Multi-Organisations membership

[Archonious]

Hi,

 

If I'm not wrong, NQ stated, players will have chance to be in many organisations at the same time (if I am wrong, please correct me).

I don't want to say it is wrong, just because it is wrong for my vision. It could be very great option for many other players.

 

So even in this stage there are two kind of people - who want see option to join multiple organisations and those who don't.

 

Following that, I find necessary option in organisation design (technical option, not just a rule):

Option to turn on/off multiple organisation join.

 

If it is on, every member can join any kind of organisation (in addition to current).

If this option is off:

-Nobody of members can't join any other organisation

-Member who already joined organisation can not be invited

-Member who is in multiple organisation (after switch off) will be marked in member list (so organisation leaders can sort it out, if necessary).

 

This is way to choose. As founder of one of the organisations, I don't want to spend hours for investigations every day.

 

There could be some excludings:

1. List of organisations

2. List of members

 

P.S: It does not break spying actions, but make it bit harder. So idea, as you can understand, does not forced against this kind of action.

 

I don't want to take possition of white or black, I want everyone (organisation) has option. If multiple membership is better for organisation A, this organisation can freely allow this. If this is bad for organisation B, this can be freely banned. Players will have option to choose where to join. Simple.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Zorac]

I am sure they stated (somewhere) that they will be looking into a system where a organization can turn on/off if they will allow members to be in other organizations as well. Otherwise i would be worried as well because it would be far from my vision of what a organization would be. So i don't think we have to worry about this aspect being a problem but i am glad you brought it up since it used to be a worry for me.

[Archonious]

I am sure they stated (somewhere) that they will be looking into a system where a organization can turn on/off if they will allow members to be in other organizations as well. Otherwise i would be worried as well because it would be far from my vision of what a organization would be. So i don't think we have to worry about this aspect being a problem but i am glad you brought it up since it used to be a worry for me.

Very possible. I hope DevTeam understand what players want and don't want. But at the same time (while I didn't see that), I prefer to show/speak about that.

I already wrote this in one of the replies few weeks ago, but I find this question enough important to create topic about that.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Fitorion]

On the one hand... the organization of player government and politics requires people be in multiple organizations...

 

On the other... corporate competition... pirate groups... PvP in general needs some level of separation between foes...

 

 

But then... IRL people usually are members of several organizations... Working at say Microsoft doesn't prevent you from being a Mountain climber... or being a Storm Trooper in 501st...

 

I like the idea that the organization can set internal policy on if it's members can join other groups...  I think it should be more robust than just ON/OFF.  Being able to set it for each internal Rank would be good.  So you can have your org officers... people with responsibilities... not be in other orgs but your entry level people don't necessarily have to be exclusive.

 

 

Edit to add... And even then there should be exceptions... Many organizations will be nested inside other parent organizations...  How an organization subdivides into different functions like defense, logistics, recruiting...  whatever is handled by making organizations...

[Kurock]

An org in DU is not just a corporation, it could be a political entity, a nation, a school, a hovercraft racing league, a single ships crew, an entire gang of ships, a bank, a mafia etc.  Anything that could be seen as a group of people getting together.

 

While I do not mind such a feature being present in the game, I do question any organisation using it as it will limit the members ability to enjoy the excitement of also being in, for example, the number one hovercraft racing team in the galaxy.  Limiting org membership also does not hinder spies in any way.

 

I prefer freedom, as such everyone has the freedom to choose to limit their own freedom.  To each their own.

[Dygz_Briarthorn]

I think I'd rather just have permissions set on specific locations - like meeting rooms.

The design already has permissions mechanics for areas.

 

What happens when an open org suddenly decides to flip the exclusive switch? All members are instantly cut off from their other orgs?

[Anasasi]

I believe people should have the freedom to join as many organizations as possible, bar the ones that reject them.

Though, that being said, I agree that organizations should be able to limit the amount, or completely turn off the ability to have their members join other organizations. 
This would just be a pre-caution. I also like the idea though, of it being a ranked system. Certain ranks get the ability to join more or not.

 

 

What happens when an open org suddenly decides to flip the exclusive switch? All members are instantly cut off from their other orgs?

I like to imagine that you'd get some form of 24HR notification that the leader has decided to take that action, allowing you to choose to stay or leave. As hard as that may be in the timeframe. 
Who knows though, they might just not allow it to be an option and you'll just be free to join whoever.

As long as you can state a main organization in your profile and the orgs you've joined are listed, i'll be happy. 

[ExtendedBacon]

On the one hand... the organization of player government and politics requires people be in multiple organizations...

