Exactly a year ago I formed this guild with casual raiding aims. "Casual raiding" is usually a politically correct term for "low hours HC raiding". If your guild raids "just" 3 times a week, you are casual. Of course you have to keep 80%+ attendance to keep your spot, get the best gear from out of raiding sources, have EJ-approved professions and do exactly as the RL tells on TS.
The only casual playing form is the /trade pug. You want to do something now, you collect people who want the same thing and off you go. Except it doesn't work. Most of the people you would recruit that way are totally useless. The attendance, the gear inspection, the total EJ compliance are needed to signal that you are not one of them. No guild can take chances. After all Blizzard had to nerf 5-mans by that "luck of draw" nonsense or they wiped on Corla. Oh wait, they still wipe on Corla.
Now imagine that you just grab people randomly online and clear BoT in 1:30. Not BoT trash, but Halfus on Heroic and Cho'gall oneshotted. Impossible isn't it? It is that happening when we go raid (which is not always as sometimes we don't have enough wanting to raid). This is the "magic" I was trying to prove. The behavioral rules, that has nothing to do with WoW, like "don't chat about offtopic crap" or "don't use lol" or "don't beg for help" are enough to keep useless people outside. The remaining ones are good players, even if they are new. WoW is not quantum physics. If you are not a moron or a slacker, you can learn it fast.
But here I'm not celebrating that my idea actually worked. I was always sure about that. Actually I don't think anyone questioned that. It looks obvious that if we get rid of people who want to fool around or beg for help, there is no one else left than pros.
I'm celebrating the defeat of the opinion "yes, your rules are good for the army or a workplace, but not for a game where people want fun". I was worried that people will say "the success in a video game doesn't worth missing on the social fun of joking, lolling and the warmth coming from helping each other". I'm celebrating that after a year of rigorously warning everyone who wrote an "i" on guild chat, punishing every fails by 300G fee, letting everyone struggle with gearing up without (unpaid) boosting, there are 200+ people who are still here, voting with their feet that this is a place where playing a game is entertaining.
I'm celebrating the defeat of the core social idea: "you can be successful by being a mean jerk but you can't be happy as you are alone". I'm not alone. Being successful in something doesn't separate you from people or stops you from entertainment. It just separates you from the losers and their shallow lolling.
PS: my post about globalization was updated at the bottom.
The only casual playing form is the /trade pug. You want to do something now, you collect people who want the same thing and off you go. Except it doesn't work. Most of the people you would recruit that way are totally useless. The attendance, the gear inspection, the total EJ compliance are needed to signal that you are not one of them. No guild can take chances. After all Blizzard had to nerf 5-mans by that "luck of draw" nonsense or they wiped on Corla. Oh wait, they still wipe on Corla.
Now imagine that you just grab people randomly online and clear BoT in 1:30. Not BoT trash, but Halfus on Heroic and Cho'gall oneshotted. Impossible isn't it? It is that happening when we go raid (which is not always as sometimes we don't have enough wanting to raid). This is the "magic" I was trying to prove. The behavioral rules, that has nothing to do with WoW, like "don't chat about offtopic crap" or "don't use lol" or "don't beg for help" are enough to keep useless people outside. The remaining ones are good players, even if they are new. WoW is not quantum physics. If you are not a moron or a slacker, you can learn it fast.
But here I'm not celebrating that my idea actually worked. I was always sure about that. Actually I don't think anyone questioned that. It looks obvious that if we get rid of people who want to fool around or beg for help, there is no one else left than pros.
I'm celebrating the defeat of the opinion "yes, your rules are good for the army or a workplace, but not for a game where people want fun". I was worried that people will say "the success in a video game doesn't worth missing on the social fun of joking, lolling and the warmth coming from helping each other". I'm celebrating that after a year of rigorously warning everyone who wrote an "i" on guild chat, punishing every fails by 300G fee, letting everyone struggle with gearing up without (unpaid) boosting, there are 200+ people who are still here, voting with their feet that this is a place where playing a game is entertaining.
I'm celebrating the defeat of the core social idea: "you can be successful by being a mean jerk but you can't be happy as you are alone". I'm not alone. Being successful in something doesn't separate you from people or stops you from entertainment. It just separates you from the losers and their shallow lolling.
PS: my post about globalization was updated at the bottom.
38 comments:
Noone ever said you were going to be alone, don't be silly, Gevlon. The Paragons and Ensidias of the world aren't 'alone' either. They make their success from being mean jerks, just like you.
As always, going back to your original post, 1 year ago:
"The points to be proven (or falsified):
* The behavioral rules of the Ganking project work and perfectly capable to keep M&S out.
* There is no need for "job-like" approach for the raiding. It can be perfectly no-obligation and casual
* There is no need for dedicated leaders if the goals are properly set and feedback can be provided by the system and peers"
You then went on to say:
"I want to prove that PuG got it's bad name not from being without hierarchy but from the complete lack of skill or even human decency of the available playerbase. I want to prove that if people wouldn't be M&S, there would be no need for organizations and obligations."
What have you proven? That raids can be completed by:
* Behavioural rules keeping out the people who don't want to play on your terms. Fair enough - such a project wouldn't work otherwise.
* Some gear restrictions - no raiding unless gear is enchanted, gemmed, itemised appropriately.
* Punishing fails (which are determined through a set of clear rules) with both gold and raid dropping after certain tolerances.
What you haven't addressed, over the last 12 months, is the fact that punishing fails with gold is a gold-version of punishing fails with being dropped from raid. There is still a "job-like" approach to raiding. Or, alternatively, a "small business-like" approach, where you are punished monetarily for your stuff-ups.
The problem with The PuG, in its current incarnation, is that it doesn't meet your original stated goals.
* There are clear obligations and organisations, as listed above.
* You may not have a dedicated official raid leader, but experience shows that when you are not available to lead, your guild fails in both PvE (more examples here) and PvP ventures. Further evidence is the notion that you were up to Al'Akir on March 9 (the blog linked above, where you would not be present for the first kill), and it took a whopping 5 weeks to take it down by April 16 (based on your Saturday updates).
* Even the behavioural rules aren't completely successful as you still end up with M&S (as defined by you) in your guild, just disguised as sheep instead.
As always, Gevlon, you know I'm not trying to belittle what The PuG has achieved. However, let's make it clear - it's moved away from its original purpose, and I think this blog, in which you celebrate the defeat of the social idea that "being a mean jerk = being alone", highlights that fact perfectly - you have changed the purpose of this guild away from what it was designed to be.
Congratulations on a year of the Pug it's been fascinating reading about the evolution of the guild.
As Squish has stated and I agree I'm not convinced that you've proven all the points you set out to prove. What I do believe you've demonstrated is that a structure supported by rules and a leader provides the best environment for achievement.
