Forums » Suggestions
I think what yun was saying about not being allowed to buy a ship is true. It would be in poor taste to "trap" someone in a space they cannot buy anything from. In this case I would suggest either a respawn at a different station in the closest station where you are more welcome, or for you to be allowed to use the ec-89 (free bus) to leave always from anywhere.
Hmm, this is a good idea. In fact, this should be implemented in VO already. (Oh, wait...)
Because you seem to know and because none of them was ever imprisoned in a space station without any means to start a rebellion?
Yes they were.
> Look, all I'm suggesting is that in UIT space, stations are
> easiest to attain by money. In Serco , by killing shit. In
> Itani, I don't really know, so I threw out the wild card;
> Democracy. I guess Itani could be the balance between money and
> killing or something.
Sorry, I didn`t figure that out. I thought this thread is about `governmental structures` and that there`s a lot more to that than just to answer a question like `how to get a station`.
There's really not. That's the beauty of it. The only thing that makes a government, is who owns the land. What's a governer without land to govern, even if he's the only person who lives there? What is complicated is the concept of ownership, and at it's roots is dependant on the ability to destroy someone else before they destroy you, and how people react to that. That's called society. I'll let you come up with your own examples.
You seem to have something interesting in mind that goes far beyond `how to obtain a station` and the questions involved with that, but I don`t know what that is.
I do, but I don't know what it is either. It doesn't change the fact that I'm implying that deciding how to give players ownership of Stations is all that's required to making a government structured.
Dictators are out of fashion and have to a great extend been replaced by democracy.
Exactly. So, there's no reason to fear that no matter where you are, you'll be stuck at a station where you can't escape because the owner won't let you purchase any ships. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's absurd. Besides, there's always Corvus.
Politics is dirty and annoying stuff, not like two sides of a coin where people do the right thing 1/2 the time. People do what they think is good for _them_ or at least what appears to them to be less bad, and a lot of things, if not the greater lot, are done without thinking at all, out of lazyness, out of what people feel is expected from them.
On one side is lazy pencil pushers telling others what to do, for how many jellybeans. On the other side is the hardworker, determined people who manage to live life to the fullest even under oppressive rules. Think about it. You couldn't be able to take advantage of other people in the first place if they didn't allow you to by paying your taxes, being obediant, etc. The very implication that a ruler can be evil lends to the quality, by definition, of innocent goodness his peasants seem to have.
Democracy only allows people to hide their corruptness, their incompetence, thier unrighteousness, their selfishness, their addiction to power, their lazyness and a lot more behind what`s called legality, behind the `governmental structures` that make them unreachable, behind the ignorance or within the cozyness of the unspoken consensus of their peer-society, and it allows them not to be held responsible for whatever they do. So where is the rebellion against democracy that is long overdue?
I've been wondering that myself, but something tells me that it's soon. The more and more wars the U.S. gets into, the more 'emergency powers' the president gets to have, and since the U.S. seems to be in a constant of war, jumping from one issue to the next, we'll soon be under a dictator who keeps Congress and the House of Representative around for company. I don't remember exactly, but I think this happened once to the Holy Roman Empire before they fell.
My impression was that both the claim and the actions taken against it have been futile in a twee manner because there was nothing that could be achieved by either side. They may have been entertaining for those who like the fighting, though. I wasted about 500 or 700k for some ships and uselessly died about 95 times[1] for nothing except my curiosity. And nothing has changed, pirates still shoot me when I meet them. Do you call it a rebellion?
Yes. A major draw to any rebellion is simply the curiousity and fun it is to "stick it to the man". I myself flew a couple of sorties against CLM just to show 'em that they can't do that sorta' thing to other people, man. It just ain't right!
But I see the point you make. It`s not a true point in RL; it may be a true one --- and naively-romantic one --- in a game, but to what extend do you want VO to become a shadow of RL? RL is not romantic.
Yes it is. You think that you're "too old", but in truth you're naive as the rest of us.
I think what yun was saying about not being allowed to buy a ship is true.
