Morkin Charter

[Freiegeister]

I keep on thinking that we don't really have a firm enough policy on a few things - not so much for our own edification, but knowing what we stand for when dealing with other alliances.

I'm proposing that we have a formal charter for members, nothing too complicated - just a set a principals, goals and policies that we can use when deciding issues.

For example:

What do we constitute as a majority vote on an issue? 50%, 67%. And is it of voting members or active members (excluding those away)?

What is our goal as an alliance? Top X, all players with X+ points or X colonies?

What is our policy on Multi-hunting?

What is our policy on personal pacts?

What is our policy on bullies?

Do Admins have a Veto vote?

Are posts permanent, or will we reassign them periodically?

Do inactive members get bumped?

[Natmus]

freiegeister said:

What do we constitute as a majority vote on an issue? 50%, 67%. And is it of voting members or active members (excluding those away)?
[/qoute]

Difficult to say. I think a simple majority among those active enough to vote should do it.
For matters requiring fast action the admins, diplomats and admirals can make ad hoc small councils among those active.
[qoute]
What is our goal as an alliance? Top X, all players with X+ points or X colonies?

Not very firm goals right now. Have fun and grow? Score should not be an issue, but armed force is vital.

What is our policy on Multi-hunting?

Up to the individual members. Some find it funny, some coudn't care less. Let's allow both kinds of members in Morkin.

What is our policy on personal pacts?

I think they should be frowned upon. As we can see from the current wars with avinalaff and Vampire, personal pacts murks up the fronts. We should have a unified front in Morkin, all for one and one for all. No personal pacts should confuse us.

What is our policy on bullies?

We hate them, and hit them if they are small bullies. The big bullies we secretly hate.

Do Admins have a Veto vote?

Yes, I'm an admin! If you don't like it, complain!

Are posts permanent, or will we reassign them periodically?

I think they should be up for revision from time to time. This requires that other members will stnad up and take some responsebility.

Do inactive members get bumped?

In the end, yes. If they say they drop out. Those inactive for a time without telling is cut some slack.

[Freiegeister]

We seem to be working on the same page then.

Personally, I think an inactive would get bumped if they disappeared from M/MU.

There are probably more items, but for most commonsense should suffice if we tie down a few key one.

[Arminius]

I agree with all above. Multi-hunting should be limited to people on Raul's list, to make sure we're not treading on anybody's toes.

Admins should have a veto, that's why they're admins.

How would you redistribute posts? Should it not be voluntary? Or do you want to assess people's performance and promote/demote?

[Matija]

Write the charter, I say, then let us decide if it's OK.

[Freiegeister]

matija said:

Write the charter, I say, then let us decide if it's OK.

Any volunteers for converting what has been said so far into some eloquent English?

As far as posts I guess the easiest way would be to take nominations for each post (including self nominations) and let everyone cast their votes.

[sparrowhawk]

Personal pacts should be ok, imo. It's very useful when you are a fledgling in a big fish's pond.

For example, my pact with stapler_man means that he keeps me informed as to where his next colony will be, and is keeping one isle that I really want free for me.

To suddenly turn around and say, sorry, no more pact is to invite a fleet of 200LW and 20+ cats into my waters...

[Arminius]

thecreator said:

Personal pacts should be ok, imo. It's very useful when you are a fledgling in a big fish's pond.

For example, my pact with stapler_man means that he keeps me informed as to where his next colony will be, and is keeping one isle that I really want free for me.

To suddenly turn around and say, sorry, no more pact is to invite a fleet of 200LW and 20+ cats into my waters...

I think this is only a problem if it interferes with alliance politics. I too have informal arrangements with the other two fish in my pond that we won't attack each other. And I think we incidentally have common treaty partners...

Should we ever be involved in a war with any relations of personal pactees, then alliance treaties should obviously have preference, even though that might be a tricky situation. But then one can speak out against such a war, or arrange a ceasefire with that particular player. I think everybody would understand that.

Eg we're in a war with stapler_man's alliance (for whatever reason). You could still say that you attack other members, and he would leave you alone as well. Or is that too weird and twisted? Just a hypothetical example.

[Natmus]

As we are an educated lot, I'm sure we all remember that there are several instances in the Illiad where personal combats between Greeks and Troians have to be called off, due to their personal ties in times of peace.
I don't think it had any consequenses for those involved back then, but I am sure every general fears that his soldiers all turn up saying "I can't fight the enemy, it turns out they are all personal friends of mine!".

But how does these pacts work? Jean-Yves, for example, are you bound to go to war if stapler_man does so? Will you have to attack his enemies, and are the rest of Morkin then bound to revenge you when you are nuked by stapler_man's enemies?

Or is this pact of yours just a personal peace bond?

[sparrowhawk]

No, Morkin is not bound by my perosnal pact. it's more of a protection pact for me. If stapler_man is attacked, I am only really likely to be of help by supplying him with fresh troops and resources. I don't think that I would be able to take on any of his enemies in a head-to-head, and he would not expect me to.

The one thing that I am concerned about is the morkin does not become some sort of autocratic alliance, with "junior" members basically having to tow the party line.

[Arminius]

thecreator said:

The one thing that I am concerned about is that morkin does not become some sort of autocratic alliance, with "junior" members basically having to tow the party line.

I don't think that's ever going to happen. It'll always be democratic.

Just to emphasise the last point, how about regular elections where we vote who's admin, who's admiral, and who's diplomat? How about once a month? Just have a number of posts, and then poll on IK for each post and each candidate.

The other problem is that IK is just one big arms race; and we know where that ends from 1914...

[Matija]

How about making personal pacts subject to approval by alliance?

[Arminius]

matija said:

How about making personal pacts subject to approval by alliance?

As long as they could interfere with alliance pacts. Any alliance matters ought to override personal issues. But I think any player would agree to that, even STs.

[Freiegeister]

thecreator said:

No, Morkin is not bound by my perosnal pact. it's more of a protection pact for me. If stapler_man is attacked, I am only really likely to be of help by supplying him with fresh troops and resources. I don't think that I would be able to take on any of his enemies in a head-to-head, and he would not expect me to.

The one thing that I am concerned about is the morkin does not become some sort of autocratic alliance, with "junior" members basically having to tow the party line.

It's not so much a question of towing the party line, but actually determining what our party line is, and where individual members stand or can aspire to within the alliance.

a) We're democratic, therefore posts are not permanent.

b) Our primary loyalty is too the alliance and each other. Therefore we make no pacts that would automatically bring other members into a conflict that didn't concern them.

c) Being democratic, what do we consider a majority vote, and in what situations do we need to hold a vote, or can members have a free hand to respond quickly.

This business with Vampire was amusing. Especially when Freedom wacked Avinalaff. In this case freedom's personal pact came before that to his alliance partner.

[soiram]

I have been very careful with my "pacts". First of all I don't list them as such, but rather as "friends".

Secondly I focused more on people stronger than me, so that it is more probable for me to ask for help rather than the opposite.

In all fairness, I think it is extremely unlikely for me to put a personal pact ahead of Morkin's good, since I know and trust you lot much longer than anyone else here.