ALL GUILDS PLEASE READ -- Establishing Guild Precedent

Sharaya · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:10 pm

I'm really trying to understand what this whole thing is all about. Basically, am I correct in that this guild is basically about having a set group of people that routinely explore all the ages and current areas for changes and new content? Okay. So then what?

The Guild does what with this knowledge? They post spoiler threads about it? Is that what this is about? Not wanting another group to do the same thing? Or not wanting anyone else to have the right to post spoiler threads about new content?

Or is it a pride thing? Having to be the first to know stuff?

I'm sure there are explorers who do this each time they log on.

There is the Guild of Greeter's who greet new people and are nice and friendly. They do a great job of welcoming newcomers. Does that mean other people can't/shouldn't be allowed to do that because it's their exclusive right?

The minute I hear people talking about "rights" and "exclusivity" it bothers me. However, I'm a very openminded person. I'd really like to understand what you are trying to say here or to make happen.

b-guy · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:15 pm

While the point on the ancient Guild system of Europe is interesting, I agree more with the above point that that system doesn't match the D'Ni Guild system.

While having two towns, each with a Guild of Blacksmiths, might make sense in Europe, in D'Ni it would be repatitive and inefficient.

I suppose we would need to have a more rigid definition of the Guilds and their roles, but then perhaps we might have different groups that belong to each Guild.

On the other hand, my impression of D'Ni culture was that only certain people could become Guildsman. It wasn't a title that was just handed to you, like a club membership. You had to work and be educated for it. Sort of like getting university degree, only you started your Guild training at age 4. (I think).

From an In-Cavern perspective, part of me really doesn't approve of people declaring themselves Guildsmen (or women).

Marten · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:33 pm

crimson/Montgomery,

I'm not registered at uruguilds so like others before me, I prefer to respond here. I hope that is OK. It seems you're monitoring this discussion anyway.

OOC, I would like to see a little more direction from RAWA on exactly how closely Cyan expects players to emulate the D'ni guilds. Which type of Guild system are we rebuilding? Pre-Kerath, or post-Kerath? According to the story, there are multiple causes to blame for the fall of D'ni. One of those causes is the guilds. As I recall, Kerath handed power over to the guilds, and this handover of power precipitated or contributed to the end of D'ni civilization.

If we rebuild the Guilds, I don't want to see them "governing" the cavern on the IC half of things. I feel that the governing body needs to remain separate. Some have said the DRC is "governing" the Cavern now, but others refute that claim. If the DRC isn't governing, then that seems to imply that the Guilds will be governing, and ICly, my character fears that.

What I'm trying to say is: The Guilds don't have to be exactly as they were before the Fall. They probably shouldn't be like that. And that may mean... that some guilds check and balance each other (in the way the US government is meant to work - stop, let's not get into that topic). Some may see some overlap in what the Guilds do. But that may be a good thing... ok?

earthwizard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:44 pm

I'll be up front: the AoG is not and will never be a governing body... this is not nor has been our Mission: click here.

Our view of the guild systems is non-hierarchical and openly democratic, and we will never tell any group how they should enforce their own rules or bylaws. Our mission is plain and simple, to be a communicative organ that represents all groups and we will never enter into a political arena.

We will remain a neutral voice for all groups, and help in the empowerment and enrichment of the explorer community by providing a knowldge base and set of tools that allows them to make up their own mind about the differing groups and how they want to participate in the groups.

All the groups are independent of the AoG, and that is the way it will remain. Unlike the ancient Guild Council we are not a body of governance to lord it over anyone. We are here only to allow people to understand and have a chance to get to know the many groups by letting the groups themselves have their own voice and presence within the AoG community on an equalitarian basis, not as some elected or goverened body of political feasance.

This is one of the problems with the old style guild systems, that they were fiercely contested arenas of competition and secrecy, with elected offcials and governing laws and bylaws. It may be that the whole concept of guilds has too much of a tangled history to ever work in a new style within the cavern. We hope this is not so, that is why we felt that a neutral approach was necessary in the first place.

A non-group (which is what the AoG is) that could be a voice for all groups, a non-entity that would never have any other power than to be a serving host for all groups and coordinate Town Halls, communication, and events that allow the explorer community and the guilds to interact with each other and the DRC. This is our only stated goal and mission.