For me the key takeaway is that your unorthodox approach demonstrates that structures work. Anarchic random selections from trade chat don't work because they don't have a structure supported by rules and a leader.
What would be interesting is if you could take a loling fool, introduce him to the pug and have him achieve something that he wouldn't have otherwise achieved.
"You may not have a dedicated official raid leader, but experience shows that when you are not available to lead, your guild fails in both PvE (more examples here) and PvP ventures."
I will not make comments regarding PvE since I'm not playing PvE with the guild right now.
Regarding PvP I have to disagree with your point of view: there are 3 main forms of PvP we engage in the guild:
TB - we win with or without Glotan. He is responsible and to be credited for motivating a lot of us to it and establishing basic tactics but he is not always around and some of us (from PuG and other guilds also) take up the leadership and I believe have similar success rate.
Arena - Glotan doesn't engage in Arena as far as I know. Most of the guild doesn't either. Some of us do with various degrees of success (nothing stellar, highest rating that I know of is 1800).
RBG's - these are done on several different days and usually Glotan is the one placing them on calendar and is there to (sort of) lead them. In this case I feel it is a matter of personal interest - I believe that Glotan likes rbg's and so shows up for most of them. So do I and many others geared for them. Personally I don't feel that we would fail at rbg's any more than we fail when Glotan is around.
Please don't take it the wrong way, but I don't think you have succeeded in proving anything general enough to be interesting.
"I was worried that people will say "the success in a video game doesn't worth missing on the social fun of joking, lolling and the warmth coming from helping each other"."
There *were* people like that. I am on of them (I was missing joking and warmth, not lols).
I rerolled on your realm, joined the guild, played for some time, then left. The reason I left is because everything on the guild chat was too much of serious business. To set things straight, I never posted anything since I never felt I have anything of value to contribute, but I am OK with being mostly silent, so that's fine and not the reason at all. The real reason is that I have been a witness to a couple of "intelligent fights" involving you, Gevlon, and other 85s, and these fights made it readily apparent that a lot of people are *stressed* about communicating on guild chat. Heck, I wasn't participating in these fights and I felt tension too, and this was distracting me from playing the game and wasn't pleasant at all. Everyone, save for maybe yourself, seem to be extra careful about what they are about to say on the guild chat. That's not a bad thing, but that's something that makes playing less relaxing and more like work. That's like playing in a suit with a tie. There's nothing wrong with it, but some people don't like to wear suits while playing games. I prefer jeans.
Once I got a whisper from a level 1 who noted my guild tag and wanted to chat a bit about how things are before trying to join. A nice guy who rerolled specifically to try the guild out, as I did, he was intent to prepare for the joining exam as best as he could and was very interested to know what happens during it. I assured him there's nothing to worry about, we talked a bit about the guild and he somewhat relaxed. Some 30 minutes later he joined the guild, I congratulated him, he was happy, yadda, yadda. Well, soon after, he made a simple mistake and accidentally mistyped a command that made it into the guild chat. The chat went silent. There was an "intelligent fight" going on, by an unlucky coincidence and it has stopped. Nobody said a word for a good couple of minutes, it was as if a toddler accidentally went into a courtroom and the adults stopped doing their serious things and stood waiting until the toddler goes back to his toys, staring at him. You wouldn't believe the guy's stress levels after that. He meekly typed "Sorry, I made a mistake.", carefully punctuating and capitalizing and went silent forever (well, *I* haven't seen anything in the guild chat from him ever after).
Again, I don't argue in favor of allowing "lols". As I said, I can't stand them myself. But, for me, the atmosphere in the guild felt way, way too stressful. That's why I silently left. Chances are, I was not alone.
In the end, you did prove that there are at least 200 people who are willing to play the way you outlined. But did you prove anything more general? I doubt it. 200 is just not large enough, and for all you know you could have lost as much or more people whom you'd classify as non-M&S, who left like I did.
@ Ihodael: Thanks for your feedback.
My argument is based only on what Gevlon reports in his blog. I know that he has mentioned Treeston (I think?) has had some successes in raid leading, but there is nothing close to 'no need for dedicated leaders' as the original goal was worded.
My point is, Gevlon has illustrated examples in his blog of the failures of the guild on occasion. Notably, all of the failures don't include his presence, so I can only assume that the failure rate is higher without him. Perhaps he is cherry picking examples of failures (citing the TB example I linked earlier).
Given how often I have challenged him over the last year to provide some sort of evidence that the guild has some leadership without his presence, I would have suspected that he would at some point highlight how well the guild is running without him. The Tol Barad post would suggest that he thinks otherwise (or at the very least, overestimates his win rate when he's present). You tell me?
"There is still a "job-like" approach to raiding. Or, alternatively, a "small business-like" approach, where you are punished monetarily for your stuff-ups."
I think "job-like" doesn't mean punishment for failures but the obligation to be available for almost every raid. In other guilds you need to have a X% attendance or you will be demoted to a non raider rank at best and removed in the worst case.
Being punished for messing up isn't a defining criteria for a job but for everything else too - at least it should.
The dedicated leader part is tricky because others will leech on someone that leads a raid and I think the leader money is a way to encourage others to lead and not just get the veteran money for boosting new players and leeching on the leader at the same time.
On the other hand I'm not sure how much leading is possible without voice chat, what's left are the organization and invitation.
Maybe it's just the enforcement of the different rules and punishments that make Gevlons raids more successful?
"Behavioural rules keeping out the people who don't want to play on your terms."
and
"Even the behavioural rules aren't completely successful as you still end up with M&S (as defined by you) in your guild, just disguised as sheep instead."
Those people that join, show that they CAN follow rules and if they later don't WANT to follow these you notice them.
I think the rules keep M&S out as they CAN'T obey the rules but those that don't WANT to follow are not nessessarily M&S but might be "corrupted" normal people.
It's hard to discern to which group someone belongs as barely anyone would admit that he can't stop to lol/talk about Megan Fox/etc.
"What would be interesting is if you could take a loling fool, introduce him to the pug and have him achieve something that he wouldn't have otherwise achieved."
Hmm, I think that sounds too much like boosting and I doubt that it would work as the key is that he needs to change himself and stop to be a fool and to lol. He needs to do it for his own sake and not for someone else. Once he achieved that the rest is fairly easy.
I don't know how far being a PUG member would help him to change or if he would just comply to fit in.
There's 2 types of PuGs in WoW: trade pugs and regular pugs.
Regular pugs have very little player rotation and can clear content fairly fast after 2-3 weeks and tackle a bunch of heroic modes as well. Often these regular pugs consist of alts of top guilds and former hc raiders that have gone casual. People that fail a lot, don't get reinvited to one of these. On my realm there's a bunch of such pugs clearing 5HCs and more.
