Proposed Alliance Agreement

For our welcomed guests and emissaries from other fleets.

Moderator: Command Staff

User avatar
cralston
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by cralston » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:54 pm

What is the purpose of this counsel if we govern our own fleets? I'm a bit confused on how this counsel is needed, please explain.
Image

Sharpe
Admiral - Retired
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 1999 12:00 pm

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by Sharpe » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:58 pm

Rules: No member of Leadership of the Sixtieth Or Seventh rank in both fleet(s) shall have the ability or qualify to run. It will be elected apon the Fleets membership and Ultimately to the election of the Fleet(s) Leadership.
this is not very clear.

I understand the Alliance wants a council to resolving all Personal, Constitutional and Infraction issues... and the fleet representatives are elected, and not fleet leadership?

I do not understand this:
"and Ultimately to the election of the Fleet(s) Leadership"
Image

Sharpe
Admiral - Retired
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 1999 12:00 pm

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by Sharpe » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:59 pm

cralston wrote:What is the purpose of this counsel if we govern our own fleets? I'm a bit confused on how this counsel is needed, please explain.
i believe they want a council to resolve fleet to fleet issues.
Image

Sulfrus
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:29 pm

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by Sulfrus » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:24 am

Twister,

I'm late to the process here and am happy to see some feedback being provided.

On the verbal issues, the concept would be to put the issues and statements made in writing so that it can be posted for the review of the leadership of the affected fleets. These written statements should be from everyone that heard the exchange, not just the one or two aggrieved individuals. Putting in in writing is a way that everyone can have access to the same set of information. So rather than have a verbal complaint system based on 2 people raising a concern, the process would be for those 2 to write down what was said, identify all other witnesses, and provide that information for the review by fleet leadership. As such, I felt the written process would cover any verbal matters and set the statements in stone at the time of the event, rather than fading and changing as memories change.

I am unclear on what you refer to on sharing of resources. Please clarify.

On Non-interference, this seems to be suggesting that the leaders of other fleets can be involved in the internal workings of a member fleet. I don't see anything in the non-interference paragraph that will prohibit a fleet from deciding they wish to have another fleets leadership involved in their processes. But that would be a part of that fleets internal decision making process. Putting that sort of language into an alliance agreement and making that appear as a term of membership in the alliance might chill the attractiveness of this agreement for attracting others to the alliance. As such, I would leave that as an internal decision for each of the sovereign fleets.

On the idea of a fleet council, in my discussion with Frank, I took that to be a periodic meeting of members of the various fleets as a discussion forum. What is suggested now is some sort of administrative and judicial group to which every fleet would have to subordinate themselves. I would see that as a major downside to attracting more fleets to the alliance. A stronger sell seems to be "You run your fleets by your rules, we won't interfere with your internal decisions." The proposed alliance agreement will allow an abusive fleet to be removed, based on the suggested processes. As such, I feel the council concept will ultimately not be in the best interests of a healthy growing alliance. The Klingons did not give up their internal disciplinary methods (pain sticks, Rura Penthe) when it was in an alliance with the Federation. Imagine. Feds whimpering under painsticks! Qapla'!
Image

Sharpe
Admiral - Retired
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 1999 12:00 pm

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by Sharpe » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:31 am

Sulfrus wrote:Twister,

What is suggested now is some sort of administrative and judicial group to which every fleet would have to subordinate themselves.
i think they mean a group that resolves fleet to fleet issues, not issues within single fleets.
Image

TwisterTLT
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:20 am

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by TwisterTLT » Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:04 am

Sharpe wrote:
cralston wrote:What is the purpose of this counsel if we govern our own fleets? I'm a bit confused on how this counsel is needed, please explain.
i believe they want a council to resolve fleet to fleet issues.

That is exactly how it is design to be. There will be a "Chain" to which things must happen in order for that issue to come to counsel. It is to be for fleet level. So all fleets and there members will follow the rules set in place on the agreement.

It will only be needed for Alliance purposes not for anything of internal issues of fleet. That will only be done if requested by a Fleet officer.

Also any and all members of the counsel will have to have the capability to be neutral. Even if they are elected by say, OC, that person will have to have the capacity to vote against OC if they did a Violation at a Alliance level. Live by the Vulcan Matto, "Needs of the many out way the needs of the few".
Last edited by TwisterTLT on Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

TwisterTLT
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:20 am

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by TwisterTLT » Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:13 am

I would see that as a major downside to attracting more fleets to the alliance.
I see it as a attraction, cause with in the Alliance you know when you elect someone you do know your fleet, new or not, have a voice in the decisions that can arrive at the highest level. That's so no other fleet feels abandoned or alienated or discriminated and will have equal rights and chances to make a decisions at the alliance level.

User avatar
cralston
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by cralston » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:05 am

So I would like a example of a issue this "counsel" would handle, give us something here that would be a fleet issue to handle because no matter how this is sliced it still sounds like this would be put in to help decide internal fleet dealings because with the limitations to this game in fleets already in general there is nothing really that can be external.
Image

Sulfrus
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:29 pm

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by Sulfrus » Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:48 am

So let me set up a hypothetical.

I go in TS. I say something that annoys 2 people. They file a complaint against me for violating their right to "have fun" even though I apparently have a right to say anything I want. So, does that go to the Council? Does that go to investigation? Am I to be disciplined by the Council or by 9thfleet? If the Council isn't happy with 9thfleets discipline of me, do they have power to take action?
Image

User avatar
F9thErik
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:14 am
Location: Australia

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by F9thErik » Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:01 am

This is all confusing :roll:
Image
"let me ask you, if God would allow my madness to flourish un contained, then wouldn't it seem to you that any god like that would be just as mad as I?"