In some ways, our sister organization, The D'ni Network, is already doing just that, and we at the AoG have asked that we become a part of their wider network of communicative practices. So we are hoping to actually merge into the stream of this great organization which is already doing successfully what we had originally intended. So our funcition will remain a limited one: to serve both the groups and the explorer community in a communicative way, and to back the DRC in their Restoration efforts.

I personally hope the whole guild system will never ever be built on the same principles as the old D'ni system which was strictly hierarchical and political. We are a different people with other needs and goals in the explorer community, and most of the members already distrust the idea of groups and guilds to begin with to suddenly be looking for governance and enforcement of which you speak.

So no... the AoG will never stand behind such ideas of governance and political infighting, nor do we see the new guilds, groups, associations, or organizations at all in the same light as the old D'ni systems. Most of the existing groups are very much partnership affairs of like minded individuals who come together to share their skills and knowledge in localized ways to help the explorer community. That is all.

You can take a look at The D'ni Linguistic Society, The Guild of Cartographers, The D'ni Zoologicial Society, and many many more that are both outside and inside the presence of the AoG and find nothing of the old style guilds in this sense (even if there are playful aspects of the inner sanctions for demonstrative reasons) yet all share one thing in common: they are filled with caring individuals whose only goal is to learn, share, and use their specific skills to engender respect, trust, and encourgement among their fellow explorers.

So let's not ever go down the political path with this.... never!

your buddy in the zone, earthwiz

Zardoz · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:50 pm

Rils wrote:

Since the model that's being emulated is based on the D'ni version of Guilds, I think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of monopoly to be granted. Having 3 or 4 different groups all trying to do the same thing is really inefficient, and leads to a lot of needless confusion and frustration.

b-guy wrote:

While the point on the ancient Guild system of Europe is interesting, I agree more with the above point that system doesn't match the D'Ni Guild system.

While having two towns, each with a Guild of Blacksmiths, might make sense in Europe, in D'Ni it would be repetitive and inefficient.

I would respectively disagree with both of these conclusions for two reasons.

First, if we are trying to re-create the D’ni society we encounter in the books, then my arguments are moot, because the only thing that matters is historical accuracy. But that point of view begs the important question, Why re-create that society? I’d rather think about whether something is going to work or not, not whether it precisely matches some precedent found in a fictional universe. We’re talking about Guilds populated by real human beings (or at least their on-line versions), not by fictional characters who magically seem to avoid all the flaws and warts that come from human frailty. And in any case, the portrayal of Guilds in the Myst books wasn’t exactly flattering, if I recall, so why would we want to emulate them?

Second, the argument that having more than one guild-like organization will be “inefficient” is hard to support. Monopolies are “efficient” when they are “natural” - that is, when whatever it is they’re producing gets cheaper and cheaper to produce the greater the quantity. It’s hard to find “natural” monopolies in the real world (public utilities were long treated that way), but I think this argument is coming from a different direction. If there is only one “best” way to do something, why have more than one group do it? Competition in that case seems to promote inefficiency, as explorers are then faced with multiple sources of an identical “product,” and so waste time and effort making sure that they really are identical.

But I just don’t see that as being true in this case. We have multiple forums because different groups of people like to congregate in different ways. Do they duplicate one another in some ways? Yes. Are they providing an identical “service” for people who enjoy Uru and other Cyan games? A resounding No. The multiplicity of forums reflects the diversity of the Uru community, and I see no reason to force it all into one place just in the name of “efficiency.” Similarly, I see no justification for granting monopoly status to a single organization just because some of its services might be duplicated elsewhere. If someone can do it better or do it differently, they should be allowed to give it a try. Will there be duplication and some “inefficiency”? Yes, of course, but so too will there be freedom to try new ideas without the oppressive force of a monopoly Guild system to cast doubt on the legitimacy of those ideas.

Eleri · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:03 pm

earthwizard wrote:

A non-group (which is what the AoG is) that could be a voice for all groups, a non-entity that would never have any other power than to be a serving host for all groups and coordinate Town Halls, communication, and events that allow the explorer community and the guilds to interact with each other and the DRC. This is our only stated goal and mission.

In some ways, our sister organization, The D'ni Network, is already doing just that, and we at the AoG have asked that we become a part of their wider network of communicative practices. So we are hoping to actually merge into the stream of this great organization which is already doing successfully what we had originally intended. So our funcition will remain a limited one: to serve both the groups and the explorer community in a communicative way, and to back the DRC in their Restoration efforts.

