WoWCenter.pl
wikass zabił Mythrax the Unraveler (Normal Uldir) po raz 2.     
kuturin zdobył 7th Legionnaire's Cuffs.     
Nikandra spełnił kryterium Loot 200,000 gold osiągnięcia Got My Mind On My Money.     
Tooly zdobył Fairweather Helm.     
Muattin zdobył osiągnięcie The Dirty Five.     
Yoozku zdobył Parrotfeather Cloak.     
Mlody89 zdobył Royal Apothecary Drape.     
Weakness zabił Dazar, The First King (Mythic King's Rest) po raz 6.     
liq spełnił kryterium osiągnięcia Saving for a Rainy Day.     
Osiol spełnił kryterium osiągnięcia Saving for a Rainy Day.     
Wuntu zabił Zek'voz, Herald of N'zoth (Heroic Uldir) po raz 1.     
Olsa zabił Vectis (Heroic Uldir) po raz 6.     
Sarenus spełnił kryterium osiągnięcia Saving for a Rainy Day.     
kajtasus zdobył osiągnięcie Come Sail Away.     
ossir spełnił kryterium osiągnięcia Saving for a Rainy Day.     
mcpablo spełnił kryterium Alliance players slain. osiągnięcia Frontline Slayer.     
Emmm zabił Taloc (Heroic Uldir) po raz 17.     
AsaGorth spełnił kryterium Big-Mouth Clam osiągnięcia The Oceanographer.     

My guild was stolen!

blizz -> wysłany:
At the beginning of Firelands, my guild and I decided to take a break from WoW as we were unsatisfied with the content, so we unsubbed for a few months. We recently returned to the game to prepare for the upcoming patch and MoP to find that we are all guildless. I was GM before we took our break, and when we searched our guild on the armory, we found a bunch of random people in the guild, and everyone (and i mean everyone) who used to be in the guild had been kicked. The current GM, is someone who we have never seen before and when my officer spoke to him regarding this issue, he merely replied with rude and immature comments.

So apparently this is a policy where 'if the current GM of a guild becomes innactive for 30 days, leadership is passed on to the next highest ranking active player'. So after 2 years of hard work, we managed to lose our beloved guild within 30 days...

Game masters have been ticketed, and we have merely received the same reply...'we can't do anything about this'. I'm not sure why this policy exists... Blizzard claims its for guild progression, but a guild can progress without a GM, and if the GM sets such limits that it can't, it won't be a successful guild in the first place.

I want Blizzard to review this policy, and hopefully change it, so that situations like this will be prevented. I wouldn't mind Blizzard fixing my current situation aswell, because this is outrageous. Especially due to the fact that this game prides itself on being 'about the community'.

I was one of the officers kicked out of Kryzler's guild.

Now, I agree with the rule in some situations. I've used it myself to regain guilds I have created on accounts I no longer use. However, in this case it is not one sided story.

To clarify some facts here. The entire raid team, with perhaps one or two exceptions, decided to take a break. This isn't a situation in which the GM and a few officers decided to take a break, literally everyone who made the guild what it is went on holiday. We are talking 70% of the guild and 95% of the important characters (ie, not alts/friends ranked characters) taking a break.

Blizzard didn't know that we were just "taking a break" etc sure. However, when we came back and discovered the guild was in someone else's hands, GM's were ticketed. We made it apparent that the guild change of ownership was not something that we were happy about (and when I say we, I mean the GM and two primary officers of the guild). At the point when the guild was created and leveled, and now, when the dispute is taking place, we ARE paying customers. Blizzard need to accept and understand that this policy WILL enable guild ninjaing and have a solution in place to deal with disputes created by this process.

In our case it is exceptionally easy to see something has gone very wrong. Some lowbie petitions for leadership of the guild, gets it, kicks everyone in the guild, invites a high level character, passes GM to this character then quits. The new GM then invites lots of new people to the guild. That is not how you replace a GM who is absent, that is how you ninja a guild.

Considering how important guilds are now (having achievements and perks and stuff) surely Blizzard must understand that they are punishing players who have worked hard to build a guild. It's not just a name, the guild offers mechanical benefits which we will now be going into Dragon Soul raids without. There were also raid supplies worth hundreds of thousands of gold in the gbank. This policy, and the lack of a means to dispute the actions taken, go directly against much of what Blizzard has done to try and prevent people from ninjaing.


To sum up:

This was not a guild replacing an absent GM/officers.
This was a low-ranking "friend" of the guild abusing Blizzard policy for personal gain.
This was not what the policy is intended to be used for.
This has left a guild without access to their raiding supplies, guild perks and guild name on their server of choice.

If Blizzard are to have this policy in place, there must be a way to dispute the decisions made. If there is not, as in this case, it is effectively Blizzard-sanctioned ninjaing.

How is that good for players, guilds or the community?

blizz -> wysłany:
I think the issue here that's been discussed a few times is that the definition of what is a valuable member of a guild to the guild in question differs from our own definition.

Any guild member is a part of that guild. Leadership of the guild will only get passed to the highest and most recently active player in that guild. If all the high ranking officers were on break, it makes sense to pass it to someone in that guild who is active in the community and is as highly placed as possible.

The policy is there to help guilds progress rather than grow stagnant if high ranking members become inactive, and that's what this situation seems to have entailed. There's not much of a way for our staff to know how each and every individual guild personally operates, and instead, our policies on such things are determined by how the in-game mechanics work. It's not that we don't take other things into account, but that there are personal factors in many cases that may not be practical when investigating these issues.

All the above said, this policy currently is being reviewed, and as some of you know, we are working on a way for guilds to personally handle these situations in-game without the use of our Support Staff. I'm afraid I don't have much more detail to share, but it is a system being considered and looked at, and your feedback will be especially valuable when this feature comes to fruition. >^.^<