Guild Reform

[+Sorana]

6 minutes ago, Ark1002 said:

Wait, no. No one ever said Great Guilds get no votes....

That's why I asked for a full summary.

Then we can all take a look on what it is and have a basis to go on.

[Furamirionind]

I proposed Great Guilds have 1 vote but their vote counts as more:

Mac Suggested We get rid of GG votes:

No one else responded to this discussion, so I said we could try that:

 

11 minutes ago, Sorana said:

Has anybody an overview over the state of this discussion? Because I feel like I'm not the only that is a bit lost, or understands something differently from others.

And if yes, could you please sum it up?

 

9 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

@Furamirionind, do it. Please?

I won't have time until after work and I get home (~8ish hours from now), but I am not lost when it comes to this discussion, so i am willing to do this when I have that chance. (If no one else does it before me)

Edit: Part of the problem is 2 discussions are split between 2 threads. (This discussion is talked about in DONE (Dawn of new era), and here)

Edited December 19, 2018 by Furamirionind

[+Sorana]

1 minute ago, Furamirionind said:

I won't have time until after work and I get home (~8ish hours from now), but I am not lost when it comes to this discussion, so i am willing to do this when I have that chance. (If no one else does it before me)

Thanks a lot! Then I'll take a look at it when I get up tomorrow.

[MacThorstenson]

I proposed that the great guilds get no vote only in the context of determining which minor guilds are on the council. In every other matter they have a single vote that is weighted the same as every other guild. 

[Furamirionind]

5 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

I proposed that the great guilds get no vote only in the context of determining which minor guilds are on the council. In every other matter they have a single vote that is weighted the same as every other guild. 

Wait, I may have missed something... what else do the guilds vote for? Or is this something if the guilds vote for something...

[MacThorstenson]

5 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Wait, I may have missed something... what else do the guilds vote for? Or is this something if the guilds vote for something...

I would assume that the guilds would vote on things whenever they need to decide how to do something, such as pass laws or do anything like that. 

I would say that the Great guilds should get a vote on those things like everything else, but when deciding which minor guilds are in the government they should be left out. 

[Furamirionind]

3 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

I would assume that the guilds would vote on things whenever they need to decide how to do something, such as pass laws or do anything like that. 

Was this not to be done by the government? Which would then be decided by the votes... Every Representative in the gov would get a vote, yes...

Perhaps we are talking about the same thing, however, I got a different impression as you saying "guilds vote" rather than "representatives vote". I like using the word representative to distinguish between the two.

[MacThorstenson]

26 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Was this not to be done by the government? Which would then be decided by the votes... Every Representative in the gov would get a vote, yes...

Perhaps we are talking about the same thing, however, I got a different impression as you saying "guilds vote" rather than "representatives vote". I like using the word representative to distinguish between the two.

Yes that’s what I was referring too, sorry for not distinguishing between the two. In my mind there is no difference between the representative and he guild. 

[Furamirionind]

6 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

Yes that’s what I was referring too, sorry for not distinguishing between the two. In my mind there is no difference between the representative and he guild. 

Technically there isn't a difference... Just in the discussions, due to the talk of the guilds potentially voting directly, I think the distinction can be important.

...Also, there is the possibility that a rep will choose the character's interests over their guild's... However that could make the guild (and/or the gov)  angry... Risky stuff, but a potential that I think may be fun...

Edited December 19, 2018 by Furamirionind

[kenod]

12 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

...Also, there is the possibility that a rep will choose the character's interests over their guild's... However that could make the guild (and/or the gov)  angry... Risky stuff, but a potential that I think may be fun...

On that, do we have a way for guilds to have their reps leave office if they feel their reps aren't representing them properly?

[Karnatheon]

I believe Guilds are free to change who their Representative is at any time, or at least there was some talk of having it be that way. I know that TUBA is discussing having a back up Rep already chosen, in the event that our Rep goes inactive or something. So maybe having the guild choose a backup Rep at the same time as picking their main Rep would work? I feel like the backup Rep isn't something that would need to be discussed openly or anything, as it isn't an actual position in the Government itself. It could be as simple as whoever gets the second most votes in your guilds election for Rep.

