILD ADVANCE and GUILD HOLDBACK on other guild's novices.
    -GWHO, GWHO FULL, GMEMBERS, GMEMBERS DORMANT, GUILD AIDES and GUILD ENEMIES for the other guild by using the other guild's name as a modifier. Ie. GMEMBERS PALADINS
    -PREFIX, SUFFIX, GUILD LASTLOGIN, GUILD SKILLS, GUILD INVENTORY, GUILD SUMMON and GUILD RESCUE on the other guild's people, provided you have sufficent rank in your own guild to do so.

    Later on if it's decided that people want to go further:
    -GUILD[DIS]FAVOUR members of the other guild.
    -Allow the GC, GA and GM to GUILD APPOINT members of the other guild as protectors/undersecs/security/secretaries/archivists of their own guild. So if the Cantors and Paladins were to join up, then the Quartermaster of the Paladins could appoint a Cantor as an honorary Protector of Truth, who would have undersec powers over Paladin novices.
    -Allow the reading of the other guild's projects.
    -Allow the GM to appoint members of the other guild to be in charge of guild projects.

    Things that don't need added:
    -GHELP sharing. This would get too confusing and would also be problematic if both guilds have a GHELP file by the same name. If two guilds want to share files, they can write the file to a letter and have the other guild's GA add it.
    -Reading eachother's newsboards. Alot of guilds have stuff in their newsboards that other guilds don't need to be reading about. As above, if a post needs to be made to both guilds, have someone in the correct guild make the post.
    -Voting in eachother's elections. Just no.
  • QistrelQistrel the hemisemidemifink
    edited December 2012
    I don't like this idea, but, I do understand how helpful it would be. I just hope it's only used when absolutely necessary. I think the stuff like sharing of newsboards, which a lot seem to not like, should be used, and there shouldn't be a way to turn stuff on and off - so that people will go 'Do we really want to do this?' and you won't have higher pop guilds making covenants with each other just because they can.

  • Keep GHELPS separate, but PROJECTS be available to each other. If guilds want to share information between them, just use PROJECTS.
    If it's broken, break it some more.
  • Qistrel said:
    I don't like this idea, but, I do understand how helpful it would be. I just hope it's only used when absolutely necessary. I think the stuff like sharing of newsboards, which a lot seem to not like, should be used, and there shouldn't be a way to turn stuff on and off - so that people will go 'Do we really want to do this?' and you won't have higher pop guilds making covenants with each other just because they can.
    I disagree. There are some guilds who already RP being more or less tied together (the Illuminati and the Templars, for example - they actually have/had a project that paired up a member of each). It would be nice if there are certain degrees of importance (reflected by the amount of information shared between guilds) tied to Covenants. The Illuminati and the Templars, for example, would be very closely tied together and share news and guild messages and projects, etc., while the Aquamancers and the Celestines would only be loosely tied together and share only projects.
    If it's broken, break it some more.
  • I am confused...

     

    If we are going to go down this road, then why not just make the covenant actually a thing. People are looking for rp, they're looking for a larger base to do such with. Why are we not pushing towards a more rp centric implementation?

    From what I'm reading right now, covenants are just to be... roughly... a guild with two archetypes where the archetypes get a small selection of exclusive benefits.

     

    When I say "make the covenant actually a thing", I mean... I'd like to see something with like... a name and, as suggested, all of it's own org stuff (channel, log, helps, projects, etc). Then just make the sharing of guild specific stuff a series of variables under that which the ga's can modify for their guild.

     

    So like... being unoriginal with naming. The Moondancers and the Hartstone could group up and form the Moonhart tribe. The Moonhart tribe would have its own stuff which the two guilds would share, but the Moondancers would only see Hartstone stuff if they decided to share it.

  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    edited December 2012
    Saran: The problem with that is if you're making it its own separate entity, you're left with the same problem you have now (guilds vs. collegiums); the guild itself is lacking in numbers, the covenant has more.

    The entire point of the suggestion is to actually do a semi-merge, not just form an official clan that doesn't take a clan-slot- I wouldn't really see any actual benefit to implementing it your way, as separate channels.

    Being able to have help scrolls that can be read by both parties would be nice (especially for help with advancement tasks), but really one of the most important things is having more people showing when you GWHO and more people to respond on GNT and GT to help with more guild-specific queries, alleviating some of the ghost-feeling.
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.