These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Establishing Government

Author
Dietrich Roosevelt
The Honourable Four Empires Trading Company
#101 - 2016-12-04 02:59:52 UTC
Many of the responses so far have been helpful, so thanks to those that have contributed. One of the most poignant and informative posts was with regards to the efficiency of suicide-ganking, which was illuminating. It is true that I have no personal experience with the process and I've only heard of it through posts and side-chatter. I still think there is merit to aspects of it, but there is some work to be done.

This highlights the need for a proper discussion. I do not know every aspect of things, no one does. This is why organization is needed, which is truly the point of this thread. I have been offering my random thoughts and then defending them, but thats not really the point here. Some of my ideas need refinement, some of them need improvement and some need to be tossed out. I'm not on this thread to say 'Here's my idea, who's in?' I'm here to say: 'Heres a broad idea, who wants to join me in hammering it out and improving it?'

I've received several good and thoughtful responses here and I'm confident there are many more people with good ideas of their own who simply read this thread without adding to it. Let's all talk.

I'm going to take a day or so and find a communication platform (a free forum or some such). I'll share that information here and those who are interested can join the discussion.

Feel free to continue debates here, all discourse is useful.
Dietrich Roosevelt
The Honourable Four Empires Trading Company
#102 - 2016-12-04 18:00:05 UTC
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.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#103 - 2016-12-04 22:43:32 UTC
Dietrich Roosevelt wrote:
The root of many peoples concerns with this proposal seems to be law enforcement: "How do you make people follow your imaginary rules?" At its most basic and primal, law enforcement would consist of ganking those who do not comply. Kill-on-sight watchlists that would see offenders constantly hounded and harassed the minute they step into governed space.

While I think this is a great idea OP, I just fear it is not going to work.

Not because your ideas are bad, but because CCP has shown repeatedly that Highsec is not a real sandbox. If you make your ganking efficient to the point where it will influence to much they will respond with nerfs and blank-reason bans like they do now in Freighter ganking.
Chopper Rollins
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#104 - 2016-12-05 02:28:32 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


-It will be based on enlightened self-interest of all parties involved, and ruthless aggression in all forms against those that arent.
... but might is always right, and its very hard to argue with profit, conquest and success....
-Diplomacy is a function of understanding the interests, strengths and weaknesses of everyone around you, and exploiting them.
It is misunderstood as a gentleman arrangement. It is not. Its just a pretence and formality that can be dispensed with by force and influence.....


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.

Dietrich Roosevelt wrote:

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.


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!



Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2016-12-05 02:50:25 UTC
Waitwhat?! I must have missed a few post- since when is this about highsec? I kinda assumed establishing government would be a nullsec thing because highsec already has one, no?
Dietrich Roosevelt
The Honourable Four Empires Trading Company
#106 - 2016-12-05 03:53:09 UTC
Quote:
Might is always right?


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

Quote:
So there's no such thing as ethics?


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

Quote:
put down the Ayn Rand and get out of hisec


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?
Chopper Rollins
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#107 - 2016-12-05 04:54:36 UTC
OK i'm out, you've chased me away with your huge plans and no clues.
All relevant groups in EvE run on ethics every day, all scams and betrayal start with trust earned.
People who think EvE (or nullsec) is a hell of bullying are just showing how little they've done.


Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#108 - 2016-12-05 07:09:33 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:
OK i'm out, you've chased me away with your huge plans and no clues.
All relevant groups in EvE run on ethics every day, all scams and betrayal start with trust earned.
People who think EvE (or nullsec) is a hell of bullying are just showing how little they've done.




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

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.

Salvos Rhoska
#109 - 2016-12-05 09:00:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ethics are subjective, mutable and largely a result of convenience.
Especially when at war or under duress.

"Might is right", is furthermore in and of itself an ethical paradigm, as well as having vast historical representation.

Trust is, at best, persistent demonstrated shared mutual and individual interest. At worst, its a veneer, and cracks when truly tested.

