PDA

View Full Version : democracies in KoC



mcm-never-dies
22nd October 2005, 04:21 AM
There has been a thread about this before, but I'm starting it again because a lots has changed in KoC. And many people have different oppinions about when a clan is a democracy.

Lately I saw some alliances, who said they are a democracy. In fact they just have a council, chosen by the leaders, just like other alliances, and members can members can give their oppinion. I don't think that is democracy.

I think you can only say that an alliance is a democracy if:
All members can vote on everything, a total democracy. I know a total democracy doesn't exist, and won't work, but it's just an example.
Members can vote who's in the council, a representative democracy.

I would like to know you're oppinion about democracy, and if there are other alliances that have a real democracy.

Sarge
22nd October 2005, 05:33 AM
Agreed, many alliances claim to be democracy but really aren't.
However, supose a leader has a person who is 2nd in command. Together they figure out who would be fit to be in the council.
Then the council expands with 2 people and you have 4 in it.
Then those 4 discuss who would be promoted next.
Don't you have a democracy then? Not a full democracy agreed but some sort of democracy nonetheless.
At least that's how we do it.

Tekano
22nd October 2005, 12:40 PM
there are no democracy's in koc, it's that simple, every alliance has leaders who have more power etc.

Carnival*
22nd October 2005, 01:19 PM
i agree as well... with clan i will make one day mine will be members vote for council and each member will have a 4 to 8 week term in council then elections again

Sarge
22nd October 2005, 03:02 PM
I think you are right, I dont think a complete democracy can prevail in the KoC world, because this wold mean someoen could vote out the highest ranking officer inyuor clan..so its ridiculous...but I think more democracies prevail like Angel Holocaust...there are too many unknows i think when you give somuch power to the *people* in a gaming environment.
Good Luck to you


xxx


you're right, when you give that kind of power to your members, eventually it would hurt themselves because there are no certanties, supose 60% of your clan wants to fight a battle that is already lost, then the other 40% have to suffer under it and you can't just take those risks.
Good luck to you too with Fierce Gladiators :)


there are no democraties in koc, it's that simple, every alliance has leaders who have more power etc.

That's not true, of course an alliance has a leader which can choose to listen to his members or not.
When choosing your first council members you must be very cautious and make sure they only act for the good of the alliance. Then you can rely on them to help make good decisions and to choose councilors who too are fit for the job.
Sometimes they can make a decision you don't like but if you are to ignore that, there is no point to a council.

Tekano
22nd October 2005, 03:30 PM
I thought we were talking about a total democracy?

your notice is about an in-direct democracy...

mcm-never-dies
23rd October 2005, 01:05 AM
deocracies in KoC do exist, but not total. As far as I know there are 2 alliances with a representative democracy (FSC and DA). It works pretty good there. I'm just wondering what other people think about it and if there are other alliances who have it ;)

Neomackenzie
24th October 2005, 08:26 AM
I dont believe in total democracy... It doesnt work to me and it has been proven on the long term that a clear hierarchy works alot better in a clan. The members cant decide things, they need someone to follow.. someone giving orders. You can pretend that your clan allows this or that to members but infact.. they dont have a say.. they just suggest things to the leader and the leader decides.

A clan with various leaders isnt a good thing. You need someone on top controlling debates or arguments.. alliances with more than 2 leaders usually end/die/close very quickly. They either split the clan ad take their followers with them etc.. If you have a real leader, that person can kick whoever in the alliance, the bigger part of the clan will stick with him.. because he's the leader and he decides.

Sarge
24th October 2005, 09:03 AM
Democracies CAN work, it all depends on the leader. If that person has the discipline to accept whatever the majority of it's members want. It all depends on you wether it works or not.

mcm-never-dies
24th October 2005, 09:57 AM
democracies do work. FSC haa a democracy and we've never had troubles with it- Ou members all like it and I never heard anyone complaining.

NickW
24th October 2005, 11:35 AM
Democracy...Already doing that for ages with my officers, in my opinion it's normall to discuss every important issue with your (best) officers.

aftiel
24th October 2005, 11:41 AM
I have yet to see a clan who is an actual democracy. However, several of those who claim to be so, seem to go through a system in which leaders (usually founders) promote people to ranks while discussing it between each other, and then ask the general membership for opinions on general clan policies, in some cases the consensus opinion is binding, in some cases it's just "advisory".

