Board Thread:Online Discussion/@comment-3076045-20130206213434/@comment-7153552-20130730194628

First let me say that I tried to backtrack to where I left this thread off at last, but there have been a lot of posts and for some reason I wasn't following it after a while. So I apologize if anything I'm about to say is contradictory to current accepted truths, or redundant in accordance with whatever concesus has been reached.

I don't know that we need to focus on the seperate guild names yet until we know how the guild system will work or the cross-platform naming system (I would assume we are fine to have the same name on each of the three systems). An overall, base-level structure wouldn't be a bad thing to hash out. I see no reason we couldn't have the Guild Leader, with a few officers (one for each core gameplay section), perhaps a level of coordinators to help with events (raids, RP events, general get-togethers, etc.) then the members. You could even break the members into two or three groups - new recruits, members, seasoned members. In a community like ours, being so diverse, you don't really need to make the ranking systems too complicated.

Our overall purpose would be gathering information for the wikia. In the case of PvP that means getting out there and playing it. In the case of gathering/crafting that would mean physically getting out in the world and doing that. Exploration, PvE, Instanced Encounters, Economy, etc., etc., so on and so on. I feel very strongly about the fact that Wikia Staff should be in the immediate control of each platform's guild. Only relinquishing to a trusted, non-staff, registered member in the case that said platform cannot be represented by a staff member. The officer ranks can be staff or trusted, active members.

On the note of officer ranks, in my mind I see the following sections of core gameplay needing to be represented:  [1] PvP  [2] Gathering/Crafting/Economy  [3] RP  [4] PvE-Questing  [5] PvE-Instanced (dungeon and raid)  [6] Exploration/Lore. At the moment I cannot think of others, but this would blanket out the basics, perhaps splitting the PvE-Instanced section into two if Raiding becomes a bigger deal within our guild.

A name is important, but not near as vital as the core group that makes up the guild and the ease of understanding about rank structure and command. Your officers need to be trusted individuals that can handle situations if the Guild Leader(s) happens to be offline. The coordinator rank (if chosen to be involved) should be able to handle most situations and know what to pass up to Officers. And all members should be able to handle themselves in a mature and responsible manner, hopefully excluding the need to anyone to handle any in-guild situation.

I've had my share of guild leadership positions in several games, and every guild I've seen fail did not have a clear purpose and/or could not handle the issues that were brought them by their membership. The IRC will also make hadnling anything cross-platform super easy as the seperate leaders will have the ability to come together in real-time setting and talk about things they've seen or heard or need addressed. A sort of ultimate Guild Tribunal, if you will. This will allow for an overall council of the officer ranks and the Guild Leaders, this means that each will be represented three times over and each can be discussed in a non-biased setting that allows for the betterment of the site and each guild. So edits made and new pages started on ESO will be the best possible quality before they're even set on paper (so to speak).