|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Dead Polly Closed, old, and discarded polls |
|
Login or Register now to see less ads. |
| View Poll Results: Would you like to have invisible Officers in a guild? | |||
| Yes |
|
32 | 60.38% |
| No |
|
18 | 33.96% |
| Other |
|
3 | 5.66% |
| Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
But an invisible officer is just like a veteran, no?
A veteran can only recruit, yes. However, they seem lesser than the officer to the rank and file members. Don't get me wrong, veterans are just as important as officers, however, they can only recruit in the members eyes, so there's no reason to behave. Part of a veterans job is to report any mis-doings to an officer. The officer can take further action. Invisible can mean many things. But the visible who can act invisible are truly dangerous. There's no need for an invisible officer if you have a rank such as veteran. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Technically no.
A Veteran only has the power to recruit, which is my point. They can't boot anybody if an Officer isn't online. Being a Guildmaster, I can count off a list of things that would require immediate reprimandation, such as griefing. Of course, if an Officer isn't "online," the griefer can't be dealt with. That's why "invisible officers" would be needed. Of course, then you'll just say "But then why don't you just make him/her an Officer?" Well, it's simple. I have dealt with pirates in both PNC, and other guilds, that come to a guild for the sole purpose of griefing; to ruin the reputation of that guild. Of course, any smart "sleeper cell" wouldn't do it when an authority figure was online. They would wait until no Officer is online before they commence the trouble making. Of course, with invisible officers, the griefers won't know when and when not to do so, and more than likely discourage it. Quote:
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
The only problem i see here is that once that officer member makes a move in guild, his/her hided officer status comes out in public
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
How would that be so? I think that an invisible officer would only have to be used in serious situations - i.e., cases where only a clean, swift ejection, is necessary (which is a rarity, but still,) without the notice saying who did the booting.
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
True but thats only if the old officer version as Davy said is restored where there is no notification. POTCO staff is lazy to change everything the way we want... lol
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|