It's not a democracy (in fact, I'm really not sure exactly what you'd call it), but it's certainly not authoritarian. It's somewhere in between; where in between depends on the alliance.

ragefire
24th October 2005, 09:48 PM
i doubt that a true democracy can exsist in koc...cuz there are always people who are better, or more powerful then others...this of course can be measured in several ways, but i think that when we realize that there can be no true democracy...then we can begin to debate about other types of "impure" democracy...which is the kind used in several alliances, and most if im not mistaken....and yes, there are "pure" forms of democracy out there...but when a vote is taken, how many members vote on it? is everones opinion heard? how do you rule in a decision? these are the questions that arise im my mind....

now you claim to have democracys right? i'm not doubting any of you...but you allow everyone an equal vote? no one has more say then anyone else? in theory, that rocks, in real life, in reality, it can't happen, there is a class system...i want you to tell me that a person ranked # 1 in koc, has the same voting power as the guy ranked last....truly? i'm not saying it can't work, i'm saying we have yet to figure out a way to make it work, and keep ourselves human....people judge, thats part of life....

just my thoughts...

~ragefire

mcm-never-dies
25th October 2005, 12:47 AM
I agree full democracy wouldn't be possible, a representative democracy is. And yes, you have to be promoted to join, but promotions aren't based on rank or strenth, they are based on form activity so everyone can get promoted if he wants. And everyone, even those with 0 posts can vote on the elections. I agree it's not full, but it's better than a dictature or an alliance which sais they have a total democracy, while the council is chosen by the leaders.

NickW
25th October 2005, 07:52 AM
I have yet to see a clan who is an actual democracy. However, several of those who claim to be so, seem to go through a system in which leaders (usually founders) promote people to ranks while discussing it between each other, and then ask the general membership for opinions on general clan policies, in some cases the consensus opinion is binding, in some cases it's just "advisory".

It's not a democracy (in fact, I'm really not sure exactly what you'd call it), but it's certainly not authoritarian. It's somewhere in between; where in between depends on the alliance.
The system you described was already used by Stormsky in age3 and before that age.

mcm-never-dies
25th October 2005, 09:09 AM
didn't know about that, I've never been in SA, and I never heard before they were democratic :O

Neomackenzie
25th October 2005, 09:31 AM
Well, Stormsky Alliance died due to cheating accusations + hackage and other reasons... so you cant call it a good example.. Only clans who are still around with a stable situation should be kept in mind..

Clans that are now closed due to inactivity, cheating accusations, hacking, intern problems, etc were probably not "strong" enough to survive.. and i do nottalk about the koc strength but about the clan's unity.. democratic or not..if your clan isnt well organisated and united.. then it'll die.

It doesnt really matter if the alliance is democratic or hierarchic.. if it survives on the long term, then it means that members do like it there and it means also that the clan isnt that bad either. :)

mcm-never-dies
25th October 2005, 10:17 AM
I agree with that ;)

Eyeflash v2.0
25th October 2005, 10:37 AM
What the hell is a "democratic" KoC clan? You dudes are like miniature Bushes, proclaiming "we are a democracy, as should you!" Nobody even knows how to define democracy anymore anyway, so who cares? Ah well, perhaps next thing we should have a clan that claims to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat", now that would be amusing. Even the Soviets never had that.

TheCelticGenesis
25th October 2005, 10:38 AM
I dont believe in total democracy... It doesnt work to me and it has been proven on the long term that a clear hierarchy works alot better in a clan. The members cant decide things, they need someone to follow.. someone giving orders. You can pretend that your clan allows this or that to members but infact.. they dont have a say.. they just suggest things to the leader and the leader decides.

A clan with various leaders isnt a good thing. You need someone on top controlling debates or arguments.. alliances with more than 2 leaders usually end/die/close very quickly. They either split the clan ad take their followers with them etc.. If you have a real leader, that person can kick whoever in the alliance, the bigger part of the clan will stick with him.. because he's the leader and he decides.

I totaly agree with Neo here. :)

mcm-never-dies
25th October 2005, 03:09 PM
I don't, nothing is wrong with more leaders, and I think it's good if members have influence.

