Proposed Guild Rules Version 3

[Conred]

Thx for inputs, guildies. I hope this is the last version. A couple comments:

Part II, rule 3: Minimum level. Changed to 40.

Part IV, rule 9: Deleting alts. Allowed officers to make exception to deleting alts if main leaves.

Part VI, rule 1: All officers are bankers. Agree with Edi. Dont know if all officers have to be bankers. But it seemed a simple solution.

Part V, rule 8: Raid Loot. I think I have gone about as far as I can on this one. I did not specify how many peeps make up a raid consul but was thinking just one. That way, things move faster and less confusion. But if rest of officers think we should have 3+2 or any other combination, its alright with me. I just dont want to write the rule for it.

This post can be copied and pasted into a word processor for easy editing. Then pasted again into a post.

LDK Guild Rules Version 3

I. GENERAL
1. These rules are guidelines to help players understand what is expected of them as members of The Legendary Dark Knights Guild.
2. The official Guild Rules and official List of Guild Officers shall be posted on the LDK web site.
3. Each Guild Officer and Leader shall have a current printed copy of the Guild Rules in case the website is inaccessible.
4. These rules become the official Guild Rules once approved by a unanimous vote of the Guild Officers and Guild Leader. Any change or amendment to these rules must be approved by a majority of the Guild Officers and Leader.

II. GUILD MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA
1. At least one Guild Officer shall interview each prospective new member.
2. The interview will be based on a list of questions available to the Guild Officers.
3. Minimum level for membership is 40. Exceptions can be made if a majority of Guild Officers agree.
4. Only the prospective member?s main character can become a member. Exceptions can be made if a majority of Guild Officers agree.
5. The prospective member will be placed on a 30-day probationary period and is expected to follow the Rules of Conduct and encouraged to participate in Guild raids and groups during this period.
6. The ?inviting? Guild Officer will post the probation start date in the public notes section of the Guild window, and send a ?Welcome? announcement to the Guild.
7. At the end of the probationary period, permanent Guild membership will be given if a majority of Guild Officers agree. Membership rejection may occur anytime during probation providing a majority of Guild Officers agree.
8. Membership of alternate characters of all Guild members may be granted at any level without majority Guild Officer vote.

III. RULES OF CONDUCT
1. Every member of the LDK Guild is a representative of the Guild and must demonstrate good sportsmanship, consideration, and respect to every EQ player. Do not participate in any action that would reflect negatively on the LDK Guild image.
2. Do no beg for money or items from Guild or non-Guild players.
3. Do not ask Guild members for power leveling (PL).
4. Do not use the ?ANONYMOUS? tag. It hides your Guild label and your location from the Guild. Use the ?ROLEPLAY? tag if you wish to remain anonymous to non-Guild players.
5. Do not use profanity in any form in any chat channel.
6. Do not deliberately Kill Steal (KS) other groups or players.
7. Do not deliberately train or interfere with other groups or players.
8. Do not confront or exchange verbal blows with a Guild member. Should there be a conflict or complaint against a fellow Guild member, immediately contact a Guild Officer via in-game email, tell, or RL email. The Guild Officer(s) will evaluate the situation and determine the course of action to be taken against the offending member.
9. Infraction of these rules may result in a ?Formal Warning? by a Guild Officer. Multiple repeated infractions may result in termination of membership from the Guild of the member?s main and all alternate characters.

IV. GUILD ROSTER
1. The official Guild Roster is the in-game roster on the Guild window. Another unofficial roster may be posted on the Guild website.
2. Each Guild member must designate one character to be his/her main character.
3. A Guild member may designate a new main character providing the old main character remains in the Guild.
4. All main characters and alternate characters will be included on the roster; however, EVERY alternate character will show the main?s name in the Public Notes section.
5. Characters that are inactive for 3 months shall have ?Inactive? placed in the Public Notes. Exceptions will be made for alternates of mains providing the main has been active in the last 3 months.
6. Characters inactive for 6 months shall be removed from the roster. Exceptions will be made for alternates of mains providing the main has been active in the last 6 months.
7. If a character has been inactive for 6 months and that character has consistently followed the high standards of the Guild then, by agreement of a majority of Guild Officers, that character shall be considered a ?Legend? of the Legendary Dark Knights. The term ?LDK Legend? shall be put in the Public Note for that character.
8. If a character notifies a Guild Officer that they will be absent from the game for an extended time, then ?Absent until (a date)? shall be put in the Public Note section of that players main character. If the player has not returned by the date shown then the date shown will be considered the latest playing date and the rules for inactive characters/roster removal will take effect.
9. When a Guild member?s main character leaves the Guild (but not the game), all alternate characters will be removed from the Guild as well. Exceptions may be made if a majority of Guild Officers agree.