As a soldier, though I may absolutely trust another soldier to watch my back, can I trust them to take a bullet for me?
Or if they are of small stature, can I trust them to be able to pull/carry me back to safety if I am incapacitated?

As a businessman, though I may absolutely trust my business partner to deliver what they have promised, can I trust them to stick with me if I get ill or make a bad decision? Can I trust them not to choose another partner that offers them more than I?

So trust is based on the capacity of another to deliver on it, whixh includes whether they have an interest in behaving in a way which is in my interest.

As to ethics, their are many areas, especially professional, in which rules of conduct are enforced inorder to enact trust (ergo:rules which ensure they will behave in your interest, in a trustworthy fashion). The self-interest of such ethical rules is thus ultimately to encourage more business/transaction/compliance with them.

Chribba, for example, is universally trusted. He espouses and demonstrates an ethical conduct which insures trust in him, thus supporting his business model.

However, Darkness recently demonstrated the opposite, and how ethics and trust are based ultimately on self-interest.
Chopper Rollins
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#110 - 2016-12-05 10:50:07 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
"Might is right", is furthermore in and of itself an ethical paradigm


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.



Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

Salvos Rhoska
#111 - 2016-12-05 10:58:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Get back to this thread with some detail.


This is ironic and hypocritial, considering +90% of your post was based in ad hominem, with no specific detail provided.

I gave specific examples on trust which apply irl and ingame.
I outlined many detailed parts of a plan how to enact my project (if/when).

Furthermore, study of ethics is a science, not a matter of subjective predication.
"Might is right" is a valid ethical paradigm and axiom, amongst many others

Nobody has claimed that running a complex organisation, populated by people, is not complex.
But that is not a matter of ethics, its a matter of human resource management, motivation, incentives and shared mutual interests.
You can interpret those as constituting "trust", but as I pointed out, that trust cannot exist without those underlying shared mutual (ergo: subjectively defined) interests.

"Leadership provides support and content"

This is only one narrow view on what leadership constitutes.
Leadership also provides vision, direction, control and restrictions.
Leadership also has to consider/facilitate the position of their organisation in relation to other organisations, to the best interest of its own.

Realpolitik and objective recognition of the individual motivations and best interest of members, in relation to their organisation (and surrounding ones), is something all leadership must include in their decisions. This is not exclusive of trust, or "ethics", but those are just devices/conveniences which may or may not exist inorder to fulfill those mutual interests in whichever form that particular organisation aims to achieve them. If you can build/maintain trust, fine. If not, force/aggression is another option.

A leader cannot provide support and content, without understanding where the participants interests lie.
A leader has no one to lead, if no-ones interests are served by following him.
If a leader does not provide unifiying goals, based on the interests of participants, for mutual gain, then there is no point in a leader.
Sure, a leader can function just as a delegator/distributor of corp support to individual participants interests, but the assets he is actually distributing belong to others with their own interests whom may not like that.

I think you are conflating interpersonal relationships with organisation leadership, ethics with "political correctness", and trust as anything other than a vested self-interest.

I understand you perceive my perspective as too simplistic, Randian/Machiavellian, etc.
Understand, however, that I perceive your perspective as unduly conflating and complicating issues.



PS: I dont fault you at all for returning to discussion even though you already made your closing statement and pronounced to leave. Ofc, I then reserved the right, as is fair, despite ypur absence, to respond to that last statement.I will be glad to continue discussion with you.

You are correct in that ingame I have not attempted this before. I accept, admit and table that. But you are wrong that I have not built, lead and participated in organisations outside of this game. The issues of ethics/trust are universal, largely academic, albeit mechanically different ingame than without and I am as qualified as you to discuss those. Your frequent barbs are unnecessary and irrelevant. They are wasted on me and only weaken the remainder of substance in your arguments.

This topic is not personal or emotional.
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#112 - 2016-12-05 13:23:03 UTC
http://i.imgur.com/0MkY8.jpg

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI

Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2016-12-05 13:25:20 UTC
As much as I would like to see this idea take off (if only to see it crash and burn later) I don't think it will ever leave the ground.

