Originally Posted by
Ingonghulu
Guilds are personal, evolving and pliant creatures. A guild that suits my personality type 100% may be a completely horrible guild for the next person. Which is exaxtly why we have different guilds - let each of us decide where we fit in.
Therefore guild reviews would have to be based on something more empirical and less overtly subjective in order to serve as any form of guidance. Citing personal issues with a GM does discredit the objectivity of our reviewer straight away.
What's the reviewer's methodology? Time spent in guild? How are players engaged (simply observing or taunting)? Is ranking based on actual collected data points or a casual feeling?
Some form of PL credentials would also help - otherwise pretty much anyone can launch a review series and haul some long-held private grievances into the public domain, not necessarily fairly.
I'd like to see all GM's respond to reciews of their guilds here so the rest of us can obtain a balanced view.
I'll follow this thread with skepticism but an open mind.
Bookmarks