Politics, Government and Player Voting Power

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[CoreVamore]

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.

 

Simplz

 

[dw_ace_918]

In what way would player based democracy imposed limits?

[dw_ace_918]

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.

 

Simplz

 

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

[vylqun]

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]

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

[NanoDot]

"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...

[Aaron Cain]

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.

[virtuozzo]

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. 

[Warden]

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.

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[virtuozzo]

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. 

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[vylqun]

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

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[Aaron Cain]

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. 
 

[Aaron Cain]

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

 

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[Aaron Cain]

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.

[Aaron Cain]

"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.

[Lethys]

1 hour ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

Do it. Organize that. Work for it. See that it's done. I'll watch from afar and will try to bring it down. That's a sandbox