 

On the other... corporate competition... pirate groups... PvP in general needs some level of separation between foes...

 

But then... IRL people usually are members of several organizations... Working at say Microsoft doesn't prevent you from being a Mountain climber... or being a Storm Trooper in 501st...

 

I like the idea that the organization can set internal policy on if it's members can join other groups...  I think it should be more robust than just ON/OFF.  Being able to set it for each internal Rank would be good.  So you can have your org officers... people with responsibilities... not be in other orgs but your entry level people don't necessarily have to be exclusive.

I think this is probably a good basis for the system. If they were to implement, it would have to be robust and detailed, for example setting categories for each organisation, and preventing joining other organisations of the same type, or based on rank within the organisation, etc. There would be a whole bunch of details that would ideally be in the system to make it works as optimally as possible.

[Anonymous]

Hi,

 

If I'm not wrong, NQ stated, players will have chance to be in many organisations at the same time (if I am wrong, please correct me).

I don't want to say it is wrong, just because it is wrong for my vision. It could be very great option for many other players.

 

So even in this stage there are two kind of people - who want see option to join multiple organisations and those who don't.

 

Following that, I find necessary option in organisation design (technical option, not just a rule):

Option to turn on/off multiple organisation join.

 

If it is on, every member can join any kind of organisation (in addition to current).

If this option is off:

-Nobody of members can't join any other organisation

-Member who already joined organisation can not be invited

-Member who is in multiple organisation (after switch off) will be marked in member list (so organisation leaders can sort it out, if necessary).

 

This is way to choose. As founder of one of the organisations, I don't want to spend hours for investigations every day.

 

There could be some excludings:

1. List of organisations

2. List of members

 

P.S: It does not break spying actions, but make it bit harder. So idea, as you can understand, does not forced against this kind of action.

 

I don't want to take possition of white or black, I want everyone (organisation) has option. If multiple membership is better for organisation A, this organisation can freely allow this. If this is bad for organisation B, this can be freely banned. Players will have option to choose where to join. Simple.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

 

Why limit it?

 

You appear to be making the assumption that an organisation is the equivalent of a corporation or guild - when in fact NQ stated that the organisation model will support a range of different types of organisations - in which they mean both in "type" (the rules etc of the organisation) and by inference - function.

 

If I were to create a cultural organisation, say called "Russians" or "Americans" or "Germans", and it had one rule - you are a xxxx cultured player OR themed character (if you are, like me, a role player), and everyone in the org was a legate (something NQ has said they will allow) thus making it a true anarchist democracy, joined by nothing more than a cultural identity - will you prevent it's "members" from joining your organisation?

 

The same could be said of religions or political parties, or volunteer organisations (the Alioth Firefighters for instance?) - types of organisations in real life that people are members of AS WELL AS being members of other organisations.

 

That said - if you want to create a cult like group with no life outside your organisations, strictly controlled because you are, for instance, paranoid - they'll allow that as well.

[Archonious]

That is choice of players. If player want 100500 organisations, player can join them. If organisation do not want their members be in 100500 other organisations, player decide what is better to him/her.

 

Personally, I don't care about nationalities, clubs, orientations and other silly trash (which has nothing with main gameplay). But this can increase stupid unnecessary confrontation between players. I fully not interested in that.

If to speak about normal organisations, I can not trust anyone who is member of other organisation (unless agreements and discussions with leaders). Being member of multiple organisation allow to use knowledge, data, infrastructure or even resources for other organisation. It is fully unacceptable for me.

 

Personally, I don't see any reason to have members with free multiple organisation membership. I don't want waste hours (+I pay for this time) to monitor every member every day (or even often).

 

As was stated, there could be some excludings, like special trusted organisations, members of organisation or ranks.

 

So what we have in the end? Want multiple organisatiins and fun-clubs? Join one of them. Want organisation with serious plans, be ready sacrifice "freedom" (personally I can't say that, since that is personal choice and player can leave any time) and become part of this organisation. Choice, that is driver of freedom!

 

P.S: Simple example. Organisation found new planet. Create base on planet. Moved main infrastructure to this planet. Then one of multiple members create teleport (maybe even using organisation resources) and allow to use this teleport to all his organisations (by mistake, or joke, or trolling... whatever)... result, organisation get massive troubles. Especially if that was organised trolling or military operation. No thanks! Want to have technical security from something like that.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Novark]

I think it's okay by having the ability to take apart on Multiple Organisations.