Neomackenzie
26th October 2005, 06:05 AM
I don't, nothing is wrong with more leaders, and I think it's good if members have influence.
Members shouldnt have too much influence in a clan.. They are too many to decide or affect anything in the clan's organisation or structure... They are a good source of ideas or suggestions for the leader but if you give them too much power, they'll surestime themself and problems will pop-up after a few time..

The members should know who they are and where they are.. Leaders are the ones deciding..

Ex: You formed alliance "X" and then recruit people.. Those members get some influence and are happy with it the first few weeks.. its all cool.. your alliance is now reputed to be koc's first democracy... then bam there comes the first war.. some members disagree with your decision.. but hey, you are the leader ok.. Now what? The clan has different opinions and some people arent happy.. They say it isnt a democracy anymore because you didnt keep in mind their voice... great..

I'd rather be clear the first day and say: "I am leader, i decide. You are member, you suggest."

Like a few people already mentionned, .. a regular member doesnt have the same power/say/voice/influence as a former member.

mcm-never-dies
26th October 2005, 06:36 AM
he can have. And you can have leaders and a council chosen by the members at the same time. And if you become a democracy the members/ elected council should have a vote on everything, also on wars.

Fyrsten
27th October 2005, 05:10 PM
i agree as well... with clan i will make one day mine will be members vote for council and each member will have a 4 to 8 week term in council then elections again

Don't you think it would be messy, changing leaders all the time? And the course of the alliance may change often also, depending of whos been elected?

Would that rule also include new members? Let say to get 20 new members in your clan, and they are friends, and some of those get chosen as council members. Do you think the clan still will be the same? Or would you have certain guildelines for what the clan may or may not do?

If you are a peaceful and neutral clan, and some war-lovers get chosen for council, and they then decide to pick a fight with some alliances and battle, wouldn't those peaceful members leave then?

I think my clan is democratic, members can vote for who they want in council, and every full member may vote over important stuff. I think that a new member shall not have too much influence on the clan. Meaning that they should have a trial periode before they become full member and get a right to decide the direction of the alliance/clan.

Of course there is a middle way between dicatorship and democracy, and somewhere between those extremities may be optimal for a clan.

My conclusion is that full democracy may not be possible to achieve, as that would make a messy alliance, who are unpredictable.


I agree full democracy wouldn't be possible, a representative democracy is. And yes, you have to be promoted to join, but promotions aren't based on rank or strenth, they are based on form activity so everyone can get promoted if he wants. And everyone, even those with 0 posts can vote on the elections. I agree it's not full, but it's better than a dictature or an alliance which sais they have a total democracy, while the council is chosen by the leaders.

Im just curious, when was your alliance founded, as you claim to be the first democracy in KoC?

My clan was founded in 1999, and took it step into KoC in Age4, march 2005. And we are democratic, but not completely, as that would be quite messy.
Unless you were founded before we entered Kings of Chaos, then you may not claim to be the "first democracy" in KoC.

mcm-never-dies
28th October 2005, 05:16 AM
We have been founded at the end of 2004. When we became a democracy I've searched on GUA for other democracies, all I found was clans claiming to be a democracy while the council was still chosen by the leaders. I also made a thread about democracies, and found out KoP had got it one week after us, no other replies from democratic alliances, so why didn't you reply then? I didn't got a reply from anyone telling me they were democratic before us...
But yes, from what you describe I would say you are a real democracy, and if you were really before us then we're not the first. Just wonder why I didn't see when I've done some serious research on it..

And also, how can your clan have been created in 1999, then koc didn't even exist yet..