Well, no. I might be true in theory, if somehow one person gained control of every station in the VO universe, and stationed guards at the exits of every NPC controlled station, and spent every hour of every day gunning at your pitiful escapes. But, I'm willing to bet alot of many that sort of thing won't happen. On the off chance that it does, I'm sure the devs will intervene. Besides, that's nothing that couldn't happen right now, but I don't recall it ever being an issue.
It would be in poor taste to "trap" someone in a space they cannot buy anything from.
Yes. That's why the devs made it impossible a long time ago.
(BTW I'm all for stealing from a station not under protection of station guards)
Good, creative idea. Opens up the possibility of station security, 'n stuff.
Q: What happens to un-authorized players in a station they are tresspassing in? How do they get out? What measures are being taken to force the station owner into acting accordingly?
Whatever the owner of the station damn well pleases. That's the point of ownership. Fortuanately, death isn't permament in VO.
What about player to player standings? The idea is so much at hand that it has probably already been suggested ...
I'm not familiar with the term. Unless you're trying to imply that I keep a blacklist of everyone I know, and right little notes and numbers besides them. "Jack Maine - Real bully for picking on me in the 1st grade. KOS." As for faction standings, those are factions, not player owned stations. If I own a station under Itani rule, then I guess I'll have to abide by whatever the my boss says I do, or face the consquences. Is this concept a new one to you? I'd made the assumption that it's in the realm of common sense. Regardless, as for the faction system, rumor is it's going to be reworked soon, so I don't feel comfortable making suggestions on what I don't know much about.
Let players set home only at stations owned by players they have at least a neutral standing with. Once there is no such station, the character cannot respawn and remains permanently dead.
... or just let him respawn at Odia M-14, like things are now maybe? And how do you set home at a station you can't dock at anyways? Unless you're implying again the whole blacklist thing.
I wanted to avoid "respawning" simply because it's unrealistic.
I think that "Strict Play" server on VO would be sweet too. It's not like it takes very long ot level up anyways.
Perma-death is also in poor-taste, and will not be fun.
Yeah, perma-death would kind of suck. It sure makes me glad that you respawn after dying in VO.
At some point station owners should have complete control over all aspects of their station. The only exception is how they deal with trespassing players. They must do it consistently and un-biased.
No. Station Owners ought to have the option to do anything within realistic bounds, including arbitrarily killing off people in their house. It's an assumed risk that when you visit somebody else's place, you're their guest, and abide by their rules, or suffer the consequences. However, station owners themselves are guests within whatever nation or faction they belong to. So, if you're visiting in an Itani station, you can feel relatively safe, because if the station owner started being a real jerk, you could just vote him off, since he'd lose all his support. In a UIT station, if he started being a jerk, his business connections would start to dry up, he'd lose funding, and lose the station. In a Serco station, if he starts acting like a jerk, he'll lose his support, have to do PvP without the back up of his team, and most likely lose his station. In a Corvus station if the owner starts acting like a jerk, well, tough shit!
At least his standing towards me would change to `hate`. We would need to think further about player to player standings and about an eventual effect of a particular PTP-standing towards standing to others.
Do you do this sort of thing with real people? Maybe that's why life seems so unromantic for you.
I don`t think it would be workable as plain as described, but you get the idea.
It's not. Look, if I don't want to let Dr. Lecter on my station, he doesn't get onto my station. I don't want to have to wait for him to start blasting my convoys away, so that he loses the necessary "points" where upon I finally have the justification to bar his entrance. It's not really owning a station if I have to act in accord with a set of arbitrary numbers, now is it?
Moreover, I wouldn`t want to have to always set options and prices on a per-player basis. I would want to set prices lower for players with the better standing and higher for players with the not-so-good standing with me.
That's a very nice system of doing things, and I hope you get a station one day, so that I can take advantage of your kindness. If you want to set prices in that way, then you're more than welcome to set up some kind of formula to automate that sort of thing, but I don't see the logic in creating an in-game system like this, and especially not in forcing other players to use it. Think about it, does the manager of a McDonalds have a "Player Standing" that he checks for each customer that stops in? He has to use his own judgements, and he can pass it down to his employees, such as "Don't let anyone not wearing shows enter the building".
