dw_ace_918
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dw_ace_918
-
-
@Nanoman I guess I just want to be able to have something more. There are a lot of different ideas I'm peddling around in it, so in the end, I'm afraid it would not really achieve my personal desire, but it could add some different aspects to gameplay that we haven't seen before. If these where just added to standard organizations, where massive ones gained new options, it still has pitfalls, because single player owned organizations are unlikely to function with all inclusiveness, open and free citizenship, employ justice and democracy, but instead, just grow strong, destroy the weak, answer to no one, subjugate the players to their own will, anyway, that's what I think. I don't like it, feel like I've seen it before and I just want to enjoy all the other stuff the game has to offer.
There could be lots of reasons a person could want it or not. Large scale war, politics and leadership, organizations that act more like businesses and let the governments handle security and justice. It could add different aspects of security forces vs criminal organizations, that could be fun for pvp and rp. The option to be part of something bigger that is not owned by one person. Options to create your own style of government and see if you can get enough people to subscribe to it to initiate it. To be fair, There is a lot of opposition to gov org and a lot of challenges to it if it is to have merit. I'm trying to evolve the idea as I go, provide for different perspectives, incorporate ideas and strain out large pitfalls. So, finally, it would not fix anything, but I do think it would add some dynamic gameplay if it works as expected.
* Obviously I have a preference (forgive me) on a gov org system, but I also do not want to ban others or exalt to one type more than others. Essentially the current organization system is a dictatorship, which is fine. If I would want one element changed, it would be that an organization can not be owned by anyone, even it's creator, or at least the option for this. It's hard to feel there is any real civilization or community in it, for me, not that gov org is necessary to fix any of that.
-
So, I'll try to speak plainly and avoid convoluted decision.
It was mentioned that it is hard to speak on specific points on this topic, so here is a list I think could help.
> Gov org is a unique organization.
*How can we ensure it is unique from a normal organization.
Some of my suggestions:
# Massively shared citizenship.
# All inclusive - anyone can join who isn't already part of another gov, cannot lose citizenship, can join or leave any time.
* No player ownership (however, player designed)
Initialized by massive player subscription to justify its creation.
* Attempt to emulate community ideals of government.
* Various tools that provide opinions to exercise government functions.
Alternative ideas can be add, this list is not exhaustive.
* Gov org has tools that other organizations do not.
* Normal organizations should not be governments (not by limiting one over the other, but providing great options and tools to one that would not be available to the other) !controversial!
* Gov org is an authority and power unique from normal organizations.
!!! These are just some ideas, they are not concrete expectations, only my view of how gov org could be unique and superior to normal org !!!
> What functions and tools does gov org have
> How do they work?
> How can they be implemented?
* Justice System: community organized reprisal system.
* Citizens make laws.
* Players report violations.
* Citizens determine how to provide there own security.
* Tools could provide means to: identify violators, provide reports, how to determine action to seek resolutions.
* Would only provide for the most basic functions related to murders, thefts, breach of contract. Other ideals would have to be provided separately when a systematic way to collect internal data cannot be provided.
* Player death reports (players must submit, system provides option to report).
* Property with ownership id. If ID taken without consent, data can confirm ID without turnover agreement.
* Video evidence of time stamped event reporting (used for community to determine if crime has occurred).
** systems would be limited to how data point monitoring of specific actions (like death or kill logs), ID for property ownership (a turnover of property method to change property ownership ID, or authorized users of it), collision detection (objects damaged and sorce of damage logging).
* Players would be given options to report.
* Evidence could use videos from a time period around the event data log, but not use log itself.
* Testimony from player submitting report can be considered in investigating.
* Accused would be identified primarily from video evidence, however, video could fail to ID, and a case could be dismissed for many reasons (such as the accused case prevails, guilty cannot be proven, etc... etc...) whatever and etc....
* Accused can choose to participate in process or fight the gov org, avoid it, oppose it whatever. If accused is defeated, would take monetary loss (no prison stuff).
* Accused status (red flag) would be removed if found innocent or is destroyed by gov org.
!!! Just some ideas, options and uses dependant on community in a gov org !!!
So that's a lot, I'm not going to argue about it, so please don't quote me, but add your arguments, thoughts and ideas to the general forum. This is not an exhaustive, complete or final list, just my own ideas and suggestions. PLEASE POST IN THE FORUM, AVOID QUOTING TOOL. ALL IDEAS, THOUGHTS AND ARGUMENTS WELCOME. Thank you, and please be respectful in this topic forum.
