The snarky part of me wants to suggest there should be 30 ranks, each with a custom name, permission, and customized birthday card. But I really hate to dismiss someone’s idea when I don’t understand the context and need to stop doing that.
I have a feeling the actual problem is people want some combination of permissions that doesn’t exist. I do know and think a kind of “second in command” rank is desired to help delegate recruitment/culling, that definitely makes sense.
So that’s probably the real intent: people want to control the permissions more granularly. The only reason @Cyrup’s explanation doesn’t work in this case is only the Guild Master can kick or demote members, and there can only be one Guild Master. I get why, though: kick/demote can be used to force a coup by bad actors. And no matter how ridiculous we agree it is to give that permission to someone you do not absolutely trust, I have seen it happen time and again in these games that trust can be misplaced. In the last six months I’ve seen forum drama related to an attempted coup in a major guild. It’ll happen again, and it will be a mess for support to clean up.
The most reasonable implementations would still take a good bit of coding work. I’d say if a rank has “kick/demote” capabilities, it should only be able to kick or demote lower ranks. That way rank 2 can’t depose the Guild Master (though I think there’s currently an allowance for inactive GMs.) So long as nobody can kick out the GM against their will I think most of the drama can be avoided.
As to some of the other discussion… some guild stuff is unavoidable. The draw of your guild is your people and perhaps your knowledge. Any new person you let in can be a strain on your people. Anyone you give access to your knowledge can release it to the public. You can’t close the box once it’s open. I don’t think a guild can function very well if it is very secretive about its teams and knowledge within its own members. That is a risk that every popular guild takes when it recruits.