Jump to content

Politics, Government and Player Voting Power


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

@Nanoman thanks for the link.  As far as the idea I have been proposing, I tend to agree with you.  I can't preach player voting power and community then say except when I don't like the majority consensus against it.  If you wanted to dig through the forum, you probably would find the core of my reasoning and various aspects of how it would be different.  I'm pretty much stepping out of the way if anyone wanted to add to my side of this or offer up other ideas on it.

Eh ... this has nothing to do with minority / majority consensus on how to design the game. As pointed out, what you envision in terms of boundaries and rules for behaviour and organisation already is possible. Within / with / by organisations and its members. 

 

You keep stepping out of the way yet you also keep coming back to this :) It makes me curious, do you feel that the sandbox concept might have an adverse effect on what you would like to see in a game? Or have you accepted that sandbox nature but find yourself looking for mechanisms / features which might enable you to structure an organisation along the lines of your ideas / wishes / ideal gameplay (which ideally could be multipurpose / reused for other purposes - like the vote mechanism discussed earlier)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 oth

except if you give that power to me.

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!  

Is not the default org favoring dictatorship? Even if one indents to create a democracy, currently there are no tools to do this. Additionally, any democracy would be a variation of a dictatorship because it would be designed by a single player or group that player choses to help. Finally, it is clear this concept of an org within games is the standard and fails to provide a true system of inclusiveness and equality within any org or in the game overall. So only the life, liberty and property as well as leadership, justice and security belong to the few and those they chose to provide it to.  Last note, why must every mmo game carry on the elitist org system model and fail to provide a truly diverse and player empowering solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

Is not the default org favoring dictatorship? Even if one indents to create a democracy, currently there are no tools to do this.

As the specifics of whether or not the rdms system will have tools to allow popular voting systems of an org have not yet been released this statement is inherently false or NDA breaking.  

 

I will consider the terms organization, government, tribe, corporation, coop, commune, party, etc to be interchangeable.  They all have the same basic meaning with only variance in experiential association (different feelings based on your experience).  

 

I believe it would benefit the final game to have tools to allow for any type of governance the devs can find a way to accommodate.  However the idea that all members of the game have to belong to any specific type of organization is absolutism, and tyrannical no matter what type of governance that organization has.  I agree with a number of the other people here who do not want any rules outside of those necessary as decided by NQ to be applied to everyone. 

 

All types/sizes of organization/government are sets of rules that are set in place and ways to enforce those rules on the members.  Whoever is in charge (whether it be 1 person, a board, or all the members) make rules, need some means to enforce them (police/elders/enforcers/HR department/Boss), and a way to punish offenders (imprisoned/cast out/beat up/fired).

 

All rules take away liberty from people.  By default all people have as much liberty as they possibly can have.  When you start making rules you might protect people from each other's actions, but you have placed boundaries on every persons liberty as well.  The idea of making every person be a part of an org/gov by default means that you are reducing the baseline of how much freedom people have by default.  

 

I hope this helps you to understand why some others, and myself are against the idea of a government that all people are made a part of by default.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dw_ace_918 said:

Is not the default org favoring dictatorship? Even if one indents to create a democracy, currently there are no tools to do this. Additionally, any democracy would be a variation of a dictatorship because it would be designed by a single player or group that player choses to help.

I'm using phone so cant give you link, but you can search for RDMs ,it say pretty clear there.

 

NQ already give you tool for democracy already. It called 'legate'.

 

If it is dictator, legate will be set for one player or only a group to vote for the way of the org to go. If you want democracy, just legate everyone in org, everyone will have vote power. Then they can vote to choose who will be President/Prime minister/Leader of the org and give specific command which only that 'tag' can give without voting (they should talk about that decision before execute because if it angry major of member they can vote to demote or exile you ).

