UOLTT Policy Meeting

[rentaspoon]

We had our first meeting as an org this was discussed:

 

Election general rules: 

• You must be a full member of an org to become a counselor 
• You must be a member for one election cycle before you can vote 
• Anyone with an account of any age may be voted into the council, so long as they have been a member for one election cycle 
• Anyone may decline to run in a general election 

-- Vote Passed -- 

 

• The many different sections of the org has been condensed down to three distinct sections 
• There will be three counselors per section of the org 

-- Vote Passed -- 

 

• Councilors are voted in by majority vote of (full) member of the UOLTT Conglomerate, sans affiliates 

-- Vote Passed -- 

 

• High Council has royal prerogative and has ultimate veto power 

-- Vote Passed -- 

 

• People may vote for themselves in a general election 

-- Vote Passed -- 

 

• Current council members are automatically entered into every new election 
• Council members may withdraw their candidacy  

-- Vote Passed -- 

 

The next meeting will be 7th of January.

[BananaDealer]

If we can't post in here, then I'm sorry.

Can I make a a suggestion and ask two questions? (this being the first one)

1. What are the new sections?

2. Suggestion: Limit the consecutive terms a Councillor/High-Councillor can have to say two (the standard in most, if not all, democratic systems I'm aware of) to prevent elected dictatorships.

 

[Gyre-Taenn]

13 minutes ago, BananaDealer said:

 

2. Suggestion: Limit the consecutive terms a Councillor/High-Councillor can have to say two (the standard in most, if not all, democratic systems I'm aware of) to prevent elected dictatorships.

 

Given that the High Council (ixi, Luke Falafel, Blade of Grass) can never be elected and they have ultimate veto power, I think that that ship has sailed.

 

In all seriousness, the HC veto power and the division of power between the sections will not allow for dictatorships. Limiting the number of terms at this point will only stop those doing well from continuing to do well.

[Corwin111]

17 hours ago, BananaDealer said:

If we can't post in here, then I'm sorry.

Can I make a a suggestion and ask two questions? (this being the first one)

1. What are the new sections?

2. Suggestion: Limit the consecutive terms a Councillor/High-Councillor can have to say two (the standard in most, if not all, democratic systems I'm aware of) to prevent elected dictatorships.

 

The three sections will be Military, Logistics and Expansion. The names are still tentative, but their roles are pretty much set.

 

As for dictatorship... we still pretty much remain one in practice, as the High Council remains the ultimate authority with full veto powers over the elected council's decisions. With the expectation that they would act as a fail-safe and these powers would be used only if the elected council really messes up and makes decisions that go against the interests of the org. 

 

But even then, it is much LESS of a dictatorship than the majority of MMO clans and groups. The people of the org get to elect the people who would set the org's policy and change them if they don't agree with the course the org is taking. This is more than most people in MMo's get.  

 

And also, unlike IRL, games have the wonderful benefit of being able to switch dictatorships or create your own at the push of a button, if you are not happy with your current one.   

[BananaDealer]

22 minutes ago, Corwin111 said:

The three sections will be Military, Logistics and Expansion. The names are still tentative, but their roles are pretty much set.

 

As for dictatorship... we still pretty much remain one in practice, as the High Council remains the ultimate authority with full veto powers over the elected council's decisions. With the expectation that they would act as a fail-safe and these powers would be used only if the elected council really messes up and makes decisions that go against the interests of the org. 

 

But even then, it is much LESS of a dictatorship than the majority of MMO clans and groups. The people of the org get to elect the people who would set the org's policy and change them if they don't agree with the course the org is taking. This is more than most people in MMo's get.  

 

And also, unlike IRL, games have the wonderful benefit of being able to switch dictatorships or create your own at the push of a button, if you are not happy with your current one.   

Well, in the High Council sense, most corporations are dictatorial... I was thinking more along the lines of giving one person within the HC too much power, a'la Palpatine (or, if you know your history - that bloke who ruined Chaplin's moustache). 

The term limit idea is mostly for the elected council, really, for the same reason...

[Corwin111]

12 minutes ago, BananaDealer said:

Well, in the High Council sense, most corporations are dictatorial... I was thinking more along the lines of giving one person within the HC too much power, a'la Palpatine (or, if you know your history - that bloke who ruined Chaplin's moustache). 

The term limit idea is mostly for the elected council, really, for the same reason...

Well that's the thing. That bloke who ruined Chaplin's mustache was democratically elected. And so was Palpatine. And they both (doubtfully a coincidence) used a provision for "emergency powers" to destroy their established governmental structure and supplant it. We have no way for this to happen. First, because there will be nine councilors whose vote will weigh the same on any decisions. And second, because anyone who misbehaves can simply be fired by the HC. 

 

And as for the HC, they are here and they're what we've got. They established this org and are the reason so many people have joined it.  If THEY turn to the dark side, I guess we can just pick up and leave.  

 

But then how can they really "oppress" us in a game? You can't threaten the life of a vitrtual character, nor starve him, nor hide public information from him. Well I guess taxes...  

[BananaDealer]

3 minutes ago, Corwin111 said:

Well that's the thing. That bloke who ruined Chaplin's mustache was democratically elected. And so was Palpatine. And they both (doubtfully a coincidence) used a provision for "emergency powers" to destroy their established governmental structure and supplant it. We have no way for this to happen. First, because there will be nine councilors whose vote will weigh the same on any decisions. And second, because anyone who misbehaves can simply be fired by the HC. 

 

Yeah, I know... And you can't really execute someone in a video game...

But hey, I'm just spitballing here... Plus, never a bad idea to limit HC's individual power, lest someone go nuts.

Not saying I don't trust our lords and masters, I just like to avoid things I've seen happen in seemingly well-established corps with good communities back in my EVE days...

[Corwin111]

15 minutes ago, BananaDealer said:

Yeah, I know... And you can't really execute someone in a video game...

But hey, I'm just spitballing here... Plus, never a bad idea to limit HC's individual power, lest someone go nuts.

Not saying I don't trust our lords and masters, I just like to avoid things I've seen happen in seemingly well-established corps with good communities back in my EVE days...

Another angle to consider. "Elections" in dictatorships of the type you're describing are inevitably rigged to reelect whoever they need to. I personally have no problem per se with someone being democratically elected for the same post 50 times, as long as this is really the will of the people. It would only mean that this person is doing a really good job and the people like them.

 

If anything like vote buying or election rigging tries to rear its head in this particular system that we're making, however, I would be the first to fight it to the best of my ability and just pick up and leave if I can't.

[BananaDealer]

38 minutes ago, Corwin111 said:

Another angle to consider. "Elections" in dictatorships of the type you're describing are inevitably rigged to reelect whoever they need to. I personally have no problem per se with someone being democratically elected for the same post 50 times, as long as this is really the will of the people. It would only mean that this person is doing a really good job and the people like them.

 

If anything like vote buying or election rigging tries to rear its head in this particular system that we're making, however, I would be the first to fight it to the best of my ability and just pick up and leave if I can't.

There can still be lobbying and nonsense, no matter well the system is policed, so I'm just thinking of early deterrents built into the main Articles of Association (the document which incorporates a corporation, basically a constitution)...