Maybe call it a necessary implementation of social structures before governmental structures can come to effect.
Governmental structures are in effect. Right now they're limited to pretty much guilds, and they're sure as don't necessitate an implementation of social structures. Look, the beauty of living life is that it *is* on a 'player to player' basis. Every time you clump people into groups, you fail to notice a piece of each person's individuality. It can make things easier, but it's called discrimination, and has a nasty reputation for making life suck for everyone.
Think further about it, like `kill a pirate, and your standing with station owners who don`t like pirates will increase`. And you would want to be in good standing with those who can allow you to have a station if you wanted to get one ...
That is a gross oversimplification of the governmental structure I so proudly originally suggested. You can do that sort of thing with your station if you want, but leave me out of it.
Hmm, this is a good idea. In fact, this should be implemented in VO already. (Oh, wait...)
Because you seem to know and because none of them was ever imprisoned in a space station without any means to start a rebellion?
Yes they were.
> Look, all I'm suggesting is that in UIT space, stations are
> easiest to attain by money. In Serco , by killing shit. In
> Itani, I don't really know, so I threw out the wild card;
> Democracy. I guess Itani could be the balance between money and
> killing or something.
Sorry, I didn`t figure that out. I thought this thread is about `governmental structures` and that there`s a lot more to that than just to answer a question like `how to get a station`.
There's really not. That's the beauty of it. The only thing that makes a government, is who owns the land. What's a governer without land to govern, even if he's the only person who lives there? What is complicated is the concept of ownership, and at it's roots is dependant on the ability to destroy someone else before they destroy you, and how people react to that. That's called society. I'll let you come up with your own examples.
You seem to have something interesting in mind that goes far beyond `how to obtain a station` and the questions involved with that, but I don`t know what that is.
I do, but I don't know what it is either. It doesn't change the fact that I'm implying that deciding how to give players ownership of Stations is all that's required to making a government structured.
Dictators are out of fashion and have to a great extend been replaced by democracy.
Exactly. So, there's no reason to fear that no matter where you are, you'll be stuck at a station where you can't escape because the owner won't let you purchase any ships. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's absurd. Besides, there's always Corvus.
Politics is dirty and annoying stuff, not like two sides of a coin where people do the right thing 1/2 the time. People do what they think is good for _them_ or at least what appears to them to be less bad, and a lot of things, if not the greater lot, are done without thinking at all, out of lazyness, out of what people feel is expected from them.
On one side is lazy pencil pushers telling others what to do, for how many jellybeans. On the other side is the hardworker, determined people who manage to live life to the fullest even under oppressive rules. Think about it. You couldn't be able to take advantage of other people in the first place if they didn't allow you to by paying your taxes, being obediant, etc. The very implication that a ruler can be evil lends to the quality, by definition, of innocent goodness his peasants seem to have.
Democracy only allows people to hide their corruptness, their incompetence, thier unrighteousness, their selfishness, their addiction to power, their lazyness and a lot more behind what`s called legality, behind the `governmental structures` that make them unreachable, behind the ignorance or within the cozyness of the unspoken consensus of their peer-society, and it allows them not to be held responsible for whatever they do. So where is the rebellion against democracy that is long overdue?
I've been wondering that myself, but something tells me that it's soon. The more and more wars the U.S. gets into, the more 'emergency powers' the president gets to have, and since the U.S. seems to be in a constant of war, jumping from one issue to the next, we'll soon be under a dictator who keeps Congress and the House of Representative around for company. I don't remember exactly, but I think this happened once to the Holy Roman Empire before they fell.
My impression was that both the claim and the actions taken against it have been futile in a twee manner because there was nothing that could be achieved by either side. They may have been entertaining for those who like the fighting, though. I wasted about 500 or 700k for some ships and uselessly died about 95 times[1] for nothing except my curiosity. And nothing has changed, pirates still shoot me when I meet them. Do you call it a rebellion?