 

So I dont know what you want now for a system already in game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A person does not create a democracy. I guess it's pointless to suggest it for a game anyway. I'm just an outsider here I guess. I don't want to play Ark or Eve or whatever those are, I want to play DU.  I don't want to play forum games or organization games.

If I chose to be involved with an organization, if I submit my thoughts to forum, if I share my heart and soul, where is this community, where is the fun in any of this for me.

I have been patronized, made fun of, accused, misunderstood, and bullied here, not to mention the political stuff with the organizations, all but put off by this all.

So, great game, just leave all that crap out, because I can find a different game to invest my time and money into.

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

A person does not create a democracy

What do you mean? It isnt a "personal org" , dont wrong about create org on website and create org in game. NQ already said create org in game will subject to RDMs and different than create org on website, and future they will add it later but now it isnt.

 

2 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

I want to play DU

Well this everyone want include me. But first we have to have a good foundation.

 

2 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

If I chose to be involved with an organization, if I submit my thoughts to forum, if I share my heart and soul, where is this community, where is the fun in any of this for me.

 

This part make me some confuse. Forum is a place for you to discussion, you can choose to practice or not. And about org, you dont have to, you can play solo or create your own, anything is possible

 

2 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

made fun of, accused, misunderstood, and bullied here

Well so terrible i'm sorry, but if my tone sound like bullied you i'm sorry. Because after all i'm not native English speaker so i only choose the simple word i can use to chat.

 

So in the end what is bothering in your mind ? Just telling here and i also with some great guy will help you to understand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay i will try to not misunderstand you.

So you mean you want to create a democracy (which people will choose their own road ) org to vote for every matter include elect president right ?

 

Okay basically it can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ShioriStein no, I'm not going to create any kind of gov type org. Maybe someone else will try, but I doubt to see a successful democracy ever in a game.

What I mean by "a person cannot create a democracy" is that a democracy is a dynamic born from a large group of people. So an organization owner would have to surrender their organization to the members and yield all authority to an agreed upon system based on what tools are available to do this.

Why would anyone do that? Where are the players who even value the ideals that would make it viable?

And when I say "all organizations are dictatorships by default" I mean that the organizations creator has complete power to make it whatever and chose who to give legit. You say of course, I made it, it's mine. Right, so it is, dictate it as you like, but don't tell me this is not favoring dictatorship.

I don't even care about organizations until they get in the way of how I want to play the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Umu i can understand some of your point. You are right all the org power will be into the hand of those who create org from foundation so the people who join later will have "less" power.

 

But i think if the need arise people , who prefer democracy, will join together to create an org where everyone is legate. But as you say we "maybe" only see it in the mid of the game when people tired of dictator so they will join together but we never know when.

 

So you have a right point here but, truth is in long term i dont see any way better than what we know right now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

So an organization owner would have to surrender their organization to the members and yield all authority to an agreed upon system based on what tools are available to do this.

Why would anyone do that? Where are the players who even value the ideals that would make it viable?

 

obviously there are people like that, and with the planned rights&duties system its completely possible to give other members the exact same rights as the founder (which wouldn't make it a democracy but an anarchy tho). It is indeed possible to create any currently known political system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@dw_ace_918 It is rule of civilization. It must be and will be but i dont know how will it go since it is a game where people just stop playing or keep playing that all.

Edited by ShioriStein
playing not player damnit
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The idea behind a player driven sandbox game is that the players build the world, from the ground up. With that said of course the developers will need to provide tools to the players in order to allow them to build their ideal governments and organizations. But forcing any system is contradictory to the game's core mechanic of being an open sandbox game.

 

When it comes to the political landscape and tools we'll be provided to help run our organizations, there are a few that I personally feel are important. Things like;

- Setting a political stance that can be seen by all other organizations ( At War, Neutral, Ally) that pertains to organizations of choice.

- An optional voting system (that could be toggled on and off by the current head of the organization at anytime) that would physically remove people from the head of their organization and replace them with the most popular vote.