V. GUILD RAIDS
1. Raid attendance is encouraged but NOT mandatory.
2. Raid dates, times, and locations for scheduled raids will be posted on the Guild web site as far ahead of time as possible.
3. The next scheduled raid date, time, and location will be posted in the GMOTD at least 3 days ahead of time. Second and third choices may be mentioned.
4. The Raid Leader shall designate a LC (Loot Consul). ONLY the LC shall announce what item is available, when to roll on it, and who won the item. All rolls before that announcement shall be invalid. If no Loot Consul is appointed, the Raid Leader shall act as Loot Consul.
5. Unless otherwise stated, rolling on an item shall be RANDOM 1-101, with high roll winning. In case of a tie, the tying parties, and ONLY the tying parties, shall re-roll until a winner is determined.
6. Winning loot on a previous roll during the raid shall disqualify members from rolling on other items in that raid unless the Loot Consul decides otherwise.
7. Loot for a member?s specific quest becomes the property of that member once it drops.
8. Raid loot dropped that is NOT for a specific member shall be distributed as per these rules in this order:
A. The Loot Consul can decide for the good of the guild that an item shall not be rolled on but given to a specific guild member. This includes NO TRADE MQ?able items.
B. Guild members in the raid can claim an item if the character in the raid can use the item. Multiple claims are settled by random roll as per Guild rules.
C. Guild members in the raid can claim an item for an alternate providing the Loot Consul approves. Multiple claims are to be settled by random roll as per Guild rules.
D. The item may be deposited in the Guild bank.
E. Non-guild players can claim an item providing the character in the raid can use the item. Multiple claims are to be settled by random roll as per Guild rules.
F. If a non-guild player in the raid cannot use the item for their current character, then they can claim it for an alternate character providing the Loot Consul agrees. Multiple claims are to be settled by random roll as per Guild rules.
G. If the item is not claimed by any of the above then, at the discretion of the Loot Consul, any Guild member not in the raid may claim the item.

VI. GUILD BANK
1. Each Guild Officer shall be a Guild Banker.
2. Items in the Guild bank shall be available to Guild members at the discretion of any of the Guild?s bankers.
3. Any disagreement among the Guild Bankers about item distribution shall be settled by a majority vote of the Guild Bankers. However, if there is a tie, Guild Leader shall cast the tie-breaking vote.
4. Members on probation cannot remove items from the Guild bank unless a Guild Banker approves.
5. Overflow from the Guild bank can be put on Trader characters approved by the Guild Bankers. Proceeds from sale of these items belong to the guild.

VII. GUILD OFFICERS
1. There shall be a minimum of five (5) Guild Officers. An odd number is recommended to prevent ties but is not required.
2. Guild Officers are recommended, but not required, to be the players Main Character.
3. Candidates need a majority approval of the Guild Officers before being presented to the Guild Leader for induction.
4. Duties of the individual Guild Officer shall be determined by the Guild Officers.
5. Removal of a Guild Officer is determined by the majority of Guild Officers and Leader.

VIII. GUILD LEADER
1. The Guild Leader shall serve until the member resigns the position.
2. The Guild Leader with approval of a majority vote of Guild Officers determines selection of a new Guild Leader. This shall include any co-leaders.

[Mymy42]

The only problem with having just 1 person as the LC is that that's only one opinion and even though that's fast..well..it's just one person deciding that kind of stuff lol. I think 3 is a good number of people to figuring out exactly how many steps of elimination should be done. Hopefully it'll run smoothly enough..we'll see how it goes when we test run it I guess.

As for the 2 randomly selected people..*shrug* I think I'm up for that. I don't know if that'll cause issues on deciding things....but I guess that's not a huge problem..think a majority of things aren't going to need selectiveness.

[Lumlight]

Hey all,

First, I think this has been a very interesting discussion, and appreciate all of the officers's encouragement for member feedback. [img]smile.gif[/img] A couple things to consider have come to mid.