Neomackenzie
28th October 2005, 05:33 AM
And also, how can your clan have been created in 1999, then koc didn't even exist yet..
Because Kings of Chaos isnt the unique mmorpg on the internet.

mcm-never-dies
28th October 2005, 07:11 AM
Yes, but if they enetered later we still are the first democracy in KoC

Lor20_RJ
28th October 2005, 07:35 AM
i dont think a real democracy works in koc either - the risk of people abusing the power for aslong as they have it is too high. plus hen you get a bigger alliance you have administative tasks that cannot be done by all members rather than making decisions. If we are honest - there arent that many decisions to be made in koc for the whole alliance. you set a general direction and then set a set of rules and guidelines. now if u have a democracy you have to either constantly reevaluate them when u get new councils or the new council members are just executing things decided in the past.
Just like in real life, real democracies only work in small groups.
Lor20

Monsuco
30th October 2005, 03:14 PM
I am a member of the newly formed Democratic Army alliance. From what I have seen this clan and several others qualify as republics more so than democacys. Basicly, you vote for high ranking clan members. Our alliance hasn't really gotten off the ground quite yet, but we are getting there. From the way it is set up, it looks like it will wind up fair. As for the worry of abuse of power in various democratic/republic style clans, I doubt that will be a problem so long as that alliance manages to set up a system of limitations on what the people running the clan can and can't do. Like checks and balances or something, there must be limits on clan governmental power. Also, there needs to be a "president" of sorts to manage the clan and a senate/councel to tell the president what to do. If a clan could set up a democratic style government similar to a real democracies government.

To sum up what I just said: In my opinion, although clans aren't going to be "pure democracies" they can be a republic of sort.

Morten
30th October 2005, 03:51 PM
This is a rank game and thats how clans work too. And its all part of the game.
You would want senior members to make decisions while the senior members defenatly wouldn't want a noob to interfere with their decision making.
Then again if it was all peace and harmony i guess it would work, but its a war game and all the politics and desitsion making must be done by as few as possible. And fast and furious.. eh,fast and firm.

mcm-never-dies
31st October 2005, 06:54 AM
This is a rank game and thats how clans work too. And its all part of the game.
Correction: that's how your clan works.

You would want senior members to make decisions while the senior members defenatly wouldn't want a noob to interfere with their decision making.
Usually the n00bs are not the people who get elected. The members vote for the most helpfull and active members, so definitely no noobs

Then again if it was all peace and harmony i guess it would work, but its a war game and all the politics and desitsion making must be done by as few as possible. And fast and furious.. eh,fast and firm.
Yes, it's a war game, but that doesn't mean war within alliances.

Tha Butcher
31st October 2005, 07:16 AM
Then again if it was all peace and harmony i guess it would work, but its a war game and all the politics and desitsion making must be done by as few as possible. And fast and furious.. eh,fast and firm.

Really? What if the leadership consisted of a few people and were elected by the public. Doesn't that allow for fast politics and decisions while still serving the public?

On another note: I agree. Pure democracy is not possible in a enviroment like this. The closest you would get that is stable would be a reppresentative(no idea how to spell it) one.

mcm-never-dies
31st October 2005, 09:39 AM
finally someone who agrees :D

and it is representative democracy ^^ you added 1 p :p

Morten
31st October 2005, 11:14 AM
Correction: that's how your clan works.

no, thats how all known and successful clans work.


Usually the n00bs are not the people who get elected. The members vote for the most helpfull and active members, so definitely no noobs

with noobs in this scenario i mean new players in the clan and not new players to the game, eitherway who would want new players to the clan have same right to decide as those who has been there longest? you and your clan, thats also most likely people to post in this thread, but i doubt many else.


Yes, it's a war game, but that doesn't mean war within alliances.

huh? your not making sence.
In a war game you need to make decisions fast.
And being leader of big clans is a 24h job actually if you want to be successful. And you just dont have the time to wait for votes in 90% of the cases and situations. You talk to the other leaders in chats and decide fast. The rest 10% you can have votes on. If you dont know what i mean your obviously not involved in a big clan and the happenings behind the scenes in KOC


Really? What if the leadership consisted of a few people and were elected by the public. Doesn't that allow for fast politics and decisions while still serving the public?

yes ofcourse.
But generally voting is too time consuming. Could take a week instead of 5 min chatting on irc or w/e. Also most clans, small and big consist of many different kind of people; some is forum people and spend most of their time there, others are mostly on msn and then you have the irc geeks that only want to chat live with as many as possible. There are others and some people are doing it all, but my point is that the last 2 groups here most likely will never go to the forums and vote so their views wont be heard in votes anyway.

Personally i was mostly on irc, thats where it was easiest to do politics and to make decisions swift by chatting with other leaders online at the time.
You have to choose the best capable people to lead the different tasks and you make decisions together with them.

