Newsvine Guilds Thoughts #001: Guild Creation

Alternately, if we want to be a little bit more draconian, we can allow only Newsvine Members with a certain user rating to start guilds. This has the advantage of guaranteed publicity for the guild from the get-go, a limited number of guilds so as to avoid bloating, and a lot of weight to guild activity. Call this the national model - each guild encompasses a variety of cultures and users, and acts not so much as a small entity as a large representation of a particular popular user's following.

I like draconian. I know I'm going to regret having said that. Good post Mykola, you're the guy who's gonna get the whole guild system together.

Ive thought of a couple of other ways that you may start a guild based on the restricted thing:

1. Everyone could submit their guild ideas in a list and Calvin and Mike could approve them on a case-by-case

2. People could create a post outlining the guild, and if it generates enough interest it could get founded.

3. Some standard guilds (especially for the tags up there on the top bar), and guilds for every country (though I guess the country page may be enough)

Ah sorry there I meant *into* a list. (^_^;)

Can we call them something other than guilds? That sounds a little "12-sided-die" for the general public to be comfortable with.

1. Everyone could submit their guild ideas in a list and Calvin and Mike could approve them on a case-by-case

Simple and plain they would become overwhelmed. With the amount of users expected, even some type of council to limit these things would be highly inefficient. An automated method would most likely be used in such an implementation as the draconian system.

Overall I agree with a draconian system, as it would prevent much of the inappropriate content we may have to deal with soon on Newsvine. It won't be hard for a quality user to gain the reputation level needed to create a guild, and it will promote better behaviour and content.

I don't see any problem in letting anyone create a guild, as long as the most respected guilds are given the most attention.

Just please, don't call it a guild. Thats really wonky.

I don't see the need for different sizes of guilds; however, the idea of different guild types is an interesting one. It is quite noticable on Newsvine that there are different kinds of posts which range from News to Opinion/Debate. Guild formats which focus on certain post/issue/article types would be welcome.

Actually we may go public as soon as this evening:

If you'll recall from the last post on the Newsvine Blog (about two weeks ago), we did actually say we'd be launching within a couple of weeks. We still have some loose ends to tie up today, but yes, we're going to shoot for launching this afternoon or evening.

Written by Mike D. here.

This is from my discussion with Lance and Josh last night.

Everyone who joins will be able to comment, seed, and post; however, seeds and posts won't show up on the main sections until the user gains a certain level of reputation, or Mojo as Sean was calling it. In essence, new users will be forced to use the Private seed option which has been available for quite some time.

RESTRICTED GUILD CREATION

I'm all for elitism as it happens (man, stay private as far as I'm concerned)... Only people with the political sway can make guilds, anyone can join them though.

I like the draconian system just because it keeps every new upstart that signs up from causing a lot of disruption. When the more "respected" members make guilds they are far more likely to have a positive effect on Newsvine

The draconian model only makes sense with the numbers of users that are probably going to be signing up. Nobody wants to sort through 80 guilds to find one that's good. And what's the point of having them if it's possible to have an infinite amount of them?

Two comments:
Firstly, from a slightly geeky but more regular-guy perspective, "guilds" immediately turn me off. I mean, I would be embarrassed to say that I was in a "guild." I don't mean to offend anyone out there that is in a guild, or who plays MMORPGs, but the respect factor would go down immediately. So, for the rest of this comment I'll call them leagues (although I think faction is an equally OK name). In fact, let's have a whole post with suggestions for names.
Secondly, the reason I am all for the Draconian system is I have already seen enough trolling, partisan, and useless posts on the site to where I know that the democratic system would absolutely lead to pollution. Besides, just because you can't START a league doesn't mean you can't join one. Inherently in a democracy, you must have some level of respect before people will follow you, and in the real world, there is an economic disincentive that keeps people starting groups without a certain level of backing first. The reputation threshold merely provides a similar type of barrier for an on-line world where there is no disincentive (economic or otherwise) to keep everyone from have her/his own league.

@JRL, Having spoken to Mykola earlier we can expect a name-related post very soon! Watch this space, or around it.

It's a too many cooks spoil the broth sort of thing. With the more massive user base that, allowing everyone to start a guild for every old thing would water down the quality of each individual guild. Better to have a few guilds run by dedicated, responsible people, with a lot of people working under them, than to have an infinite ammount of guilds of one or two people doing nothing of note. We don't need to turn this site into another myspace social circle jerk.

Circle jerks are fun and all...but MySpace takes the fun out of them somehow...Maybe Newsvine circle jerks will be fun :)

I haven't thought carefully about this, but my gut reaction is I will quit newvine if it becomes an elitist organization. I like the Guild idea, and I think Guilds can rise or rest in obscurity based on their merits. If some people get editorial power and other don't, then I am taking my participation elsewhere.