Tweet
As the rules stand right now on how leadership is handled, I think it has the potential to become a serious problem, unless I am misunderstanding this description.
First of all, 3 days is far to short of a time to just toss leadership to someone else. Life is cruel at times and so is nature. You're not accounting for the fact that a leader could be stuck in an unexpected situation to where they cannot log in at the time, such as losing electricity for several days due to natural disasters (like the hurricane hitting us now), or an unfortunate accident that sends them to the hospital, etc. There are many things that can go wrong that we do not plan for and I think just handing leadership over to the "highest contribution member" is ridiculous. This can be a potential hazard if leadership ends up in the wrong hands. The member that automatically gets handed leadership might decide to take it upon themselves to disband the group and screw everyone over who had been saving up contributions to spend later. Contribution is lost once the Guild is disbanded. That said, I think the time should be extended to at least 7 days, and there should be a way to select ONLY trusted members to take over leadership in your absence. It should never go to just anyone in order to avoid such a situation.
The "There are 2 vice leaders whose contributions are lower than the leader" part isn't quite clear. Is this calculated before or after the 'member with the highest contribution?' Either way it's a bad idea. We need a trusted members list to lock who can and cannot control the guild. Or at least make it that leadership can never fall to someone who hasn't been assigned the role of 'Vice Leader.' Only the true leaders of a group should ever have control of the guild because they're the ones who care about the group the most and would not suddenly disband it for no reason, unless they were terrible people. :/
First of all, 3 days is far to short of a time to just toss leadership to someone else. Life is cruel at times and so is nature. You're not accounting for the fact that a leader could be stuck in an unexpected situation to where they cannot log in at the time, such as losing electricity for several days due to natural disasters (like the hurricane hitting us now), or an unfortunate accident that sends them to the hospital, etc. There are many things that can go wrong that we do not plan for and I think just handing leadership over to the "highest contribution member" is ridiculous. This can be a potential hazard if leadership ends up in the wrong hands. The member that automatically gets handed leadership might decide to take it upon themselves to disband the group and screw everyone over who had been saving up contributions to spend later. Contribution is lost once the Guild is disbanded. That said, I think the time should be extended to at least 7 days, and there should be a way to select ONLY trusted members to take over leadership in your absence. It should never go to just anyone in order to avoid such a situation.
The "There are 2 vice leaders whose contributions are lower than the leader" part isn't quite clear. Is this calculated before or after the 'member with the highest contribution?' Either way it's a bad idea. We need a trusted members list to lock who can and cannot control the guild. Or at least make it that leadership can never fall to someone who hasn't been assigned the role of 'Vice Leader.' Only the true leaders of a group should ever have control of the guild because they're the ones who care about the group the most and would not suddenly disband it for no reason, unless they were terrible people. :/
Comment