Yes. A major draw to any rebellion is simply the curiousity and fun it is to "stick it to the man". I myself flew a couple of sorties against CLM just to show 'em that they can't do that sorta' thing to other people, man. It just ain't right!
But I see the point you make. It`s not a true point in RL; it may be a true one --- and naively-romantic one --- in a game, but to what extend do you want VO to become a shadow of RL? RL is not romantic.
Yes it is. You think that you're "too old", but in truth you're naive as the rest of us.
I think what yun was saying about not being allowed to buy a ship is true.
Well, no. I might be true in theory, if somehow one person gained control of every station in the VO universe, and stationed guards at the exits of every NPC controlled station, and spent every hour of every day gunning at your pitiful escapes. But, I'm willing to bet alot of many that sort of thing won't happen. On the off chance that it does, I'm sure the devs will intervene. Besides, that's nothing that couldn't happen right now, but I don't recall it ever being an issue.
It would be in poor taste to "trap" someone in a space they cannot buy anything from.
Yes. That's why the devs made it impossible a long time ago.
(BTW I'm all for stealing from a station not under protection of station guards)
Good, creative idea. Opens up the possibility of station security, 'n stuff.
Q: What happens to un-authorized players in a station they are tresspassing in? How do they get out? What measures are being taken to force the station owner into acting accordingly?
Whatever the owner of the station damn well pleases. That's the point of ownership. Fortuanately, death isn't permament in VO.
What about player to player standings? The idea is so much at hand that it has probably already been suggested ...
I'm not familiar with the term. Unless you're trying to imply that I keep a blacklist of everyone I know, and right little notes and numbers besides them. "Jack Maine - Real bully for picking on me in the 1st grade. KOS." As for faction standings, those are factions, not player owned stations. If I own a station under Itani rule, then I guess I'll have to abide by whatever the my boss says I do, or face the consquences. Is this concept a new one to you? I'd made the assumption that it's in the realm of common sense. Regardless, as for the faction system, rumor is it's going to be reworked soon, so I don't feel comfortable making suggestions on what I don't know much about.
Let players set home only at stations owned by players they have at least a neutral standing with. Once there is no such station, the character cannot respawn and remains permanently dead.
... or just let him respawn at Odia M-14, like things are now maybe? And how do you set home at a station you can't dock at anyways? Unless you're implying again the whole blacklist thing.
I wanted to avoid "respawning" simply because it's unrealistic.
I think that "Strict Play" server on VO would be sweet too. It's not like it takes very long ot level up anyways.
Perma-death is also in poor-taste, and will not be fun.
Yeah, perma-death would kind of suck. It sure makes me glad that you respawn after dying in VO.
At some point station owners should have complete control over all aspects of their station. The only exception is how they deal with trespassing players. They must do it consistently and un-biased.
No. Station Owners ought to have the option to do anything within realistic bounds, including arbitrarily killing off people in their house. It's an assumed risk that when you visit somebody else's place, you're their guest, and abide by their rules, or suffer the consequences. However, station owners themselves are guests within whatever nation or faction they belong to. So, if you're visiting in an Itani station, you can feel relatively safe, because if the station owner started being a real jerk, you could just vote him off, since he'd lose all his support. In a UIT station, if he started being a jerk, his business connections would start to dry up, he'd lose funding, and lose the station. In a Serco station, if he starts acting like a jerk, he'll lose his support, have to do PvP without the back up of his team, and most likely lose his station. In a Corvus station if the owner starts acting like a jerk, well, tough shit!
At least his standing towards me would change to `hate`. We would need to think further about player to player standings and about an eventual effect of a particular PTP-standing towards standing to others.
Do you do this sort of thing with real people? Maybe that's why life seems so unromantic for you.
I don`t think it would be workable as plain as described, but you get the idea.