Over at the D'net, we couldn't be more thrilled to be collaborating with the AoG this way. By giving all the myriad groups forming in the cavern an equal share at the table, a way they know they can be heard and counted through the AoG, and then by the D'net being able to bring those voices into D'ni, and to the masses, we'll make sure that no group has to struggle to be heard, and explorers can find the groups they want to join, or debate, or converse with.

earthwizard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:13 pm

Zardoz wrote:

The multiplicity of forums reflects the diversity of the Uru community, and I see no reason to force it all into one place just in the name of “efficiency.” Similarly, I see no justification for granting monopoly status to a single organization just because some of its services might be duplicated elsewhere. If someone can do it better or do it differently, they should be allowed to give it a try. Will there be duplication and some “inefficiency”? Yes, of course, but so too will there be freedom to try new ideas without the oppressive force of a monopoly Guild system to cast doubt on the legitimacy of those ideas.

I agree with you completely on this point and one of the problems with the use of the term "guild system" ... it seems that there is so many tangled notions wrapped around the use of this historical term that maybe we should rethink which direction we're heading. I assumed, probably wrong-headly, that we could develop non-hierarchical, open and democratic systems that would lead to greater freedom rather than power and tighter control.

I was just rereading an article on Bldblog.com about the architect, Constant Nieuwenhuys, who back in 1956 developed New Babylon in the hopes of creating an environment based upon situationist ideals.

So New Babylon begins with this thought: what if you never had to work – so you could be a child your whole life? New Babylon begins with the thought that a real revolutionary society would not be one in which the workers overthrew the bosses, or, in Marxist terms, a society in which capitalism would eat itself and give way to a new order; the real revolution would be that technology would take away the political advantage of the boss vs. the worker. A real revolutionary society would be a society of the unconscious, and the freedom with which children explore whatever comes into their minds would be the sign of a liberated society.

But what I think is being said is: that’s all very well, if you think that a playground is really a space of free movement. Because, of course, a playground is also a space of total control – it has an inside and an outside; there are only so many things you can do inside it; and there is always somebody watching. So the playground is also a space of surveillance and so on. You could say that the nightmare of Constant’s project is that you never get out of the playground.

So we could stress the point about the supposed meaning of a society of liberation is actually a total form of absolute control over society.

Ok, you say, what does this have to do with guilds? Nothing and everything. Uru is our playground, the place we come to explore the D'ni culture and civilization. So what type of playground are we going to make of it? Are we going to make it a survellance, rule bound hierarchical realm of guilds systems full of secret handshakes, rules, bylaws and protracted politics of descension. Are is there another path, another way to form groups based on a more liberated standard?

Is it possible for us to be united in our diversty without the need for some kind of "authority"? Couldn't we agree to base our social interactions on the basic premise of fellowship and dialogue, rather than on political expediency?

The whole idea of "monoploy" and "legitimacy" goes against the grain of everything I personally believe in, so I have serious doubts how the guild system will ever work if conducted in the old ways.

just my feelings, earthwiz

Andrew Eldred · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:16 pm

I'd like to toss out another voice against exclusivity.

How I see it: until Cyan gets around to establishing their official Guilds of D'ni, I don't think anyone should claim to be a guild of D'ni. I don't see any problem with people forming groups and calling themselves "guilds"--but this is most related, not to the guilds of D'ni or medieval Europe, but rather to the OOC guilds of any other online game.

Often those video game guilds use names from the game itself, but this doesn't make them any more official or more deserving of exclusivity. I think at this point in the argument it's important that we recognize the difference, in MO:UL between guilds (lowercase) and Guilds. One of these is an organization of explorers who enjoy doing one particular activity or another as a team; the other is an artifact of D'ni history, that may or may not be brought back to life (and there's even controversy over whether or not it should). I can't see anyway a group of explorers could claim to be more of an official "Guild" than another except through the support of Cyan. So lacking that, all we are forming are "guilds" (lowercase), and to try to maintain exclusivity in this area would amount to nothing more than bullying of new players.

And it's this last point that I'd like to drive home: if we decide that exclusivity should be had by all the existing guilds, we're going to end up being the ones enforcing this. That means crushing the hopes and ideas of a lot of newcomers. It also means forming our own elitist caste system, one centered not around ability, but around the explorers that have been in-cavern longest.

All around I think exclusivity is a bad idea for the growth of the game.