I agree that there should be more bankers, and can see all officers being bankers as well. It makes it easier for members to be able to take care of all guild stuff with any officer. I wonder if new officers should be given the responsibility of banker; perhaps there could be an officer probabtion period or something like that. First of all, we don't want to overwhelm new officers, and secondly this would give us some time to see how the new officers interact with members and the established guild leadership. This is by no means intended to show a lack of confidence in our newest officers, just throwing it out there for those who know more about the history of the guild.

Secondly, the loot rules don't seem to quite fit with my experiences raiding with the guild. It took a long time for me to be able to attend a raid for RL reasons, but I had grouped with many of you quite a bit. I was encouraged to roll on loot when I could use it on my first raid, even when I personally had doubts about whether I should. Perhaps the friendliness of the guild is being lost in the formality of official rules. I can see adding recent attendance to the loot rules in some cases in order to not feel like guests or alts are using LDK to benefit themselves and their main's guild, but I would discourage using attendance requirements for mains in the guild that come to raids when possible. I think Kaye has some interesting points relating to this as well. Maybe this won't be as much of an issue since we are raiding/large grouping more often (which I have really enjoyed, by the way), but I think that people who attend when able, no matter how rarely, should be able to roll on items. After all, they have contributed to that mission, and over the long run have incentive to attend the raids. They won't get items every raid, but can slowly progress their characters by raiding when their schedule allows.

Also pertaining to looting rules, I don't quite understand the reasons Edi has for proposing that distribution of no drop items happens after the raid. It seems to me that people drift out of the raid over time, without really knowing when the same group of people will be gathered again. It seems more simple to determine looting while it is clear who is eligible and everyone is still there, instead of trying to gather all the casters for a random at a later time, for instance.

I promised myself I'd make this short...not sure that's what I did, tho...

Take care all,
Lumlight

[Lumlight]

Hey all,

First, I think this has been a very interesting discussion, and appreciate all of the officers's encouragement for member feedback. [img]smile.gif[/img] A couple things to consider have come to mid.

I agree that there should be more bankers, and can see all officers being bankers as well. It makes it easier for members to be able to take care of all guild stuff with any officer. I wonder if new officers should be given the responsibility of banker; perhaps there could be an officer probabtion period or something like that. First of all, we don't want to overwhelm new officers, and secondly this would give us some time to see how the new officers interact with members and the established guild leadership. This is by no means intended to show a lack of confidence in our newest officers, just throwing it out there for those who know more about the history of the guild.

Secondly, the loot rules don't seem to quite fit with my experiences raiding with the guild. It took a long time for me to be able to attend a raid for RL reasons, but I had grouped with many of you quite a bit. I was encouraged to roll on loot when I could use it on my first raid, even when I personally had doubts about whether I should. Perhaps the friendliness of the guild is being lost in the formality of official rules. I can see adding recent attendance to the loot rules in some cases in order to not feel like guests or alts are using LDK to benefit themselves and their main's guild, but I would discourage using attendance requirements for mains in the guild that come to raids when possible. I think Kaye has some interesting points relating to this as well. Maybe this won't be as much of an issue since we are raiding/large grouping more often (which I have really enjoyed, by the way), but I think that people who attend when able, no matter how rarely, should be able to roll on items. After all, they have contributed to that mission, and over the long run have incentive to attend the raids. They won't get items every raid, but can slowly progress their characters by raiding when their schedule allows.

Also pertaining to looting rules, I don't quite understand the reasons Edi has for proposing that distribution of no drop items happens after the raid. It seems to me that people drift out of the raid over time, without really knowing when the same group of people will be gathered again. It seems more simple to determine looting while it is clear who is eligible and everyone is still there, instead of trying to gather all the casters for a random at a later time, for instance.

I promised myself I'd make this short...not sure that's what I did, tho...

Take care all,
Lumlight

[Mymy42]

I agree about not forking over alot of responsibilities to new officers right away..

..officer probation..I guess that's kind of happening in my mind. By no means is that anything official but I'm trying to be in tune with how well our newly-ranked officers are doing. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the other more senior officers are doing that, too. However I have no doubt that they interact well with members..IMO they've done that all along. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Perhaps the friendliness of the guild is being lost in the formality of official rules.

