Jump to content
dw_ace_918

Politics, Government and Player Voting Power

Recommended Posts

Government Organizations

 * Please read rules (below)

The idea:

Optional, all inclusive, citizenship equality, community run government hierarchy.

No single player ownership, community chosen leadership, all inclusive optional citizenship.

Functions of governing including any style of government, with tools to employ justice, security, leadership structures, taxes and more.

Massive subscriptions to player published government system to initiate.

Dynamically different and superior to other forms of organizations.

Possible initial predesighned government on new game as opinion for all players.

Rules in this topic (added 5-4-18)

> please do not use QUOTE tool, it damages the forum by cluttering it with "quote clouds"

> You may callout a user name if you wish to communicate with them in this topic forum.

> If an idea has merit to you outside of the gov org topic, feel free to start a new topic on it as its own game idea.

> Please be curious and respectful, remember, we all have a right to our own opinions and ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, just nope, it imposes limits on a sandbox game, which by its nature is open ended and can end up being communist, capitalist, democratic, fascist, demonic,. angelic, religious, agnostic etc etc etc.

 

The worlds/systems will be what they will be, and just like in the real world as DU expands, I'm sure there will be a mixture of the above throughout DU

 

If you want the above then join an org that wants the above. :D

 

Simplz ;)

 

Lethys likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:

Um, just nope, it imposes limits on a sandbox game, which by its nature is open ended and can end up being communist, capitalist, democratic, fascist, demonic,. angelic, religious, agnostic etc etc etc.

 

The worlds/systems will be what they will be, and just like in the real world as DU expands, I'm sure there will be a mixture of the above throughout DU

 

If you want the above then join an org that wants the above. :D

 

Simplz ;)

 

Thank you for your input. May I ask, in what way or how would a player based democracy imposed limits to the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

In what way would player based democracy imposed limits?

well, of all the possible systems of government you chose the democracy and deny the existence of other forms, isn't that in itself pretty limiting? Besides, its a bit arrogant to think that democracy is the only way to go for an advanced civilization, democracy is a pretty limited system, it only really works in idealistic environments where every person is well informed about political, economical etc. issues. Otherwise it devolves into inefficient structures lead by persons without excellence which only serve to limit the development of a state.

Lethys likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do that. Start an org and Go Vote in leaders, noone is hindering you. You can do that right now. And you can fight those......"nefarious forces". Do it and organize it, make contracts with other entities and actually work for it yourself.

But don't expect Others to just bow to you or such a system. I personally hate democracies and will never ever join one.

 

You clearly haven't understood what emergent gameplay in a sandbox is about. All the things you've mentioned are already possible, but there is no mechanic which takes you by the hand and tells you what to do. You have to do it yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You can have any political system you want, as long as it's Democracy" !

 

DU's playerbase is not one nation, it's a fractious collection of different groups with widely differing ideas of how the game should be played. DU's design gives those groups complete freedom to choose how they want to organize and rule themselves. Anything else limits that freedom of choice.

 

Democracy is an option, but not a requirement. It will in all likelihood be the least popular form of organization, because it reduces the power of organization leadership. I expect semi-dictatorships and "monarchies" will be the most common forms of organization.

 

The "founders" of organizations in DU are closer to CEO's than to political leaders. They "own" the org by virtue of the fact that they created it. They are the supreme authority in that group, with the power to invite new members or eject existing members as they see fit. Very few of them (if any) will be elected leaders that serve only as long as their "people" approve of them. Anyone that doesn't approve of them will most likely be summarily ejected from the org...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote anarchy. No reason provided, because....anarchy doesnt need a reason, just all be free, rules? Where we are going we dont need rules.

 

Organizations, thats something different. When you enter those, they have rules and you should follow those rules, but outside the organization? No rules unless there are rules in the org that state behaviour outside the org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

Politics, Government and Player Voting Power

 

So, this is what I have been thinking about and this is the idea I wanted to share with the community.

I want to invite all to join in the conversation:

A > Should we have player community based democratic government? Why/why not?

B > Is this a viable solution to providing player freedom and game balance? Why/why not?

