Council Of Truth: Reformation First Steps

[Nepenthea]

So... the larger orgs want more power than the smaller ones. Don't any of you who want it this way, see the incredibly irony in this?

Isn't 'more power' exactly what you have fought Omni-Tek about--an entity which has more power than someone else?

As for an example of a more balanced equality in representation, look to the United Nations. One country, one vote. Imagine how people would feel it unfair if 'population gets more votes' for a country.

Or is history just going to repeat (yet again)--and those who don't have the most power have no intention of utopian, altruistic idiology where everything is equal and fair--and who's true motivation is to just have the most power?

[Andross]

Then look at the UN again and see that some select countries who would do everything to keep their seats of power, have the ability to nullify any and all resolutions brought before them with their veto. Then look again and see that such a system is not good as it opens up opportunities for abuse, as we sadly had the opportunity to witness not too long ago. I am sure that the larger countries in the UN are not happy with only having 1 vote. That is why they have their veto powers. In reality, having 100 votes or 1 does not make a difference there, as any of the large countries in the UN who have the right to veto, can use this instead of their non-existant number of votes, to "outveto" any other country, so it is a moot system.

[Nepenthea]

That's if the voting system is set up that way--if it's an all or none system, in which one entity can veto (and some UN Councils', like the Security Council, are set up that way, there are other Councils which are 'majority rules').

I've not seen mention of an 'all or none/vetoing' type of system being part of the CoT. Is it?

Or is it a 'majority rules' system, which is more appropriate and not demanding of 100% 'absolutes' in agreement--and affords more flexibility, open-mindedness and diversity in thought and action.

[Raveleet]

(( LOL said I wasn't going to go more OOC but seems I have misunderstood what the council was all about in that case.
I though the CoT was some kind of Clan government, in that case it should be democratic and thus the size of the clans should matter in terms of votes. Kinde like the clans represant carriest the votes of its members...
However if it isn't a goverment then the 1 vote per clan is perfectly acceptable))

[__________Redstalker]

It is about time that a rebuild of the CoT began. Our temporary form of government in the Clans has been around for much too long. It is time for the people to have a say in thier own actions again.

And, since it is a Clan form of government, I think that Omni-tek employees should definatly keep their place in this subject matter. While it is always amusing to find out what a company man has to say about how free people should act, it is a bit hypocritical to think that it actually matters what he/she might think.

As far as how the votes are tallied. One vote one clan is the only chance that the smaller clans have to have a fair voice. Division of authority is a very important part of any free society. To ensure that all people have a fair chance to be represented is imperitive to the success of any democracy. Our form of government within the clans today is based on a matter of power. Larger clans have inherently more power because of their ability to affect things in the areas of land control, and in the simple arena of the amount of influence they wield.

Small clans, however should not have their one voice silenced simply because of the number of people in a few organizations filled with idle members. The only way to ensure fairness is to ballance the distribution of power. One way you get power because of size, aned another way because you exist. This ballance would help it be truely representitive of all the people in the clans.

[Sallust]

Keep their place Redstalker? But you know that Omni-Tek has always believed its place was to be the Usurper.

I can tell you that The Pilgrims and Knights Clans look happily on these proceedings, even if we have been kept busy by events elsewhere.

I hope you will soon tackle the issues of Sentinel control of Tir and the Old Athen Restoration project.

or does Mr. Silverstone wish to respond to the new Council of Truth himself since he so often liked to speak out against the old Council?

[Fixerben]

Originally posted by Cemetarygate


Incorrect, because there is not an equal ratio of small to large guilds in this exact situation.

Why are you ignoring the fact that the number of smaller guilds are greater than larger guilds?



Everyone doesn't have a say when you tell them that only one person among their group will count.



You're neglecting the part of democracy that states "majority rule."

Your position is questionable, Mr. Earlson. You've ignored facts and clearly do not understand democratic proceedings. This proves you are ignorant to number of guilds and people on Rub-Ka, you have not been educated fully to understand the various governmental forms, you serve to grant smaller guilds more power or possibly enjoy arguing and will use incorrect information to maintain the debate. I suspect a little of all four apply in your case.

Raveleet, your electorial voting suggestion is more acceptable. Perhaps one vote per every fifty, or twenty-five, members? I would concure to something of that nature.

However, diminishing the voices of six hundred people to almost nothing is absurd and I find the idea offensive even though I am not the leader of a large organization. Our people deserve to be treated as equally and fairly as possible.