Sarge
31st October 2005, 01:19 PM
Supose you got 10 people, 10 ACTIVE people who check forum DAILY. And all those are in council, then you can make fast decisionxs AND you're sure that majority of your clan will approve of it. Voting for council may take a week but that voting doesn't happen every 3 weeks does it?

Morten
31st October 2005, 01:56 PM
Supose you got 10 people, 10 ACTIVE people who check forum DAILY. And all those are in council, then you can make fast decisionxs AND you're sure that majority of your clan will approve of it. Voting for council may take a week but that voting doesn't happen every 3 weeks does it?

If by council voting you would mean a vote by all members i would be against it.
a council should be voted inn by those already in the council, and that council should be the leader(s) and sub leaders.
Again i wouldn't wanted noobs/new members to vote on something they know nothing about. lets not kid ourself, the clan leaders own the clan and would want total control of it. they would add subleaders to help with the tasks. The bigger the clan the more sub leaders you need. Could be build as a pyramid but in the end a clan is just like any other RL cooperation.

Sarge
31st October 2005, 04:16 PM
lets not kid ourself, the clan leaders own the clan and would want total control of it.

Not everyone is like that, you can't possibly know what and how every clan founder thinks.

Morten
31st October 2005, 04:30 PM
Not everyone is like that, you can't possibly know what and how every clan founder thinks.


heh do you?
I do know how people think though. And i do know how every big and successful clan in KOC has been working starting from age 0 until today. It used to be my job to know and to counter lol


To let all members deside all would work for small clans where friends hang around. But im sorry i dont belive for a second they stand a chance to grow and become a successful clan without order and secluded desitionmakers, members and leadership. Im not saying it would be great if it worked, but Utopia never worked in the past and never will. Humans just isnt build for it. Someone will step up or out eventually.

MysteryQuest
31st October 2005, 04:57 PM
i dont think a real democracy works in koc either

And why not, because PR abuses everything and f*cks up KoC. You abuse your power on IRC, GUA and you have a vote in KoC admin's decisions.

So you shouldn't have more than 1 vote per pre-registered alliance.

Hure
31st October 2005, 05:12 PM
And why not, because PR abuses everything and f*cks up KoC. You abuse your power on IRC, GUA and you have a vote in KoC admin's decisions.

So you shouldn't have more than 1 vote per pre-registered alliance.

I would personally tell you to :biteme: .

The way I see it, in this game, a democracy is possible, in a sense. I mean, when a clan is created, the founding members would need to be leaders of the clan, not annyone else who has the popular vote. That just doesn't work. The way I see it working, is that the creators of the clan, who have the ultimate power, set up a system where the clan can be in most aspects, lead by other people, under their supervision. Elections could be held to elect those people, and yet there would still be a stable leadership above them to maintain the order and administrative tasks for the alliance.

Also, this would create the checks and balances that a real democracy requires to function correctly and smoothly. The sole leaders, being the founders, would let the elected leaders run the alliance, but in any case where those elected leaders started to abuse thier rightful power and take over, the sole leaders would be able to stop it. This also works for the elected leaders too because they could use thier influence in the clan as a way to basically force the sole leaders not to abuse thier rightful power.

And for annyone who is in a mood to make me look stupid, quote every point I have made and counter it with some lame remark, go eat a wang and keep your comments to yourself. No system is perfect, and the one I have mentioned is propably less perfect then it should be but it is the way I would have set up an alliance that was meant to run as a semi-democracy.

I know I told people that wanted to make me look stupid to eat a wang, and I meant that. But if anyone has any constructive remarks, I would like to hear them.

mcm-never-dies
2nd November 2005, 05:54 AM
that's what I mean with democracy, full democracy will never work and there'll always be admins. But you can let members vote for the council, and then it is not full, but it is democracy.

Tha Butcher
2nd November 2005, 07:25 AM
Mysterquest - No flaming please

Morten - Stop thinking in "Succesfull alliance" mode. Because if you keep doing that you really only do think of a minor bunch of alliances. You can't repressent anyone with that.
If that is so anyways then i'll go into "Major alliance" mode too and say that all alliances cheat. You see what i mean?