Use a name call out to communicate to specific users please. There is no need to clutter topic with quote clouds. Thank you all.
-
6 hours ago, Veld said:
In all honesty I don't think you really understand the role of government and political systems in general. A lot of what you say seems like you're beating around the bush a bit. It's hard for me to address direct points because of this.
My understanding of your outlook on politics is you see anarchy as some form of lawless system. That is untrue. Anarchy is not a system. The word is used to describe a collective of disparate and distinct systems perpetuated by individuals. It is describing an absence of centralised control. In example, the world is in anarchy as any nation can act off their own accord. But when you describe one system that is not anarchy. That is describing a presence of centralised control. It all depends on what you're looking at.
DU is anarchy. But within the systems that operate within it justice is enforced.
There is no objective basis for justice. This is because there are no two individuals alike. Philosophy is the manifestation of ego in thought. Politics is the manifestation of philosophy in the environment. Therefore politics is the manifestation of the ego in the environment. Your government is exactly this. Your politicians argue from their own egotistical standpoint like everyone else. The 1% control your society because of their mutually shared ego for dominanation. Hippies preach peace and love for their mutually shared ego for harmony - the idea they are 'enlightened beings'. There is no 'angelic' basis for human thought. We are apes.
A globalised administrative power is no different from a localised administration. The differences in labeling only imply one is part of diverse whole and one is part of a homogeneous whole.
There is no need for a central government in DU. In real life the state is useful for public services and to protect the specific interest of its civillians. Too much fragmentated and specialised entities will decay on their own. In DU all the orgs take on a governmental role. They are not specialised. Or they operate as their own syndicate as part of a larger whole. Take BOO for example. They abide by the same code of conduct yet operate as independent organisations able to disagree and exchange services with the other.The very word BOO only describes their moral code. BOO is their governing set of principles. Their government.
If someone wants to make a united nations org then they can do that. If people want to sign up to it they can do that. There is simply just no need for NQ to force a UN org if the players can do it to exactly the same effect.
Edit: I tried to steer the discussion towards giving players tools to facilitate their systems. But I see it was quite the digression.
Lol, maybe I don't know anything about government and politics. Personall, not a fan of them. You guys could do a better job maybe.?
Thank you again. Digression, please, almost my entire argument is digression.
-
6 hours ago, Veld said:
In all honesty I don't think you really understand the role of government and political systems in general. A lot of what you say seems like you're beating around the bush a bit. It's hard for me to address direct points because of this.
My understanding of your outlook on politics is you see anarchy as some form of lawless system. That is untrue. Anarchy is not a system. The word is used to describe a collective of disparate and distinct systems perpetuated by individuals. It is describing an absence of centralised control. In example, the world is in anarchy as any nation can act off their own accord. But when you describe one system that is not anarchy. That is describing a presence of centralised control. It all depends on what you're looking at.
DU is anarchy. But within the systems that operate within it justice is enforced.
There is no objective basis for justice. This is because there are no two individuals alike. Philosophy is the manifestation of ego in thought. Politics is the manifestation of philosophy in the environment. Therefore politics is the manifestation of the ego in the environment. Your government is exactly this. Your politicians argue from their own egotistical standpoint like everyone else. The 1% control your society because of their mutually shared ego for dominanation. Hippies preach peace and love for their mutually shared ego for harmony - the idea they are 'enlightened beings'. There is no 'angelic' basis for human thought. We are apes.
A globalised administrative power is no different from a localised administration. The differences in labeling only imply one is part of diverse whole and one is part of a homogeneous whole.
There is no need for a central government in DU. In real life the state is useful for public services and to protect the specific interest of its civillians. Too much fragmentated and specialised entities will decay on their own. In DU all the orgs take on a governmental role. They are not specialised. Or they operate as their own syndicate as part of a larger whole. Take BOO for example. They abide by the same code of conduct yet operate as independent organisations able to disagree and exchange services with the other.The very word BOO only describes their moral code. BOO is their governing set of principles. Their government.
If someone wants to make a united nations org then they can do that. If people want to sign up to it they can do that. There is simply just no need for NQ to force a UN org if the players can do it to exactly the same effect.
Edit: I tried to steer the discussion towards giving players tools to facilitate their systems. But I see it was quite the digression.