BladeLakem · **Joined:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:58 am **Posts:** 582

I'd like to encourage people to look for ways to work together where they can, just because it generally makes things better for everyone involved. Do you really need to set up Yet Another Forum, or can you use an existing one? Does your group really need its own Bevin? Etc.

But, as Zardoz points out, it shouldn't be compulsory. If you think you can do it better, give people something that others don't, etc, then more power to ya. /thumbsup

Alahmnat · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:00 pm

To put my personal 25 cents in, since I'm part of this, however directly or indirectly...

I get the feeling that the guild system is trying to emulate the ResEng setup, with separate avatars and special prefixes and designated on-duty hours and regimens of behavior and dress... there's a good deal of exclusivity inherent in this concept, and if there's one thing in this community that breeds some degree of contempt, it's exclusivity...

I think that any guilds that get formed should follow the example of the Greeters, not the ResEngs... the ResEngs aren't just Cyan-sanctioned, they're Cyan-employed, and that's a huge difference between them and the GoG. The Greeters are an official in-game Guild, but their organization is, for the very most part, a very lax one. Members have (or at least, had, I dunno how it works exactly these days) set times during which they are expected to be in-uniform and in the GoG 'hood, but outside of those times, they can wear their own clothes and socialize as any other explorer would. There is a level of familiarity with the Greeters that this system fosters, rather than the exclusivity inherent in the "PreFix AvatarName" notion.

Winding my way back around to the Archivists thing... I think that the duties should be constrained to the duties that the Archivists performed in D'ni, if we're going to be emulating that system. So, while I certainly agree that there should be cooperation between the Linguists, the Cartographers, the Learners, the DZS, etc., I don't think that the Archivists should act as an "umbrella organization" for all of these various groups. The Archivists should be focused on recording history and information, but they should also not be the sole point of access for all of this information.

For example, let's take the Pod Ages. The Archivists would take photos of the Pods, record information about the environments and the events that took place both within and outside the Age (for example, Sharper's expedition happened in Negilahn, so obviously that should be recorded in Negilahn's information, but so should the circumstances and events surrounding the release of the Pod Book to explorers), and put it all in an "entry" on a website. For the sake of argument, I'm currently talking with Montgomery and his team about using DPWR, since that's what it's there for. This entry on DPWR might reference other entries on the site, like a more general one about the Pod Age itself - which in turn might refer to the Linguists' website for translations of the Pod Age map - or to the Cartographers' website for explorer-made maps of the Pods. There is, then, a network of information and resources at the disposal of explorers, and this fosters cooperation rather than competition between groups.

Now, on the subject of membership, as I said, I'm not a fan of the "PreFix Avatarname" setup... it feels way too officious, and on top of that, it's a pain to keep two avatars up-to-date when one will suffice. I think membership in the guilds should be open to everyone, as seems to be the intention. New explorers just getting started who are interested in participating as just as valuable as long-time explorers who have walked through Delin's snowstorms up-hill both ways. The challenge here comes in transitioning what has always been a purely OOC construct (DPWR's Archive) into an IC organization. A one-to-one conversion would have the Archivists simply being the DPWR staff members, and membership in the Guild would carry some form of additional control on the OOC-side of things. In this case, membership isn't really completely open, though participation certainly is... anyone can contribute to the Archive, but the Archivists are the ones who are tasked with making sure the information is accurate and up-to-date. It's a fine hair to split, but it's there to be split, and I've split it, so there

.

I suppose that setup carries with it a certain amount of exclusivity in membership, but as I said, participation is always open to everyone, whether it's IC telling an Archivist about something they've seen/heard, or OOC putting more information into an entry in the Archive. I don't see how having these groups set up automatically crushes the hopes of newcomers... if participation remains open as an avenue to membership (I've "promoted" people in the past who have shown themselves to be knowledgeable enough to help manage the Archive, to continue the example), then newcomers have as much chance to join a guild as long-standing players... though obviously with a group like the Archivists, the longer you're involved, the more you know and the more you can contribute (an "in" could be joining Montgomery's Guild of Inspectors... you learn the ropes of the Archive and get a quick feel for D'ni and its history). The objectives and purposes of some groups is simply more "exclusive" than others by design... I don't think that means we shouldn't pursue these goals (I obviously think recording the information and history of the game is a valid and important goal), but rather that we need to foster participation, especially with newcomers, so that the guild doesn't become an elitist group of old-timers.

