What would your ideal alliance government look like?

EDIT: The structure, I mean. For me, I would start with a triumvirate. I like power to be concentrated in as few sources as possible, but if you give it all to one person there is too much potential for waste and/or abuse.

Authoritarian Republic. Elected government members run the alliance and make the important decisions.

Would these be the traditional ministers + chief executive, or would you envision a legislative body as well?

Autocratic dictatorship. The fewer people there are in the creation of a singular vision, the less a chance of it becoming corrupted. Thus, one leader is the ideal.

I agree, to an extent. What happens if that one individual is incompetent?

Real Life- Typical Democracy.
CN- whatever is most efficient.

Don't follow him. Go somewhere else.

I've had experience in most government systems on Bob, usually an ideal form of government is a personal thing and I'm happy to see that you initially addressed that.

Personally, I prefer a meritocracy above anything with the meritocratic working collectively and individually without bureaucracy hindering each of their procedures or desirabilities. Only the meritocratic should have any form of vote, in my opinion, with ample and equal opportunities for anyone to contribute.

I prefer dividing a meritocracy amongst medial and extreme tasks while encouraging individualism and participation through the pursuit of entertainment for any member... all under the shade of a single banner or flag.

With the meritocratic holding the franchise to democratically vote on foreign treaties, aggressively declare war, and the ability to select a responsible head-of-state.. the most deserving/present become the core of an alliance with whose structure is oriented toward adaptability, free representation and economic progress through entertainment.

Sounds fun, eh?

One executive, triumvirates are the worst form of government, and ministers as the general assembly sees fit.

Francoist.

A single executive with an appointed legislative that could overule the executive if needed. Based in a meritocratic system.

As much as I'm a fan of Feederites overthrowing the Userites, but I'm not exactly sure what a Francoist government actually is. Care to explain?

A triunvirate can work well only if the three triunvirates share a great trust among them.

I like governments with glass ceilings :>

Autocracy.

I think sometimes even Francoist governments need to adapt to changing circumstances. What the New Pacific Order needs right now is a man of the people at their head, not an authoritarian, harsh ruler who is above everyone else.

That having been said, I think a Francoist government that is adaptable is the best in the game.

This, precisely. An alliance born of a singular vision lives and dies by the integrity of the vision's execution. Therefore, it lives and dies by the integrity of the individual whose vision that alliance is.

Yes, adaptable Francoism.

In my views the most ideal government structure would be a like dictatorship where the people willingly follow the leader.

Leader-----> Ministers-----> Deputy Ministers ---------> Members

People can present ideas to the leader yet he has the final say on things. He has no real duties in the running of the alliance except understanding everything that is going on and knowing that it is in his own designs. The key is that people are not over ambitious and are happy with his rule.

If you don't believe in your alliance's leadership, why are you there?

None. All power corrupts. The strength of a community lies in the willingness of each and every member to give healthy contributions and ride out the storm when ZI comes knocking.

But that makes no sense, as members will have issues with one another, and you will end up with a massive pile of drama. Apart from nothing ever getting done. People who can weild power effectively should have it.

I'm not a fan of large CN governments and the unnecessary bureaucracy that comes with it.

Here's how I'd see my "ideal" government.


Triumvirate of 3 people that share the same vision and similar styles of leadership (this is hard to come by nowadays)

Elected Council of 4 people (Only if the alliance is about 75-100)


Small government full of people that should be capable enough to handle about 100 members through various programs and departments.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/A_Primer_On_Francoism

Enjoy.

While admirably written, that is the biggest load of baloney I've ever read, but only because the premise is incorrect and the definitions vague. However, I give plenty of credit towards the creation of something over nothing. At least it's a step in a creative direction.



As for ideal government, enlightened dictatorship.

I have a question for everyone who says the ideal government possesses a triumvirate: why a triumvirate? Why three? What difference does it make if the seat of power has three places, or two, or one, or four?