Trade pugs on the other hand, even if every single one of the players has a 7/13HC+ Main, can wipe countless times on Maloriak or Chimaeron normal mode, just because different setups require different tactics and a bit of practice. To clear 12/12+Halfus HC every week, a player would usually have to invest over 16hrs with these pugs on my realm.
Player skill alone has very little to do with raid success.
@Squishalot
Gevlon is an exellent leader, no doubt about it. And for that reason it is most common that he leads raid/rBG. But the guild does not fail just because he is here to lead. We have lead raids, rBG and Tol Barad with success without him.
And I don't know if you have killed Al'akir, but P1 with 5 diffrent people every time is very painful.
@ Camo - interesting points you raise. Let me run through them.
"I think "job-like" doesn't mean punishment for failures but the obligation to be available for almost every raid. In other guilds you need to have a X% attendance or you will be demoted to a non raider rank at best and removed in the worst case."
There are many things you need to comply with when having a job. Attendance is one of them. Dress codes is another. Performance is yet another key driver. You can't argue that just because Gevlon only has 2/3 of those parts means that overall it's not job-like, since even casual jobs still require strict dress codes and performance standards.
"On the other hand I'm not sure how much leading is possible without voice chat, what's left are the organization and invitation."
Without being too narky, Gevlon seems to be capable of doing it - why shouldn't others?
"Maybe it's just the enforcement of the different rules and punishments that make Gevlons raids more successful?"
And this is my point. Gevlon's rules are what's making it successful, not the lack of M&S in the guild. This leads nicely on to the next point:
"I think the rules keep M&S out as they CAN'T obey the rules but those that don't WANT to follow are not nessessarily M&S but might be "corrupted" normal people."
M&S, as defined by Gevlon, are bad players who are unable to learn to get better. Just because they shut their mouth in guild chat doesn't mean that they're any less M&S than the Megan Fox lolkids. The fact of the matter is that people are a) still making stupid raiding mistakes, and b) still not following basic TB strategy when Gevlon's not around telling them what to do. That, to me, suggests that they haven't learned.
Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that everyone in the guild is still M&S, it just shows that there are M&S people still in the guild, as defined by Gevlon. Why didn't Gevlon take any action against the whingers in the guild chat?
Let me give you another example. The PuG has rules such as:
"The raid ID belongs to all participants. You are free to invite other members and pugs in the declared raid times. You are expected to invite those who have the same ID (unless they were removed for sucking last time). However you are not expected to not raid just because X cannot be online and want that boss. One exception: if the raid was started as "hard mode", you can only turn it to normal on Monday and Tuesday unless all saved agree."
Now, this is about human decency and your moral obligation. Yet, we also have the idea that:
"I want to prove that PuG got it's bad name not from being without hierarchy but from the complete lack of skill or even human decency of the available playerbase"
In theory, everyone in the PuG should know what the decent thing to do is. So why would you need the rules and obligations in order to keep orderly control?
"Player skill alone has very little to do with raid success."
By the way, didn't we basically establish that, at least in rated BGs, the presence and qualities of a leader have significantly more bearing on the result of the encounter than almost anything else? A good leader could compensate more than one M&S, so perhaps the entire proving thing (not being an M&S is enough to raid successfully, etc) was clouded by attempts at leadership by Gevlon's and others. There might be other factors as well.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that a good part of the 200+ people in The PuG might be there more out of the desire to prove *to themselves* that they can succeed as asocial wolves and / or in a guild that itself is a somewhat unique public experiment. Not every guild is featured on a famous (in WoW circles) blog like this, eh? Maybe such people are even a majority.
@ Uranax: "But the guild does not fail just because he is here to lead. We have lead raids, rBG and Tol Barad with success without him. "
As I said earlier, I don't see the evidence, because Gevlon doesn't talk about it. There's no evidence for it, but there is evidence for the fails. I'm sure that you get some success, certainly, but how much, and where's the evidence? Shouldn't Gevlon be holding it up as evidence that his guild is working?
"And I don't know if you have killed Al'akir, but P1 with 5 diffrent people every time is very painful."
And that's precisely what Gevlon's guild purpose was about - proving that if those 5 different people are good people (since you'll only get good people through the behavioural filter), you'll get past it reasonably efficiently, rather than wiping week after week like a /trade PuG.
@Anonymous which wrote "Again, I don't argue in favor of allowing "lols". As I said, I can't stand them myself. But, for me, the atmosphere in the guild felt way, way too stressful. That's why I silently left. Chances are, I was not alone." (and others with similar feelings)
There is a place in the guild for all of this... it's just not the /guild chat... it's the /casual chat channel.
You can discuss whatever, lol, smileys, no punctuation in there.
If you miss seeing it in green you can configure the channel for that too (and then perhaps change guild chat to another colour to help distinguish them).
Current WoW chat interface makes casual behave very similar if not exactly like /guild... so what is the difference?
For all those reading that may think that the guild is some kind of silent dictatorship: we discuss whatever on /casual... we just don't do it on /guild.
While I respect your decision I can't really understand how is it so much worst to have a casual conversation on /casual instead of having it in /guild.
PS: I feel a LOT of people judge the guild by what they understand from this blog and also from their view of how Glotan is and how he reacts. You should try it before judging it based on that.
AS: My apologies for some of my posts... I use the name Glotan instead of Gevlon since it's his char name in the game and I got use to it more than Gevlon.
@Squishalot:
Regarding TB: There is perhaps a slightly higher amount of victories with Gevlon in TB than without him (or at least someone who does the same as he does) - as Gevlon mentioned recruiting horde as a non-trivial impact on the outcome of the battle. I for example don't recruit since I have no level 85 horde and I feel that recruiting as a level 1 would be pointless. However I have, as many others, led TB without Gevlon's presence with a very acceptable rate of success (e.g. ~100% wins when team size > 10-15, less with smaller teams)
Regarding other events: I believe there is a certain pattern of greater adherence when Gevlon is involved vs. when Gevlon is not involved. My reasoning for this? Notoriety within the guild - Gevlon/Glotan is well known by most if not all the guild members and therefore his PvE and PvP events usually gather greater audience. I imagine that if I placed a PvP event on the calendar not as many would be inclined to join since they don't know me or might think that I'm a moron and the event will go south. Don't really feel this is a problem with the rules or the way Gevlon runs business. I accept it as a fact that he is better known and therefore generates more trust as a leader than I or others will do. Fact is we have many 85 but I'm not sure if we have that many "active" 85's at the same time. For example we never had the ability to create two rbg's teams - we form one and have some leftovers. I guess it's a consequence of being truly casual.