Lol, maybe I don't know anything about government and politics. Personall, not a fan of them. You guys could do a better job maybe.?
On points, I don't supply a clear list and points of argument system, but specific aspects could be argued on regarding gov org in game, how it would have to work (in specific ways, that would make it hold a unique role), and there is always room to discuss government in general and philosophy (wherever that would take us). ?
Thank you again. Digression, please, almost my entire argument is digression.
-
4 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:
Yes, another challenge and controversy. They could provide a general variety but that could degrade the legitimacy of gov org if the size of citizenship was small. Other options would be no dev initiated gov org, or one that supports a unique system based on a background story. Players would have a chance to support it, or go their own way.
So, I want to address the sandbox argument, because many have used this term to make their point against gov org. Please forgive me if I come across as rude or dismissive. I can (and I think shouldn't try to) address evey argument and point, so my responses are aimed at addressing the bigger picture of gov org. I don't want to detract from other ideas on it. Now, you said "remember it's a sandbox" to this point I, with respect, say "so what". Regardless of any opinions even official definitions of what that could mean, I disagree that the sandbox nature of the game does not allow gov org, or any organization. My personal opinion on it is that it relates to building stuff anywhere with no limits and the ability to transform the environment. Additionally, I admit that it could have a lot to do with gameplay, but I just don't agree that gov org violates the sandbox. We could make it mean anything, and I respect the view that is shared by many (maybe even most), but I also respectfully disagree.
Let me add the "it impose" limits here also. Players impose their own will in the game through different mechanics (such as collision detection, death and respawn, accumulation of things which can be stolen, organization structure imposed by one player on all members and all subsequent powers to impose will on others... etc) we can debate mechanics all day long, but it seems to me there is room for more unique opinions to consider. Why have organizations at all, why should anyone have to die, why can my stuff be taken or destroyed...on an on. Obviously these are part of the games we know and love, providing aspects of gameplay. I can understand why this idea seems like it is imposing, it is Allen to the status quo, and has the potential to dramatically change the gameplay from what a standard experience has been. I hope that is a fair assessment. It may be what the majority wants, but I wanted to share another option, and give everyone a chance at something different. Please consider it. I know I have to let this topic stand on its own feet, so I submit it to you all, do what you like with it, I rest my case.
-
1 hour ago, Veld said:
Controversial indeed. I just don't see how this is useful. Players don't need a blueprint. They can make their own blueprints. Could you elaborate on "prove its value"?
When you say gov org you imply a central body that issues laws? I don't see that as necessary either. Every org functions as its own independent governing body. They will not resolve issues between each other by justice. Justice is for internal issues where they have the administrative power. External issues will be solved like they are in real life between nations. Squabbling and shady back room deals.
No org would willingly submit to a governing system as it would have no authority other than military power. In that case the 'gov org' is simply a tyrannical force (technically every gov is but I won't get into that). Everyone wants to make their own rules and will not submit for the sake of it. Its human nature.
From an objective point of view, and not a human nature point of view. There is no logical incentive to submit to a gov org. They are subject to fallability and misconduct as much as anyone else. The org itself might as well seek to perfect their own justice system to their standards.
I will admit that it is difficult for me to communicate the ideas that I am advocating for and fail in many ways to succeed in providing a full understanding of it to others, but I am making the attempt, because I feel driven to do so. I don't want this to be my idea alone and hope others will get on board with me. Alternative ideas could be given and the conversation could be expanded. You said you wanted me to explain "prove its value". It would be different for everyone, how and if any org can prove its value. The value for gov org would be based on its unique structure, all inclusiveness and potential power it provides to all citizens. If it has no inherent value, it would fail to inspire its citizenship, but if the citizenship feels it has value and makes them feel valued, gov org would mature into its unique role. I don't know if that is a good explanation, I'm doing the best I can here, so please have some mercy and forgive me if I am not explaining this well. My feeble attempt at giving all this some deep meaning could be robbing the topic from others with different views about gov org. So take what you want from it, it's a hodgepodge of ideas that could define gov org in many ways, many of which could be incorporated into any organization. Obviously gov org is not necessar, other games like this one do with out it all the time. Many have played these game and like the direction typicall organization structures take them. I don't, and my view and opinion is completely subjective. This is just a new and unique (I hope) suggestion and idea for a potentially different types of dynamic gameplay.