Does that mean that Vladimir is technically in command of the NPO?

I invite you to the LSF forums to see the 'nothingness' we have accomplished.

I'm not sure about triumvirate being the ideal government but it does have certain advantages. The main one is increasing the availability of someone (Or three someones) with executive control. 3 is better than two because it prevents deadlock on decisions.

If you were a capitalist society, you could afford better boards.

*edit:

Anything with Ivan.

You challenge him and remove him from office.

A government where the power is spread over a lot of people all performing various tasks. Like the Romans

You've got something on your nose there.

I favor, rather than multiple people with equal power, one with absolute power, and a group directly beneath the one with equal authority but less power. Someone who can represent the leader when the leader is not available, but cannot shape policy like the leader can.

Sounds interesting, you should write up a charter that details that.

He has

How convenient then.

I bet it is/was/will-be a smashing success.

Full of randomness.

And insanity.

I like a triumvirate because it's an odd number that isn't one. It doesn't make that much of a difference to me when an alliance reaches 100 or so members. Under that, there isn't any real need for ministers, deputies or any sort of large govt to member ratio. A triumvirate allows for leadership responsibilities in the various "fields" (IA, FA, War) to be spread out fairly evenly as opposed to one leader plus 4-5 ministers in a smaller alliance. Once you reach a fairly large member size, I don't see much of a difference between a single leader or three leaders, depending on the charter of the alliance.

Ideally, dictatorship of some sort.

When evaluating a government or ruler, you should consider not only your own experience, but the general consensus of people who have experienced it. Having done so myself, and talked with many, many others that have, I would say that while your premise makes some sense, the conclusion you have drawn about the current situation is false.


As for me, I am a strong believer in having a single authority figure over all.

Why are the majority of people necessarily correct?

Oh, you would be very surprised. ;>.> I've written what is probably the longest alliance charter ever made, detailing my 100-percent-serious-business dream alliance.

I never claimed that they were; rather, that it is a good idea to get the opinions of others who have had a chance to experience the same when forming an opinion on the matter.

In your case, the thing to consider is this: if 600-700 people (given, not all active, so say, 200 active people) in an alliance are all willing to obey a leader, and since his appointment there have been little to no complaints (in fact, he has very wide approval in and outside of the alliance), then it was probably your experience that has biased you.


edit - added the quote for context since another post was between ours.

How can you possibly expect people to have opinions that are unaffected by personal experience? Surely it is personal experience that defines our opinions and thus they are unique and we all have something to contribute? Furthermore, I think you misunderstand my post. I'm not launching into a criticism of Cortath, I'm stating that adaptable Francoism is the answer.

1) You cannot, but the more people included in your sample, for lack of a better word, generally the more even the scale.
2) Opinions are not always unique, but I get what you are saying; we certainly all have something different to contribute, even if just by a little.
3) You started with something pointing that way, and accordingly I matched my post to counter that point that it seemed you were trying to make.

edit - changed #3 after I re-read the posts.

I like a government run by common sense.
Just like GR: If there is a loophole and someone tries to use it, the higher government does not allow it.

And people who do stuff for the alliance have to be credited somehow:
Ministerial positions, consulting senate seats.
Deputy ministers.

Personally I think 700 people can be wrong about something. Hell, for centuries people believed Ptolemy's theory that the sun went around the earth, before Copernicus turned up and proved them all wrong. You're correct that opinions are not always unique, but even then I think that there are small differences in people's opinions which you can determine upon intensive interrogation, but I have no intention of doing that right now.

700 people can and have been wrong about something before; however, it is very rare that such a situation is the case. In addition, that is a poor comparison to what we are talking about in my opinion, because while with the sun & earth, we can physically prove it one way or another, there is no way to prove something that is based on opinion only.

Also, sorry for the late edit on my previous post.

I believe in objective truth, perhaps I'm old-fashioned that way. Regardless, I don't believe that the efficiency of an alliance government is subjective. It is evident from the results.