@Gevlon,
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
That you can succeed in a PUG recruited from /trade? When you were establishing this project I had pointed out the successes I was having with GDKP (when ICC was the big raid).
Our 25 man trade recruit PUG was reliably clearing 9/12 heroic encounters in 3.5-4 hours with a 15 minute break. Granted we had a lot of the same people showing up every week for it and members from my guild (which were doing 11/12 Heroic 10 man ICC) did form bulks of the raid. We succeeded by padding leadership roles with our guild. The raid leader ran the raid and managed the DPS. Our guild master managed the healers for every encounter. The tanks? Well those were both filled by the same two guild members that were tanking the heroic 10m ICC raids so they already had the coordination build up. It was pretty easy since we were at a point where the only fights we needed 3 tanks on was Marrowgar (which the third tank was just absorbing damage), Lady Deathwhisper (if we were doing Heroic mode), Putricide (if we felt the DPS was a bit low), and Blood Princes (if we were doing heroic mode). Our success was purely due to leadership and if you look through history you will find many many examples leadership inspires people to more than they would normally.
I would argue that the only difference between the PUG and what we had done is that you've just put the experiment under a control. That is the control you've add is that /trade became /guild. You padded /guild by recruiting people from other servers.
I would even say that there is practically no difference between my guild's PUG ICC and your PUG guild. I would endeavor to say that cliques exist and have formed as players have come together and realized certain talent while leaving the remaining bits to be filled on an as needed basis.
Have people start reporting who attended raids for what bosses.
@ Ihodael: I hear what you're saying. I'm not disputing that Gevlon is able to lead well and that it can be hard for others to build up the respect of others. However, doesn't that simply go to demonstrate that a guild really does need dedicated leadership in order to excel?
@Ihodael of Darnassus"
Current WoW chat interface makes casual behave very similar if not exactly like /guild... so what is the difference?"
Yes, what is the difference?
If Gevlon is saying the guild is successful in part because chat is different, and some guild members are saying there is no difference, what am I to make of that? Are the people who subscribe to the "casual" channel worse raiders? worse pvpers? more likely to be gkicked for violating some rule? Or is there in fact no difference in performance? If there isn't, wouldn't that call into question many of the assumptions which underly many of the rules?
@Camo
With regard to the introduction of a loling fool:
I don't know if this would work either but since my belief is that it's the structure that is giving the success then in theory it might do.
A military structure and having to abide by a strict discipline is known to reform otherwise reprobate behaviour. Gevlon is providing this structure. Of course there is no obligation to join Gevlon's guild so it's almost impossible to prove but in theory it should work.
I'm fairly sure Gevlon would argue that his structure encourages like minded people and that they are free to leave but as we've heard from an ex member, the discipline is imposed both explicitly and implicitly hence upholding the structure. I believe this is what provides the success.
But this is only one example of a structure. A less rigid but just as well enforced structure would work equally well. Not talking about Megan Fox on guild chat is not the reason for success, it's merely a discipline supporting this particular structure.
@Squishalot
Gevlon is quite vocal about failures in the guild because they are more interesting and worth talking about. What I see is that almost every RBG a new person or two is brought in and get achievements for winning their first or second fight ever.
The main problem in evaluating right now is what you partially mentioned: Gevlon is practically the only leader, but that is just due to the number of people there is to lead. When there's just enough people to fill a 10-man, and no activity in the off-hours, no one really have a chance to suddenly emerge.
Another point I wanted to make: "In theory, everyone in the PuG should know what the decent thing to do is. So why would you need the rules and obligations in order to keep orderly control?"
Rules for the guild are to detect M&S who got through the invite rules, which are not very strict, as you know. They are second-level filter, as exams in college. People who got into college are already considered smart, but somehow they are required to take exams, and somehow they fail.
Just a note on attendance requirements...
People either want to raid, or they don't. If people want to raid, you agree on a time to raid, and go for it. People who actually want to raid show up most of the time, regardless of some "requirement" that that do so. They raid because they like raiding. By contrast, people who get tired of raiding just stop showing up, despite a "requirement" that they do so.
Thus, an "attendance requirement" is not there to influence behavior. People will do what they are going to do. What it does to is provide a little structure so you know what roles need to be filled. People know that if they decide to take a break for an extended period of time, it is likely that someone will be recruited to fill that spot. That's it. An attendance requirement is simply a statement that a group prefers permanent members over trade pugs, that's all.
Note also that an attendance requirement is orthogonal to raid scheduling. If a guild has 50 raiders on at any time, then sure, getting a 10-man together at 3 AM is easy. If a guild is composed of people who only log on 2 nights a week, then it is best to set a regular block of time aside to raid.
@Iron Turtle
"Yes, what is the difference?"
The main difference is that we get two different chat channels: one for official guild business devoid of casual talk and where the content should not be "offensive" to anyone and a casual one where you can jerk around to a greater degree.
It is, in my opinion, an intelligent use of game mechanics to achieve a better result than we have in most guilds. I've met MANY players (including myself) who are sometimes just fed up with all the casual discussion not only on guild chat but also in voice comm, etc. This solution allows me to opt in on such content while I never loose the ability to track guild activity announcements.
Gevlon has never posted, as far as I know, and even if he did, I couldn't care less about it, that people participating in /casual are any less competent that others... they just opt in, when they want, on the casual content.
Isn't this a well designed model? Personally I feel that anyone trying to say this has no advantages have either not understood the model or they are simply arguing for the sake of argument. Even if you believe that /casual and /guild should not be separated... you have lost nothing with the separation, except your ability to bother others not interested in your casual chit chat, which you shouldn't have in the first place.
@Squishalot:
"However, doesn't that simply go to demonstrate that a guild really does need dedicated leadership in order to excel?"
My opinion on this is that if Gevlon would decide not to show up for some time for some of these events someone else will take his place naturally.
In fact that is what happens now in TB. This is to the point where not only people from our guild but people from other guilds actually lead or attempt to lead during TB battles, instructing some kind of tactic, with a reasonable rate of success.
So yes I agree that you need leadership if for no other reason that to coordinate efforts but I disagree with the premise that without Gevlon no one would step up to fill in the void.
@ Prim: "The main problem in evaluating right now is what you partially mentioned: Gevlon is practically the only leader, but that is just due to the number of people there is to lead."
The problem is that one of the points to be proven is to demonstrate that "there is no need for dedicated leaders". The fact that Gevlon is the only leader and that when he's not around, it's hard to find a leader would suggest that you still need a leader, meaning that the point has been falsififed.
"Rules for the guild are to detect M&S who got through the invite rules, which are not very strict, as you know."
