|
Post by JoolzVern on Sept 15, 2014 15:32:27 GMT -6
That's just bogus Jam. A pledge of honor(everybody knows what it is) is much stronger than a rule or law with no teeth. It's like expecting congress to fire themselves when they violate the laws they passed. It makes you look illegitimate, (even if you genuinely follow these rules) just because we made them up. With a pledge we don't posture like we are held to a higher standard by rules(we made up), when it's our character that holds us to these.
A pledge needs no enforcement, only that we not allow those that don't live up to theirs. Your character will keep you from breaking it and if not you're out and we have only honest people on the team. If you think that's flimsier than a rule set I think you're full of it.
Those that have honor will be on our side, and those that cannot keep a promise won't. That doesn't make us look weak unless we let dishonorable players stand in our alliance or have paper dragons for rules that cannot be enforced or possibly even agreed upon like a simple agreement on a code of conduct can.
It also dispenses with all moronic back and fourth over the rules and what to do about those breaking them. Just make a promise and if you break it we can all get together and decide if we trust you to be in the alliance yes or no, end of discussion. This makes it a more streamlined operation, and look more like an alliance than a kangaroo court or a police force.
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Sept 15, 2014 15:45:16 GMT -6
Fine we can do it as a pledge. The problem is enforcing all our people to take a pledge. I find when it comes to managing members of a corp, rules are easier to enforce then pledges. Not to mention it is a bit of an insult to someone's honor to insist they pledge something. We would also have to require all new members of our corps to take the pledge as well rather then simply giving them a list of rules to follow. There are people, honorable or not who might be put off by this. A new player might see rules and be like ok I will obey them. But then asked to take a pledge they become unsure and have to think of it. I am just trying to consider how it looks from everyone's aspects. Also there is no guarantee all members who join us will be honorable. With the current list of rules or pledges, there is nothing keeping someone from going nuts blowing up people who aren't a part of this. Which is fine with me. We aren't restricting each others growth or playing styles. But those that might like to do this might prefer a set of rules rather then pledges just because of their own lack of trust. I know it is crazy. A pledge should be more secure in a person's mind. But for some, rules work better. I do have an idea. How about we set up rules and stuff. Then we add in a pledge where we pledge to obey all the rules set forth and not to break them. This way we get both rules and pledges. So if someone breaks one on purpose, it will be a real blow to their character and honor.
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Sept 15, 2014 16:01:43 GMT -6
That's a 'intra-corp' thing.
The corps' leaders can make a pledge, but obviously as leaders we must find a way to enforce it which means it may be a intra-corp rule, and if they break it, to keep our pledge we must condemn and/or reprimand/boot that player. His priveleges could be revoked or he could be booted from the corp.
I understand not all players may want to adhere to my pledge/rules which is why a corp leader should only A)make a pledge 'set' that as leader he will enforce and B) that his players can get behind(don't make a promise when you know you have a player that won't do that).
But as leaders and corps our word should mean something.
I think it a better compromise to say we should have rules like no 4, but the rest like 1-3 we should make as a core promise/mission statement we believe we can keep, and that those common aspects of them like not stacking coms etc. be (part of?) the mission statement, that you *must* agree to to join. This is because I think things like 1-3 are more easy to 'enforce' as a dealbreaker if broken that reflects on you, than a rule that we really can't make anyone follow anyway.
As corps we can pledge other things that aren't part of that requirement, like assisting in other ways etc.
This would also better define for others where we are united and how we are different as corps.
|
|
|
Post by sargas on Sept 15, 2014 16:18:49 GMT -6
Ok, I see a lot of things I need to respond to, but...
I (at this time) am busy with RL (it's a smoke break and I don't smoke) and don't have time to fully respond at this time.
..."I'll be back!"(sic)...
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Sept 15, 2014 16:23:01 GMT -6
I see what your saying. So like this. Pledges
I pledge to not attack anything belonging to another member of The United Corporations and to not allow members of my corporation to attack another member of The United Corporations.
I pledge to not stack COM missions on top of another member of The United Corporations' COM mission and to not allow members of my corporation to stack a COM on top of the COM of another member of The United Corporations.
Rules:
1. All members of The United Corporations will not intervene in the internal matters of other Corporations.
2. Members of The United Corporations are not required to assist other members of the The United Corporations.
3. Members of The United Corporations are required to share the locations of all public fuel stations with other members of The United Corporations.
How's this? Is there anything else anyone might like to add to all this?