- A possible revolt functionality for vassal states or nations. (I haven't been able to find exaclty how vassalization will work so if anyone can enlighten me, please do so)

- The ability to assign roles to players (something along the lines of having 20 slots and being able to make custom titles and give them to players within your organization) but this could also be achieved by creating different outfits, which they're doing now. Just adds a deeper level of role-play.

 

Those are just a few actual game features, inside of the political script as a whole, that I think are necessary to allow for any government type to take form. As well as provide mechanics for uprising and government change by popular decision. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello @Davis. I like the fact that you have added to this topic by sharing what you would like to see from the organization structure.

I'm not sure if sandbox means anything in relation to how dev makes rules and limits on various aspects of gameplay or that sandbox necessitates that no limits will be imposed as a sandbox is just a structure that has limits (box) and is intended to provide an environment where many can enjoy themselves.

I agree that a game should not be anything like a job.

Quite frankly, I already work 60 hours a week, so not only do I want to enjoy myself, but I also want to get the most out of the time I spend in game.

I hope people will help to form a free society and that the organization structure supports full democratic autonomy as well as supply a through set of tools and options for players to do this.

I'm not against any organization structure or any organizations that are currently being proposed by players, however, I have not found any that seek to achieve the lofty goals of democracy based on citizenship (ie players chose leaders and e plaribus unum) and so forth.

Additionally, I would like to see options not only to employ a full democracy but also a way to set up functions that are automated (like election cycles) and provides a checks and balances design based on powers, limits and accountability for leaders.

Anyway, I hope dev give us all everything (within reason) to employ any organization system or type as well as subsequent functions and autonomy (based on setup and design of organization). <that's a sandbox>

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

I agree that a game should not be anything like a job.

 

I feel that's where trying to create player states or notable organizations in such sandbox / emergent gameplay games like DU will probably conflict with that aim, sadly. From my estimations and partially also from my experience, trying to start a project or organization from zero or scratch takes a lot of work. Technically even trying to grow or maintain a classic organization that is not resembling some big state or project can be or will be a full-time job if you want to invest the most into it.

 

Technically there is always something to do. Think of new ads, marketing campaigns, try to establish ties with other people, find new (ideas for) products, create new websites, be present in community hubs, etc. And all of that doesn't include one bit of game action or gameplay. So in addition to that you have to add all of the gameplay relevant actions like building, mining, being present in-game, talking to people in-game, shipping goods, fighting or helping people actively, etc.

 

In other words, I don't think there's really any maximum time cap. It's open ended. Usually progression is faster the more time you pour into it. If I'm gone and not doing anything, not much is done. Someone else either has to do it, or there is no real progression.

 

In other words, I just think then genre of this game makes it "like a job" once you plan to do certain things - like build a giant city or create a player state. That's just what it is. Even later on in large groups where many burdens are shared across many shoulders, I suspect that some positions still could equal something "like a job" time-wise, meaning that you can in theory never pull enough time into it, there would always be something or more to do. Brings me to the next part:

 

 

11 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

Quite frankly, I already work 60 hours a week, so not only do I want to enjoy myself, but I also want to get the most out of the time I spend in game.

 

I suspect many of us have such commitments in reality, and many have to find a good balance. But once you try to accomplish some things in-game, it's basically like a work or job commitment. With the previous things in mind, you better be sure you want to proceed with this in the position you aim for (founder, leader, something comparable). Of course trying to get the most of the time is legit. We all want a good time in games, more or less or if all goes well.

 

Before I end up writing more of the same, my point basically is, TL;DR: Some things we attempt, depending on the scale and who backs us initially or later on, is more or less like a real job - in my eyes, anyway. And maybe we should realize that and change expectations. I believe doing so helps one mentally shoulder this big amount of work or stress better instead of expecting an easy ride through the themepark, in figurative terms.

 

I would like to end with an example.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Number crunching or some stuff

 

I have to work a set amount of hours per day on average. Sometimes less, often more, it depends on what happens. In addition, I add travel times, break, etc, taking 5 days, a normal work week.