It's not. Look, if I don't want to let Dr. Lecter on my station, he doesn't get onto my station. I don't want to have to wait for him to start blasting my convoys away, so that he loses the necessary "points" where upon I finally have the justification to bar his entrance. It's not really owning a station if I have to act in accord with a set of arbitrary numbers, now is it?
Moreover, I wouldn`t want to have to always set options and prices on a per-player basis. I would want to set prices lower for players with the better standing and higher for players with the not-so-good standing with me.
That's a very nice system of doing things, and I hope you get a station one day, so that I can take advantage of your kindness. If you want to set prices in that way, then you're more than welcome to set up some kind of formula to automate that sort of thing, but I don't see the logic in creating an in-game system like this, and especially not in forcing other players to use it. Think about it, does the manager of a McDonalds have a "Player Standing" that he checks for each customer that stops in? He has to use his own judgements, and he can pass it down to his employees, such as "Don't let anyone not wearing shows enter the building".
Maybe call it a necessary implementation of social structures before governmental structures can come to effect.
Governmental structures are in effect. Right now they're limited to pretty much guilds, and they're sure as don't necessitate an implementation of social structures. Look, the beauty of living life is that it *is* on a 'player to player' basis. Every time you clump people into groups, you fail to notice a piece of each person's individuality. It can make things easier, but it's called discrimination, and has a nasty reputation for making life suck for everyone.
Think further about it, like `kill a pirate, and your standing with station owners who don`t like pirates will increase`. And you would want to be in good standing with those who can allow you to have a station if you wanted to get one ...
That is a gross oversimplification of the governmental structure I so proudly originally suggested. You can do that sort of thing with your station if you want, but leave me out of it.
> Yes they were.
They may have been imprisoned at some time, and then probably somehow
came free --- but not imprisoned in a space station with no means to
flee.
> What is complicated is the concept of ownership, and at it's roots
> is dependant on the ability to destroy someone else before they
> destroy you,
That only works if there is such an ability.
> It doesn't change the fact that I'm implying that deciding how to
> give players ownership of Stations is all that's required to making
> a government structured.
You also seem to say that owners of stations must be the agents of
their government, by obeying and contributing to the enforcement of
the rules of that government.
What is a governmental structure?
> So, there's no reason to fear that no matter where you are, you'll
> be stuck at a station where you can't escape because the owner won't
> let you purchase any ships. I don't know where you got that idea,
> but it's absurd. Besides, there's always Corvus.
It`s not. Someone may happen to be homed at a station, but the owner
of the station may change, change to an owner who won`t sell him a
ship. The station owner might even violate the rules of his government
if he sells the ship.
Corvus may be eliminated, other factions may also.
> On one side is lazy pencil pushers telling others what to do, for
> how many jellybeans. On the other side is the hardworker, determined
> people who manage to live life to the fullest even under oppressive
> rules. Think about it.
It`s not true, and I`m sure you know that.
> You couldn't be able to take advantage of other people in the first
> place if they didn't allow you to by paying your taxes, being
> obediant, etc.
I don`t take advantage of other people. I can deal with them or make
agreements with them, but being forced to pay taxes is another thing
since they take whatever they want, and being obediant: have you ever
heard of unemployment? Now pay for health insurance: You can pay
tremendous amounts of money for that only to find that relatively
cheap medication is being refused to you, though you will die without
it.
> The very implication that a ruler can be evil lends to the quality,
> by definition, of innocent goodness his peasants seem to have.
Please, explain that.
> I've been wondering that myself, but something tells me that it's
> soon.
I can`t tell for the US, but there`s no rebellion against democracy in
sight here. Those who can just leave this country.
> I don't remember exactly, but I think this happened once to the Holy
> Roman Empire before they fell.
Though I`m not bewildered in history, my impression is that something
substancial has changed, to the effect that movements producing
history work in a different way than they used to, so their products
are different. But I can`t tell yet what has changed.
> A major draw to any rebellion is simply the curiousity and fun it is
> to "stick it to the man".