And this is why I wanted to make more people, members rather, get involved on the forum..because this is their guild too. I wanted to hear their imput on what we're considering implementing. Unfortunately they haven't exactly been flocking down here to get involved with the decision making, so that leaves us to try and guess what they'll really be okay with or not. (Speaking of which, thank you, Lumlight, for your imput because you're one of the only members who's interested in being involved in this)

The point of the LC (I guess my interpretation, rather) was to try and address some issues with loot. Here are basically the goals behind it:

1) Try to better distribute loot amongst LDKers. Some examples of this issue..1 person winning say 3 spell parchments/runes. Depending on how many people attending the raid want to random on them, LC could decide 1 spell parchment/rune per person. That way the scenario turns into 3 people each getting a spell upgrade of some sort. This could easily translate into armor upgrades as well..one person couldn't win multiple upgrades for themselves. (Of course exceptions could be made..obviously if something is going to rot and someone who has all ready won something is the only one that wants it or is able to use it, then they'd get it) This pretty much equivilates to more people getting something out of attending a raid, which IMO would make more members happy.

2) Hopefully, distribute loot in a way that would also help benefit and progress the guild, while NOT being too overbearing. This sounds a tad redundant I guess, but...There are simply some cases, or will be cases, when a really nice raid item drops and alot of people will want to random. Included in this bunch of people may be people who are highly or relatively active on joining raids, some who join raids as much as their scheduel allows, perhaps guests outside of LDK will join raids, and maybe there will even be times when LDKers who are just..well..lazy and don't join a raid because they don't like the zone or they don't think it'll be fun or that they saw a better raid/grouping opportunity..whatever..and tend to skip raids for those reasons..will want to /random on a fantastic item that just dropped on a raid they just so happened to decide to join.

As of right now I think just about every LDKer who can make it, does make it, and if people honestly can't make it to sunday raids then they..well...don't make it. So narrowing /randoms down by raid attendence won't be a hit for most people. However, the outside of LDK guests and lazier members, should we have them (which I think is bound to happen at some point as we grow) can be eliminated from randoms because the item would get more use from the more actively participating people on the raid. So..I guess this is more of a in-the-future kind of thing because we don't have many guests/lazy members yet, but still, it wouldn't hurt to put the LC into action to get some practice and make things run smoother...as well as figure out what does and what does not work ahead of time.

***The LC will NOT go through elimination rounds for every single item (I hope), and as Edi posted earlier, the LC can stop at any elimination round (1, 2...5, ect) depending on how many are interested in randoming and the number of people left in to random***

Here's a recap of what guidelines we came up with so far (these are still up for debate and are not set in stone) to help select, if needed, the best suited attenders to /random on an item:

1) eliminate the class/races that cant use it (obviously)
2) eliminate the raiders who have a similar item that is better (obviously)
3) eliminate alts
4) eliminate nonguildees (exception: regular raid attendees..see #6)
5) eliminate raiders who have looted an item already this raid (exception: see #7)
6) eliminate raiders who have attended less than 2 raids in past month (this shall include impromptu raids) (nonguildees who Have attended raids frequently, may not be eliminated in step...We will most likely NOT keep detailed records of attendance, but will make this decision based on the overall feeling of the loot counsel.
7) Add a raider who has previously received an item this raid, but who is active and needs this item, for the benefit of LDK (determined by loot counsel).

Clearly the first two rules are a given; if someone isn't physically able use the item and if the item isn't an actual upgrade for them, then they shouldn't/wouldn't get to random.

As for number 3 and 4..these we discussed a little bit more, because sometimes an alt can/will be brought pretty frequently to raids and there can/will be some outside-of-LDK guests who join us fairly often as well..I want to suggest moving those down the list. Raid attendence should be more important than if they're an alt or not LDK-tagged yet (IMO).

5 makes sense too, because it helps to make sure more people get something from the raid, but it should probably be higher up on the ranking..perhaps it should be number 3.

The basic idea of 6, that the people who attend once every blue moon, could/should be eliminated from the random, depending on how nice the dropped item is and how many people want to /random ..but we're still discussing if we should/shouldn't actually tally raid attendence and keep a standardized attendence rule (like making it to at least 2 raids in the past month, for example)...or if this should just be based entirely off of the LC's gut feeling on who are the frequent and ifrequent raiders.

..my personal opinion is having a (leniant)standardized rule and keeping track of attendence. This, plain and simple, will cut down on discrepancy. If alts and non-guildie allies attend raids regularly enough to not be eliminated by this rule, then congrats, they should be able to random. (However, if the item is soo awesome that the LC feels that it should stay in the hands of LDKers or go to someone's main...or both...then alts/non-guildies can be eliminated. In other words, the alt/non-guildie rules will be dropped further down the list of guidelines).