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Sept 15, 2014 16:37:15 GMT -6
Well yes but the third rule is something not everyone will agree to so I'd say that belongs as a optional pledge, but other than that this would be the ideal way to do it in my view.
I mean we need rules for how the alliance does 'business' and our policy in that regard (do we need a 2/3 majority to boot someone or adopt a new rule etc.) should be in the rules along with the others.
Then we have a distinct set of required pledge/promises to join that are basically deal breakers like the rules, but we can be flexible- if it's an honest mistake maybe we don't vote them out like we would if they break the hard rules such as intervening in internal affairs of other corps. The distinction is subtle but I think it's important none the less.
|
|
|
Post by sargas on Sept 15, 2014 17:51:20 GMT -6
My agreeing to the rules though and intentionally breaking them , you are a good as breaking your word (It has already happened!). To me a pledge is flimsy since people break them all the time. Hell they are often said without people even knowing what a pledge is or what exactly it means. An good example of that is the pledge of allegiance kids say in school every day here in the US. I always hated it too. We know people know what a rule is. Can't count on everyone understanding a pledge. Not to mention us having a pledge makes us also seem lax and weak. Rules as least says we have some sort of order established. I get they aren't always easy to enforce. But neither is a pledge. We could consider these guidelines. Honoring our pledges is more trustworthy and honorable than just 'following the rules' (are you saying that your 'word' is devoid of honor?)
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Sept 15, 2014 17:56:29 GMT -6
I ment By right there. I didn't mean my. I edited and fixed my post. lol. You know I am a man of my word. I am just looking at things from all viewpoints. How about you comment on my post I put up after your previous post?
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Sept 15, 2014 18:26:05 GMT -6
In fairness, Jam sees an agreement to follow the rules as the same thing as a pledge to do these things. In fairness, I see and share Sargas view that rules can be broken or bent while those doing so insist it's not their fault etc. so making it a pledge means that it reflects you as a leader regardless, even if it was a mistake and we over look it.
All that said, I think Jam and I have agreed that it would be best to try a hybrid where we have some 'hard rules' for the organization and some 'soft rules' that are basically just a corp leader's promise to be various kinds of good to others and allied corps, understanding that mistakes happen etc. Any failure in that area reflects on the corp, and this will decide future participation as much or more than any one incident.
|
|
|
Post by lisunken on Sept 15, 2014 18:30:04 GMT -6
Ok you two take break on rule or pledge wording. Can we move on and get votes on each lines items.
NHC Lisunken
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Sept 15, 2014 18:38:51 GMT -6
As it stands I think we all(EoS, ITO, TGE, NHC) agreed on the following conditions:
We pledge to not attack anything belonging to another member of The United Corporations and to not allow members of my corporation to attack another member of The United Corporations.
We pledge to not stack COM missions on top of another member of The United Corporations' COM mission and to not allow members of our corporations to stack a COM on top of the COM of another member of The United Corporations.
Rules:
1. All members of The United Corporations will not intervene in the internal matters of other Corporations.
2. Members of The United Corporations are not required to assist other members of the The United Corporations.
3. Members of The United Corporations are required to share the locations of all public fuel stations with other members of The United Corporations.
Any other pledges or rules I suppose we can debate later if we think of any, as I think this is a solid enough grounds for a working alliance.
|
|
|
Post by lisunken on Sept 15, 2014 18:49:14 GMT -6
Jool
I have no problems with the wording and rules. Only questions how one requested, other corps fuels station. By email appointment or the station set up allow other corp menber to access the satation fuel request. Never set a fuel station.
NHC Lisunken
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Sept 15, 2014 18:54:49 GMT -6
Ah, yes you can set it to private(you) corp, or public.
So if you want to use another corps private fuel station you'll need to send a pm to ask them to set it to public.
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Sept 15, 2014 18:56:59 GMT -6
Stations can only be set for private, corp or public. When it comes to fueling stations set up, I think we should only have to share ones we set up for the public. After all private ones would be for private use and corp ones obviously for your own corp members. Since we can't select individuals sharing non-public fueling stations is kind of pointless since our people wouldn't be able to refuel there.
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Sept 19, 2014 16:16:11 GMT -6
I just had an idea for another pledge.
I pledge to not steal other members of The United Corporations' alien encounters (crashed ships, structures, etc.) and to try to keep my people from stealing other members of The United Corporations' alien encounters (crashed ships, structures, etc.)
|
|