EVE General Discussion

I have created a simple forum at

http://government.boards.net/

If you are interested in this project, please join the forum and post your ideas. If you would like to comment on the project or offer ideas without going so far as to join, please feel free to add to this thread.

Criticism is welcome, but please keep non-constructive criticism in this thread.

Diplomacy is a function of understanding and exploiting people?
Might is always right? So there's no such thing as ethics?
This """tough""" edgy nonsense doesn't last under any kind of pressure.
LOL put down the Ayn Rand and get out of hisec.



Effectively creating an echo chamber to avoid having to provide any details... We're going to own a part of hisec, it's going to be great, it's okay to be a douche, people want to know how we're going to do this and we're going to be the best at it, it's going to be huge!

Might may not be right, but it says what is and isn't.



Lol, this is EVE. To think I'm the one being accused of naivete



First, I loathe Ayn Rand.

Second, her work is overwhelmingly about individuality and pretty much the opposite of everything I'm proposing. Perhaps pick up a book?

If people don't think ethics are involved, they should go speak with BoB, or Goons :D

It's a nihilistic disposal of all ethics.
I know i said i was out but it's this sort of baby-talk that discourages me from talking about politics in general.
There's so much more complexity to the EvE political landscape, all this post-Hobbesian twaddle is all the sillier coming from people who've never run a corp, put up a tower or wasted an afk miner.
"ethics and trust are based ultimately on self-interest." again, a great armchair simplification that will steer you directly onto the rocks should you use it to navigate.

Go, go start a group in pixel spaceships and see if people don't have your number within a month. Leadership provides support and content, the rest of your shallow reflections on human nature don't count.

Get back to this thread with some detail.

Now I'm t t triggered. It's non of my business but Aaron just claimed CODE. is 'very easy to beat'. I have seen many posts in forums about 'beating CODE.' but they have invariably been super fail ideas. I'm intrigued now XD

I want to clarify something regarding detail and purpose. The primary goal of this Government is not to control space or other physical entities per se, its to facilitate a larger industrial/financial infrastructure. We can't have proper contracts, stock markets, banks, etc. because there is no foundation for these things to exist. That is ultimately what I'm hoping to create.

What we have down in Providence is somewhat similar to a government.

Democracy however does not really work in EVE. It has been tried again and again and it always falls flat on its face.
And you don't really need democracy in EVE... Because in real life, once you are born into a country leaving said life behind for another country is a pretty big deal.
While in EVE, if you don't like your corp or alliance, you just join another one that you do like.

I suppose if you where really dedicated you could create the ministerial infrastructure you propose, yourself.

Form a "one man alliance" with each constituent ministerial corp led/owned by an alt, having a specific ministerial portfolio and mandate, under the Gov alliance, which you control.

Then recruit people into each ministry corp, distinctly, under your Gov alliance umbrella, according to what kind of content they enjoy. You can later distribute ownership of those ministerial corps according to your democratic ideal, by means of an alliance-wide election.

However, you will thus nvariably lose control of ministerial corp as a consequence .And they may decide to split from your Gov alliance, or usurp control of the entire alliance from you. Unless you maintain 51% control on your alts as owners of each of the ministerial corps.

This can be considered a dictatorship. But perhaps if you run the alliance, and constituent corps and their members well, you can instead present yourself as neutral arbitrator and protector of the balance of power of the various ministries. Such that your 51% ownership is not something you use to interfere in the agenda/interests of each ministerial corp.

An almost impossible proposition, but perhaps you can pull it off.

---

If you wanna go really far out, you can even pretend that each ministerial corp alt CEO is not you, inorder to maintain the control of all ministerial corps, and hence your Gov alliance, as long as you are able. Your members will be pissed as hell when they find out, thouh.

---

Since you want a democratic election system, this is your greatest weakness and challenge.
A) Ensuring a fair election system inured to fraud.
B) How will you allocate ministerial corp ownership to elected leaders. Once youve given it away, they have it in perpetuity unless they are amicable to relinquishing it in the next election.
C) Or will the running/ownership of the ministry corps be in title only, whilst you maintain control.
D) Any one ministerial corp can wrest control of the entire alliance, especially from you as a result of divesting power to them. So the Military, or the Finance ministry corps can take it all over, making you obsolete, and everyone else subservient to them.
D) Whats worse, once they have that control, there is very little anyone else can do to take it back.
E) If you dont maintain systemic control, you WILL lose it, sooner or later, to someone else.

---

I honestly see very little chance of success for your model.
1) Cos EVE does not have mechanics which systemically can support your proposed model.
2) Cos EVE opportunists will tear you apart from the inside, owing to EVE having different laws/rules than IRL.
3) Cos the model you propose, IRL, is an organically grown system of decades/centuries which amount to what frankly are impediments and obstacles, as accepted compromises between diametrically opposed interests.
4) Most democracies are a result of violent upheaval against pre-existing forms of gov. Democracies thus often did not create the state they have usurped, they have merely replaced its leadership and taking control of its assets.
5) There is the Ancient Grecian example, of a direct democratic system of equals (meaning male, military, land owners of good repute). But this experiment was frought with complications. There is also the Republic of Rome, but that too was hardly democratic or representational as people would recognize as such, today.
6) You are trying to establish an advanced form of government, de facto, immediately, without any reason for its constituents to agree to it. The reason we have democratic govs as we do today, especially bicameral systems, is because of a complex organic progression of compromises. These systems are not predicated on efficiency, they are predicated on fairness.Inorder to enact that fairness, gov essentially acts as an purveyor and enforcer of restrictions.
7) Nothing is preventing you from self-democratizing, once you actually have an organisation with territory/assets/constituents to do so in. However, in EVE, due to the distinctions between rules/laws ingame and IRL, the result will almost certainly be you losing control of it, and the organisation tearing itself apart in the aftermath.

---

EVE does not mechanically, internally, ethically, support democracy.
EVE is, as a virtual universe, by internal rules, conducive to capitalist opportunism and raw meritocracy.

By all means, attempt your experiment, this is a sandbox afterall.
But exactly because it is a largely unrestricted sandbox, you may find that your proposed system (as I outlined above as an i herently restrctive system) will not find purchase here.