Comments on: Casual Guilds are Not Easy! Choosing your officers http://www.destructivereach.com/2008/12/casual-guilds-are-not-easy-choosing-your-officers/ Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:42:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Yashima http://www.destructivereach.com/2008/12/casual-guilds-are-not-easy-choosing-your-officers/comment-page-1/#comment-881 Yashima Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:13:11 +0000 http://www.destructivereach.com/2008/12/casual-guilds-are-not-easy-choosing-your-officers/#comment-881 We got over the trouble of giving all founding members a nice rank. I think one of the huge troubles of casual guilds is, that as an officer you have to do some real work to hold it all together and when doing that it is hard to keep that casual attitude. Especially since most problems in our guild were always drama related. There are no goals to work for. It's just "staying alive" or something like it. Therefore it is very important to be precise and think hard what you as founder really want and then stick to it. Officers need to be aware that there will be work to do as an officer and that is often no less than in a less casual guild or one with clearly defined goals in raiding or PvP. We got over the trouble of giving all founding members a nice rank.

I think one of the huge troubles of casual guilds is, that as an officer you have to do some real work to hold it all together and when doing that it is hard to keep that casual attitude. Especially since most problems in our guild were always drama related. There are no goals to work for. It’s just “staying alive” or something like it.

Therefore it is very important to be precise and think hard what you as founder really want and then stick to it.

Officers need to be aware that there will be work to do as an officer and that is often no less than in a less casual guild or one with clearly defined goals in raiding or PvP.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Saresa http://www.destructivereach.com/2008/12/casual-guilds-are-not-easy-choosing-your-officers/comment-page-1/#comment-840 Saresa Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:57:22 +0000 http://www.destructivereach.com/2008/12/casual-guilds-are-not-easy-choosing-your-officers/#comment-840 @Yashi I think that is a common problem with small guilds. Most people have a sense of obligation to give all the founding members a rank straight away as some form of recognition for them being 'first', but it doesn't always work out. Sometimes I think the 'no officer' model is a great idea for casual guilds, but then I guess it also depends on the size of your guild. I have been a member of guilds with only 30 members, and guilds with well over 100 accounts. The important thing is to ensure that you don't have too many chiefs! @Noobiewan I definitely agree with the officer qualities you listed there - I knew I had missed some! I think the problem I have had when writing this is really trying to come to terms with the contradiction between 'casual' and 'officer'. I don't believe that officers should be forced to become less casual than they would like, but I also think that they need to be an active presence in the guild. It's a difficult conundrum! @Yashi I think that is a common problem with small guilds. Most people have a sense of obligation to give all the founding members a rank straight away as some form of recognition for them being ‘first’, but it doesn’t always work out.

Sometimes I think the ‘no officer’ model is a great idea for casual guilds, but then I guess it also depends on the size of your guild. I have been a member of guilds with only 30 members, and guilds with well over 100 accounts. The important thing is to ensure that you don’t have too many chiefs!

@Noobiewan I definitely agree with the officer qualities you listed there – I knew I had missed some!

I think the problem I have had when writing this is really trying to come to terms with the contradiction between ‘casual’ and ‘officer’. I don’t believe that officers should be forced to become less casual than they would like, but I also think that they need to be an active presence in the guild. It’s a difficult conundrum!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Noobiewan http://www.destructivereach.com/2008/12/casual-guilds-are-not-easy-choosing-your-officers/comment-page-1/#comment-836 Noobiewan Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:54:51 +0000 http://www.destructivereach.com/2008/12/casual-guilds-are-not-easy-choosing-your-officers/#comment-836 Our guild officers (which includes myself) have had many roles which have changed over time. At the moment, we're kind of jacks of all trades, role mentors, guild management, raid leading, judges, juries and even the odd case of executioner! To pick your Officers: I would say that they need to have patience, a little common sense, a sense of humour with some skill in researching information (and where to find the resources!). Our guild officers (which includes myself) have had many roles which have changed over time. At the moment, we’re kind of jacks of all trades, role mentors, guild management, raid leading, judges, juries and even the odd case of executioner!
To pick your Officers: I would say that they need to have patience, a little common sense, a sense of humour with some skill in researching information (and where to find the resources!).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Yashima http://www.destructivereach.com/2008/12/casual-guilds-are-not-easy-choosing-your-officers/comment-page-1/#comment-835 Yashima Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:05:32 +0000 http://www.destructivereach.com/2008/12/casual-guilds-are-not-easy-choosing-your-officers/#comment-835 We started out with way too many officers for our then small guild. But they were co-founders and as such it was difficult to not give them something. In the end that turned out to be a bad choice. Essentially we did have 5 guild leaders or at least people who felt entitled to say "it is my guild" even if I was doing most of the guild leader work and shouldering the responsibility. We were trying to do "democratic" ... right now I feel that this is not the best choice to go for a small organisation. Anyway we did not start out with every officer having an assigned area of responsibility. That came later. We just stumbled into everyhing. But here's a list of "Areas of Responsibility" we used to have - before we abolished having officers alltogether: * Guildmaster, also responsible for the technical infrastructure (Teamspeak + Website etc.) * Co-Guildmaster, his job was also PR + relations to other guilds * Officer responsible for inviting and trial processes * Officer responsible for events (worst job ever because people felt he needed to serve them events on a silver tablet) * Counseling + Mediating Officer - to be there to listen to people's problems or mediate in fights. Was supposed also to try pick up the current mood of the guild I think we had one more. Could have been that we had 2 types of event officers. One for "classic" events like organising the occasional raid and one for "fun events" like snowball fights or naked races ... Right now we have managed to eliminate the need for officers. We have a very well defined invite process and a lot of Veteran members have invite rights. The only "officer" type people are now GM and co-GM. But we got there after nearly 3 years of experimentation and several severe crisis ... I should do my own post instead of a comment here, eh? Oh well. Too late. We started out with way too many officers for our then small guild. But they were co-founders and as such it was difficult to not give them something.

In the end that turned out to be a bad choice. Essentially we did have 5 guild leaders or at least people who felt entitled to say “it is my guild” even if I was doing most of the guild leader work and shouldering the responsibility. We were trying to do “democratic” … right now I feel that this is not the best choice to go for a small organisation.

Anyway we did not start out with every officer having an assigned area of responsibility. That came later. We just stumbled into everyhing.

But here’s a list of “Areas of Responsibility” we used to have – before we abolished having officers alltogether:

* Guildmaster, also responsible for the technical infrastructure (Teamspeak + Website etc.)
* Co-Guildmaster, his job was also PR + relations to other guilds
* Officer responsible for inviting and trial processes
* Officer responsible for events (worst job ever because people felt he needed to serve them events on a silver tablet)
* Counseling + Mediating Officer – to be there to listen to people’s problems or mediate in fights. Was supposed also to try pick up the current mood of the guild

I think we had one more. Could have been that we had 2 types of event officers. One for “classic” events like organising the occasional raid and one for “fun events” like snowball fights or naked races …

Right now we have managed to eliminate the need for officers. We have a very well defined invite process and a lot of Veteran members have invite rights. The only “officer” type people are now GM and co-GM. But we got there after nearly 3 years of experimentation and several severe crisis …

I should do my own post instead of a comment here, eh?

Oh well. Too late.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>