Home Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback

We need new Moderators!


ModeratorWe are always on the lookout for talented people to join the team. That means you! If you think you could help us organise and inform the community while entertaining everyone then apply. We need people to help out on the forum, behind the scenes with announcements, on Discord and on our other Social Media channels.


If this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE

Political update idea

Ok, right now empire has a alliances system that is strictly a leader for life or till he/she decides to quit.
My idea is to make a system where you can activate a democracy system where the unique roles (requiter, treasurer, diplomat, and war marshal) becomes a "Counsel." The "Counsel" is used for deciding to declare war, make peace, accepting pacts, Non Aggression acts, and if the leader leaves then the "Counsel" votes for a new temporary leader. The alliance leader will also not be able to kick a Counsel member without the entire Counsel (minus the Counsel member in Question) and a new Counsel member would be voted for by the rest of the alliance. The system could have a new chat room for the Counsel only.

Another thing is that the entire alliance votes (at a set date or week every year or every three to six months) on whether or not to vote for a new leader, (leader would probably be a Counsel member). If the alliance decides (this would have to be anonymous as if the vote fails the leader doesn't kick or demote members who voted against the leader) to "Impeach" the leader then the entire alliance would vote for a Counsel member, (you could have you need E.G. 25 members to activate the democracy system). The alliance would need to have anywhere from 4 to 12 Counsel members, (depending on the size of the alliance) that the alliance would vote on, (the same time you vote to remove the leader). 

In conclusion I personally want to have a democracy without putting a lot of trust on the leader if we decide to put someone else in charge. Say you try a Democratic alliance, And the alliance decides to impeach the leader. And instead of resigning the leader kicks the members who told him to resign. Thus the alliance would go to civil war with the members who decided to impeach the leader with members who decided to keep the leader. This would lose all the work that the alliance had made.

Obviously some alliances will not like this but I personally want a democracy.
Signed King Clone (A nerd who thinks hes cool because he is in a decent alliance) 
I like this one.  ;)

King clone

Comments

  • SteelSlayer (US1)SteelSlayer (US1) US1 Posts: 494
    This is glitch game empire, not glitch game democracy... No... 

    A good alliance is run like a counsel. Not one person making all the decisions alone. And a civil war within an alliance will hurt an alliance more than help
  • Taggart (US1)Taggart (US1) US1 Posts: 548
    What SteelSlayer said, we don't need democracy. Most big alliances have this kind of system, but it shouldn't be an obligatory built-in game feature.

    ^ reached at level 18.
    Taggart @ US1. Level 50 Count Palatine, the Shieldcrusher, 120k MP, proud denier of buying rubies, proud member of Excalibur Echo, proud forum community member.
    Taggart @ Int3

    I'm the Sandravlc from ye olde days. Been here since 2014...
    Frenemy of Graycat since 2015


  • Nambala (AU1)Nambala (AU1) AU1 Posts: 171
    I don't mind the Council idea, but not the full democracy.  Reason being that there are WAY too many multis and shells that GGS only pretends to care about.  All it takes is a few accidental recruits of said players, and the multis get hold of whole alliances.

    As the others said, a form of democracy applies in most of the good alliances anyway, but I do like the idea of a council, particularly in case the leader goes rogue, goes off line and doesn't come back, passes away, whatever, there should be a way for the rest of management to replace the leader.  But not a general free-for-all.
    Nambala @ au 1
  • king clone (US1)king clone (US1) US1 Posts: 70
    edited 29.06.2018
    This is glitch game empire, not glitch game democracy... No... 

    A good alliance is run like a counsel. Not one person making all the decisions alone. And a civil war within an alliance will hurt an alliance more than help
    I have had alliances Ive founded like this and the leader wouldent leave when the vote told him to. So we all left and he wouldent leave and even quit the game still leader with no members to speak of... 

    And like I said above (if you even read it) this would be a settings not a default.
    I like this one.  ;)

    King clone
  • Zenzer (GB1)Zenzer (GB1) GB1 Posts: 2,713
    I say no to this even though I didn't even bother reading all of it, these types of suggestions have been so bad already that i already knew this one wouldn't change anything. 


    No, i don't play on GB1. 


  • hge (US1)hge (US1) Posts: 986
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  
    No.
    HGE
    I am a non-ruby buying Level 70, Legend 100-something-but-I-am-to-lazy-to-update-this-every-time-I-level-up

    "He was tall and straight; his hair was of shining gold, his face fair and young and fearless and full of joy; his eyes were bright and clean, and his voice like music; on his brow set wisdom, and in his hand was strength."



    He firecasted.
    His alliance supported.

  • neuterable (US1)neuterable (US1) US1 Posts: 756
    They can't even fi% the LOGIN to the game.

    Forget about anything this complex.

    It wouldn't be a bad idea to split up permissions so the various officers can have specialized authorizations, instead of just having different names for their roles, but right now anything complex or sweeping MUST WAIT until they can at least get the game, kind of sort of working.
    neuterable, shameless slaughterer of peasants, collector of princesses and fan of homestuck


    α ЯTFM ¿¿¿Want Free $tuff??? Then Go Write Santa a Letter ЯTFM Ω
  • neuterable (US1) said:
    They can't even fi% the LOGIN to the game.

    Forget about anything this complex.

    It wouldn't be a bad idea to split up permissions so the various officers can have specialized authorizations, instead of just having different names for their roles, but right now anything complex or sweeping MUST WAIT until they can at least get the game, kind of sort of working.
    working is a relevant term
    I like this one.  ;)

    King clone
  • The Torrent (GB1)The Torrent (GB1) GB1 Posts: 664
    This is glitch game empire, not glitch game democracy... No... 

    A good alliance is run like a counsel. Not one person making all the decisions alone. And a civil war within an alliance will hurt an alliance more than help
    I have had alliances Ive founded like this and the leader wouldent leave when the vote told him to. So we all left and he wouldent leave and even quit the game still leader with no members to speak of... 

    And like I said above (if you even read it) this would be a settings not a default.
    Its the leaders alliance - he's worked hard to make it and if he wants to stay leader then he should stay. You don't like it go join a different alliance.

    Back in the 'old times' where kings summoned in via democracy? According to the Divine Right of Kings it says that the king is chosen by God,
    Not only is this a bad idea but it will make an already historically inaccurate game further from what it should be.

    TT

    WATCHING GGE


    autocorrect changes all crom-unfriendly words to crom on gge cuz groms got something about words that are even allowed in U rated films
    i fill forward all crom unfriendly words to crom as a nice person as i know crom loves dealing with that stuff.
    semi retired and sick of game - message me in game if u wanna kamikaze ur acc with me.

    Quoting does NOT ping the poster. Please @ me if you want my attention. Use " for names with spaces, e.g @ "The Torrent (GB1)"


Sign In to comment.