I refer you to the point to be proven:
"The behavioral rules of the Ganking project work and perfectly capable to keep M&S out."
If what you say is true, then this point is falsified, because the behavioural rules aren't enough.
"Gevlon is quite vocal about failures in the guild because they are more interesting and worth talking about."
That is true, however, he is also quite vocal about successes in the guild too. If he wasn't around and someone else led the guild to a successful 12/12 in a weekly raid lockout, I'm sure he would be very vocal about that too, to prove a point to critics like Chewy and myself.
@ Ihodael: "So yes I agree that you need leadership if for no other reason that to coordinate efforts but I disagree with the premise that without Gevlon no one would step up to fill in the void."
Then essentially, you agree with the point I make in the first post stating that the original points to be proven haven't been proven, even if you disagree with the idea that there aren't any real leaders in the guild other than Gevlon at present.
@Squishalot
If what you say is true, then this point is falsified, because the behavioural rules aren't enough.
Why guild rules are not behavioral rules? The only way for behavioral rules to work is to let the behavior expose itself. This means either relentless Ensidia-like interview and trial, or check-for-obvious-symptoms-and-sort-out-later method.
The problem is that one of the points to be proven is to demonstrate that "there is no need for dedicated leaders".
Well, that's the same argument as with Ihodael. I agree that the point has not been proven, just remarked on how nothing has been done to prove it.
If he wasn't around and someone else led the guild to a successful 12/12 in a weekly raid lockout I'm sure he would be very vocal about that too
This argument came to kind of the same conclusion: The PuG should be given some without-Gevlon time to see what it might do. But I'm afraid leading progression raids just requires rare kind of motivation. Because of this I'm not quite sure farming (or progressing, for that matter) is any sign at all. I think RBGs are much better indicator of general attitude and behavior ("win vs fun"). But that's just general feeling, I'm not ready to elaborate.
@ Prim: "Why guild rules are not behavioral rules?"
Because behavioural rules are defined as those used in the Ganking project. There were no raiding rules in the ganking project, obviously. It only applies to the guild and chit chat rules.
"Well, that's the same argument as with Ihodael. I agree that the point has not been proven, just remarked on how nothing has been done to prove it."
I agree, to an extent. Ihodael acknowledges that you need leadership of some sort, which means that, by definition, it's been falsified.
"The PuG should be given some without-Gevlon time to see what it might do. But I'm afraid leading progression raids just requires rare kind of motivation. Because of this I'm not quite sure farming (or progressing, for that matter) is any sign at all."
That's why I brought up the point about Al'Akir, and Gevlon's lack of presence for the time it took to take it down.
That being said, progression raids shouldn't be any different from farm raids. For now, I'd be happy seeing a farm raid win, to be honest.
"What would be interesting is if you could take a loling fool, introduce him to the pug and have him achieve something that he wouldn't have otherwise achieved."
Every once in a while The PuG gets new members who must learn to adhere the rules. They're almost never "loling fool", but all must learn and abide all the rules. The rules must be applied, and sometimes people break them. When one breaks a rule they must be motivated to correct their behavior so that they do not break the rules again. In that sense the guild achieves the purpose of what you describe albeit in lesser extend yet greater numbers.
"I rerolled on your realm, joined the guild, played for some time, then left. The reason I left is because everything on the guild chat was too much of serious business."
The PuG has /casual for that; /g _is_ for serious business. If you miss the warmth from /g that is as designed since guild chat isn't meant to make you feel fussy. People make mistakes, discussions "flow" /casual -> /g and /g -> /casual. There isn't going to be a Glotan with a whip to punish you. He is not sitting with a big fat button "/gkick" all evening, waiting for someone so he can use his banhammer. However, if you DO make a mistake by saying the wrong thing in the wrong chat channel you will hear about this from a guild member. If you keep making the same mistake you will get reprimanded. The rules are written and you agreed to them before you joined; you don't know the "feel" of the guild yet though, you can only try that out (in other guilds maybe on voice chat before joining).
Again, it isn't as if you will get /gkick if you by mistake said something in /g which you wanted to use in /macro. If you keep making these silly mistakes and do not realize you need to stop making them in other words there is no improvement on your side, then it is time for you to worry. But if you are new in guild I would not worry about that too much since you are there to learn. On the other hand, if you allow people to learn and make mistakes openly, you introduce too much space for slacking. Best advice and practice is to lurk a bit in the beginning which is a normal thing to do when new in group.
The nice fellow you spoke about who did not dare to say anything in guild chat anymore after he made a mistake should realize the earlier mentioned. If he realized this, and still did not dare to speak in /g when appropriate, he has some serious psychological issues.
"(well, *I* haven't seen anything in the guild chat from him ever after)."
Then he never said anything meaningful in guild chat, ever. Which is OK, since the only meaningful thing you use guild chat for is to discuss strategies about fights, and forming groups. Not chit-chat. Hence, either he chatted in /casual or never had any contact with any guild member in public. Even the latter is not a Bad Thing (TM) because you can have a lot of meaningful discussions (and fun chit-chat) in private. What I conclude is that the fact a guild member never speaks in guild chat is NOT an inherently evil thing in _this_ guild. Although I suppose that also means he never wrote "Invite" to get invited to anything on calendar.
"but there is nothing close to 'no need for dedicated leaders' as the original goal was worded."
I don't see any statistics about success and failure from anyone.
He states "natural leaders will emerge". I have seen several people from The PuG leading various encounters with varied success. I do think Glotan is a good leader, but he gets help (input) from other people. It is _not_ only the leader who leads the raid, who decides on the tactics. A leader without input from his peers will be "left arm doesn't know what right leg does" -- a typical management problem. For example, without input from other people in rBG the rBG leader will be left in the cold.
Of course the guild does not have leadership without his presence since there are no officers. Only inviters. Only Glotan can kick out people, so he is the leader of the guild in that sense.
Besides people who lead raids, dungeons, battlegrounds there are also social leaders. These people are recognized by their peers as having expertise in certain areas. This could be anything: class, spec, role, raid encounters, PvP/PvE, guild rules, realm, economics, trade skills -- you name it. All this erupts naturally within the guild, not from status. For example, there is no such thing as a dedicated class leader.
"Notably, all of the failures don't include his presence, so I can only assume that the failure rate is higher without him. Perhaps he is cherry picking examples of failures (citing the TB example I linked earlier)."
I lost TB yesterday with Glotan. It happens. Glotan is a human being, and the fight is dependant on many other human beings. Human beings tend to make mistakes. Of course you don't read a lot about the mistakes people make. Do you ever read about all the wipes top hardcore guilds make before they finally kill a boss? Interestingly, the analysis after the fight Glotan and several others made was a nice learning opportunity and ability to improve as both individual players as well as group.