-
20 minutes ago, Veld said:
Controversial indeed. I just don't see how this is useful. Players don't need a blueprint. They can make their own blueprints. Could you elaborate on "prove its value"?
When you say gov org you imply a central body that issues laws? I don't see that as necessary either. Every org functions as its own independent governing body. They will not resolve issues between each other by justice. Justice is for internal issues where they have the administrative power. External issues will be solved like they are in real life between nations. Squabbling and shady back room deals.
No org would willingly submit to a governing system as it would have no authority other than military power. In that case the 'gov org' is simply a tyrannical force (technically every gov is but I won't get into that). Everyone wants to make their own rules and will not submit for the sake of it. Its human nature.
From an objective point of view, and not a human nature point of view. There is no logical incentive to submit to a gov org. They are subject to fallability and misconduct as much as anyone else. The org itself might as well seek to perfect their own justice system to their standards.
Yup, it is inherently flawed, but I think it would provide dynamic gameplay unique from what we have seen with the typical organization model other games employ. Also, my assumptions of the effectiveness of gov org and any such game play benefits are entirely (for lack of a better word) theoretical. We could make predictions based on what we know, but would never truly discover the truth without testing it. Additionally, the parameters would play a large factor in the results. If a successful model was achieved, it could provide a more emergent (and profitable) type of game.
-
12 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:
The devs shouldnt be advocating one government structure over another, just frameworks for managing people and resources. The players then make the rest up - remember - its a sandbox.
Yes, another challenge and controversy. They could provide a general variety but that could degrade the legitimacy of gov org if the size of citizenship was small. Other options would be no dev initiated gov org, or one that supports a unique system based on a background story. Players would have a chance to support it, or go their own way.
-
4 minutes ago, Veld said:
This is an example of how intelligence is used. The said red flag could be made by flagging them up on their database and spreading the word to other organisations.
Intelligence is a key asset to anyone who wishes to control and enabling simple mechanics to document the activities of players would be very interesting to see play out. Especially as databases could be vulnerable to sabotage and espionage.
I brought this up in another post actually: all that's needed for a bounty hunter system is a method of taking trophies from individuals. With a registry system, they could cut off the head and dump it in the LUA scripted head deposit box and claim their reward.
With regards to the rest of your post it seems you are describing contracts and treaties? In places I have trouble understanding. But, even so, contracts are something that can be facilitated by LUA and the registry system. The actual contract just has to be a secure piece of data.
As for systems of justice, most of it is down to the players' activity independent of any game mechanics. The only sentence being that of ostracisation. I don't see any in game system that fits seamlessly into the sandbox that can allow to enact justice in a non intrusive manner.
To add any system of restraint and conviction would only cause certain issues to arise. Such as:
New players getting hauled off by trolls to noobtanamo bay never to see the light of day. The problem being they have no friends to bust them out. They won't get to experience the game.
Restrained players not complying because they don't have to care about dying
A lot of idea could be implemented with out my desired structure, and I am glad you can see beyond where we disagree, really make for a better experience for me, I will give you the same respect. So justice, yes, it presents a challenge on many fronts as well as being a source of controversy. So I will attempt to defend it and legitimize its possibility for implementation. The subjective nature of justice would be part of its structure based on the communities views and what not, but principally serves to provide restitution for wrongs (such as murders, thefts, breach of contract, and anything else a community views as a crime or criminal offense. Additionally, justice does not have to be used at all, say in an anarchy). If there was a success apprehension (able to defeat accused), limited punishment could be imposed, yes forced, upon the player in the form of monetary damages. Again, it is subjective, controversial and to a degree imposing. I acknowledge that I am advocating for something widely viewed as inherently damaging to what people believe the sandbox system to be.
-
A more controversial aspect of what i am advocating for is an initial dev designed gov org. It would be needed to prove its value to players as well as provide a blueprint and foundation on which players can build. Its potential for failure posses a risk to dev as well as players response to it in the game. However, even if an initial iteration failed, player designed gov org structures may succeed in gaining subscription to initiate and potential gov orgs could still emerge, making the work to provide it to players not a waste.