[Furamirionind]

43 minutes ago, Karnatheon said:

I believe Guilds are free to change who their Representative is at any time, or at least there was some talk of having it be that way. I know that TUBA is discussing having a back up Rep already chosen, in the event that our Rep goes inactive or something. So maybe having the guild choose a backup Rep at the same time as picking their main Rep would work? I feel like the backup Rep isn't something that would need to be discussed openly or anything, as it isn't an actual position in the Government itself. It could be as simple as whoever gets the second most votes in your guilds election for Rep.

I am unsure if I like the idea of the guild changing their Rep whenever they want. My concern would be that the guild might get annoyed with the rep for politicking, and replace them on a whim... Though in practice, as this is a community, this might be unlikely...

The GBs also have designated a backup rep as well, but I interpreted this mostly incase the normal one couldn't get on for some reason.

It would make sense if committing certain crimes got you expelled from the gov... perhaps that would be how guilds get their reps replaced?

Edited December 19, 2018 by Furamirionind

[Karnatheon]

14 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

I am unsure if I like the idea of the guild changing their Rep whenever they want. My concern would be that the guild might get annoyed with the rep for politicking, and replace them on a whim... Though in practice, as this is a community, this might be unlikely...

The GBs also have designated a backup rep as well, but I interpreted this mostly incase the normal one couldn't get on for some reason.

It would make sense if committing certain crimes got you expelled from the gov... perhaps that would be how guilds get their reps replaced?

I understand the concern, I feel the same way about it. But I'm not sure I want to dictate how guilds should choose their Rep, because it would make sense for each guild to do it however they want. Obviously changing Reps too often will make it hard to get anything done. Should it be the guild leader's decision then? Or a majority vote? I don't want there to be a situation where a Rep is doing very poorly or working toward their own ends instead of the guilds, but the guild isn't able to get rid of them because we set the limit to like, changing once a month or something. 

What would be the best way to implement a restriction on it, if we should? I guess, if a guild wants to replace their rep a lot, then they will be the ones suffering from a lack of consistency, so the only ones really being punished are the people changing the rep. 

[Furamirionind]

39 minutes ago, Karnatheon said:

What would be the best way to implement a restriction on it, if we should? I guess, if a guild wants to replace their rep a lot, then they will be the ones suffering from a lack of consistency, so the only ones really being punished are the people changing the rep. 

Fair point.  I think officially we could just say that reps can be replaced, and see what happens.  If it is damaging to the gov, then they can probably just pass a law saying that it shouldn't be allowed to happen as often. If we were to apply a restriction, it would probably be that a rep can be replaced once or twice per term in office.

I don't want to have any influence over how other guilds choose their reps. I agree that should 100% be an internal matter.

58 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

It would make sense if committing certain crimes got you expelled from the gov... perhaps that would be how guilds get their reps replaced?

I said this because it would require guilds to RP their removal of a rep... This would make removing a rep a bit of work, discouraging people from doing it purely because they can, and would possibly be another thing to RP.

edit: In retrospect, It may actually encourage people to remove reps as it is something to RP... idk...

[MacThorstenson]

So this is currently where I think we are with the government.

There is an official census that determines how many people are a part of each guild.

After the census is taken, there is an official number of people that each guild has. If that number is equal or greater than five, then that guild is a great guild. If there is less than 5 but more than or equal to 2 members, they are considered a normal guild. If there is 1 or 0 members of that guild according to the official census, they are not counted as a guild for purposes of the government.

The government consists of one legislature that is in charge of making and passing laws. If you are a great guild you automatically have a seat  and can insert a representative into the government. 

There are an equal number of great guild seats and normal guild seats, no matter how many normal guilds are registered. 

I personally think that the normal guilds should hold a vote among themselves to determine which ones get to put representatives into the seats. 

Regardless, there is some way that we decide which normal guilds get to put reps into the government.

Once the legislature is formed, they can make laws and other governmenty stuff.

