Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arkady Sadik]

There is a difference between "democratic" and "consensus-based". PF for the Federation seems to me to suggest that, while the president is elected, after election he seems to have quite the decision power.

And while Ulphus is quite right in saying that you don't need a democracy in a fed loyalist alliance, I can totally see an EVE alliance electing the leader by popular vote. ("Federation" would suggest to me that the federal states included therein each vote, not every citizen, but the PF on presidential elections seem to differ.)

That's miles from trying to have every decision be based on consensus.

[Mithfindel]

Note of the Federation and voting: I don't think it is exactly impossible to some "states" within the Fed to have direct-vote mechanisms, some might have U.S. style "winner takes it all" districts etc. etc.

So in Gallente Prime, for example, every vote might be counted. And then the voting on a distant colony (as measured when the law was last changed) might have district voting, or even voting for electors.

[Merdaneth]

I wouldn't classify the Federation as consensus-based at all. I would classify it as charisma/personality-cult based. The voting in capsuleer alliances takes place with people's feet, not in a ballot.

[orange]

I wouldn't classify the Federation as consensus-based at all. I would classify it as charisma/personality-cult based. The voting in capsuleer alliances takes place with people's feet, not in a ballot.

A capsuleer alliance does not have to replicate the structures of the culture it is trying to emulate, rather it can attempt to pursue/emulate the idealistic version of that culture.

Don't most capsuleer alliances not give the majority of their members any say in the alliances future and thus they have no alternative but to vote with their feet?   If you only have one option (leave) and cannot pursue any avenue to change the alliance's direction (like leadership elections) then you have to go with the only option you have.  The suggestion is that an alliance establish a structure/constitution that gives its members an alternative other than their feet.

[Seriphyn]

Nvm the specifics of a Gallente alliance.

It needs leaders. Players with extensive mechanical and gameplay experience, who have the time, enthuse and energy to invest in it.

Doesn't need to be more than a conglomerate, that is merely there for mutual defence and mutual aggression, nothing more (a microcosm of the wider Fed for capsuleers). It merely exists to "extend Gallente interests/ideals into the wider capsuleer community".

Any takers?

[Bastian Valoron]

Nvm the specifics of a Gallente alliance.

It needs leaders. Players with extensive mechanical and gameplay experience, who have the time, enthuse and energy to invest in it.

Doesn't need to be more than a conglomerate, that is merely there for mutual defence and mutual aggression, nothing more (a microcosm of the wider Fed for capsuleers). It merely exists to "extend Gallente interests/ideals into the wider capsuleer community".

Any takers?

Sometimes in this context, the daily matters of an alliance have been envisioned to be run by a synedrion. The synedrion would consist of elected representatives of the member corporations, and they would also act as the leaders of the alliance. Most people who already run corporations probably feel that they have competence, time and energy to do that. In this kind of model the executor character would be just an akolouthos, having no real power, saying what he's told to say.

If the alliance were primarily a military entity, then perhaps a single, charismatic leader could be more efficient than a board of directors having a wide variety of interests and opinions. However, several reservations against such arrangement have already been presented in this thread, and it's hard to say how well it would work in practice.

Maybe players interested in a Gallente alliance could open a new, dedicated out-of-character chat where the discussion could flow more freely?

[Saxon Hawke]

After my extended absence, Saxon will soon be returning to space with a new focus. I've used my time away from the game to clear my head and I feel good about what Saxon will be doing when I do re-enter Eve.

Why am I posting this in this thread? Because should a Pro-Federation alliance be forming, I want to throw down the gauntlet so to speak.

What makes an alliance come together? The same thing that brings any group together: a common enemy. I let the Saxon character wax and wane too much in the last year to 18 months and he got soft. This was partly due to the fact that he didn't have a clearly defined enemy.

