I can't help but read that article with the thought that the Mr. Andrews can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak. One shining example that comes to mind is his officer who mysteriously quit and never gave him any indication as to why. Rude? Maybe, but I see the symptoms of much deeper problems that are not necessarily the fault of the individual who left.
Now, before anyone suggests (correctly) that it is, at the very least, the
polite thing to do to notify someone in-game that he wouldn't be playing again, there is something we should each be reminded of: WoW is a
game. Games are intended to be a form of
recreation. It's easy to lose sight of this, and I think that's largely what happened in Mr. Andrews case. When Turus linked this to me earlier, he mentioned that the author's folly was to be (and remain) a hardcore raider, I couldn't agree more. It's true. We've known plenty of raider-types, and while they share some common attributes, their vagabond-like treatment of guilds is probably their most visible characteristic. They go where the loot is.
I don't have any evidence to support my claim, but I'd wager that as a whole the player population of WoW is increasing in average age. There are obviously many implications if this is true, but I think the most important among them are that as we get older, we suffer from 1) reduced patience, 2) reduced time to play, 3) less desire to feel obligated to play a game (and games should be fun first and foremost) as a second job. This is also where casual guilds will generally succeed.
Ever notice how the majority of casual guilds tend to have an older (25+--physically and/or mentally) population? Ever notice that casual guilds generally don't take things
too seriously? Ever notice that casual guilds generally don't pressure people into positions, force them into runs, or guilt-trip their members into staying active? This isn't an accident.
The formula we've had works, and it's worked well for a very long time. We've always maintained roughly the same population and activity, although I would argue that it has been increasing over the years. This formula works because casual guilds like ours know the game isn't a job.
It's a community.
That's the point Mr. Andrews seems to be lost on. Hardcore raiding is clearly the sole form of entertainment he gets from the game (see his last comment where he said he'd quit if he couldn't raid), but I honestly believe he has
absolutely no clue on how to maintain an active community. It's anecdotal evidence, I realize, but given Terenas' own history, it seems to me that
hardcore play habits and
long-lived communities are mutually exclusive.
Actually, I don't even need to point to Terenas as an example, because WoW doesn't live in a vacuum. If you look at any significant online community (forums, in particular), you will notice that the successful ones share a common formula:
- Leadership isn't necessarily aggressive, except toward abusers (spammers, harassment, etc.); leadership is usually lenient, but this also depends on the focus of the community. Most family-oriented communities will be less lenient toward certain language, for instance, but the principle is roughly the same.
- Meritocracy over all: Leadership positions are generally voluntary. Moderators (officers, whatever you'd like to call them) are typically promoted by the merit of their labor and not because they're "needed." Assignment of duties is something you do in a job. Acceptance of volunteers is what you do in a community.
- Mutual respect is important, perhaps more so than anything else, but the respect of each others' time is the most important.
- Everyone has their own life outside the community. The community is not life. I've seen far too many communities and open source projects fail because the leadership loses sight of this and makes unrealistic demands.
Raiders have never exhibited a thorough understanding of successful communities. If they did, it seems to me that the concepts are lost the moment they win their lewts.