C > What should the overruling system look like? (other ideas welcome)

 

 

 

It's a sandbox. That makes it what you make from it. The moment you try to replicate artificial, arbitrary and subjective constraints on it as controlling mechanisms is the moment you effectively strip the potential for making it into what you might want to turn it into for yourself

 

In other words, while there will be baseline feature sets and mechanisms that enable the sandbox, some of which might support types of human behaviour and organisation in the sandbox, you don't want to go down the road as described in the topic start. There's important lessons to learn here from both successes and failures of other mmo's (and human social psychology in general). 

 

 

A. No. Sandbox. Make it what you want to be. Invest in it. Deal with it interacting with what others might want out of it. Nothing is worthwhile without a cost. Nothing has meaning without effort. Nothing has significance if it doesn't have to stand up to something else.

 

B. No. You're talking about arbitrary constraints. This is a very different thing from game features and mechanisms. You want to mix the two. While a cocktail can taste good to one or the other, it's a matter of subjective taste. Welcome to the human species, one shoe does not fit all. 

 

C. NovaQuark. That's it. I sincerely doubt they will dabble in player affairs however. They're smart cookies, and they recently hired someone into the position of exec producer who's got quite a bit of experience with the hard lessons of that other mmo in these matters. 

 

Reality check: it's a sandbox. Reading tips: organisational psychology, game theory. 

 

Honestly, don't try to wrap a subjective perspective or ideal in either lore or feature marketing. Use the sandbox. It provides the room and the means for you to make your perspective or ideal as real as possible. 

Ben Fargo and Lethys like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda happy again to have picked a "Corporation" as organization entity.

 

While a lot more is possible and feasible, I think it was a good decision even though it could be considered "semi-dictatorship". What the board says goes, but you can still implement "democratic aspects" on many levels without necessarily being "slow" or "complex" by design. In the end, what may work or be good in reality does not necessarily have to do so in this game - even if intentions are noble.

 

I currently like what I have. Dynamic and shifting; be your own "gov" or work under one (on their turf). We also do not have to cover many positions or expectations you'd see or need in a classic democracy, depending on how you define it and whatnot.

Vyz Ejstu likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "system" is no constant, it only provides two things: tools and jobs. Participation is optional, nothing is inherently required except a few position that are chosen by the people. There is no difference between the effects of a government vs an organization except who they answer to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Warden said:

I'm kinda happy again to have picked a "Corporation" as organization entity.

 

While a lot more is possible and feasible, I think it was a good decision even though it could be considered "semi-dictatorship". What the board says goes, but you can still implement "democratic aspects" on many levels without necessarily being "slow" or "complex" by design. In the end, what may work or be good in reality does not necessarily have to do so in this game - even if intentions are noble.

 

I currently like what I have. Dynamic and shifting; be your own "gov" or work under one (on their turf). We also do not have to cover many positions or expectations you'd see or need in a classic democracy, depending on how you define it and whatnot.

Yes, it may not work well depending on players involved and and how some limited powers could be used. It's a sandbox government, with a few sculpting tools, serving everyone in the sandbox. So the players define it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have gone with "organisation", simply to not predetermine type - so to speak. Players might want to organise around completely different yet equally valid concepts, other than economics. Think ideology, politics, convictions, beliefs, etc. 

 

But I suppose "corporation" makes sense, even if it makes it something along the lines of other mmo's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vylqun said:

well, of all the possible systems of government you chose the democracy and deny the existence of other forms, isn't that in itself pretty limiting? Besides, its a bit arrogant to think that democracy is the only way to go for an advanced civilization, democracy is a pretty limited system, it only really works in idealistic environments where every person is well informed about political, economical etc. issues. Otherwise it devolves into inefficient structures lead by persons without excellence which only serve to limit the development of a state.

Thank you for elaborating. It is just an idea, and I wanted to see what people think. It would be a sandbox government with a few tools and jobs, and what it would be is anything the players at large want to make it. My thinking is, this sandbox has many people, and larger concerns could be addressed with a cooperative organization, as to prevent a society subservient to one or more dominant groups. I don't know what that that would look like or how it would work, but it would have to promote player freedom and impose no constants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

I vote anarchy. No reason provided, because....anarchy doesnt need a reason, just all be free, rules? Where we are going we dont need rules.

 

Organizations, thats something different. When you enter those, they have rules and you should follow those rules, but outside the organization? No rules unless there are rules in the org that state behaviour outside the org.

There is always room for anarchy regardless of any power structure in game (such as already exist with organizations), nothing would change this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warden said:

I'm kinda happy again to have picked a "Corporation" as organization entity.

