Interest in a Federation of outposts?

I think that this works better as a European Union-style kind of thing. The outposts work closer together and have a common interest (the EU also has a common trade thing with the Eurozone, but not many nations want to be a part of that), but maintain their governmental systems and a very large degree of autonomy.

Please leave and come back with sentences that make sense and contain an educated opinion. Kthxbai.

Just a correction: All EU nations are part of a common market, the common market basically is the EU. The Eurozone shares a common currency, and contains the majority of but not all EU members.

It was founded on a common trade market, which has been around pretty much since the end of World War 2, but the actual EU is more of a cultural and political union nowadays, and I can see it becoming a militaristic union (due to the failure of US foreign policy recently and pressure to secure hard power in the same way we've achieved soft power) in the near future too. Thanks for correcting me on the Eurozone thing though, I don't know why I said the common market was the Eurozone

I'm not quite sure what you mean? It will be a parliamentary system. A federal government is simply the government at the top of the federation, it can be either a parliamentary or presidential system.

For clarification, this will likely work much like the EU does. I originally envisioned this as a closer federation, like the US, however if people aren't so keen then an EU system might work better. However, I really want this to operate as one outpost. Each outpost that joins it would act more like cities than individual outposts.

As I see it, here we have a fundamental misunderstanding: Whatever political "system" would be implemented, whether it is US or EU inspired will merely be a role-play game and not a sustainable system.
I tell you why:
1. There are no trade zones on EMC (maybe this could be done)
2. There won't be a shared currency (not allowed)
3. There is no military or geopolitical strategies (has failed before)
4. There are no borders or war (no PVP)
So, with such a "system" players would just pretend that these things exist and there won't be a way to enforce a working system.

I don't say it is impossible, but it takes a lot of discipline to stick with this role-play. On top of that the current suggestion lacks a clear mission statement or goal, which for example the New Republic had.

Sorry for being critical here and I do not intend to take out the fun for anybody. But I think it will take much more than writing a constitution and hope that people adhere to it. If this was possible at all, it will need to have some very innovative twists to it.

I am intentionally being a bit vague right now. The intention of this thread was just to see if there was some interest. I'd very much like to have a more clear goal and setup like the New Republic, but I'm kind of wary to relate to it because of how it turned out. My main motivation is the role play element and to see if it will work.

Every outpost has some sort of management, someone telling you where you can and can't build. What you can and can't do etc. The idea is that would be an experiment to try and see if we can do that democratically. The main thing that people would do, is manage infrastructure and relations. Beyond that, it is just the role-play element.

I think this would work much better as a single outpost, however I just don't think that'd work out as I want.

All I was thinking of was a sort of trade alliance as in the medieval times between kingdoms, as each kingdom (outpost) gains allies, their wealth and influence grows - each taking the best ideas that are successful in the others and implementing them in their own outposts. I think it would be cool to have a system like this and organize PvP wars with other alliances, just to spice things up.
I in no way will give any other outpost any say in how I rule mine - Middle Earth is a democracy and if any of our members have suggestions for improvement we usually put it up for a vote.

Just for clarity, I do not in any way condone griefing or other types of attacks on anyone else - our community is cosmetic and I do not want to live in a world where that kind of war is acceptable.

And what is wrong with the word 'tyranny' anyway? I don't understand anything about that dispute. It describes the situation he was talking about perfectly. And I believe he said he did not want this sort of government. Here's the definition: the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler. 3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler. 4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.

I'd be willing to give it a try. I'm not fond of the politics irl, but as its a mere game, a trade Alliance and all of that would be nice, give some groups whom are small to join in as well.

It's been a year

However, I'd still be seriously down for trying something like this again.

I agree

I'm working on something else over in the LLO, but if we get that working, some more trade alliance like things might be an interesting idea.

lol is most definitely not the largest member wise or outpost clam wise unless you count all of the inactives and banned players who are apart of llo then maybe member wise it might be but then all you are doing is embellishing the outpost membership numbers

In terms of physical outpost size, it definitely is the largest - that's what Steam meant.

I also think the LLO would be the only correct choice for an outpost federation's capital.

The largest physically that I know of on EMC is 12k by 15k currently

I run a newer outpost on smp6. We don't need a government as we already have one but as far as resources and the membership benefit of our outpost such as farm use and other things we might be able to work something out as to giving all outpost who join the same benefits and may some new ones if we can work something out

And I'm sure the vast majority of that 12,000x15,000 is claimed space and also unbuilt on. The LLO expands organically, and has a large amount of buildings - let's be more specific and say that we'd want the largest built on outpost to be the capital.

The idea was that this federation would work like the real life European Union. It has a legislative body/Parliament for their own matters, but major decisions are taken by European country leaders who can veto anything the Parliament puts forward. The idea was that your government and the federation's own government would be able to co-exist in the same manner the European Parliament and the EU's member nation's governments do.

And yes, that idea - specifically the veto power - has some flaws. But any kinks would be able to be worked out just fine if this idea were to ever go ahead.

autonomy does not exist in a federation

Aye.

He'd have probably called the thread a 'Confederation of Outposts', but this is an American server and we all know how that word sounds to Americans

I don't, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America