Without giving too much away, Saxon will be going back to his secessionist roots and he will have little use for anyone who proclaims the virtues of the Gallente vision of democratic Utopia.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Uh, for as long as I've been in the scene, the Feds have never had a shortage of enemies. Ultranationalist Caldari, zealot Amarr, drug-pushing Serpentis, zombifying Sansha, murderous Blood Raiders, secessionist Intaki, Mercenaries, UDI, aaaand the list goes on, and on, and on...

[Vincent Pryce]

Uh, for as long as I've been in the scene, the Feds have never had a shortage of enemies. Ultranationalist Caldari, zealot Amarr, drug-pushing Serpentis, zombifying Sansha, murderous Blood Raiders, secessionist Intaki, Mercenaries, UDI, aaaand the list goes on, and on, and on...

This. The shortage is on the Pro-Federate roleplayers these days.

[Morwen Lagann]

Uh, for as long as I've been in the scene, the Feds have never had a shortage of enemies. Ultranationalist Caldari, zealot Amarr, drug-pushing Serpentis, zombifying Sansha, murderous Blood Raiders, secessionist Intaki, Mercenaries, UDI, aaaand the list goes on, and on, and on...

This. The shortage is on the Pro-Federate roleplayers these days.

With the Feds being as diverse as they are, I'm sure "themselves" also falls into this list somewhere.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

They will always have 

[Saxon Hawke]

Uh, for as long as I've been in the scene, the Feds have never had a shortage of enemies. Ultranationalist Caldari, zealot Amarr, drug-pushing Serpentis, zombifying Sansha, murderous Blood Raiders, secessionist Intaki, Mercenaries, UDI, aaaand the list goes on, and on, and on...

It's true the Gallente have no shortage of enemies, but the Caldari are prone to infighting, the zealot Amarr hate everyone, Serpentis are more concerned with making a profit than actually fighting the federation, etc. etc.

To use a sports analogy, it's like two rival teams in a league. They play against every other team in the league, but the competition between the rivals rises to a whole different level.

I think there is enough Pro-Fed sentiment that has been sown in the militia that a focused effort by a few dynamic personalities could pull them together under a single (even is loosely bonded) banner.

[Qansh]

Without giving too much away, Saxon will be going back to his secessionist roots and he will have little use for anyone who proclaims the virtues of the Gallente vision of democratic Utopia.

Qansh may have to move this way one day, even though that will involve shaking off some Federation pixie-dust. In any event, I'm glad to see that you're staying (or returning to its proper path) the course.

[Vincent Pryce]

I think there is enough Pro-Fed sentiment that has been sown in the militia that a focused effort by a few dynamic personalities could pull them together under a single (even is loosely bonded) banner.

A lot of that sentiment is dependent on The Team you've chosen to play for, because your Team gives you chance to kick the living shit out of The Other Team every night. Easy to get pro-Team when it delivers the entertainment you are looking for and lets you play on the field every night with your mates.

Now pluck the players out of the Team, tell them they are now the Cheerleaders. Kind of part of the Team but can't actually participate in the game like the Team. While you are on the same side, Cheerleading is very different than being on the Team. So, your group starts to have disagreements about Cheering tactics or outright grow bored of it as playing on the Team was much more fast paced. So they go back to the Team or quit the game and turn into the Hooligans who kick everyone in the field and fuck the Cheerleaders when they have the chance.

It doesn't matter how good motivational speeches the Coach gives if he can't set up the matches to play in.

[Sakaane Eionell]

After my extended absence, Saxon will soon be returning to space with a new focus. I've used my time away from the game to clear my head and I feel good about what Saxon will be doing when I do re-enter Eve.

Why am I posting this in this thread? Because should a Pro-Federation alliance be forming, I want to throw down the gauntlet so to speak.

What makes an alliance come together? The same thing that brings any group together: a common enemy. I let the Saxon character wax and wane too much in the last year to 18 months and he got soft. This was partly due to the fact that he didn't have a clearly defined enemy.

Without giving too much away, Saxon will be going back to his secessionist roots and he will have little use for anyone who proclaims the virtues of the Gallente vision of democratic Utopia.

I'm looking forward to this.