-
I'll give an example of what I mean by specific and superior structure. Because a government organization would require a large number of people to initiate (say 10s of thousands or more), in addition to fully open to all players (not citizens in another government organization) they could employ different aspects of governance. So while not being over organizations, they would have power to take action against organizations (including other governments, even players). So using an example of a government organization that employs a justice system here is my example: organization a and organization b make a written and binding contact. Organization b breaks the contract but a is to weak to do anything about it. Org a could report the offense to a gov org. Gov org investigates, looks at evidence, submits findings to a vote do decide if action should be taken. Org b is found guilty so gov org dispatches security or military force (built by the community). If gov org is able to defeat org b, org b must pay restitution to org a for breach of contract according to how gov org deems fair, end of case. If b cannot be defeated ever, no action can be force on them. This could apply to criminal organizations and individuals as well. A red flag would show they are wanted. Bounty hunters and mercenaries could be hired by gov org as well. Other function would be available for gov orgs and employ based on design and community participation and contribution. Leadership structure would follow design of gov org structure (initiated by large subscription to it, justifying it's creation) such as voting, dictatorship, monarchy, counsels, constitution, religion etc... That is my explanation of a few aspects related to gov org as a specific or special and superior organization.
-
8 minutes ago, Veld said:
This is a discussion not a bitch fest. If someone tries to take it in that direction then they're not worth the time of day. That's that. No room for emotion.
I disagree. A lot of people disagree. And through that the answer has been laid out. There are tons of dead threads people go to to answer their questions. This thread will serve that purpose like any other.
Back on topic. I think tools can be provided in game to make political and corporate organisation easier. The problem arises that a lot of activity cannot be effectively monitored in game without having a guy watching and taking notes.
The solution: a versatile supplement to LUA. Databases can be added in game to hold and store information inputted by players themselves. They have their own coded data signatures and can interface them with coded systems. The sky is the limit here. A polling station, a checkpoint, clocking in to the job. If it has to do with data; you name it. You want to make a big brother org. You can do it.
Indeed. Thank you. All of that is true. It would be cool to see players creating their own systems of organization including ones that emulate different government styles. Although I am advocating a very specific and superior structure, I think players could fill the void where I am looking for dev to give all players the tools on a larger scope with certain expectations. Sorry if that sounds cryptic and nonspecific, I'm of course reffing to the principles I suggested in my idea. In the end, player involvement and maintenance would decide the success of any organization structure, with or without these design mechanisms.
-
Topic on this idea is not shut down yet. Maybe we can have a conversation about the idea and your opinion. It isn't about organizations or dev positions. It's about what you the potential players want. I look forward to you opinions, ideas, insights and health debate. I've made a few revisions on my original idea, and have reinforced my resolve to advocate for it at the risk of ridicule and reputation. Thank you all again for giving me much to think about.
-
6 hours ago, Veld said:
I don't even know what the OP is even about. Is this just an open discussion for in game politics mechanics? Honestly all I see are a bunch of 'old man yells at cloud' posts from libertarians and people disagreeing with making some sort of in game system.
Edit: ok so at a second glance it seems your original idea was to make cookie cutter orgs? Not detrimental. Not beneficial. Just not needed really. Unless you are lazy ofc.
So I'm revving up this topic again. I look forward to all kinds of feedback.
-
2 hours ago, Veld said:
I don't even know what the OP is even about. Is this just an open discussion for in game politics mechanics? Honestly all I see are a bunch of 'old man yells at cloud' posts from libertarians and people disagreeing with making some sort of in game system.
Edit: ok so at a second glance it seems your original idea was to make cookie cutter orgs? Not detrimental. Not beneficial. Just not needed really. Unless you are lazy ofc.
"Old man yells at cloud" posts, lol, that's about right.
-
22 minutes ago, unown006 said:
As far as I know you cant and you shouldn't its useful info for others that will come after us
I see, I hope it can be helpful to someone. Thanks.
-
4 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:
No problem, This is an idea topic, so feel free to post. Some of the other posters disagree on a more friendly scale then others. Some also already think they know all and own the place so dont worry and post all ideas. even the in your eyes stupid ones. And feel free to disagree with everyone, freedom isnt free, politeness and friendliness is.
Good luch on your posts, and i sent you an pm
Thank you.
-
1 hour ago, Veld said:
I don't even know what the OP is even about. Is this just an open discussion for in game politics mechanics? Honestly all I see are a bunch of 'old man yells at cloud' posts from libertarians and people disagreeing with making some sort of in game system.
Edit: ok so at a second glance it seems your original idea was to make cookie cutter orgs? Not detrimental. Not beneficial. Just not needed really. Unless you are lazy ofc.