So far there's only this grand dream of a complicated government with all those fancy roles and institutions, all of which we have already seen in Eve at some point.

A government however ultimately is created and upheld by the people, and people are the basic requirement. No people to be ruled by a government means no government. So the first and most important question that should be asked and answered is "Why would anyone want to be part if this?". So far, I have not seen any conceivable reason. "We'll just gank everyone who doesn't play along" doesn't make a government, but a terrorist group, and if any at all, it will attract mainly people who either just want to gank or who loathe the leadership for forcing them to play along with this scheme. And if your subjects hate you, you will not last long as a leader, provided you want to be anything more than code, who are basically just a gang of protection racketeers. You cannot rule by force alone.

In the end, I think OP lacks the fundamental understanding of the game to form a government of sorts, or he would be approaching this topic from a different angle. Let's see here what people who live in Hisec might want:

A - many live in Hisec so they can mine, mission, explore, invent or produce in relative peace. Can you make this experience any better for them than a bog standard one-man leadership corp can? Can you protect them from ganks and wardecs?
B - some want to gank high value or low effort targets. The games reality shows that they can do that already. What do you have on offer for those types? And how do you get A and B together without creating a massive conflict of interest?
C - some want to play the mercenary or "hisec pirate" game: declare war on people, and shoot them down. Pretty much the same as B - they can already do that, and they are constantly in conflict with A. Of course, some of them would be happy about intel on their targets - especially they'd love to know if they are online or not. Can you provide that?
D - some just want to either trade or scam. Those people rarely ever leave the station and the only thing they need are people to scam or trade with, which tradhubs provide in great numbers all on their own. In the case of scammers - would you allow scamming among your citizens? If not, that will cause bad blood among your people, and if so, the scammers won't join in good faith.

So, what can your government provide for these people who live in Hisec, that a normal hisec corp cannot?

Take your navigation network for instance - this information can already be acquired. However, this only comes for free if you are member of a corp who regularly frequents wormholes. These corps will not give this information to outsiders for free for obvious reasons. This is Eve, and it's better to trust nobody outside of your own little group. So, if at all they will only give this information away for a price or to players who have earned their trust, and that wouldn't be any different with a government. If all that is required to access your network is a registreation with your government, then people will be hesitant to disclose their wormhole routes, because all it would take this information to fall into the wrong hands is one little low effort spy.

Banks ... well, do I need to talk about banks anymore, really? Google "Ebank" and "Ricdic" to learn why this is probably not going to work.

"Aha!" you say, "We could provide Logistics!". Well, if you need something transported, you could use Red Frog. Yes, this will cost money, but the freighter pilots do want to get paid somehow. Why else would they just warp all over the place for hours in a squishy and slow loot pinata? So you wouldn't be able to provide this service for free either, and you'd need to either be cheaper or more trustworthy than Red Frog. Can you do that?

So the question still stands: Why would anyone want to be part of this? This is not a minor detail really, this is the first thing you should figure out before thinking about anything else.
Toobo
Project Fruit House
#114 - 2016-12-05 13:38:17 UTC
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

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!

Dietrich Roosevelt
The Honourable Four Empires Trading Company
#115 - 2016-12-05 14:18:01 UTC
I think I should clarify a few things because I feel like my overall message and goal is getting lost amidst the various debates.

It's been said (loudly) that I'm too light on detail. I would remind those people that the purpose of this thread is to recruit people to a conversation whose purpose is to create detail. I have provided some examples of my thoughts, but these are intentionally far from concrete. I cannot provide greater detail at this time because I do not have it.

As for the questions regarding ethics, I was too quick and agitated in my response. You annoy me Chopper, because you continue to argue about the trees when I'm trying to describe the forest. That said, your input is valued. (It would be more valued if you were more constructive)

Ethics are important, but my experience in EVE has taught me that you are not allowed to be ethical until you have proven your ability to exist and operate. As such, 'might' is required. People cannot trust in our Government if it cannot defend their interests when the time comes.