 

While a lot more is possible and feasible, I think it was a good decision even though it could be considered "semi-dictatorship". What the board says goes, but you can still implement "democratic aspects" on many levels without necessarily being "slow" or "complex" by design. In the end, what may work or be good in reality does not necessarily have to do so in this game - even if intentions are noble.

 

I currently like what I have. Dynamic and shifting; be your own "gov" or work under one (on their turf). We also do not have to cover many positions or expectations you'd see or need in a classic democracy, depending on how you define it and whatnot.

I didn't think any of that would be effected. The fact that an all inclusive sandbox government run by players is inherently flawed presents a dynamic feature to me. It would also allow players options if structures such as you described (and prefer) are not what they want to be part of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, playwrs can be part of several organizations, si if they feel the need for an all embracing government they'll create it themselve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vylqun said:

Remember, playwrs can be part of several organizations, si if they feel the need for an all embracing government they'll create it themselve.

Sure, and organizations would not change under a sandbox government. The idea is that it would provide an all inclusive organization to promote overall player freedom and give each player a more powerful voice. Involved would be determined by each player. Some tools and jobs would be added. No limitations would need to be imposed and all activities would be conducted by players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly this will probably not work for two reasons: Trolls and Egos

 

And to be clear, i hereby declare myself neutral and independent of any form of general centralized government that will be imposed in DU and will see any form of involvement of this "government" in my actions as an act of violence and will act accordant. 

 

Take my love, take my land,
Take me where I cannot stand.
I don't care, I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with that posted, some feedback:

 

If you want this to work, find a way to deal with trolls and ego.

And with the people who really dont want any dealings with this stuff during their playtime like me but are not going to actively sabotage it aslong as you leave them be.

 

One method is make another org, but well thats just what you dont want, the other way is to just pronounce "rules"and hope people follow them and forget about the police force.

But in the end, if anyone wants to mine a big hole right under your base in unprotected territory, they can.

 

so figure out how to deal with that and you have a plan :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:

Sadly this will probably not work for two reasons: Trolls and Egos

 

And to be clear, i hereby declare myself neutral and independent of any form of general centralized government that will be imposed in DU and will see any form of involvement of this "government" in my actions as an act of violence and will act accordant. 

 

Take my love, take my land,
Take me where I cannot stand.
I don't care, I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me. 

 

Absolutely, there are inherent flaws. Organizations involvement is optional, you can ban government support and even fight against it without effecting individual player citizenship. Criminal organizations can make a living pounding and stealing, creating a black market and so on, a sandbox government as well as organizations would respond accordingly (with military force I assume). Powers of government would be based on players involvement and support as no tax would be imposed. Some jobs in government would be paid by the system, like how you get paid when you turn in resources to the system to generate money. Trolling would be handled however the players and organizations see fit, with a justice system, they would receive a criminal tag, and have to evade and combat  law enforcement, bounty hunters, players and organizations they have offered if they do not want to be put on trial, and pay if found guilty (something like that), so players choices could have real and dynamic effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:

So with that posted, some feedback:

 

If you want this to work, find a way to deal with trolls and ego.

And with the people who really dont want any dealings with this stuff during their playtime like me but are not going to actively sabotage it aslong as you leave them be.

 

One method is make another org, but well thats just what you dont want, the other way is to just pronounce "rules"and hope people follow them and forget about the police force.

But in the end, if anyone wants to mine a big hole right under your base in unprotected territory, they can.

 

so figure out how to deal with that and you have a plan :)

 

Inherently flawed, yes, but all inclusive sandbox government where players can work as law enforcement to fight these kind of things. Accountability would be handled through a transparency information system so all interested can know what is going on and vote accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did thing about this :)

 

Well in this i'm just going browncoat, once a browncoat always one but i do like the thought you put into this! and it will make my game also more interesting as i then have something to rebel against or use in my own interest, anything for the browncoat Cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Accountability would be handled through a transparency information system"

 

Probably any name and share register will be prohibited by NQ as this is normally prohibited in any MMO so probably the accountability should be something creative, but im interested in this, i tend to block any poisenous person in a game, so if there is gone be a list i will surely use it. And then the accountability part will be that those players will be on alot of block lists and trade etc will be probably harder for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×