Feedback talk:User/Hest/Prevent joining of other guilds

This suggestion will never be implemented. The days of I'm-the-Supreme-Overlord-of-my-Guild/Alliance/Party/Whatever-and-all-members-will-obey-me-unquestioningly are coming to an end. It's now about social networking and the increased interactions between players; the more the better. ArenaNet is moving towards inclusivity, not exclusivity; get used to it. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 18:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Arenanet wouldn't put the multi-system in place and then allow the overbearing GLs to come down on and restrict that freedom. And let me warn you, if you make it a rule for your guild that people can't be in other ones, you WILL have trouble recruiting. Even if a lot of people end up only interested in one guild (which is what I suspect will happen) they will resent that option being taken away. Now, one obvi0ously can keep track of who is active and who isn't, and I really don't see a problem with letting go of someone that never chooses to represent for your guild. But you will have to do this on your own.--Will Greyhawk 03:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, you write, "[p]layers have the option to join multiple guilds and I really like that idear [ sic ]...", but then you say, "not allow players from other guilds to join and prevent the members in my guild to join another guild." Doesn't that contradict the idea of allowing folks to join multiple guilds? Don't we have to give them the freedom to join as many or as few as they like, choose when to represent each, and when to stay and when to leave?

You suggest, "it should be possible to see how many guilds each player is a member of." Isn't it up to them to choose (and up to them to decide whether their leaders should know)? It seems like it's not really my business (as a GL) to even ask.

Ultimately, this setup encourages guild leadership to ensure that representing their guild is more worthwhile (e.g. more fun or more productive) than representing other guilds. As my colleague Perhaps suggests, that makes it hard for dictatorial guilds to survive and easier for inclusive/participatory guilds to thrive. Many of us think that's a good thing. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

TEF put it much better than I in my first post. It comes down to this:

• Is the guild there to serve the need of a guild leader to feel a sense of control over their members?

OR

• Is the guild there to serve as a place where like-minded players can gather to network, socialize, and have fun with the guild leader simply acting as the facilitator/moderator of that process?

Which is more important; to wear the title of "GUILD LEADER" or know that your guild members are enjoying themselves as members of your guild?

If it's the former, it will be a hard-sell to convince people to stay in that guild because, ultimately, such a guild isn't there to serve the needs of the guild membership. If their needs aren't being met or are otherwise made less of a priority in comparison to the guild leader's need to feel in control, then why would anyone want to stay in such a guild?

In the latter scenario, where the focus is on the needs of the guild membership, players will want to stay in such a guild. Now that ArenaNet has put the locus of control in the hands of the rank-and-file guild members rather than in the hands of the guild leader, the successful recruitment strategy will be to make your guild as unrestrictive as possible while meeting the needs of the guild members. It's one of those paradoxes in life where the doing the exact opposite of what appears to be the correct strategy leads to greater success. To quote the old cliche, "You catch more flies with a teaspoon of honey than with a cup of vinegar." Guild Wars 3 perhaps 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)