TwisterTLT
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:20 am

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by TwisterTLT » Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:03 am

cralston wrote:So I would like a example of a issue this "counsel" would handle, give us something here that would be a fleet issue to handle because no matter how this is sliced it still sounds like this would be put in to help decide internal fleet dealings because with the limitations to this game in fleets already in general there is nothing really that can be external.
Then whats the point of the alliance then if there isn't really a External? The whole reason is not just for projects and internal. Is so we have cooperation between fleets on the fleet level and player to player level, which at anytime can be brought into internal between players. (Which i would hope to prevent so no incorrect things are said).

User avatar
cralston
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by cralston » Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:17 am

3) Non-interference: Fleets are separate and independent. No other fleet will be involved in nor permit its members to
participate in interfering in the internal leadership decisions of any member fleet, including access rights, rank criteria, bank access, stores access, among others. Failure to comply will result in permanent ejection of subject individuals from all alliance fleets. Fleets which fail to comply will be permanently ejected from the Alliance.
Image

TwisterTLT
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:20 am

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by TwisterTLT » Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:22 am

Sulfrus wrote:So let me set up a hypothetical.

I go in TS. I say something that annoys 2 people. They file a complaint against me for violating their right to "have fun" even though I apparently have a right to say anything I want. So, does that go to the Council? Does that go to investigation? Am I to be disciplined by the Council or by 9thfleet? If the Council isn't happy with 9thfleets discipline of me, do they have power to take action?
You have a right to say things with in boundaries, but as long as you said things with in your rights, it shouldn't go past the filing process. But if it somehow manage to go into investigation, and it was just between two 9th fleet members it would just be 9ths handling. But say, if it was between 9ths and OCs members, the Council will oversee that it is taken care of properly, if not then they will see into it them self's. Now what happens to the officers that failed to do there job, that is the ultimate choice of the fleet but if a council rules he should be punished and fleet dose not persue it will just damage relations within the alliance since the other fleet members will not feel secure about any conflict resolution of the future.

Now this is where the Council will be at its highest ability to use its powers is when a whole fleet violates the Alliance agreement, that's when they can determine the action necessary to be taken on that fleet. They are there just to Oversee any the fleet to fleet relations. (To who thats already in the Alliance)

Sharpe
Admiral - Retired
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 1999 12:00 pm

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by Sharpe » Thu Dec 18, 2014 2:14 am

It's kind of like the UN. All that can happen is damaged relations
Image

Sulfrus
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:29 pm

Re: Proposed Alliance Agreement

Post by Sulfrus » Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:13 am

TwisterTLT wrote:
You have a right to say things with in boundaries, but as long as you said things with in your rights, it shouldn't go past the filing process. But if it somehow manage to go into investigation, and it was just between two 9th fleet members it would just be 9ths handling. But say, if it was between 9ths and OCs members, the Council will oversee that it is taken care of properly, if not then they will see into it them self's. Now what happens to the officers that failed to do there job, that is the ultimate choice of the fleet but if a council rules he should be punished and fleet dose not persue it will just damage relations within the alliance since the other fleet members will not feel secure about any conflict resolution of the future.

Now this is where the Council will be at its highest ability to use its powers is when a whole fleet violates the Alliance agreement, that's when they can determine the action necessary to be taken on that fleet. They are there just to Oversee any the fleet to fleet relations. (To who thats already in the Alliance)
Thank you Twister. That makes things clearer for me.

Some specific Items I see that raise some further questions:

Who defines the boundaries of speech? Please define boundaries
Who determines if I stay within my "rights"? Please define "rights"
Who determines what a "proper" resolution is reached? Please define "proper"
The Council will oversee all disputes between members of various fleets?
The Council will intervene if it determines a fleets actions weren't "proper"?
Who determines what fleet officers "jobs" are?
The Council will rule on punishment of individual fleet members?
What are the "powers" of the Council? Without clear definition, we could have rampant overreach that would make even President Obama blush!

From my personal perspective, the Council involving itself in the discipline of individuals and evaluating whether fleet officers are doing their jobs enters into the area trying to be cleanly addressed by "Non-interference" in the internal workings of member fleets. My questions above are there to highlight all the issues that would need to be considered in administering such a system and hopefully are highlighting some of the areas of concern that we will need an army of lawyers to manage how we play a game. Nobody wants that. As that fine Klingon William Shakespeare said: "Kill all the lawyers." Please don't spend time trying to answer my questions above, they are there to make a point only.

I think as you are saying in the final line of your reply that the Council is there to administer fleet level issues. And if you look back at the proposed alliance agreement, under item 6B for fleet violations, the concept of a tribunal to address a violating fleet is really what the Council seems to be intended to address. The Tribunal/Council will have one sanction: Remove violating fleets from the Alliance. Each Fleet is sovereign and welcome to be in the alliance unless they choose to leave (Secession) or are removed for violations. Play the game, have fun, take a dip in the bloodwine hottub.

So I think we both recognize the need for a body to address the removal of a violating fleet, and hope we can agree that having a UN style tribunal getting involved in disciplining individual fleet members is counter-productive. Discipline is up to each fleet to administer without interference.
Image

Locked