Dark Legacy MUD Forum

There’s recently been a shift in the guild list with regards to who is Sovereign and who is not. While I sort of agree with most of the choices made, I felt it was necessary to make sure that it was defined properly, in order to reduce the subjectivity involved in the choice and so that there’s no confusion among both Caretakers and players. The original way to become Sovereign was to have all the elements involved (story, requirements), have at least 10 members, and a guild crest made. The last of which is all but forgotten, especially since the DL website has changed and now has less information on it. After submitting all these things, Zeraphin (originally) would decide whether the idea was worthy or not. I’m not sure how he decided, but I think it has been forgotten in time and not passed on to the other Imms. This system looks for quality in the make of the guild, and the list would probably look a lot different than it would now if it was still being used. Why then do I partially agree with most of the choices on the current Sovereign list? Because its also about prominence within the DL community, which relies partly on the overall activity and abundance of members but also who is at the forefront of the social goings-on, whether positive or negative. I believe some attempt should be made to combine these two elements into a system that would better divide Sovereign and non-Sovereign. Its impossible I think to create a purely objective system, but an obscure but high quality guild deserves no more recognition than a popular but poor quality guild. It should be those guilds who achieve both that get put on the Sovereign list.

I believe the scoring should be done by a voting system by the Immortals. Who, I would hope, are more impartial than the pbase, who I feel (in general) would turn it into a popularity contest. The different votes by the Immortals should also average out to form a relatively fair score. They would vote on these different elements, all a score out of 10 (to one decimal place).

-Guild Story
-Guild Requirements
-Guild Ranks (leaders may send in a file explaining ranks/badges)
-Guild Crest

-Prominence (is the guild generally known? Famous? Infamous?)
-Member Activity (hard to define, but I think 4-6 different members logging on everyday for at least an hour would be an active guild)

*Note that I don’t have overall member count in here, because 1) that includes alts and 2) if the members were all active it would provide a very high score for Activity. I also think the 10 member minimum requirement is now for all starting guilds anyway, not sure though.

The average scores (per aspect) should be posted per guild, so that we know how he each guild was judged and so guild leaders know what to improve upon. People can then also send in a post through Issues and Complaints if they wish to challenge a ruling.

I have two ideas for which guilds would then be put on the Sovereign list. It should either be guilds above a certain score (Which I’m not sure of, perhaps a 7 or 8 ) or those guilds that form the top 5 or 6 (or another good number).

Please post any other suggestions or comments, and perhaps this idea or a similar one will get implemented.

I really like this idea. To add to this idea we should use "guild score" to see improvements in different area of each guild. This way if someone asking "why". Its easier and less stressful for the caretaker to just point them out and have the leader know what to do. "Guild Score" should tell all the information that is needed to become Sovereign. (effective enough,improved,stats, and recognition)