"M&S, as defined by Gevlon, are bad players who are unable to learn to get better. Just because they shut their mouth in guild chat doesn't mean that they're any less M&S than the Megan Fox lolkids. The fact of the matter is that people are a) still making stupid raiding mistakes, and b) still not following basic TB strategy when Gevlon's not around telling them what to do. That, to me, suggests that they haven't learned."
Before pull mistakes which will be fined are defined. If you know the tactics and not fail at such you don't limit the team. If you do fail at these, you will pay the fine. If you pay 3x300g you are kicked from the raid. This means you lost almost 1000g in a very short amount of time, you miss the pot, you get the social punishment (you been shown the door). This should give the person incentive to improve! People who keep failing on the same stuff, or fail a lot in general, will get less chance getting invited back to raid by RL. Not only does it motivate the failer, it gives the people who didn't fail compensation.
"In theory, everyone in the PuG should know what the decent thing to do is. So why would you need the rules and obligations in order to keep orderly control?"
Why do countries have law? If the moral thing to do and not to do are clear we ought not need those, since everybody will follow the moral, and abide that, there is no such thing needed as law, law enforcement, or prison.
"People either want to raid, or they don't. If people want to raid, you agree on a time to raid, and go for it. People who actually want to raid show up most of the time, regardless of some "requirement" that that do so. They raid because they like raiding. By contrast, people who get tired of raiding just stop showing up, despite a "requirement" that they do so."
Have you never raided in a guild (semi) hardcore? The raiding team is expected to show up; members of the raiding team sign accepted on calendar by definition, and show up. If its casual people get priority over people who do not sign up, or sign up tentative. In (semi) hardcore raiding there is an attendance requirement of x% meaning you are DEMOTED or KICKED from the guild if you do not sign up accepted and/or if you do not sign up less than %x. In hardcore guilds x = near 100. In semi hardcore it varies from between one day a week allowed to not showing up (out of e.g. 4 days) till once every 2 weeks. As raider you therefore even sign up and come to raid when you don't want to (you feel a bit ill, aunt Tilly has her birthday, you don't need loot, and so on). Attendance requirement is therefore VERY MUCH a behavior influence because the only choice between not raiding is the highway meaning no more raids ever with that team. Of course, in a bad guild where there is no attendance requirement these rules are more lax. Except when that guild permanently has people on standby, OR if the guild IS casual, like The PuG. In such a bad guild people who got their gear will leave, or not show up on farm raids. The incentive to get them returning is either EPGP/DKP or gold (GDKP) however one is completely optional & free and works in PuGs whereas the other one is yet another mechanic meant to increase the attendance percentage.
@ Anonymous' replying to me: If you don't understand the point that I'm making, because you don't understand the original purpose of the guild, don't waste time responding.
Squishalot, I don't think you understand the original purpose of the guild at all. You also fail to see that a goal as stated is an ongoing process. It is not a proposition. There is no such thing as either it failed or succeeded unless you stop with the project. Hence, it is relative.
You already start making a project moot because it has some rules. But every project, everything in life, has a strict (and sometimes more liberal) set of rules. They're the groundwork, the foundation. There is a hierarchy.
As I have stated there is no hierarchy like in the traditional sense of a raiding guild. With officers, class officers, dedicated raid leaders and raid assists. The PuG does not have such.
"I want to prove that if people wouldn't be M&S, there would be no need for organizations and obligations."
Refers obviously to the conventional rules a guild has. Which means fixed sign-ups with forced attendance, voice chat, you are forced to play the class and spec the guild deems most wanted.
"Some gear restrictions - no raiding unless gear is enchanted, gemmed, itemised appropriately."
Is also very silly. The requirement is ilvl 333 gemmed/enchanted. Very liberal given that you could be ilvl 346 gemmed/enchanted (now 353) and then some. It also does not require to be correct gemmed/enchanted. Ie. Mastery for tank instead of Sta. If I'd go to a trade PuG on my main's realm I'd need to be overgeared for the instance, and have a fully gemmed/enchanted gear + EJ spec. One wrong gem and I'm out. One ilvl 346 which could be replaced by crafted (or now ilvl 353) and I wouldn't get in.
In fact, I would not get in if I would not have the achievement. I have the achievement on my main? They don't care. And partly for good reason: such can be faked. They inspect armory on the character you want to join. The lack of requiring achievement is another vital part of The PuG, and a non-excluding one. How do you get the achievement you ask? By knowing the right people. By getting invited by people who know you will not fail. The other way is by filling a role in demand. E.g. boomkin/ele sham for Cho'Gall, a tank for BoT clear, or that last healer spot for a 5/6 BWD clear.
Punishing fails is another aspect I've addressed. You can read it in my previous post. Again, it is more liberal than kicking someone out of raid (a person is free to leave at any time).
Another non-excluding rule in The PuG is that say if you have too many DPS for raid. You then /roll and lowest /roll leaves the raid. Is welcome to come back when one of other DPS fails or must go. Still, in more hierarchical guilds, you have fixed spots together with forced attendance.
So the whole argument you start with is quite a wrong comparison, in my opinion. I pointed out why before. Your reply is that? Very childish. If that is all you can reply, please don't reply at all.
PS: We just won TB yet again without the help from Glotan, with good leadership for several people. Some from The PuG, some from other guilds. If Glotan could not come to raid, I am sure natural leaders would emerge.
I agree, to an extent. Ihodael acknowledges that you need leadership of some sort, which means that, by definition, it's been falsified.
Leadership of some sort is in the nature of raids and RBGs. Someone must make decisions, or the whole thing turns into a microvoting nightmare. We cannot tell is Gevlon a dedicated leader or just happens-to-be leader, because there are not much people to compare to. Although successful TBs and RBGs shows, that happens-to-be leaders work quite well too.
That being said, progression raids shouldn't be any different from farm raids. For now, I'd be happy seeing a farm raid win, to be honest.
That's where we part: I don't really care about raids. It's nice to be in the top whatever-it-is percentage, but raids are really much less of a team effort than any mass PvP. I agree that it would be nice to see a not-Gevlon raid succeed; I don't really see what it would prove as, again, for raid leader motivation plays as big a role as the leadership itself, and motivation is not something quite analyzable.
Why guild rules are not behavioral rules? — Because behavioural rules are defined as those used in the Ganking project.
So you're saying that PuG rules are too different from Ganking rules? I don't see much difference — no kiddie speak, no communism, no IRL things, no alts.
@ Anonymous: I stand by the very first comment I made when Gevlon first proposed The PuG:
"Mmm, I'm not convinced. It's only a PuG insofar as the first few weeks are concerned. After this point, you'll have dedicated raid leaders and dedicated raiders, and the people who were left out last week are still likely to be left out this week, and next week again. And it becomes a traditional casual raiding guild.
