Jump to content

Politics, Government and Player Voting Power


dw_ace_918

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

Well about this point, it could be possible to have a sort of Organization that owns the Ark and zone around it owned by NQ, This organization then contains moderators and ingame service and Q&A people. Technically, it contains the people that run and monitor the game. This way If there is something that breaks the uela or normal law they can intervene within the game and stay within lore.  This would not be an government but more like the united nations is now. I think this would be the least intrusive way for NQ to come in game to handle problems, because this way they Are part of the universe itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

A lot of idea could be implemented with out my desired structure

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

Well about this point, it could be possible to have a sort of Organization that owns the Ark and zone around it owned by NQ, This organization then contains moderators and ingame service and Q&A people. Technically, it contains the people that run and monitor the game. This way If there is something that breaks the uela or normal law they can intervene within the game and stay within lore.  This would not be an government but more like the united nations is now. I think this would be the least intrusive way for NQ to come in game to handle problems, because this way they Are part of the universe itself.

IMO there shouldn't be mods in any area, they're just Not needed. NQ can and should Play the game ofc, but with official accounts and not hidden ones (we saw what happens when they do in eve).

You don't need anyone ingame when the eula is broken, it's Report and logs are taken. 

 

DU is a social experiment to See where ppl are taking it with all that freedom. It doesn't need mods with some powers (will be abused), it should just come from players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with that but i would like to see goldsellers and such undergo public execution before the arc by any NQ staff member under an United blabla banner :)

 

Freedom is everything, im also not in favour for regulations and was only stating what could work in the original idea without inflicting to much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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)

***SNIP****

No No No and NO!

 

You are once again suggesting one DU based org that has more power and influence, not just in numbers, but in game mechanics, above all other orgs.... just NO!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get why it's better to have one org with special privileges and Special powers (access to ingame mechanics) instead of just scrapping that bs and give no orgs special rights, make them all the same and see where it goes. It's always (yes ALWAYS) a bad idea to give special powers to only some ppl. That NEVER ends well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoreVamore said:

No No No and NO!

 

You are once again suggesting one DU based org that has more power and influence, not just in numbers, but in game mechanics, above all other orgs.... just NO!

I'm 50/50 on this.

 

I have explained that orgs in DU are anything they want to be. They only describe a system by which a group of individuals operate. A government is an org. We do not need a separate org type with different mechanics to take on the role of a government.

 

Implementing tools for enabling a government in the sphere of your own org is a good idea. Like ID, prosecution and surveillance. Giving those tools to one government that has predetermined authority is a very very bad idea.

 

Government in real life does not have absolute power. It can be challenged with equivalent force. Any system can be challenged if you have the firepower. Creating a system that cannot be challenged is against sandbox and against realism and most of all player freedom.

 

On the subject of tools given to everyone. I see no reason not to. The players join and choose to comply by the rules and are given an ID (if they use the IDs). Whenever they die or are hurt a script can be set up to store and calculate over the data. Whenever they speak or perform a certain action a script  can calculate over that data. Like

 RIGs from dead space but more totalitarian. Or perhaps not. Perhaps your org values the freedom of its players or perhaps that just what it says to them. The sky is the limit.

 

Whatis a little wishy washy is video surveillance. I don't think it would be technically feasible to store anything other than text in an in-game database. These databases would need a storage limit of course to stop lag. But then the issue arises of players making collosal 'i have no mouth but I must scream' super databases with multiple calculations being made. Now that would cause a lot of lag. Of course you could solve this by limiting the types of data you can acquire to infrequent forms

 

Edit: forgot about prosecution. Agree on no to incarceration. Only forms of punishment that are feasible are corporal and financial.

Edited by Veld
Prosecution
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Veld said:

Whenever they die or are hurt a script can be set up to store and calculate over the data.

Lua can't assign RDMS, have to find the quote from nyzaltar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lethys said:

Lua can't assign RDMS, have to find the quote from nyzaltar

That's that then. That leaves ID and prosecution. However I am starting to realise that prosecution is unnecessary as a mechanic.

 

If someone disobeys the rules. You can offer them the opportunity to pay compensation or be ostracised. Essentially ostracisation is incarceration from the arbiters perspective. Just in the latter the suffering of the individual is guaranteed.

 

So just ID. Clocking in to the job, passing a checkpoint, making a contract. Basic stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

Do you do realise that there are several orgs that are already setup along the lines you mention, why not join one of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CoreVamore Please don't quote me.  I will definitely be looking into orgs that share my ideals.  I'm really not trying to force my system into the game, it seemed like a good idea to add to the idea box, so I did, and I still believe it has merit.  I'm not trying to offend anyone.  The majority of feedback has been opposed to this from the start, so I don't expect anything.  Truly, I hope I can simply enjoy the finer aspects the game has to offer, and I hope my pessimistic assumptions about what org systems will become are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good org bad org happy org sad org,

my org your org their org our org,

Who has seen it, who has done it?

Why they succeed why they fail?

How can they be good for all?

Who will be there when I fall?

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...