For example i want to learn to be a good Trader so i join a Trade-focused organisations but i also want to have some experience on Pirating so i would join Pirate-focused organisations 

 

I think by giving some restrictions to player who join multiple organisations will solve the problem (the restrictions may be different on each org based on the leader)

[Danger]

I see many people are thinking about organisations as about guilds. This should change, people should get educated to think about those as about abstract entities that players can get linked to and have functions and rights set by it's creator(s).

 

Organisations in this game are essential elements to build any social structure we want and developers should only focus to give us tools that allow such complex management. (one of those tools should for example allow specific limitations for it's members and/or applicants)

[Archonious]

I think it's okay by having the ability to take apart on Multiple Organisations.

For example i want to learn to be a good Trader so i join a Trade-focused organisations but i also want to have some experience on Pirating so i would join Pirate-focused organisations

 

I think by giving some restrictions to player who join multiple organisations will solve the problem (the restrictions may be different on each org based on the leader)

I clearly understand that many of active forum living in dreams. Dreams filled with peace and love, that is great, but reality could be (and I strongly believe it will) not so happy and peacful.

Even from example, trader+pirate. I will be very surprised, if experienced and serious trade organisation will open doors to pirates.

 

I see many people are thinking about organisations as about guilds. This should change, people should get educated to think about those as about abstract entities that players can get linked to and have functions and rights set by it's creator(s).

 

Organisations in this game are essential elements to build any social structure we want and developers should only focus to give us tools that allow such complex management. (one of those tools should for example allow specific limitations for it's members and/or applicants)

We back again to pre-game dream or overall vision (which is dream as well) of Dev. I am 100% sure, massive majority of active organisations would be clan/guild structure.

 

If compare real world and virtual one by agression parameter, real world is heaven. And I don't see any reason why it would be different in this game (especially in this game).

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Zorac]

Just want to say that i am fully on Archonious side in this matter.

[Hotwingz]

Thing is the multiple org thing will be how it will be in game. I know its still pre alpha but it just makes sense.

 

We will have the RDMS system.

We will have the option to create small orgs and super large societal structures. This creates the need to be part of multiple orgs. And JC said it would be possible. Its pretty much part of the genetics of this game.

 

If you are concerned about security then limit the highest acces tags to people up the food chain.

 

If you cut out this portion of the game then you are removing one of the most important tools for community management inside the game.

 

Being part of multiple orgs/super structures is emergent gameplay.

 

So the option for it is needed. I think if you choose no for your org you will limit yourself.

[Archonious]

Just want to say that i am fully on Archonious [/size]side in this matter.

Thanks, mate

 

There is another question. If everyone can apply for multiple organisation, it make necessary to know all of them, to learn about all new. Because who knows what is Organisation A, B, C and D? Who is agressive pirate? Who is not?

I don't find it fun or interesting. I'm looking for people who will enjoy to play in one organisation. And as I said before, I'm not interested to waste time to search double+ organisation members. I pay not for that.

 

All I want, as some others, option to prevent multiple organisations membrship

 

@Falslaf, I would like to limit my people and keep everything under control and safe, than open doors to hundreeds unknown and risky people. I don't care about theoretical dreams. In my vision it won't work that way for long anyway.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Kurock]

So here is the rub: You will have access to other organisations stuff anyway through the RDMS, without having membership in another organisation. As stated previously, this will not stop players from interacting with those orgs as if they were members.  As long as they have the rights of members, actually being a member doesn't matter.  So preventing anyone from joining other orgs is pretty meaningless.

 

If membership isn't legalized, it will be done secretly or unofficially.  Then again, nothing stops a spy from doing it secretly anyway.

 

So what is the end result?  Forcing members to not be able to join other orgs will only bring a false sense of security.

 

YMMV

[Hotwingz]

@Falslaf, I would like to limit my people and keep everything under control and safe, than open doors to hundreeds unknown and risky people. I don't care about theoretical dreams. In my vision it won't work that way for long anyway.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Thats what the Rights and Duties Management System is for. You can tag permissions to certain members.

 

Look you can run your org however you want. But multiple orgs membership is 100% needed to establish super structures.

 

You can choose not to use it.

[Dygz_Briarthorn]

I clearly understand that many of active forum living in dreams. Dreams filled with peace and love, that is great, but reality could be (and I strongly believe it will) not so happy and peacful.

Even from example, trader+pirate. I will be very surprised, if experienced and serious trade organisation will open doors to pirates.

 

We back again to pre-game dream or overall vision (which is dream as well) of Dev. I am 100% sure, massive majority of active organisations would be clan/guild structure.

