Guild master

[LordFirefall]

http://valorgame.com/valorwiki/valor-worlds/quark-titles/guildmaster-round-2-winners/

[Ibcnu]

Smh popularity contest

[SirBlazeALot420]

Thanks for the new election! Hope that guild masters can contribute and help improve the game for all!

[LordFirefall]

There were 1700 nominations. Just because someone didn't get in, doesn't make it a popularity contest.

[LyraLyrae]

What makes it a popularity is contest is having the decision and deliberation process done behind closed doors by a small group of elite players. There is no way such a decision could be made without bias based on who has beaten who, allied with who, warred with who, been capped by who....... As well as the fact that some of the nominees never crossed paths with the group making the decision. So what exactly is their decision to be based upon? If its the letters, then fine. Have an impartial quark person base it purely off the letters. It's a popularity vote, say so, and fine. Or maybe poll the winning guild at the end of each world on the one crown they would recommended, and once that crown has been voted for by 200, 300, 500, or 1000 of their own winning guild members, make the award automatic without the need for biased letters and impartial committees.

[Toussaintr]

I normally don't come here but Mike pointed me here for GM nominations and info. Let me say, I completely agree with Mock and even Meiywn, although we were rarely on same side lol. Although I know some and respect them as great leaders, I do not believe they should be picking who is and isn't a guildmaster. Simple politics and laws would tell you ere is a conflict of interest. Only truly unbiased personnel, ones who have read the paper person should be allowed to narrow down the list. Then maybe the semi finalist should be interviewed with some basic or advanced guild level questions. But since this was not the case in the beginning, which ever form was used in the beginning should be used now. Thanks for your time

[LordFirefall]

The flaw in making it automatic, is the ones out there asking for folks to "vote with all their alts" would easily get in. It's not my place to go into detail on the process, but I can promise there was no "veto" exercised. And as far as bias based on who is at war with who, I've got no problem being friends with folks I've battled with. In fact, some of my oldest opponents are friends. There's a caveat though - they were honorable foes. That isn't the case with some guild leaders; they bully opposing players and sometimes even members of their own guilds.

[DarkRahl]

It's kinda sad Rahl went crying to his guild for support on this, a true guild master would let things play it's course and not whine about how things are being picked..

Like Rahl said, it's just a medal...

Also, I've had the pleasure of playing against UTD, you guys talk a big game, but haven't proven it...


Edit: why are all you UTD guys crying, where has anything been said about Rahl being blacklisted....

Kwreak, I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion UTD "talk a big game, just haven't proven it"?
We have been winning worlds since w31 under our banner and several others. The ONLY times we have lost is once, where we were betrayed by a current GM. Funny that...

I know your name but cannot place the world. Plz enlighten me as to which world you went up against us on.

And if you feel our victories still haven't proven we live up to the hype of UTD, then I'll extend a challenge. Pick a world, and we can once again go up against one another.

And at no stage did I ask my players to post here. They have eyes, and minds of their own.

Lordfirefall, I agree with what you say in part. But I happen to know for a fact that some players have been veto'd based on false opinions of other GM. Ppl talk my friend. Even ones with badges. We must trust that honourable GM and the lions will push others tht have voting rights to vote in a non bias way and do their best to work with a flawed system. I believe that is what this thread basically turned into. I know many lions and GM and I can say many of them are deserving of their titles.

[LordFirefall]

Lordfirefall, I agree with what you say in part. But I happen to know for a fact that some players have been veto'd based on false opinions of other GM. Ppl talk my friend. Even ones with badges. We must trust that honourable GM and the lions will push others tht have voting rights to vote in a non bias way and do their best to work with a flawed system. I believe that is what this thread basically turned into. I know many lions and GM and I can say many of them are deserving of their titles.

Voicing an opinion is not a veto. None of the current GMs had veto authority over any nomination. Feel free to contact me on Kakao with any screenshot you think proves that they did.

[Toussaintr]

LordFireFall, expressing a negative opinion on anyone is counted as a veto. If GMs were to be involved in the process I believe they should have been limited to only recognizing and speaking positively about the ones they feel positive about and not at all about another. I've also seen first hand a couple who were biased out. Not to say that I think the 2 that were deserved to be GMs lol but it should not have happened that way.