One of the constant challenges I face when discussing the topic of my recreational activities is justifying the validity of a world that exists only in cyberspace. After recounting a conflict between two friends and expressing my mixed emotions on the topic, there's nothing more frustrating than to hear my listener dismissively respond with, "It's just a game."

While most of the interaction for an online community is invested within a uniform activity - in this case a game - I don't believe this makes it any less of a valid, social experience than if the event had taken place in the same physical location for all participants. Granted, online communication lacks key elements that we take into account when interacting in the "real world." Body language, facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and rate of speaking are often lacking when you hit the internet. I say "often lacking" as many online gaming groups employ the use of voice-over-IP programs to communicate in real time, verablly, with their teammates and comrades. The primary use is to coordinate in-game events where timing and teamwork are crucial. However, they also reinforce the social aspect of the guild as members shall utilize these programs to discuss non-game events.

There is power within a community:  church fellowships, community organizations, sports teams. Each of them rely upon the pieces that make up the framework of their existence; each of them provide a sense of belonging and purpose; and each of them are unquestioned in how they impact lives. However, when this power is invested into a volunteer grouping of gaming enthusiasts connected via modern technology, suddenly the experience loses its merit.

Does location really determine if social interaction is valid? Do we instead ascribe more import to events that involve people that we can see and touch? Or are we instead prejudiced by our narrow focus of experiences?

"It's just a game" reflects a mindset of a person who views the activity as nothing more than entertainment; not comprehending the extensive social networking that occurs while playing the game. When placed against the history of human interaction, the internet is a relatively new convention. Online gaming, such as the type that dominates MMORPG's as we know them today, is even younger than that. For someone who has not experienced the full, immersive properties of a make-believe world filled with real-life people, it's difficult to relate. It asks the individual to be open to the idea of sharing themselves with perfect strangers who share your hobby. Perfect strangers who share experiences with you, building a common history, and work in game with you; often helping you out at the expense of stunting their own characters' growth. A relationship is formed in the process.

A relationship, that people out here in the "real world" call friends.

In World of Warcraft, much like most games, guilds can be formed by players. These are then governed by players, controlled by players, and managed by players. The companies, and Blizzard is no exception, have very little to do with trying to manage these creations with the rare exception of conforming guild names to the Terms of Service (i.e. requesting players change offensive or inappropriate guild names).

Guilds serve in a variety of capacities and they don't always mean the same thing to each player.

For some, a guild is a place to socialize with individuals. As it provides a seperate form of communication via "guild chat," it serves as an effective means to ask questions, request help, and share news. For others, a guild is a means by which to make a personal statement such as "Dont Make Me Get My Main" indicating that this is likely a group of alternative, low-level side characters and if you mess with them, a higher level character will inevitably seek you out and exact vengeance. Yet, for most of the guilds that I have been involved with, guilds serve a purpose for the player to better their character.

Guilds generally serve a function: to level, to raid, to pvp, or to socialize. It can be one or all four - but usually a guild will have to prioritize what is most important to them. These four functions will often come into conflict and it is best for both the leadership and the members to have a clear understanding of what the primary, most important function of the guild is. That way, when resources are limited and the guild must focus attention on one aspect above all others, it is a justified action.

This was mostly common knowledge to me and I always tried to impress upon my fellow officers (administrative partners) in the guild that we needed to relay our justifications for our decisions to the guild. We needed clear, swift determination and to be working towards a common goal.

The first step to making a guild work is to set a strong foundation to build upon. We had a guild focus - rather an ideal that we wrote out like a vision statement for a company. We had a priority (to raid) that trumped everything else that the guild may be able to provide and made it infinitely clear in writing out guild rules. We had a method by which to make decisions and forums in which to communicate. We placed individuals in ranks who had been loyal and dependable.

What we didn't have was clearly outlined ranks and division of power. Later I discovered just how important this was and forever regret missing the opportunity to define what someone could do and - most importantly - couldn't do.