The Thjng Discussion[Stay out Dread things need to be updated]

[hadet.sonnenkern]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_QD ... sp=sharing

Discuss here

[deli.nayar]

It's an interesting idea, but I feel that if one or two groups of representatives vote for OPTION A and a majority of others voted OPTION B, the people who voted A would just refuse to enact whatever OPTION B was.

For sake of example; if there was a vote by the community to phase out collision armor in place of LBA completely, and Coercion and [BRAZIL GROUP]'s party reps voted no, but everyone else's party reps voted yes, causing a phase out of collision armor to be official, I doubt that the nay sayers would agree to adopt LBA, even though they agreed to be a part of the system.

Correct me if I am wrong in assuming it would work like this.

[tyro.gutter]

Edit:
DISREGARD

Yeah. Or the opposite could happen with the community doing something we non-negotiably disagree with, ie disallowing LBA entirely or something incredibly dumb.

Governments typically work because they have a way to enforce a policy. The only way we have to enforce policy is to either refuse to give a sim traffic or grief a sim to be inaccessible; and neither option seems very good, especially for something possibly trivial.

On that note, how do we fairly proportion who is a part of the SLMC? Do we use The Fray? Do we use a script to record unique names participating in combat over a period of a few months? Do we make a new group and enforce policies over people who think this is dumb and refuse to participate? A real government would essentially say "you had the option to vote and you refused to" but again, what tools are we going to utilize to actually enforce policies? Do we need to have a vote on that, to begin with? You also never stated what constitutes a majority vote: 51%? 65%? 75%? 90%?

Going back to enforcement, I could foresee us refusing to do something because it's dumb, and then pull out entirely like we did with Genesis. Except, should we make rules of enforcement, we know we have the means to out-grief anyone else in the SLMC and the endurance to survive sustained isolation.

This system can't possibly serve the best interests of the SLMC because there are so many things we're just so diametrically opposed to and I guarantee you that anyone who forms a majority vote is going to push an issue that will bother a group so much that they will pull themselves from the project. Just like with Genesis, you'll have an echo chamber with circle jerking or outright apathy. People under a government find living under a minor rule that bothers them is preferable to open rebellion or secession. In the SLMC, secession currently appears to be a more attractive option than concession even to relatively minor rulings ... as we've seen already. You're not making policies over an armed citizenry, you're making policies over micronations. Look at the UN and see how ineffective many of its rulings typically are. Unless it's some form of economic sanction, nothing happens. It's because everyone in the rooms knows China or the US can ignore most of the rules and keep their allies in the process.

Even with economic sanctions, Russia and North Korea are in pretty good spots. Imagine that applied to the SLMC; ourChaos and Rome have a very high member retention rate and most people in our groups will stay with those groups. If we both had a minority and agreed to not do something, what can the SLMC do about it? What if we decide to fight each other? What if our traffic eclipses the rest of the community after the "sanctions?" What if we made a threat against the SLMC government if they threaten sanctions? Do you think they won't back down if we decide we're going to Black Crusade the entire community?

That example is pretty outlandish, but any system with the potential for abuse should have those flaws removed or mitigated. I currently don't see a realistic way to do that. The only positive I can see is that most of the community is seeing eye to eye a lot more lately than in the past; but even among the dying and desperate groups, there's a lot of pride and willingness to say "no" on the basis of who presents an idea without even understanding it.

Edit:

So I paced a bit and ate some brain food.

I think this system can be amended by changing a major fundamental aspect. Remove the legislative body entirely and compose it entirely of scripters and other contributors (that don't just model things, ie; Minus who has a good sense for sim design and can gather analytical data.)

You can still have your president, speaker, and judicial, but these would act more like CCP's player representatives within EVE. The actual legislative process and deciding what issues need addressing would be done by the people creating our game.

However, here's the kicker. Instead of them coming to a decision, we present the decision to the community, like they do in Old School Runescape; 75% majority vote for the change, and then all the scripters agree to implement it within their content.

This is still subject to some content creators and groups sticking their nose up at it, but this way you have an informed body coming to some form of consensus, and then presenting it to the entire community. You then have, in the form of your moderators and judiciaries and shit, representation for people who are not scripters to have some agency within their discussions. For instance, a President can overrule something with 51% vote among the legislation, and they can come back and outvote a veto if they come to a greater consensus. I think treating this like a game development team with a proactive community is more beneficial to the longevity of our community than approaching this as a nation encompassing nations.

ie ...

Run the SLMC like how we run Chaos. Have our content creators rule the SLMC. Chaos runs the SLMC.

[hadet.sonnenkern]

This was meant to only be a government in a Neutral Area not the entire community. It's meant to govern over Neutral Sims, like Unity Venture i think you misunderstood part of it's purpose everything else is good banter though. I just wanted to point that out before people assumed this was another thing like Project Genesis. Continue discussing.

[tyro.gutter]

Oh. Well, in that case I think what I said about scripters has merit, but the original proposal also works. You just need to define what a majority is.