GI

Zhenya, you didn't understand anything.
Firstly, what post are we talking about (I didn't understand here)? I wrote the message for a different reason. By the way, regarding the Guild – "you probably wouldn't write a message here, and wouldn't even pay attention to it" – that's not very polite.
Secondly, is the essence the same? Hardly. You see, having a leader means that the Guild is an independent organization with its own rights and responsibilities, therefore it has the right to enter into relations with other organizations, and this turns it into something like a clan. Having a leader means a completely different approach to the concept of the Guild, which I wrote about in my previous message.
The Guild shouldn't be an organization. Or am I missing something?
Thirdly, I'm not against having a person in charge. However, he shouldn't be a leader – this means that he shouldn't have more rights than necessary. He is just a list editor who can coordinate the activities of others (create a topic, for example, where links to forum members' rudeness are provided, etc.). He shouldn't decide on his own who to include in the list and who not to. This is where the main difference lies between a leader and a person in charge (an editor or whatever) – the lack of rights that allow him to really manage the life of the forum and the activities of forum members. I think it's clear what danger lies here.

And that's what I was trying to say in my previous message.