 

If compare real world and virtual one by agression parameter, real world is heaven. And I don't see any reason why it would be different in this game (especially in this game).

 

Thanks,

Archonious

And this is why Anonymous gave you examples like nationalities and religions - where the prejudice would be more clear.

No one is suggesting that players will exclude members based on real world affiliations.

What Anonymous is pointing out is that it's prejudiced to assume that all pirates act the same. Especially simply based on the name of the organization.

Or even the description of the organization.

 

Lots of people don't care about your theoretical dreams of high risk from allowing people to be in multiple organizations.

 

As in real life, people who are focused on acting as a deep cover spy will find ways to do so. You don't have to be an official member of an organization in order to support an organization as a spy. Anyone in your organization can choose to share info with multiple orgs  and be rewarded in a variety of ways. Trying to manage that is wasted effort in any case.

 

 

[Anaximander]

Yeah, they can have an option for when you make your org to have an "exclusive membership" tag, so people can't be part of other orgs if they join that org.

Heck, get it one step further have an organisation format that allows you to set Exclusive Membership and the the ability for the leader of the org to look into a person's transactions and find out if someone pays them :|

Let's have totalitarianism as a premade organisation structure.


Although you won't stop spies from coming into your org and tearing it apart from the inside :|

You can either stop adding people in your org completely, or risk for people to getting into your org :|

[Archonious]

I don't understand people like you =) you demand that players need to have a choice and you against people have choice because they have another opinion. Or you afraid that most organisations will not support multi-org system? Isn't it their choice and members who joined them? You sound really illogical.

 

It is not way to prevent spying or something. It technical request, to make my vision possible without wasting my paid time for searching members (or time of my team, we play not for that). I don't want my infrastructure work against me (as organisation). And I don't care about "Cults of Ctulhu" or some other trash. I don't need it in my organisation, I need to technical option to keep it outside.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Anaximander]

I don't understand people like you =) you demand that players need to have a choice and you against people have choice because they have another opinion. Or you afraid that most organisations will not support multi-org system? Isn't it their choice and members who joined them? You sound really illogical.

 

It is not way to prevent spying or something. It technical request, to make my vision possible without wasting my paid time for searching members (or time of my team, we play not for that). I don't want my infrastructure work against me (as organisation).

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Yes, yes you are afraid of spies.

 

As I said, there should be a Totalitarianism organisation system as a template. complete with the ability from a leader to check a member's income sources. It would make dummy corporations be a thing, so I can pay all the people underneath you to sabotage you :V

 

And no, smart people won't tie their members or their orgs from joining other organisations, for many many reasons.

 

You got Organisation A, which is a Nation, with all its members in it.

 

Some of those members, belong to Organisation B as well, which is the Fleet.

 

Of that Fleet, members belong to a Ship which is an organisation on its own (because easier management you know, logistics and stuff).

 

If you had your main organisation, like a nation, locking down your members to a single roster, you would be creating a cluster-F of a situation.

 

Compartmentalisation, learn it. 

 

If I wanted to leave a message for my crew to see on loging in, I should not force - OR HAVE TO - force the entire organisation to see it.

 

As I said, Totalitarianism, should be an option of premade templates, just so people know it can't work and do things like we smart people will do them.

 

[Archonious]

And this is why Anonymous gave you examples like nationalities and religions - where the prejudice would be more clear.

No one is suggesting that players will exclude members based on real world affiliations.

 

 

And that is additional reason why I don't want see any virtual religions and other trash in my organisation. I am not interesting to separate people in my organisation. And I want to have technical option to keep all these religions and cults away. We don't need another stupid reason for conflicts inside. If somebody want it, then he/she an option. I don't want it, why can't I have an option?

 

Nobody force you to join organisations with limited structure. What you against?

Isn't that what called a choice? When you choose what is better for you?

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Hotwingz]

Yea I really think you are limiting yourself Archonious if you choose not to use the multiple org set up.

 

But its your org you do whatever you want.

[Anaximander]

And that is additional reason why I don't want see any virtual religions and other trash in my organisation. I am not interesting to separate people in my organisation. And I want to have technical option to keep all these religions and cults away. We don't need another stupid reason for conflicts inside. If somebody want it, then he/she an option. I don't want it, why can't I have an option?

 

Nobody force you to join organisations with limited structure. What you against?

Isn't that what called a choice? When you choose what is better for you?

 

Thanks,

Archonious

I'm totally with you. Ban people from joining religion orgs in your organisation's Management System. We are (almost all) with you on that boat. :|

 

If you want people to not be able to join certain organisations, you should be able to prevent them from being able to do so :|