The DA is not a part of the government. And neither GUESS Nor the precursors will have spots in the government. The Newcago court will send an ambassador to the government to address issues regarding the court.

 

Once the government is formed, they need to determine a code of laws, and I think they should determine each guilds boundaries, either within the city or in a larger sense of the entire alleyverse.

 

Here is the official census results as of now. There are still a lot of people who need to PM archer about where they fall in this. If you have not, please do so.

TUBA: Xinoehp, Axelius, Karnatheon, Bitbitio, Silva, Steel Inquisitive

Ghostbloods: Sorana, Itiah, AonEne, Life&Death, Gancho Libre, BooksBeforeDeath 

Dark Alley: Kenod

The Keepers: Furamirionind, Ark1002, ookla the palindrome

The Craftsmen: Mac, Meta

The Black Crusade: Darth, Grey Knight

The Gilded Rose: Ookla the Meeker

The Diagramists: King Taravangian 

 

@Furamirionind is that everything?

[Karnatheon]

6 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

I personally think that the normal guilds should hold a vote among themselves to determine which ones get to put representatives into the seats. 

Regardless, there is some way that we decide which normal guilds get to put reps into the government.

I believe so. From what I recall, people thought that the Great Guilds should not have a choice, or vote, in which normal guilds get to represent, in order to prevent any Great Guild from having a monopoly on the government. The intention was that each normal guild have 1 vote to place on which normal guilds they want to have a seat, and thus have a representative.

[+Ark1002]

Yep. Fur is running as rep for the Keepers.

[Furamirionind]

@MacThorstenson the only things not on there right now are:

The "Chancellor system". Where we have an extra normal rep elected to the "public seat". These reps then vote for a chancellor from among themselves. (All this person does is break ties if they happen).

This thought is new (just above): Guilds should be able to replace their representatives in between elections to make sure the reps aren't betraying their guild. If this were to be the case, it should be limited to a 1 time action.  If elections are scheduled at proper intervals though, that should remove the need for this... (I dont like it, but it is something worth addressing)

That should be everything discussed then... I think the only thing we havent discussed that we need to is how often elections should be. (I dont have enough experience in the allyverse to talk about this I think...) (I would also like to hear other people on the replacing reps idea other than Karn)

Mac, thank you so much for writing this for me! You just gifted me 30-60 minutes more sleep tonight. : )

[MacThorstenson]

@Furamirionind you are welcome.

I would object to having a chancellor elected from the reps. I would say that the chancellor should be elected by the people in a public vote. They shouldn't be a part of any guild, and get a normal vote, but whatever side they are on wins in the event of a tie. This way they represent the general public of the alleyverse, if we ever have any.

[+Ark1002]

Yeah, that's my favorite idea.

[+Sorana]

2 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

Guilds should be able to replace their representatives in between elections to make sure the reps aren't betraying their guild. If this were to be the case, it should be limited to a 1 time action.  If elections are scheduled at proper intervals though, that should remove the need for this... (I dont like it, but it is something worth addressing)

The guilds definitly need a way to change their rep, not only because of betrayal, but also because there is also a chance that someone goes inactive for a while.

1 hour ago, MacThorstenson said:

I would object to having a chancellor elected from the reps. I would say that the chancellor should be elected by the people in a public vote. They shouldn't be a part of any guild, and get a normal vote, but whatever side they are on wins in the event of a tie. This way they represent the general public of the alleyverse, if we ever have any.

^^^ I support this.

And thanks a lot for the summary!

[Furamirionind]

Ok, so we get rid of the public seat, and replace it with the chancellorship... which any individual not running for Rep can run for, and to which every (individual or guild?) Can vote for?

Edit: I think it is best to stick with the guild votes based on what the members think.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Furamirionind

[MetaTerminal]

@Whoever is taking the census

I’m shifting my representation from the Craftsmen to the Diagramists.

[Archer]

9 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

@Whoever is taking the census

I’m shifting my representation from the Craftsmen to the Diagramists.

Noted!

[+Sorana]

What did we decide regarding the "have a character to represent your position in the guild part"?

We discussed the whole leadership part a while, but I'm not sure if we reached a conclusion.