Mass booting

[Leambow]

Ok so this is a big issue in many games but after reading a thread about mass booting in al I thought this has to stop. So I propse the idea of an officer not being able to boot more then 5 or so people without master's permission. Maybe create a button to message the master saying ***** requests permission to boot players *** and *****131295
For example, the officer can send a request to boot a player with a reason why and it gets sent to the guild master and if they believe this request should be granted they can press their own version of the button which will say give permission131296

[TheComboKid]

+1 this idea

[Disproves]

There's not really any point in this. If this was implemented master might as well boot. Officers are kind of like co gm's so when the master is offline and someone needs kicked they can do it. Anyways masters should only promote people they trust.. I'd rather it be something like only kick a certain amount of people a day.

[Hail]

Perhaps the master can set an option where each officer can only kick 5 people per 30minutes.
This option can be turned off when cleaning the guild.

[Leambow]

We just need something to prevent the loss of loyal members, hail and disproves make very valid points, I hope some mod reads this so they can help fix this in a way where dishonest officers cannot mass boot while a master is offline

[Hail]

Yeah I understand, I was just providing a easier solution. But I understand completely, I have experienced rogue officers before... thankfully they just left and did not mass boot however.

[Wutzgood]

I remember being in the gods of caos and one officer booted over 2600 members in one morning. Couldn't get in contact with the gm to stop it.

[GoodSyntax]

How about a nomination system, where one Officer nominates a player for a boot, and another Officer has to second the boot for it to happen. Obviously, Guild Masters would bypass this system, since their vote would effectively count twice.

This way, at any point, any Officer can nominate a player for a boot. Then, other Officers can see this "wall of shame" and approve for the boot, or leave it be and watch the player nominated (kind of like a probationary period).

I know from personal experience, that in the disgust of a player bailing mid-run with a stupid comment on the way out, the first instinct is to boot, but eventually cooler heads prevail. This type of nomination system could prevent overreaction as well as mass-booting.

[Serancha]

The entire problem is GMs who promote people as some sort of reward, rather than only promoting people who are at a full trust level and are needed for the job. They should only be promoting the number of people absolutely necessary to run the guild effectively. There's some guilds I have seen with 80-100 officers - and they wonder why they have problems like this....

Ranks should not be confused with rewards. There is no benefit to being officer except that you have higher expectations and more responsibilities put on you. It's strictly a position to assist the GM in running the guild. It should not be some sort of clique, special private chat room or people with the "we're better than the rest" mentality.

Any restriction on officers would just negate their function as assistant GM's, forcing more work back on the leader.

[ilhanna]

On the other end of the spectrum there is actual need for officers to be able to kick without GM permission. In cases like gross violation of guild rules or gc drama getting way out of hand and starting to disrupt guild peace, officers should have the authority to kick immediately without having to wait for GM approval.

[Leambow]

So the whole thing is we got to be able to prevent rogue officers while still allowing the loyal officers to do their job, perhaps some kind of new ranking? Like officer,officer 1 or something like that, so a gm would have a group of officers able to approve some boots, just a rough idea