[quick edit] All that said, I don't think the guilds should be some incredibly infrastructured thing with lots of rules, regulations, and requirements... it should be fun, because this is ultimately a game and the point of any game is to have fun. When a game becomes work because of the requirements it imposes, it's not fun anymore. Wherever this goes, I think the primary focus should be on having fun, not on establishing rules and regulations.

quahog42 · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:05 am **Posts:** 152

I'd much more like to see groups in the cavern start out just as a loose group of explorers actually archiving or maintaining, and gaining a reputation. And then that group would, by doing that, earn a Guild title. Not the other way 'round.

Andrew Eldred · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:20 pm

Quote:

All that said, I don't think the guilds should be some incredibly infrastructured thing with lots of rules, regulations, and requirements... it should be fun, because this is ultimately a game and the point of any game is to have fun. When a game becomes work because of the requirements it imposes, it's not fun anymore. Wherever this goes, I think the primary focus should be on having fun, not on establishing rules and regulations.

I completely agree with that!

As for "crushing newcomers," my wording may have been a little strong. I still think this is an important point, however. The problem isn't that newcomers would be barred entry into existing guilds, but rather that newcomers are going to be barred from creating their own guilds.

I know that immediately some of you are going to protest that the only reason someone would want to form their own guild would be greed, or pride, or one of those vices this forum seems to love applying to anyone and anything. But as much as you might wish it, Uru isn't a game that comes with a built in morality. Both IC and OoC, we should leave room for all types of people, and we should expect all types.

When a newcomer enters the cavern and decides he/she wants to start a guild so all of his friends can play together, we shouldn't be shooting that newcomer down. As much as all of you may wish it, your guilds are no more official than anyone else's, and if someone wants to run their own they should be allowed to.

Tweek · **Joined:** Tue May 09, 2006 12:11 am **Posts:** 2633

Alah pretty much summed up my view on it.

Nadnerb · **Joined:** Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:02 am **Posts:** 590

quahog42 wrote:

I'd much more like to see groups in the cavern start out just as a loose group of explorers actually archiving or maintaining, and gaining a reputation. And then that group would, by doing that, earn a Guild title. Not the other way 'round.

Sounds great! Why not do your proposed job first, and then, if it works out well, you can guild-ify it. Much better to be well known for doing something neat or innovative, than to be well known for proposing the creation an exclusive sounding group to do something, and in doing so, becoming the center of a sort of mini-scandal.

I agree with whoever didn't like the idea of alternate avatars. If you intend to be an IC group, this completely breaks it. I don't have multiple bodies who use alternate names that I run around in when I'm doing other jobs. You're the same person you normally are, you just happen to also be a part of a group. I agree with whoever mentioned the guild of greeters. They wear a uniform of sorts on the job, but they aren't completely different people.
As you-are-you and I-am-me, I try to only use my one main avatar for pretty much everything, except in cases where using my main avvie would be incredibly inconvenient.

And finally (more agreement), I do not believe any group should be given exclusive rights to do anything. We're explorers, we're here to explore, and many people do on their own what may groups purport to do. I check everywhere I can think of for changes and try to help new players all the time, this doesn't make me an archiver or a greeter.

I will now cease repeating and paraphrasing the words of other people that I agree with.

Montgomery · **Posted:** Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:29 am

Alright, here's the thing about alternate avatars.

1) it has nothing to do with being exclusive.
2) it lets all members join a guild hood without having to give up our prefered hoods.
3) it lets us create a buddy list that contains only fellow guild members (we probably don't need both 2 and 3).
4) it let's us establish a uniform without having to change out of it everytime we go "off duty." Our job is to make a run through our sector and make not of anything different. The rest of the time, maybe we don't want to wear the uniform.
5) it allows us to implement "Shared Age Instancing" -- which means that one of us (me) will send an invite to each of my shareable Ages to every one of my fellow guild members. Then, by using the Nexus, we have essentially created a hood instance of the entire game (except our Reltos, Clefts, Bahro Caves, and balconies, etc. This is useful for
6) Training Games, which I have invented. These games -- Capture the Flag and Scvanger Hunt" -- are team games which only work using a combination of exclusive Buddy Lists and Shared Age Instancing.

We simply could not do this without alternate avvies. However, I'm beginning to think this isn't actually vital for our primary guild function, and instead I could start a whole different project just for explorers who want to play these games.

I'm going to have to think about this.

ALL GUILDS PLEASE READ -- Establishing Guild Precedent

Who is online