Sorry, but that`s bullshit. People don`t start rebellions for fun or
because they want to stick something to themselfes. People don`t think
it`s fun to loose what they and maybe their ancestors already have
been working for for a livetime. People don`t think it`s fun having to
suffer throughout the civil war that may accompany a rebellion. People
don`t think it`s fun to die. There are so many things that just ain`t
right that you could die a million times each day --- but as things
are, you try to live with them.
Some people may be curious and think it fun to join an ongoing
rebellion, but what do you think how many of those who did either died
soon or learned otherwise?
We forgot the temptation of having power here. I know how it feels,
and I say those who enjoy it are seriously sick and should better not
have any.
> Yes it is. You think that you're "too old", but in truth you're
> naive as the rest of us.
LOL, that`s a really good one :) I can feel it being true from your
point of view, but think of it: For one thing, it`s just your point of
view which is as true or false as anyone elses. On the other hand, RL
not being romantic does not have to do with either age, nor with being
naive. --- I shall tell you in private why I eventually think that I`m
"too old", but I won`t post that here.
> and stationed guards at the exits of every NPC controlled station
Would there still be unowned stations?
> If I own a station under Itani rule, then I guess I'll have to abide
> by whatever the my boss says I do, or face the consquences. Is this
> concept a new one to you?
It`s not a new one. But I imagined that it is up to the owner of a
station to define the rules that apply within his domain. I was
thinking like the owner is the boss, not merely another agent of his
government.
> And how do you set home at a station you can't dock at anyways?
You happen to have set it before the owner changed. The owner may
change again, and your character may be able to respawn again then. So
death is not permanent, and it would be pretty unlikely for a player
to have such a bad standing with all station owners that there`s no
station left where he could respawn. But it would be possible, and if
some character behaves badly enough, he may find himselfe suddenly unable
to respawn for a while or two.
> It's not like it takes very long ot level up anyways.
It takes awfully long.
> Do you do this sort of thing with real people? Maybe that's why life
> seems so unromantic for you.
I trust in my judgement about people. Do you think that makes life
unromantic?
> Look, if I don't want to let Dr. Lecter on my station, he doesn't
> get onto my station. I don't want to have to wait for him to start
> blasting my convoys away, so that he loses the necessary "points"
> where upon I finally have the justification to bar his entrance.
He is under Itani protection. With your station under Itani
government, you will have to let him in.
As said, player to player standings is something that would have to be
thought about.
> It's not really owning a station if I have to act in accord with a
> set of arbitrary numbers, now is it?
It`s not really owning a station if you have to act in accord with a
set of arbitrary rules given by your government, is it?
That`s the point of being an agent of your government, as you
propose. Making station owners governmental agents may greatly
contribute to installing governmental structures, but it`s not like
really owning a station.
Besides, I don`t mean that you would _have_ to act in any given way
according to the standing you have with another player. You _can_ set
up your station to deny or allow access according to standing, but you
don`t need to, and even if you do so, you can make exceptions. It`s
like the little notes or numbers you stick to them --- no more than
something that might be useful. A character might be stuck respawned
in your station without a ship to leave, but he could still bribe you,
or call his friends upon you to destroy your station if you don`t let
him go.
> Think about it, does the manager of a McDonalds have a "Player
> Standing" that he checks for each customer that stops in? He has to
> use his own judgements,
Of course he can use his own judgements, as you can as a station
owner. But the manager of McDonalds doesn`t guard the door of his
branch office 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He has employees, and he
`sets up` his employees to apply his very judgements --- like a
station owner would want to set up defaults that are based on his
judgements.
It`s easy for the manager and his employees to judge if a customer is
wearing shorts or not, they can easily see that and don`t need to know
anything else about that customer. But a station owner cannot see if a
player is wearing shorts, so what does he have to judge that player?
And what do his `employees` (the defaults he sets up) have? You the
owner may know the player well enough or not know him at all, but
defaults are for automazition. So you may set your PTP-standing to
default to neutral towards all players, set a particular standing for
particular players and then set defaults in your station that use
standing to determine how to interact with a player. I don`t want to
force anyone to use that, but it would something that I think could be
useful.
