/signedI just want to pop in a make a few points to clear some things up.
First, the call for the change in guild renown was not done to stop guilds from kicking casual players. It was done so guilds didn't have to make the choice between members and gaining guild levels. If you look at many of the posts that lead up to this it was a guild leader/officer staff having inward problems having to make a decision to remove people because they were deemed not earning enough renown to offset the decay level the guild was receiving.
Second, the change to decay that was implemented flattened the decay for all guilds. Looking at guilds regardless of size each one has to earn the same amount of renown to satisfy decay. However, dividing that out by member takes on the assumption that all members are equal. What we learned from the outcry of Guilds that were stagnated by the previous Guild Decay amounts was that this was not true all guild members are not equal in their playtime or contribution to renown.
Arguments about size, who contributes more, what makes a guild etc. are doing nothing more than pulling attention away from the problem at hand, causing bitterness and malcontent. Lets get back to the constructive side keep up the ideas on how we the player base see how renown should be used. Keep the focus on allowing us the player base to decide what we want our Guilds to be, keep them focused on allowing them to be defined by us the player base (their customer).
I stand behind my previous statement about Turbine taking a step in the right direction. I'm still waiting for the next step, be it the removal of decay, changing decay to be based off a guilds monthly average attendance or something else.