Guild was disbanded by non-GM character.

#0 - Sept. 10, 2007, 4:44 p.m.

Hello, I am, or at least was, the GM of <Echelon>.

My character was the Guild Master of <Echelon>, until recently when random "Alt" level characters would gain Guild Master privileges simultaneously as this character. I could not demote/promote them, and they could not leave the guild. Bear in mind the person with these abilities would still show "Alt" as their rank.

A member of the guild, who was dissatisfied with the guild, quit his characters one by one until he got to his last character who wound up having Guild Master permissions. He logged off, probably because he
couldn't gquit, logged back on, and gdisbanded us in the middle of a raid.

1) The ranks within the guild were set properly.
2) It occurred more than once, as another alt transferred guild master position back to me (despite me already having it as well)
3) After leaving the raid to go back to Ironforge to reform the guild, we were greeted by "That name is in use", as well as level 1-18 characters emote spamming us, and now (as I write this) /s'ing in
Ironforge "I OWNED ECHELON", "I HAVE YOU GUILD", "ECHELON IS NOW ACCEPTING NEW MEMBERS... WEBSITE IS WWW.ECHELONJUSTGOTOWNED.COM"

I spoke to a GM already regarding the situation, however this is theft and harassment. The GM I spoke to was Chamirri, who was quite helpful in trying to do something, but was unable to. I was told "We cannot
disband their guild", to which I said that they have forced renames via violations of the Terms of Service. Apparently this falls under naming conventions, which the guild name does not violate.

However, the problem is that we are left trying to clean up the mess, without any recourse to obtaining our guild name back. The person who seized our guild name is sullying our reputation, is harassing our
members, and is making a mockery of any Game Master's ability by flaunting and gloating in-game.

We, the true members of Echelon, verified by the Armory site as of this moment, want our home back and our faith in Blizzard restored.

This was posted on Saturday night after the recommendations of the GM spoken to in-game. When I woke up this morning, my thread concerning this was deleted. Not locked, not acknowledged, but deleted.

Like other tickets opened and "replied via email", there is no report in my email account from the GMs servicing the ticket, nor a report as to why my thread was deleted. We were able to locate other threads where the flaws in Guild Control were reported but not acknowledged.

We want our guild back, and if we can't, we want reasons why not, not to be brushed off to the side. We have 169 members, 92+ accounts, and we are trying very hard to recover what has been lost.

Pavonum

#15 - Sept. 10, 2007, 6:44 p.m.

Before all else, Druishap, please accept my most sincere apologies for the evident distress you have experienced due to the regrettable circumstances that have befallen your guild's management and ownership; I can assure you that it is never our intention to sow frustration amongst our player base, and that — whenever possible — we shall take steps to ensure that the offending matter is resolved accordingly.

That being said, it pains me to say that there is no further assistance able to be offered by the Game Master Department in respect to your concerns regarding the current status of your guild and its erstwhile name — although your personal testimony is not to be discounted by any means, we have yet to identify any persistent issues that would result in lower-echelon guild ranks being granted powers outside the reach bestowed upon them by the guild master or other applicable officers. I would therefore strongly encourage you to post whatever data you can, quantified to the fullest extent possible, on our Bug Report Forum for further analysis by our Quality Assurance representatives there, thereby allowing research to be conducted to determine the underlying cause of the issue, and subsequently devise a more permanent resolution.

Furthermore, while I understand you regard this player's actions as "theft," I regret that once a guild has been disbanded — regardless of the circumstances under which it occurred — its name becomes available to any other player(s) who wish to forge their own guild charter. Thus, it is not within our power to "return" the guild to its former members, as to do so would be no more ethical than the very usurping you decry here. I do, however, wish you and your compatriots the best in finding a satisfactory outcome for this matter, and apologise that we cannot be of more aid.

Pavonum

#33 - Sept. 10, 2007, 7:40 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Pavonum, you're always reasonable, and I'd really like you to consider what you're saying here. You can look at the logs yourself and see that the guild was disbanded by someone who was not ever made the guild leader. To allow that person to continue to hold that guild name, without ramification, is unconscionable. You could make a lot of arguments about why it's not feasible to return the guild to its rightful owner, but to suggest that it would be unethical is insulting.

While I hesitate to discuss the extent of our abilities in the area of verification, suffice it to say that no means exist by which we may conclusively determine that a guild was disbanded by a player to whom that power was not deliberately given; thus, so far as we are aware, the guild was legitimately disbanded and, equally legitimately, reformed. For this reason, we do not remove or otherwise interfere with guild ownership.

Q u o t e:
At least say that you'll talk to your boss about this policy. I understand how the suggestions forum works, and I understand that GMs don't make policy. But certainly people within your department can communicate with higher-ups about policy failures. I've worked in customer service, too, and I know that good customer service is predicated upon empowering employees at all levels to call attention to the company's failings.

There are no avenues through which I may personally approach my superiors regarding the alteration of our policies, nor the augmentation of the records by which our investigations are conducted; however, you have my utmost assurance that the appropriate departments work ceaselessly to bring further optimisations to the systems we employ. As in-game functionality expands, so too does our ability to document and revisit it. :)

Pavonum

#40 - Sept. 10, 2007, 7:52 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Are you seriously saying that you have no way to tell your own boss that you think there might be a problem with a certain policy, and that you also have no way to tell your own boss what tools you feel you need to do your job?

Policies are discussed when need be, and the foundations on which potential change or improvement can be built do occasionally result from these discussions; but to say that I myself have the power to seek higher resolution in every possible concern raised here would be unwise.

Pavonum

#43 - Sept. 10, 2007, 7:57 p.m.

Q u o t e:
If Syndri was able to confirm that there was contemporaneous guild leadership in that instance, why can you not confirm it in this instance? And further, if it can be confirmed, why can't you fix it?

Different circumstances allow different levels of verification and resolution; while I can appreciate your attempt to draw a parallel for the sake of clarity, Alcmene, I'm afraid that a broader perspective is required to see that the two instances are only superficially similar. My apologies. :)

Pavonum

#87 - Nov. 17, 2007, 6:12 p.m.

Let's try not to dredge threads up from the depths, shall we? Thanks. :)