Jump to content

Bjorkland

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    107

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Bjorkland

    Global Court

    in Global Politics

    Posted

    In line with Joshua, while I believe this current idea is FAIL, I think that a COurt system is while, dificult, possible.

    Basic points which must be cleared for it to be plausible:

    -Must Originate from Order Leadership,

    -Must Include all Sanctioned alliance's signature

    -Must be relatively small in focus, with a small number of high level infractions.

    -Must ignore all alliances under 100 members(approximate number)

    If any of the above points are not cleared, I do not believe such an idea to be possible. It basically has to be an Order sponsored court, which deals with only certain crimes and ignores the ten man alliances that tend to muss things up. All rules and rulings should be set by those that run CN, as the moral and legal code at this point is set by the Major sanctioned alliances (the Orders). Infractions dealt with should be along the lines of Inter-Alliance espionage, Nuclear Rogueing, And POW treatement. Thats about it, anything more and it loses its purpose and ability to act.

    However, Im not personally in support of such an idea, i doubt anyone has the political pull to support such an idea and to make it happen, and I dont tend to support concepts I feel impractical to implement.

    note:High level infractions such as Inter-alliance Espionage,

    NEW ALLIANCE

    in Alliance Politics

    Posted

    Article 3 Military

    -Our military is based off of a number of military ranks including Field Commanders, Generals, Captains, Medics (?), Lieutenants etc.

    -Everyone is separated into units. General Swazz has fought with the ODN and has war experience with alliances such as IRON, Dark White, ODN, NPO, and the The Legion.

    -Organization is highly stressed in this alliance.

    Article 4-Duties

    -Generals duties are to make sure their company members are active and they report to a roll call every month. They give orders to Lieutenants and ensure that these orders are being carried out.

    -Lieutenants are responsible for making sure the Generals orders are followed out and to keep in eye out for members during war time. (

    Article 5- War

    -All aid request are made at the Wall Street section located in the forums.

    -No one can attack anyone with out permission from an admin or a government member.

    -If an attack occurs without permission you will be expelled from the alliance.

    -Battle reports must be posted in (the or a?) battle report topic.

    -We will not fight a war unless we half to

    Ok, ive got about three things to say so bear with me.

    First off, Well done, its hard to start an alliance, I have recently done so and made some nice large mistakes myself. People from larger alliances tend to forget how much of a learning curve thier is, and are fairly merciless, stick with it, it may happen for you.

    Secondly, Spelling boys, spelling. You want to appear professionaly when you are creating a new alliance, and while I am no perfect example, your charter at least should be spelled correctly. Using good spelling and better grammar will show dedication to excellence and help, somewhat, seperate you from the newbs.

    Finnally, I'm reiterating here, but why did you post any information on your Military system in your charter? Your basically telling the world that this is where your military systems are weak, and how to attack you. besides which, your systems ARE outdated. I suggest if you have any friends in a larger alliance, contact them and see if you can hire them to come and audit your military.

    The Theory of Mutual Government Treaties

    in Open World Forum

    Posted

    Impressivley written. MGT's may/may not be the wave of the future.

    However, I challenge you in that the selection of a leader will forever be the breaker of the MGT.

    so long as each alliance feels it is still indpenedant their remains indepentant goals. These will case strife in the selection of a singlular leader. As well as each alliance may utilize seperate government systems which will cause the individual alliances leaders sent to the MGT to become a source of contention. Let me give an example.

    Alliance A B C and D are approximately the same size. They form an MGT as they fell it is mutually beneficial. A, and B are Democratic alliances, C is a monarchy, and D is a mixture.

    Now in A and B, the leaders sent to the MGT may change continously, due to each Individual nations elections. in C, that problem will most likely not exist, however if a leadership change DOES occur, it will be highly drastic. And in D it could go either way. If a major shift occurs in any individual alliance's government, then its delegates must surely change as well, or an alliaince will be represented by those it does not choose itself. Therefore new leadership must be chosen as well. Say A changes its entire government and sends new delagates. while B has its elections in two weeks. C currenly holds the leadership position but that was chosen by a diffrent set of delagetes entirely. A wants to vote again because those members didnt have a chance to express thier votes, B wants to wait so its new members have a shot at the top spot, C doesnt want a new vote at all and again D is unsure ( i use D to represent the possibility of extroardinary circumstances, something I can not foresee basically). This is the first issue with a chosen leader, the people who chose him may change and then does he still retain his position.

    Second problem is, they formed with a certain strength ladder. Total NS, and score is a sign of prestige between alliances, however what if B suddenly undergoes a huge growth spurt. They surely will expect thier role to change withinm the MGT. They are shouldering a larger portion of responsibilty, they will want a larger share of power. B wants to throw its wieght around. BUT A, C , and D want no changes or they risk losing thier own say. Basically in any system there is a finite amount of power to be issued, and if a change forces alterations to a system at equilibrium, the new levels may not be considered beneficial to all member alliances. Does this mean that a new treaty must be formed? or perhaps B simply leaves the MGT?

    Finnaly, and partially related, I think moist laliances indiviudaity comes from thier belief that they have the ability to affect the game as they see fit. While giving them thier Independance Internally, taking away thier external independance makes them a blind mute alliance with no purpose. why bother keeping them seperate at all?

    These are some issues that i came up against while reading this, however I do think its a somewhat revolutionary concept, and could sitll be the key to altering the current political system in CN.

×
×
  • Create New...