Yeah, something like that. Thanks for your interest in it, but it's kind of a dead horse now. If I knew how to delete it, I would.
-
6 minutes ago, Veld said:
@dw_ace_918so I take it the idea is to make in game tools that players can use to organise their political systems?
I see no issue with that other than players can simply use many online tools for such things. It can be argued that, for example, online polls could be sabotaged by the enemy. But is that not like how it is in real life? *cough* Putin *cough* *cough*. To be honest you could probably LUA script a polling station.
I think possibilities are endless, so more tools more options. I'm not a script writer, but that would be another way to do it. I really don't know much about it yet, so this topic has become a learning experience for me. I'm feeling a little unqualified to speak on it anymore.
-
6 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:
Thank you, it will take me some time to go through.
Thank I got it. In foresight, I posted this thread prematurely wit no insight. I apologize for this. I hope something good can come of this. Being that there was strong opposition to my suggestions, makes it all the more irrelevant as a topic and discussion. Thanks to everyone who provided feedback, views and opinions. Cheers to you all.
-
2 hours ago, vylqun said:
https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2017/03/31/organizations-purpose-management/
https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2015/05/21/rights-duties-management-system/
Everything needed to create your own democracy right there.
Thank you, it will take me some time to go through.
-
4 minutes ago, Nanoman said:
This should keep you busy for a while
https://devblog.dualthegame.com/
https://dualthegame.com/en/news/
https://www.youtube.com/user/dualthegame/videos
https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Dual_Universe_Wiki
Here are the AMA's (Ask Me Anything) from the above links (that I know of):
https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Archive:Kickstarter_AMA_Video
https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Archive:Kickstarter_AMA_Q%26A,_Part_One
https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Archive:Kickstarter_AMA_Q%26A,_Part_Two
https://dualthegame.com/en/news/2018/02/08/in-game-ama-feb-3rd-2018-transcription/And there are also plenty of interviews on youtube and other articles online that you can search for if you want more.
Thank you, I'll look through it.
-
9 minutes ago, Nanoman said:
The whole game is about freedom, amigo. You get out what you put in, you can do what you want and quit when you want. That's why NQ won't impose a mandatory all-encompassing government of any kind.
And that's why they are designing such flexible organization, RDMS, market and contract systems. It's not a big mystery how those are planned to work (except perhaps contracts but the main principles are pretty clear).
Cheers
I'm just learning about these aspects of the game. If you know any good references I could review to understand what is known, I would be greatful to you. I'll do some research myself before digging any deeper into this topic. Thank you and cheers.
-
11 minutes ago, Nanoman said:
Hey nothing is stopping you from starting an org that does exactly what you want. That's the beauty of this system. It can even encompass other orgs as members. I think there's probably some orgs already that are at least similar in spirit. Take a look around on the community portal if you like. And definitely read those devblogs.
The only thing you can't do is make it mandatory to join. And it won't be free and easy, it takes time and effort to build something from scratch which you can't simply outsource to NQ. But if you're serious about this and not just daydreaming, and you have a good idea that resonates with players and you make it clear what it's all about, then they will join you.
I guess it all depends. If it turns out to be something I don't like, I can quit my subscription to the game any time right. I won't have lots of time to devote to the game because of my work schedule, and I just what to "do me" when I do. I hope the concepts that attracted me to this game won't be overshadowed. My impression of the game now is different than when first I saw it advertised and no solid points of development have confirmed or refuted what we can only speculate. IE, people (myself included) have a lot of different expectations and assumption about undeveloped or undisclosed aspects of the game. But none of this has to do with this topic, except I understand the suggestions to follow what we think we know regarding organizations. I appreciate your uplifting attitude in your posts, thank you for that.
Politics, Government and Player Voting Power
in Idea Box
Posted
Thank you guys for abandoning the quote system, things are easer to follow now. Please have mercy on me, I'm not trying to anger anyone with my idea suggestion. I started it, so I'm staying involved in it. The idea will continue to evolve with your feedback and I will try to review ideas, answer questions and engage in discussion. If I don't respond to something directed at me, please forgive me, I'm not trying to be dismissive of disrespectful. Hopefully we can dig into substance, technical issues and constructive feedback in this topic. Like I said, everything is welcome, but please be respectful and courteous. Thank you all again.