Once again, I still think the raid attendence as of now is pretty good..people make it when they can, which seems to be most of the time..and making a standardized attendence tally and rule fairly leniant, because atm we don't need it to be very strict, then it (hopefully) won't infringe on the "friendliness" of randoms, as Lumlight said. Yet, it would still cut out those 1 time guests and future-members who decide to skip a majority of raids...

Rule 7..I suppose this makes some sense to me, since we're adding this person into the random and not just directly meriting the item..

Soo..I guess here's how I think the rounds should be listed (round 5 and 6 can be interchangable):

1) eliminate the class/races that cant use it (obviously)
2) eliminate the raiders who are not upgraded by the item (obviously)
3) eliminate raiders who have looted an item already this raid (exception: see #7)
4) eliminate raiders who do not attend raids relatively frequently
5) eliminate nonguildees
6) eliminate alts
*7) Add a raider who has previously received an item this raid, but who is active and needs this item, for the benefit of LDK (determined by loot counsel).

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 08, 2006 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Kayeotic Bladesiren ]</font>

[Mymy42]

Whoops, I forgot to mention this somewhere in that massive post, but I guess that's okay because isolating this question will draw attention to it..

...but..as you guys know some people simply can't raid on Sunday, or miss some Sunday raids because something comes up, yet these people may be extremely (or relatively) active Monday-Saturday....I think they'd use an item enough to deffinitely be considered and allowed to /random....what do you guys think? and...how/where would we put this in the guidelines?

[Mymy42]

Wow I forgot alot of stuff...

To respond to Lumlight asking about why hold the droppable items until after the raid or whatever..I don't think I get that either hehe. Think Edi's idea was to not stand around on a raid trying to figure out who the item goes to because it's well droppable anyway..but this is pretty minor..it doesn't at all take up much time on a raid to /random a droppable item if anybody wants it.

[Elatetrout]

With our new shown interest into daily raiding/grouping, i think that all members will have adequate chance to get involved. If we decide to actually record attendance, these midweek raids need to be recorded as well; thus giving every single member the chance to NOT be eliminated from randoms for attendance.

As far as looting all the droppable items for later distribution....I just would like the items to be picked up immediately incase of repops or if a train comes. We can distribute them immediately, provided its safe [img]smile.gif[/img] .

I agree with the new (Kaye's) elimination restructuring. However the alt step perhaps needs more discussion....perhaps even removed. This is why: alts often come by necessity, not necesarily choice. I believe an alt should be treated as if he were a main for this. So, an alt who has attended frequently may be able to escape the attendance elimination step. But an alt does deserve less chance than a main even if both attend the same. As long as we remind ourselves during the attendance elimination step, that we are judging the attendance of Elatetrout, not of Ediena, when Elate wants an item, we are fine [img]smile.gif[/img] . Not sure i totally like it...but i think it should work... Perhaps if you want your alt to get some item, maybe the best way is to designate the entire raid for that item, which brings me to a point not yet put into the loot guidelines which should be: Raids for specific item for specific person; that item will always go to that person.

Thanks for your input everyone, I think we are coming to some good conclusions...
Id like to know if any think that a more structured and guided LDK makes it less fun, and if so what we can do to accomplish both. Hopefully, once we get used to using this system, it will not be a burden on anyone, just a way of life.

Good Hunting LDK,
Ediena

[nymersk]

hello again i have read the guild rules and i agree with all i see

[Conred]

A few more comments:

1) I think there should be simple rules for raid loot. Complicated rules might be interpreted differently by different people or even differently by the same person under different conditions.

2) If someone is to keep a record of who attended what raids, then that recordkeeper MUST be in all raids. Otherwise, no one can say for sure what a players attendence really was?

3) The "loot claim order" that I set up in Ver 3 is somewhat similar to the rules Kay has posted. The LC can overrule everything first. After that the order is:
-Guild Char in raid.
-Alt of Guild Char in raid.
-Guild bank.
-Nonguild char in raid.
-Alt of Nonguild char in raid.
-Any other guildies not in raid.

4) The more players who are LC, the more delay as they exchange tells trying to make a decision.

Just remember, my opinion + 25 cents = a quarter of a dollar.