The only difference that I can see that is positive is the advent of raiding every single night. The success of this project can't be measured by its overall progression, but instead by its nightly casual progression. Having a single raiding group defeat LK won't count for anything - having multiple groups do so will mean success."
In relation to: "
Refers obviously to the conventional rules a guild has. Which means fixed sign-ups with forced attendance, voice chat, you are forced to play the class and spec the guild deems most wanted."
No, only elite guilds have that. Casual raiding guilds do not have such restrictions, and The PuG was not set up to simulate a casual raiding guild, it was set up to simulate a PuG!
Again, the proof is in the pudding. If Gevlon isn't around, what will happen? If, for example, Gevlon takes a break from The PuG for a month, will progression increase? Will TB be held? Will the farmraid even get close to as far as the progression raid has gotten to?
I don't think so. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but there is no evidence to suggest that I will be.
@ Prim: "Leadership of some sort is in the nature of raids and RBGs. Someone must make decisions, or the whole thing turns into a microvoting nightmare."
If that's the case, then the idea that 'there is no need for dedicated leaders', by definition, must be false.
"So you're saying that PuG rules are too different from Ganking rules? I don't see much difference — no kiddie speak, no communism, no IRL things, no alts."
You miss my point. I'm saying that these are the behavioural rules. The raid failure rules, the raiding time rules, the veteran / raid leader fees, the GDKP rules, guild event restriction rules, voice communication rules, etc., these are not behavioural rules.
As a result, the idea is that the behavioural rules (i.e. the Ganking project rules, as opposed to the new raiding rules) are enough to keep M&S out. That's obviously not the case.
If that's the case, then the idea that 'there is no need for dedicated leaders', by definition, must be false.
But it depends on the definition. I was under the impression that Gevlon emphasised the word 'dedicated' because meaningful group activity cannot be without a leader, so 'dedicated' I understood as 'formally appointed'. And need in that is neither proven, nor proven wrong.
The raid failure rules, the raiding time rules, the veteran / raid leader fees [...] these are not behavioural rules.
I got your point. There was no raid rules in Ganking, because they didn't raid. Raiding rules for The PuG are not restrictions aimed at M&S, they are convenient and clear standards for resolving raiding issues, you can track their introduction by Gevlon's posts.
No lolspeak and no trading in /g applies to everyone and is quickly pointed out by members of the guild. Raiding rules apply only to those who want to raid, and want to raid with the guild, because primary aim of raiding rules is not to keep M&S out of raids, but to clear the content in the most effective way. If M&S are exposed in raids (or do not apply for invitation disliking the rules), that's frosting on the cake.
@ Prim: "But it depends on the definition. I was under the impression that Gevlon emphasised the word 'dedicated' because meaningful group activity cannot be without a leader, so 'dedicated' I understood as 'formally appointed'. And need in that is neither proven, nor proven wrong."
Under that interpretation, it's meaningless. Of course you don't need a dedicated leader if the group is going to unofficially appoint one anyway!
If you think about a PuG, there are five people with no real leader. People work together as a group, without any single person taking a leadership or controlling role. That was how I interpreted the idea that there would be no need for a dedicated leader, because everybody would contribute equally and appropriately.
"Raiding rules apply only to those who want to raid, and want to raid with the guild, because primary aim of raiding rules is not to keep M&S out of raids, but to clear the content in the most effective way."
Would that then be an 'organisation and obligation', or even a '"job-like" approach for raiding', perhaps?
"If you think about a PuG, there are five people with no real leader. People work together as a group, without any single person taking a leadership or controlling role. That was how I interpreted the idea that there would be no need for a dedicated leader, because everybody would contribute equally and appropriately."
Consensus does not scale very well. The more people in the group, the less it scales. It also takes a lot of effort. It can work in 5m yet you also see natural leaders emerge in 5m groups. Usuaully, it is the tank. Anyone can be the Dungeon Guide though. It is a rather meaningless term.
Whenever I PuGed there was this fellow called raid leader. Just because he didn't have a clue about tactics, just because he couldn't speak proper English, just because he was the scrub who didn't gem/enchant his gear or rep grind for that BoP does not mean that he was not the raid leader. He is the one who decided who is RA. He is the one who assigns ML. He is the one who can kick you. Besides that, he also has social responsibilities. Yes, even in PuGs. Maybe RL suck in most trade PuGs. I am willing to believe that. On my main's realm there are quite a few good trade PuGs. Guess what? You start to recognize these people based on their nickname or guild name. I also remember the Really Bad (TM) players and /ignore them. What happens is the good continue to play with the good as long as there is incentive, we get this group forming, and suddenly you stop seeing it as a PuG. It still is a PuG. There is still no forced attendance. It is still people who meet each other on trade chat, who voluntarily -without obligation- start to play with each other.
Now, I have personally lead PuGs (5m, 10m, 25m) and used the /readycheck system as a voting mechanism. It works for simple things, simple decisions.
In other words, a PuG is not some kind of anarchy as you put it; that is YOUR ideal vision to how it should work. Not ours!
I've done Al'Akir once with The PuG and we nearly killed him. We got deep in p3. I've also played countless of PvP BG and TB with guildies with varried success. I don't have any numbers about success rating though, but neither do you. You have nothing to back up your point sans the fact that The PuG wiped for 5 weeks on Al'Akir. I cannot comment on that since I wasn't there.
"After this point, you'll have dedicated raid leaders and dedicated raiders"
I've already said it twice now. This is bollocks. There is no such thing as dedicated raiders. The rotation varies. Read Uranax post. I have personally seen the raid composition change from day to day. Heck, even change during the raid.
"Would that then be an 'organisation and obligation', or even a '"job-like" approach for raiding', perhaps?"
Those are definitions which are relative. Compared to hardcore raiding (what you called "elite"), no. As I have said before I've PuGed in more strict environments where every gem, enchantment, forge, spec, role had to be perfect with forced attendance on voice chat, and no breaks or mid leavers. Both PuG and guild. In guild, any kind of forced attendance is more authoritarian than The PuG. My point here is that The PuG is far more liberal than a regular trade PuG, yet achieves more than the average trade PuG. Why? Because of the infrastructure.
If you believe that it is possible to make guild with a bunch of anarchists with no rules whatsoever which seems to be the point you're trying to make by all means, go for it. Such, some kind of wacko anarchist guild, was not the original intention of The PuG though no matter how often you try to repeat your belief that it was.
@ Anonymous: "You have nothing to back up your point sans the fact that The PuG wiped for 5 weeks on Al'Akir. I cannot comment on that since I wasn't there."