Ok, Firstly, I'm not ignoring anything. I know there are more small guilds than large guilds, but that really doesnt matter. What matters is giving everyones voice the same weight. And you saying that only one person from the guild will count is false, that one person is a representative, he represents the oppinion of the guild, not of himself. So that one person is not the only person who counts because he is speaking for the guild as a whole. And how can you possibly neglect majority rule in a Democracy, thats what its based on. You have lets say 50 guilds participating in the CoT. Out of the 50, 15 vote yay, and 35 nay. The Nays have it. It makes no difference how many votes a large guild had or a small guild had. The decision was made by representatives that are voicing the oppinion of their respective guilds, a vote was taken of the representatives, and the majority ruled. Thats not difficult, I understood the concept when I was 7. The thing I'm not getting from you is how you think that using one representative is a bad idea. It gives all the guilds no matter the size equal rights. You have a guild of 50 people, they have 1 representative, he speaks for those 50 people. He does that by taking a majority concensus in his guild, finding the popular oppinion, and representing it. The same goes for the representative of the guild of 600. Their representative takes a majority concensus, and represents the oppinon of the majority of the guild. Now the person that has been charged with representing the larger organization may have a more difficult job than the smaller person, but still each has his say. And the oppinion the representatives present at the meetings may not even be their own oppinion, but they must represent the popular oppinion, not their own. So, If you have impartial representatives, coming to the meetings, and presenting the popular oppinion of their guild, then everyone has had their say, and their fair and equal voice. Did I leave anything out this time Cem? I'm pretty sure I went through the whole process of how a representative will do what he is supposed to do. I explained the job of the representative, how hes supposed to do his job, what his job will mean to the guild and to the CoT, and exactly how it can be seen as fair. If there is a lack of understanding on some part of this please let me know, I'll be glad to write you another book...err...post.

[Cemetarygate]

Originally posted by Sallust
or does Mr. Silverstone wish to respond to the new Council of Truth himself since he so often liked to speak out against the old Council?

Silverstone is certainly quoted alot for having said/done things which news and history archives can't corroborate. Fascinating, don't you think?

Perhaps the real truth is people like you dislike him so much you make this stuff up so others share your dislike for him.

[Vixentrox]

In the meantime, Clan representatives, please register on the CoT gridsite so you can be notified of upcoming events.

[Cemetarygate]

Mr. Earlson, that's a fine example of collective thought. However, I'm not a collective. I'm an individual. My second in command is an individual. My wife is an individual. My entire guild is full of individuals. We deserve to have each and everyone one of our voices mean something.

If you honestly expect everyone to buy into this "one vote, one clan" thing than we should all disband our guilds so our voices actually mean something. However, our voices should actually mean something without having to disband. That's the point you're not getting.

One more time. We're not a collective. We're individuals. The voting should reflect as such.

[Sallust]

Originally posted by Cemetarygate
Silverstone is certainly quoted alot for having said/done things which news and history archives can't corroborate. Fascinating, don't you think?

Some of us have been there, Mr. Silverstone came into Old Athen and other clan cities during the former CoT days often to protest the peace that was developed with Omni-Tek.

As for news and history archives, I'm not sure what you're willing to accept.

However, go have a talk with Mr. Silverstone. He freely spews his words of corruption for the Clan way when he gets a chance.

If he has changed his mind, then this is the time for him to be a true leader of the Clans like he claims to be. Time for him to join the new Council of Truth in Democracy.

Likewise I hope that soon all major Clans will join in to the debate regarding our new Clan government. I call on the leaders of Clan Terra Firma, Clan Eco Warriors, and the rest to issue statemments as soon as possible.

[Fixerben]

Originally posted by Cemetarygate
Mr. Earlson, that's a fine example of collective thought. However, I'm not a collective. I'm an individual. My second in command is an individual. My wife is an individual. My entire guild is full of individuals. We deserve to have each and everyone one of our voices mean something.

If you honestly expect everyone to buy into this "one vote, one clan" thing than we should all disband our guilds so our voices actually mean something. However, our voices should actually mean something without having to disband. That's the point you're not getting.

One more time. We're not a collective. We're individuals. The voting should reflect as such.

And each "individual" guild should stand for something. Why would you join a guild if you didnt share common interests with the other members? Do you join a guild that stands for nothing? That has no common goal? Dont you join to be around people that think and feel like you do? Or do you join a guild with people opposite so you can argue with them (would make sense for you :P j/k)? (Here goes the Major Payne speech ) Whats the key word in Unit? Unity! (bad joke) When you join a guild you become part of a team, a team or unit that thinks the same way, works together, and agrees on things. If you dont see things the way the rest of your guild does, then maybe you shouldnt be in the guild.

[Tchu]

(( This is an interesting discussion, and some thing I'm sure will be brought up for discussion inside the CoT. Now, a few things to consider if you are one of those advocating 1 member, 1 vote instead of 1 clan, 1 vote.

Alt. characters: Yes, as was said above, alts are in an RP sense individuals and should thereby count as a person. But as was noted above also, say an org with 200 listed members, 50 of these might be alts, should this org then count as 200 votes or 150? With alt’s an org with say 100 members, could very easily boost their number to 2-5 times, by having the members create alts. Is that what you want?

Dissention inside a guild: Say a vote is called and let’s take an org of 600 members as an example. What if 300 votes for it, 200 against and 100 abstains? Should the president then report 300 for, 200 against and 100 abstaining? Or if the president himself is against, should he be allowed to put all 600 votes against the issue?

And what if the say Hayden Okoli with Terra Firma joins, with their estimated 3000 clanners?

These and other reasons are why I back the notion of 1 clan, 1 vote. ))

[Cemetarygate]

Originally posted by Benjacrat
And each "individual" guild should stand for something.

