I have always found hierarchies to be rather effective. I read about what to do or when but rather should work, in my experienced opinion, pretty much as legislation do. For instance:
To take out the whole intimidating power of the RPC overruling the others, there can be a simple ladder process. If a conflict begins between two guilds/ls both LS can have representatives or legislators who represent each guild. They both will gather and talk about the problem and try to solve it. Who is representative depends on the guilds, and the whole issue evolves between the conflicting guilds. (Since there is communication between representatives the influences to fighting from the whole angry or disagreeing group will be diminished, in other words, less peer presure)
If communication between the representatives does not work, the guilds can ask for intervention from a wider group (RPC for instance) This group would have a spokesman. The spokesman will work as an officer to try and find a simple and easy solution to the problem, again only dealing with 2 representatives making it a conversation of 3. A copy of the log/conversation made to try stop the conflict by themselves will be copied and delivered to the spokesperson.
If that fails, which is rarely, a third higher power (for a lack of word) will be involved. Here a "judge figure" who serves as bridge between the representatives and the "jury" and 3 Jury who out of the parties on dispute will work as decision making.
The whole when, why, and such things i read it quiet well developed in the last posts. This is only to the last issue of making RPC too responsible or too demanding as some argued. (just an idea ^_^ made my life easier in Alexander)
To take out the whole intimidating power of the RPC overruling the others, there can be a simple ladder process. If a conflict begins between two guilds/ls both LS can have representatives or legislators who represent each guild. They both will gather and talk about the problem and try to solve it. Who is representative depends on the guilds, and the whole issue evolves between the conflicting guilds. (Since there is communication between representatives the influences to fighting from the whole angry or disagreeing group will be diminished, in other words, less peer presure)
If communication between the representatives does not work, the guilds can ask for intervention from a wider group (RPC for instance) This group would have a spokesman. The spokesman will work as an officer to try and find a simple and easy solution to the problem, again only dealing with 2 representatives making it a conversation of 3. A copy of the log/conversation made to try stop the conflict by themselves will be copied and delivered to the spokesperson.
If that fails, which is rarely, a third higher power (for a lack of word) will be involved. Here a "judge figure" who serves as bridge between the representatives and the "jury" and 3 Jury who out of the parties on dispute will work as decision making.
The whole when, why, and such things i read it quiet well developed in the last posts. This is only to the last issue of making RPC too responsible or too demanding as some argued. (just an idea ^_^ made my life easier in Alexander)
