Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Sept 13, 2007 15:18:26 GMT
Every alliance will want to handle elections, if that's the purse that comes with it.
I've thought the AMC over time and time again. I'm convinced it is doomed to failure - it is plagued by the same problems the Constitutional Convention faced.
Large alliances (DIGG) want alliance size to be the determinant factor. Smaller alliances like Morkin want longevity or reputation to be the determinant factor.
There will never be an agreement that satisfies even half the server.
|
|
Sol
Luxor Member
I pledge alligeance to the corn-growers.
Posts: 1,610
|
Post by Sol on Sept 13, 2007 15:21:25 GMT
Hmmmm...this is true. It's all the politics involved. No one will agree, but thats the best I can come up with.
Maybe they don't have to agree. It just is...Morkin will have the final word.
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Sept 13, 2007 15:45:01 GMT
Maybe they don't have to agree. It just is...Morkin will have the final word. That's the spirit! Yes, we should state that we're peaceful, don't have an axe to grind, mature (well, mostly!), and have been around for a long time. And we've got our reputation... We will need to find a good balance between alliance size etc. Maybe leave alliances out of it completely, and just choose players who are active, can spell, and are established.
|
|
SkulkrinBait
Morkin Admin
Haxx0rs == Suxx0rs! v4
Posts: 6,680
|
Post by SkulkrinBait on Sept 13, 2007 15:46:26 GMT
Do we need a council at all?
Let everyone who plays IK vote on whether or not to use the AMC for each case.
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Sept 13, 2007 15:50:06 GMT
Looking at the standard of postings in most threads there needs to be a serious filter to keep things on track.
Maybe for each case there could be a jury, a defender, and a prosecutor, who are assigned from a pool of smart people/volunteers. That could take into account which alliance the multi is part of.
We should work out a model, and present it as a done deal, no discussion. And as long as we err on the side of caution, there shouldn't be any problems.
|
|
Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Sept 13, 2007 16:02:14 GMT
Inselgerichtssaal?
|
|
kae
Luxor Member
Posts: 638
|
Post by kae on Sept 13, 2007 16:16:13 GMT
In regards to 'how does morkin keep control' having a 'speaker' on the floor might help those things, and who guides those discussions.
Keep in mind that just because everyone can READ the posts, doesn't mean everyone should able to post themselves. Having just the members of the AMC be able to post, with the speaker having admin rights on the board could make a big difference. Something gets off topic, something gets deleted.
Thus, it provides a transparency for everyone to see what is going on, and the ability to contribute to a representative, while keeping things in a controllable manner.
Furthermore, a definable set of statutes that state what a multi is, and what is 'proof' will go a long way. Any evidence must be presented to the 'speaker' before it is posted by a member, and if it is valid, then it can be posted. Thus provided yet another layer, where you aren't creating a giant witchhunt.
|
|
2kcastle
Luxor Admin
Supreme Prosecutor
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by 2kcastle on Sept 13, 2007 17:01:14 GMT
If your going to do this publicly, you need a clearly defined and stated list of what you accept as proof of some-one using multi accounts and you need to apply the same burden of proof to every case ( Not a problem for us i know, but some of the other alliances might not be so fair ). Its incredibly hard to prove someones using multi accounts if they've got any sense what so ever. so what would everyone class as concrete evidence ?? very few of them seem to do the decent thing and admit it when you ask them.
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Sept 13, 2007 17:42:22 GMT
There will never be any hard evidence, only a set of indicators, such as
- no war ships, but plenty of merchants - only SWS for shipping stoners - warehouse but no wall - all mines at 20 but not much else - similar name/id number to a set of other accounts - lack of growth but absence of resources - ...
It's a case of how many boxes you need to have ticked in order decide that someone is a multi.
|
|
Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Sept 13, 2007 17:47:29 GMT
If your going to do this publicly, you need a clearly defined and stated list of what you accept as proof of some-one using multi accounts and you need to apply the same burden of proof to every case ( Not a problem for us i know, but some of the other alliances might not be so fair ). Its incredibly hard to prove someones using multi accounts if they've got any sense what so ever. so what would everyone class as concrete evidence ?? very few of them seem to do the decent thing and admit it when you ask them. The problem here is that if you publicly expose the criteria, it is a self-defeating process. All the legitimate multi's out there will trim up their accounts, and make sure they do not fall within the criteria. The only ones that will be "caught" will be those too harmless to bother reading external forums.
|
|
Sol
Luxor Member
I pledge alligeance to the corn-growers.
Posts: 1,610
|
Post by Sol on Sept 13, 2007 21:36:23 GMT
Large alliances (DIGG) want alliance size to be the determinant factor. Smaller alliances like Morkin want longevity or reputation to be the determinant factor. Well, I think its safe to say that DIGG is the only really "big" alliance. I am pretty sure, since the rest of the alliances are smaller, that they will agree that size should not determine number of representatives. "proof" is never going to be 100% fact. Once this "proof" is posted on the official forum, the "multi" has the right to defend himself on the same thread or choose someone to defend him. The AMC should probably provide a one week deadline. After this date passes, a poll should be made, and the IK community becomes jury and ONLY vote, not comment. I will admit it will be VERY hard to filter all the spam, but, the AMC should inform the administrators/moderators to moderate this thread.
|
|
Sol
Luxor Member
I pledge alligeance to the corn-growers.
Posts: 1,610
|
Post by Sol on Sept 30, 2007 20:03:58 GMT
lol
So in another post I said that due to tensions going all over IK, the MK-5 account will be held against us...and behold!!
From the external forums
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I see it as them trying to change the direction of all this attention they're getting to us...and...yes, do we have answers to these questions?
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Sept 30, 2007 20:08:12 GMT
I've been in touch with several 2nd tier alliances about my idea of taking over the AMC, and pretty much everybody thinks it's a good idea. So when we go live with it, there will be support for us.
Also, it is useless *now*, which is why we're doing something about it. Unfortunately I'm away next week at a conference, but when I come back I intend to lauch the 'new AMC'.
|
|
Sol
Luxor Member
I pledge alligeance to the corn-growers.
Posts: 1,610
|
Post by Sol on Sept 30, 2007 20:11:41 GMT
Ah. Didn't know you guys were working on it.
|
|
Sol
Luxor Member
I pledge alligeance to the corn-growers.
Posts: 1,610
|
Post by Sol on Oct 17, 2007 2:51:44 GMT
|
|