I might give a bit of feedback to your feedback 1. I understand where you're coming from with leadership based on population. The way I would have done it would have been something arbitrary like looking at roughly the number and scale of buildings. This would prevent a large but empty claim from getting too much unnecessary leadership or representation in a higher body. 2. The leaders of each claim, and the GO, are meant primarily as oversight and advisory bodies. Anyone should be able to start any project they want at any time. There are going to be some things that are probably just too trivial (or technical) to warrant a full public vote. And there does need to be something at the top that joins all of the GO claims together, apart from the concept of the GO itself. This role would be filled by the President and the Global Council. Maybe the GC can be just be a place that every claim leader can go to and discuss issues of importance regarding the entire GO. It could have the ability to vote on UN style resolutions, which can support or condemn something but not necessarily take physical action. The GC also serves a purpose in that it gives the President a set of elected figures who actively discuss things with each other from which they can choose assistants for different areas. 3. I think there should be a means for the President to delegate some of their responsibility. When there is a project of importance, there should be someone to oversee it and raise issues. Anyone can do this, but having someone dedicated to it would also be good. When I mean a project of importance, I'm talking mainly about when you're building a new town hall or a large railway connection. A person overseeing these projects would have the responsibility of ensuring that it works for everyone in the GO, from every claim. I also see you said that elections would take place every month. While I think that would work fine, it may still be too frequent. There does need to be a period of time in which the same group of people can work together to complete something, and these short periods between elections would likely result in some instability and unpredictability, which could hinder peoples willingness to do things. Maybe we can meet in the middle with elections every two months? As for challenges against leaders, I think most of the points I made above also count here. You never know when a challenge could come up, and while it will keep the leaders on their toes, it'd keep everyone else on their toes too. A sudden and unexpected change in leadership style from the leaders would be enough to through people off if they're working on a project with involvement from the leaders. Hopefully things should be able to carry on regardless of who the leaders are, but any change in leadership will always upset people.
Out of curiosity, how will the GO interact with the surrounding communities, IE Maximus, terra, and east oak, and is there anyway you can assure our residents that the influx of activity will not harm our outpost and that your resident will not grief or steal from our cities? Also will you prevent or hide the existence of our cities from your resident? These are some concerns my people have expressed
The problem with subjective values for measuring population is that it is incredibly easy to fake or guess incorrectly. I say we just give everything equal representation since everything includes everyone. I have an idea for a compromise between the two. There are two ways to pass propositions. A proposition can be passed either by the GC or by the population. A proposition passed by the population can override something passed by the GC. As long as that doesn't happen, something established by the GC will govern the entire GO. I added a part about this in the doc I have been keeping (same link as above) just to put it all in one place. You said there should be a way for the president to delegate some of their responsibilities. They should already have very few responsibilites. Their only responsibilities would be as a member of the GC and as the one who communicates with the staff. This isn't that much. For other big projects, the GC or population can appoint someone to handle it and report back with details or changes. The executive doesn't have to worry about these kinds of things. Finally, I have no problem with longer terms (I originally was for no limits ) so feel free to go as high as you think would work. After looking back, I see that you said 3 months previously. I would be happy with that. The challenging would cause instability, but I was hoping the grace period and restrictions on the loser would help prevent that. I feel that we either need frequent elections for everyone or infrequent elections with some way to recall or challenge those in charge. I am in favor of the latter. Are there any alternatives or modifications to challenges that you have? I worry that the petition system would essentially act the same way just with a slower time until a resolution and would upset the entire leadership instead of just the person people have a problem with. I am definitely not entirely happy with the challenger system as is though and can see it being abused down the line. I am not sure how we can hide your cities if they are visible from the live map, but I can assure you that griefing will not be tolerated by anyone. Although I can't speak for what future leadership will pass, we are still governed by the rules of EMC and harming other outposts would be against those rules. I would also like to point out that all of the members of surrounding communities are part of this outpost and can therefore vote and help shape it in a way that benefits everyone. I invite them to visit this thread and give their own inputs. Hopefully this can ease any concerns. Finally, it looks like the voting thing passed. I will update the OP now. Edit: Updated the OP with new voting instructions. If you have any problems, contact me and I can fix them. The system is almost entirely automated.
^ I think we're really refining it now I noticed in the doc you said that members of the GC would be the leaders of projects, by that do you mean the leaders of claims? I do like the compromise with the GC. If they do want to override something that was passed in a popular vote, then they'd be able to take that to a popular vote. You do have to remember that for the President, this will be the person that from the eyes of the staff, is the dictator. The staff do give them those responsibilities. As for term lengths, if you're willing to go for three months, then I think that's better. As for challenging sitting leaders, I'm not really sure how to go about that. Having a petition would ensure that you're not going all the trouble of holding an election if there's only one or two people who have a problem with the leaders. Finally, I think we should write a constitution that lays out the system, and all of its concepts and terminology. Once that is finalised, we can put it up for a vote. This document would need to be voted on by popular vote to be amended.