 

On average I'm gone 11 hours per day, which would be 55 hours a week. When it comes down to it, rather more if more work is there and if I thus stay longer. So for the sake of it, let's go up 5 hours and use basically your schedule of 60 hours a week. Do mind that in my example I have travel effort included. If you did not add that in your case, it would be more, unless you basically live right next to your work place or something.

 

60 hours

That's like two and a half days non-stop where I am not home. Or 12 hours per day. Gone half a day each day during the week. Holy moly, if I think about it. I should really move closer so I can at least reduce that number a bit!

 

But think about what I could do in a game or for an organization each time, and live as things unfold, not always just notice them when they happened as I come home, if I had that time for an organization or game instead. Where I could be if I actively invested just half of that or a quarter more each day, counting release and the ability to build in-game. I don't need to be "on it" 60 hours like some sort of job replacement, but more time always helps in such cases where you want to establish organizations or projects, or maintain them.

 

The point here basically is to show that there's usually no real hard cap and that you can, in theory, always invest time into an organization or project, healthy breaks included of course. So if there's usually no hard cap and if "the more the merrier" applies, I think it can basically be seen as "job" to some extend.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now before this text blob becomes bigger, I really wish you good luck and well in your endeavors. The more people help, the easier it becomes to solve tasks or share burdens. But I still believe it's basically like a second job at that point. If 60+ hours are already used up, I believe you can only get far if you have enough supporters. Otherwise, growth would be very slow or stagnant as most tasks would fall on your plate as "main initiator" or "founder", basically.

 

Text blob signing off.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Warden I understand your point, how in game responsibilities can be tantamount to a job.  I guess where I define the job vs fun time aspect is the motivation and purpose behind why I am doing something.  Although I enjoy my job and like the people I work with, it is a job and I do it for income not fun.

Now, I play games on my own terms, to enjoy myself and socialize.  When it is no longer fun, I find a different game.

The big factor in how this game will look on this scale depends on organizations.  I do not intended to slave for some organization.  I would be happy to pay a tax to be part of an organization that promotes player freedom and provides various functions such as justice, military and leadership.  In such a case, my involvement would have to also be voluntary, otherwise I could focus on building my own business and enjoy gaming with others.

In any case, I guess my ultimate point in this thread has nothing to do with this specifically.

The game should not be like a job, so we where discussing how organization structures and features could help make the game as a whole more enjoyable as well other tools and features we hope to see from dev in regards to organizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

@Warden I understand your point, how in game responsibilities can be tantamount to a job.  I guess where I define the job vs fun time aspect is the motivation and purpose behind why I am doing something.  Although I enjoy my job and like the people I work with, it is a job and I do it for income not fun.

Now, I play games on my own terms, to enjoy myself and socialize.  When it is no longer fun, I find a different game.

The big factor in how this game will look on this scale depends on organizations.  I do not intended to slave for some organization.  I would be happy to pay a tax to be part of an organization that promotes player freedom and provides various functions such as justice, military and leadership.  In such a case, my involvement would have to also be voluntary, otherwise I could focus on building my own business and enjoy gaming with others.

In any case, I guess my ultimate point in this thread has nothing to do with this specifically.

The game should not be like a job, so we where discussing how organization structures and features could help make the game as a whole more enjoyable as well other tools and features we hope to see from dev in regards to organizations.

It's just (restricted to) roleplaying anyway, so as long as people have a bit of common sense to not go overboard there's plenty room to have fun. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
On 5/4/2018 at 10:18 AM, Veld said:

IIn 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.

We must take a very hard look at state/government services. Are they “services,” or are they embodiments of repression? Or are they “services,” at best, that no one really wants? And if they are genuine services, wouldn’t they be supplied more efficiently, as well as voluntarily, by private enterprise?

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

×
×
  • Create New...