Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Svenn’s departure from FIST has sparked some interesting discussion on the topic of the “all or nothing” policy in FIST. While he is no longer a participant in that forum, it is of extreme interest to him. There are arguments of merit on both sides of the aisle.

1. Avoids the whole “divided loyalties” quandary.
2. There are no schedule conflicts (in-game anyways) with runs from 2 different guilds be scheduled on top of each other.
3. If you are on, you can see gchat- if you can see gchat, you can participate in more spur of the moment guild events.

1. If the guild can’t provide what you are looking for, either because of time, size, or ability you are forced to either PuG, pick up and leave, or change what you are looking to do.
2. Outside interaction is limited to mainly PuGs- not the greatest representative cross-section of humanity, which leads to a sort of blindness often seen in isolationists.
3. It encourages guild migration which increases turnover and “gear exodus”. As people develop different wants and needs, (real or perceived) which the guild can’t meet, they leave taking their gear, their toons, and their knowledge with them.

In respects to divided loyalties: I am a member of various different professional organizations, as well as a husband and father, member of social groups, belong to a church, and have a job. As a member I have a say in all of these organizations and can work to de-conflict schedules and planned events in advance. When conflicting obligations arise, and they will, I can make a decision based on an order of priority, convenience, or arbitrarily, whichever I see fit. These decisions rarely have much to do with loyalty (I’m loyal to all of them- else I wouldn’t be in them), but rather have to do with outside factors and usually a compromise can be worked out. With the all or nothing approach, there are no compromises and I guess in the end, that’s the point.

This is NOT an open invitation to bash on FIST; I am still very much connected to the guild and would like to remain so if possible. I am however, interested in what others have to say about the “all in/ all out” policy. I am quite sure I am far too close to the problem to weigh all the factors impartially. I know I am missing some piece(s) of the equation, but I hope for my part- this policy changes (as my friend's guild has no such policy).


4 Responses to “Exclusivity”
Post a Comment | Post Comments (Atom)

Vidyala said...

Sounds like such a change might be mutually beneficial. You still like them, they still like you.

I'm not personally in favour of an "all in/all out" policy. Our guild has no such policy, but then only one guild member that I know of has characters in another guild. We did kick someone out of the guild once for refusing to come and help us in a raid that we had scheduled - he opted to be on an alt, raiding the same instance but with a different guild. We figured that if he wanted to raid with them so much that he'd leave us high and dry, he could do so full time.

But only in the event of scheduling conflicts would it be necessarily a problem, other than that I'd have no issues.

March 23, 2010 at 8:43 PM

The "all or nothing" policy has been painful over the years, but in the end it has served FIST well. It has ingrained in the guild an identity of being people who are there to enjoy the company of friends, rather than gear progression through raiding.

It's always a downer when someone is forced to choose between the two (friendship vs. faster progression), but that very act of choosing reinforces the concept of FIST as a social guild.

There's nothing at all wrong with faster gear progression in a video game. Plenty of very nice people go after that. The vary nature of hardcore raiding, however, means that at some point people will have to choose between being nice, and getting better gear. In FIST that choice is already made.

As a member of the Guild Council, I'm one of those responsible for the decision to adopt "all or nothing." While I do regret the loss of playing time with friends (and Svenn is definitely still a friend), this policy is what brought about the guild culture that allowed me to meet and befriend Svenn in the first place.

April 2, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Hamm said...

I complained about this policy two years ago somehow forgot and did it again recently, and came to the same conclusion.

Skyjon is convinced that this rule makes or breaks the guild, and is threfore non-negotiable. He might be right --I dont think so, but Im not the GM. Yeah... that's pretty much the story from my perspective.

April 16, 2010 at 5:21 AM
Rae said...

I wonder if it is too late to post something on this all or nothing rule we FISTys have to endure since I still don't understand how the loss of some key people is a benifit to the guild. I could of course understand if FIST was all about raiding, but it isn't. So losing the people that are wanting to raid, and willing to stay in FIST to help when they are needed, doesn't seem like a win at all.

May 26, 2010 at 8:43 AM

Post a Comment