Yep, I meant claim leaders . I was thinking about what would happen if a non-claim based thing happened and wanted to elect leaders but I now see that it wouldn't really make sense. It can always be amended in if needed. Speaking of amendments, if we pass this as a public vote, it pretty much establishes that only another public vote can amend it. That sounds like a good enough system. I reread JD's post and nowhere is it mentioned that staff give the player those responsibilities. It simply says that they are a dictator and the owner from the staff's point of view. The difference between the two is important. Specifically, someone can be the owner of the outpost and dictator but they just dictate based on what has passed. There is nothing there that says all of the owner's positions have to have come from them and only them. Basically, the staff want to have one person they communicate with and can talk to. Whether that person is actually all powerful or representing the wishes of a group doesn't matter to them. For petitions, what if instead of requiring a certain number of votes, it required passing a Recall. If the recall passes, a reelection is held for that spot. The incumbent can still run in that election but the chair is considered empty during then. It will be similar to recall systems irl. I will add it to the doc. I am trying to maintain the doc I have as a possible Constitution to vote on. I made the doc editable for now.
Hello! I have been inactive for a while, but I'd like to re-introduce myself as ILTG (formerly *cringe* herocrafter2912). I "established" Albion, and did a small amount of work on the island. I just saw that Albion has been given to the Global Outpost, and of course, given my inactivity, I doubt I would have had any say in it anyways. Alas, I would still like to show my support and assist in the development of the isle. I spent a long time (a few months, I guess) planning for Albion, but I never executed any of my plans and ideas, mostly due to my PC dying. (And, of course, my indecisiveness. ) I've got a few questions, and may think of more, so if there's someone I should PM to discuss this, it'd be great if they could start one, or at least let me know who I should speak with. I'd love to get back into the community, namely by creating on the land that I started with. This would be a great way for me to start again on the server, and I'm hoping that you'll consider allowing me to play a part in the development of this island. Thanks, ILTG. Edit: I just realized that jkrmnj is probably the one I need to speak with. Sorry for being confusing!
Welcome to the GO! The op and last couple of pages give an outline of what has happened and what is currently being worked on. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me or ask them here. Either will work fine. Since you have been on the land a lot longer than we have, are there any ideas or projects you think should be worked on further?
Thanks! Right now, in order for things to be done properly, I feel that land development is most important. I saw that someone pointed out that Albion has many hills. They were right. The terrain here prevented me from implementing some of my ideas, but I think that even a little work can turn some of these hills into plots of land that can be built on properly. An idea that I had a while back was for an "infini-rail" to be created underground. This would basically be a rail that went in a lemniscate or "8" pattern around the island, with seven main stops, and a few smaller rails out to specific parts (or other stops) on the rail-line. Now, I understand that this is flawed, seeing as how Albion isn't really that big, but this island will need an improved rail system. As of right now, the rails underground go to about three different places, and are poorly constructed (They look terrible. My fault.). Traveling by road isn't that hard, but I know that many players would rather use a minecart, as it would take them places faster than walking. I have some ideas/blueprints written down from a long time ago, so I'll look for those, and maybe I could contribute some ideas. Again, thank you.
Okay, sounds good! Now... what's the next step? I suppose we should get the constitution properly constituted first, and then get people out there. I honestly don't feel like I can add anything with regards to the constitution, it's a bit too politically technical for me. But I didn't see anything I disagree with (with the exception of the districts system which has been changed). We should make sure that residents shouldn't have to read or understand the constitution to participate. The basic rules need to be presented clearly elsewhere, I think. I mean, I have no idea what's in the Netherlands' constitution, and I don't need to, which is nice.
Once something passes, I can write a brief tl;dr for how it affects people without any interest in politics. That should simplify things down for people who don't care but leave the longer thing for those who do. I like the idea of a better rail system. I briefly checked out the one under the portal building but there are a few places where it is broken. I imagine it would be harder, but would an above ground rail system work or even one that goes way into the sky? Being able to see the land around you as you travel could be really fun. How do people feel about the current draft? of the constitution.
I agree, that does seem pretty fun. It would probably only be harder due to fall damage (while it's being built), but other wise, I think that a rail in the sky would be nice. It all depends on how many buildings will be made, too, or at least how easily it would be to renovate the rail to make room for taller, wider buildings. A rail just above ground would be nice too, and most likely a bit easier. I'm not sure which would be better, but I do think that as long as they didn't clutter up the area, above ground rails would be great. As for the constitution, it looks good. Having an executive as a representative for staff is a lot better than having a larger group of people discussing things with staff... Imagine a PM with a staff member and three representatives. Each member would have to wait for each other's response before coming to a conclusion.
I'd definitely prefer a rail above ground as opposed to underground. I can see it being high up being useful because it can go over buildings instead of around them, but it might be hard to make it look good and not be an eyesore.
That's my main concern. Otherwise I'm all for it. I guess it just depends on what blocks are used to surround or "decorate" the rails. I'm actually in Albion right now, and I'm working on filling in some creeper holes and such... Nothing too drastic. Breeding animals, too.
Looks pretty good. I've written up a bajillion constitutions for outposts that have never gotten off the ground, so I might write up something in the format I've used for those previously and we can decide which one works best.
I made a small mockup: For some reason I decided that fences were now my favorite. I also realized that not making the rail 3 wide led to technical difficulties but it works. This is just an idea I had so a better designer can come up with something else
No offence, my friend. That was my original idea, although I do like the design that jkrmnj proposed. I attempted to create something, but I failed. I'll try again later, unless another design is built... Again, I like jkrmnj's. I'm not sure that too many people would be using the rails at the same time, so it should be fine..
How is it going on your write-up? How many rails do you think we need? One in each direction or more?