Do you even understand what my point is? My point is that Gevlon hasn't met The PuG's original goals. Thus far, it hasn't.
"I've already said it twice now. This is bollocks. There is no such thing as dedicated raiders. The rotation varies. Read Uranax post. I have personally seen the raid composition change from day to day. Heck, even change during the raid."
The PuG has a number of veterans who could be construed as 'dedicated' raiders, no? Either way, it still has a dedicated leader. The 'dedicated raiders' comment was just my prediction, 12 months ago, on how it was going to turn out.
"Those are definitions which are relative."
Not really. Someone who works at a Maccas drive-thru has a relatively easier life than an investment banker working 18 hour days, but no matter what way you spin it, drive-thru work is still 'job-like'.
"My point here is that The PuG is far more liberal than a regular trade PuG, yet achieves more than the average trade PuG. Why? Because of the infrastructure."
The infrastructure, being the organisations and obligations, which is what Gevlon was trying to demonstrate isn't necessary.
"If you believe that it is possible to make guild with a bunch of anarchists with no rules whatsoever which seems to be the point you're trying to make by all means, go for it."
I didn't say anything about anarchists. Gevlon believed that a guild of asocials (i.e. those who are willing to play cooperatively to win, and not for some sort of epeen dominance) would be able to succeed without organisations and obligations, because the necessary feedback to improve would be provided by their peers and the game itself (i.e. fails being recognised by colleagues and dealt with). By regulating the feedback (e.g. 300g fail fee, newbie fee, etc.), then you're putting in place an organisation that prevents the guild intent from occurring.
As evidence, Gevlon stated:
"Practically being in the guild is like being guildless on a server where everyone are competent."
Now, in any trade PuG, there are NOT any enforceable fail rules, for example. There are no newbie costs, or veteran fees. There is not a 3 page list of possible raiding fails. We can talk about how The PuG is casual and no-obligation relative to a raiding guild, but it's not supposed to represent a guild of any sort at all! As soon as we can start drawing comparisons between The PuG and a casual raiding guild (and there are many at present), then the spirit of The PuG (being guildless in a server of competent people) is lost.
"The PuG has a number of veterans who could be construed as 'dedicated' raiders, no? Either way, it still has a dedicated leader. The 'dedicated raiders' comment was just my prediction, 12 months ago, on how it was going to turn out."
No, they are not defined as dedicated leaders. Glotan is a dedicated _guild_ leader. Some people are sometimes raid leaders (or battleground leaders, or dungeon leaders). Glotan is often one of them; not always.
Whoever gets social status of knowledgeable or skilled on certain aspects, is up to each individual. When several individuals agree on a certain person having such status we get what you just said.
Such is _bound_ to happen. Even in an anarchist collective which is driven by consensus such things happen. In any less liberal system, it is bound to happen as well. It happens in ANY group.
Again, neither I nor you has any data about how often we fail or succeed with Glotan as leader, or someone else as leader. No matter if it is raid, BG, rBG, TB, or something else. I find him a good leader although sometimes he gives up BG too quickly (loose fast ; we don't listen; we still win). It might be a trick of him though.
I don't have any statistics. Neither do you, or at least, you don't share them. Your only data is Al'Akir. My perception of Al'Akir normal is people don't like the fight, and don't like the drops. I know of many good raiders who are heroic raiding but don't have Defender title because their guild killed Al'Akir, they were not there, and the guild has moved on. I know of top HC raiding guilds where top raiders have "of the four winds" title and proudly wear it.
"I didn't say anything about anarchists. [...]"
I know you don't. Every reader who reads back the discussion knows those are my words, and I am telling you that some kind of framework -an infrastructure- is necessary when you are trying to achieve goals. Even the most anarchistic/anti-authoritarian organisation uses frameworks.
In a similar way a democracy has a framework to ensure the democratic system is working. A communist (dictatorship version) system has the same. Each have their own mechanisms. If you are into software development an analogy: this is the exact difference between a license as the GPL versus BSD license.
Indeed, the framework _could_ be more liberal however just because The PuG has a framework does not mean that the original goals of the system are not achieved. It is, again, not a question of "yes" or "no". It is not a proposition.
If we wanted to have it your way there wouldn't be any rules at all. Yet, if you analyse any anarchist collective they have rules. Does that make them hypocrits? If they don't realize it is not in conjunction with their idealistic goal it makes them short sighted. It does not say anything about their goal. Just like it does not say anything about the goal of a GPL or BSD licensed piece of software.
"Now, in any trade PuG, there are NOT any enforceable fail rules, for example."
Yes, there are, and I have stated this TWICE now. It appears to me you don't like to read someone's points. How often have you trade-PuGed? Do you not understand the RL is the boss in a PuG? You never seen ANYONE kicked? I have said at least twice in this thread that the way PuGs deal with fails is they kick the failer. Not every PuG RL does this right away. Yes, some people don't mind a tank DCing every try. They will keep trying. Other people have no patience and leave after one interrupt was failed. Yet other people will log their main, respec, or otherwise improve their gameplay to make the group succeed.
I have joined Cho'Gall fight on a character I never did any BoT with as PuG. I was invited via RealID by someone who knows I know the tactics. It was originally a trade PuG.
I have PuGed with one of top guilds (Immersion Auchindoun EU) ICC25 HC. They have reached last time I checked (month or so ago) 7/13 HC 25m in Cata. If you got hit by ONE ghost on lady deathwhisper in P2 you were KICKED. Replaced. This PuG is advertised on trade chat!
I have PuGed ICC 25m normal GDKP with (now former) guildies + trade PuG. We advertised for our GDKP run whenever we were in Dalaran! Our requirement was either overgeared, or you had to say in advance how much you were bidding on BiS items. People who AFK and failed too much did not get pot, or replaced. Rules were stated on start. Simple, yet effective. Got myself tens of thousands of gold this way.
Now, some less succesful examples: when I PuGed lady deathwhisper normal in trade PuG people were not even kicked when they stayed on boss, when they did not attack the right target, when they did not decurse, when they did not CC the MCed people. I've also played with PuGs where if you did not stack in hitbox Marrowgar you were kicked right away. And yes, those were trade PuGs.
As you can see, various types of PuGs involving trade. Various successes. I admit most of my examples are not 100% trade PuGs, but usually a trade PuG starts with various people who are interested in the raid anyway. Pre-made is a relative term. Just because your realm (or The PuG's realm) has low standards, many bad players, and what I'd consider extremely bad trade PuGs doesn't mean every trade PuG has bad leadership who don't deal with bad players.
My comparison of the PuG is inbetween that of a trade PuG and a pro PuG, but since PuGs can have varried, wide success I don't usually use such terms.
Post a Comment