All of this said, I've been thinking that perhaps the best security is to remain out of direct physical affairs. The Government could exist solely to operate complex programs that require planning and organization (such as the Navigation Network or a Bank). Compliance within this overall structure could be enforced by revocation or limiting of access to the nicer toys. 'Ruling' space is not inherently necessary to begin with. I don't know, these are just thoughts.

Which brings me back to my main point. All this thread is proposing is that we talk about how to creatie an institution. Instead of debating whether it should exist, lets debate how it should exist.
Dietrich Roosevelt
The Honourable Four Empires Trading Company
#116 - 2016-12-05 14:42:18 UTC
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.
Toobo
Project Fruit House
#117 - 2016-12-05 16:13:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Toobo
Call me cynical, but the reason I'm sceptical is this. When people propose 'visions' or financial/political structures or whatever, I expect it to be either backed by ISK or force, preferably both. When you read MD, many fancy ideas have been proposed over the years. Only thing that ever worked is either a) scam or b) legit deals backed by ISK or collateral of value

Although things got messed up due to IWI ban in the end, when Lenny had big ideas about how new structures could work he backed it up with ISK. Even CODE. was/is backed with ISK. The RP talk of CODE. is acceptable because they have the ISK for their ops and people willing to commit time and use force. Like it or not, when they say they will gank you, they have the ISK and mobilising power to get players together to actually gank you, and KB records to prove that this is what they do on regular basis and they know how to gank.

If you chip in your ISK and say let's do this, people may pay more attention. If you at least have KB records to show that you know how to suicide gank in HS, then people may think younat least know how to organise such ops. Now, how much ISK are you going to chip in to build such a government? What force can you bring together to protect such government and enforce its laws?

People are cynical in EVE, and rightly so. If you don't back up your words with ISK or force, you will not be taken seriously.

If you post on MD and show that you have ISK and collateral to back up your words, people will invest in no time. Can you even raise a 100b fund? Try that on MD first. There are people who won't blink at investing such amount if your plans are sound and backed by credible security. I'm a very small fish in the market and my 120b bond got filled within hours by players who could invest in such things much more easily than I. If you are talking about laying down foundations for financial institutions, let's see you get your bond/fund/or even a simple loan get filled on MD first. If you can't do that, what would convince people to believe you can lay foundations

EDIT: Just to give an idea, my 120b bond is fully collateralised, and collateral was indepenenrly evaluated and held by Chribba, because if I just say hey I need 120b investment for nothing it's just not gonna fly because I do not have such credibility/reputation/trust earned from players. Recently I saw someone on MD raise a 60b bond, with no collateral. Now that is pretty impressive, that he can raise 60b based on his words and reputation alone. Can you do that?

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!

KuroVolt
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2016-12-05 16:42:08 UTC
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.

BoBwins Law: As a discussion/war between two large nullsec entities grows longer, the probability of one comparing the other to BoB aproaches near certainty.

Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#119 - 2016-12-05 17:07:48 UTC
Dietrich Roosevelt wrote:
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.

We can have proper contracts, really. What makes you think we can't? How do you think supercapitals were traded before citadels became a thing? In case of a fitted Titan, that's over 100B ISK and a Titan on the line, and yet, with the help of trusted third parties that was possible.

We can indeed not have proper banks and a proper stock market, because there's a lack of trust in Eve overall. However, I do not think your government will change that. To have a bank for example, you'd have to have people with access to those bank accounts. And once they have access to a couple hundred billion or even trillion ISK, what's keeping them from taking it all and running away? It's not like you can effectively punish them afterwards, to disencourage theft in the future, and even if you could - with that kind of money they could just buy a new character and vanish completely without any way for you to track them down.

What you are missing at the moment are not at all details, but a fundamental base line idea about how any of what you are suggesting is even supposed to work.
Salvos Rhoska
#120 - 2016-12-05 17:22:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
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.