First impression was to ask if you really are that ignorant. However, I no longer "suspect a little of all four apply in your case." End of discussion.

[Cemetarygate]

All OOC:

Originally posted by Tchu
Alt. characters: Yes, as was said above, alts are in an RP sense individuals and should thereby count as a person. But as was noted above also, say an org with 200 listed members, 50 of these might be alts, should this org then count as 200 votes or 150? With alt’s an org with say 100 members, could very easily boost their number to 2-5 times, by having the members create alts. Is that what you want?

That's why both Raveleet and myself were agreeing to something along the lines of 1 vote per every 50 members. However, if alts are a real concern then voting should be done on these boards. Alts wouldn't make an impact since the boards only allow one vote per account.

Originally posted by Tchu
Dissention inside a guild: Say a vote is called and let’s take an org of 600 members as an example. What if 300 votes for it, 200 against and 100 abstains? Should the president then report 300 for, 200 against and 100 abstaining? Or if the president himself is against, should he be allowed to put all 600 votes against the issue?

Regarding 300 for, 200 against and 100 abstain. Don't see why numbers couldn't be reported that way. Certainly a more fair representative on how real people feel towards a subject matter.

However, moot point considering the same could be done with "one clan, one vote." Entire 600 members against, yet representative comes in and votes for.

Plus, that's more a reason to be against both "one clan, one vote" and "one member, one vote" with a representative. In either case, all the power is in the hands of the representative. More I think about that, more I'm liking voting on the boards. That will certainly grant each player a fair voice, and maintain better control.

Originally posted by Tchu
And what if the say Hayden Okoli with Terra Firma joins, with their estimated 3000 clanners?

That's precisely how the game masters, Funcom, control the outcome of their game. With their NPC organizations.

[_____________Messana]

First post ever on AO forum ^^
some talk about democracy may I had that this concil is not a democracy, in a democracy a majority of people decide for everyone.
This concil has a no real power except from a consultative one, you discuss but you can't compulse a player to follow your decision thus being democratic is not you're prime objecive.
You should focus on the representative aspect thus the "1 clan, 1 vote" seems the best thing.
Bigger clan are not on the same range as small clan.
Because of their number of active player, they can bypass easily decision of the CoT ( see the Iraq war thingy ), and they can weight on the effectiveness of the decisions rather than the vote.
So with "1 clan, 1 vote" , every clan shall be concerned and larger clan shall have the little extra-power on the executive side needed to put things more in balance.

Please be free to correct my post, my english is somewhat rusty.

[Cogs]

Entire 600 members against, yet representative comes in and votes for.

Cemetary...umm.....the representative does not hold the power.....each case should be discussed in the respective guilds, and the "CoT rep" brings forth the guild vote. The CoT rep is not supposed to be the one deciding on the matters.....he is only to bring forth the vote of each clan.

OOC:
Im starting to see that this might not be possible to pull off, as we will always get this argument on voting. Most seem fine with 1 clan, 1 vote.....but apparently people are still feeling this will "deprive" the large clans of some kind of perceived power.
Voting on the boards? bah....hardly see more than 20 people use these boards, and I suspect 90% of the clan members couldnt care less about the CoT anyway. Sorry to put forth this pessimistic view, but it seems true. I dont want to see 80% of the clans subudued just because they dont have a Storm or SF tag above their heads, sorry.
My place in the CoT rides on this....1 vote per clan.

[Nevver]

Ya know, there is another option that you are all overlooking. You could just join Omni-Tek where we don't bother with voting. Problem solved!

Nevver ducks the the fruit and vegetables being thrown at her!

Who the heck brings produce to these things???

[Tussa]

I'm for the 1 clan, 1 vote option. If it was any other way, I would stay as far away from the future council as possible, as it would mean the larger guilds would sit with all the power and influence, and the small guilds would be dirt on the ground.

Imagine the impact...small guilds merging together just so they're able to have a say....guilds inviting everyone and their dog [re: alts] to join them, just to push their numbers up so they get a say. What kind of a sick view on fairness is that? The big fish takes it all, and if there's any leftovers, the small fish get to kill eachother over it? It would mean the end of every small and medium sized guild that is interested in being represented in the council.


[OOC...when even the ARK Event boss say they support it, it has to have some sort of good ring to it. This is RP...not uber powergaming where numbers and sheer muscle mean everything. Get over it and get with it.]

[Cemetarygate]

Originally posted by Cogs
Cemetary...umm.....the representative does not hold the power.....each case should be discussed in the respective guilds, and the "CoT rep" brings forth the guild vote. The CoT rep is not supposed to be the one deciding on the matters.....he is only to bring forth the vote of each clan.

(( Think that one went over your head.

We know the rep is only to bring forth the vote. However, Tchu said that the Rep could lie about what the guild wants and use 600 votes in the Reps favor. I say that the Rep could also lie about what the guild wants and use the 1 clan vote in the Reps favor. Either way, these arguments don't show one system better than the other.

In fact, it more so proves that the Rep system can be manipulated. So, the system should not be used at all, or refined in some way with better security (to keep Reps honest).

Also, those were my OOC points, and I'm keeping them OOC. ))