Besides, the manager of McDonalds does not really own his branch
office. If McDonalds tells the managers to serve customers regardless
if they wear shorts or not, they will either do so or loose their
concession. They are no more than agents of McDonalds, like the
station owners are no more than agents of their government. You will
have to serve even customers who call themselfes "Dr. Lecter", if you
want it or not. In unmonitored space, they can blow up as many of your
convoys as they want, using the very ships and weapons you have sold
to them :P
Either own a station of your own or administrate a station of your
government. Now what do you choose? I guess we could have both
options.
> Governmental structures are in effect. Right now they're limited to
> pretty much guilds,
Guilds are no governments. They don`t even have any territory.
> Look, the beauty of living life is that it *is* on a 'player to
> player' basis.
Letting the question of beauty aside, I agree. But the game doesn`t
know anything about that, so if you want that to come into play by
means of the game (i. e. not by what players do in the game), you need
ways to `tell` the game about it. One such way could be PTP-standings.
Hm, you may as well lock down your station while you are not playing
or too busy with playing to maintain your station, but I don`t think
it a good idea. You may as well set both the selling and buying prices
for every single commodity, every single ship, every single piece of
equipment for every single player to your liking, but that would be a
lot of work. Deal with only 10 commodities, 5 types of ships, 20
pieces of equipment and only 30 players, and you have already 60000(!)
prices to set up and to constantly maintain. Automazation is simply a
must --- or would you want to do that?
> That is a gross oversimplification of the governmental structure I
> so proudly originally suggested.
It`s only supposed to be something that could be helpful in running
stations.
How do you think it should work? How would you run your station?
They may have been imprisoned at some time, and then probably somehow
came free --- but not imprisoned in a space station with no means to
flee.
> What is complicated is the concept of ownership, and at it's roots
> is dependant on the ability to destroy someone else before they
> destroy you,
That only works if there is such an ability.
> It doesn't change the fact that I'm implying that deciding how to
> give players ownership of Stations is all that's required to making
> a government structured.
You also seem to say that owners of stations must be the agents of
their government, by obeying and contributing to the enforcement of
the rules of that government.
What is a governmental structure?
> So, there's no reason to fear that no matter where you are, you'll
> be stuck at a station where you can't escape because the owner won't
> let you purchase any ships. I don't know where you got that idea,
> but it's absurd. Besides, there's always Corvus.
It`s not. Someone may happen to be homed at a station, but the owner
of the station may change, change to an owner who won`t sell him a
ship. The station owner might even violate the rules of his government
if he sells the ship.
Corvus may be eliminated, other factions may also.
> On one side is lazy pencil pushers telling others what to do, for
> how many jellybeans. On the other side is the hardworker, determined
> people who manage to live life to the fullest even under oppressive
> rules. Think about it.
It`s not true, and I`m sure you know that.
> You couldn't be able to take advantage of other people in the first
> place if they didn't allow you to by paying your taxes, being
> obediant, etc.
I don`t take advantage of other people. I can deal with them or make
agreements with them, but being forced to pay taxes is another thing
since they take whatever they want, and being obediant: have you ever
heard of unemployment? Now pay for health insurance: You can pay
tremendous amounts of money for that only to find that relatively
cheap medication is being refused to you, though you will die without
it.
> The very implication that a ruler can be evil lends to the quality,
> by definition, of innocent goodness his peasants seem to have.
Please, explain that.
> I've been wondering that myself, but something tells me that it's
> soon.
I can`t tell for the US, but there`s no rebellion against democracy in
sight here. Those who can just leave this country.
> I don't remember exactly, but I think this happened once to the Holy
> Roman Empire before they fell.
Though I`m not bewildered in history, my impression is that something
substancial has changed, to the effect that movements producing
history work in a different way than they used to, so their products
are different. But I can`t tell yet what has changed.
> A major draw to any rebellion is simply the curiousity and fun it is
> to "stick it to the man".
Sorry, but that`s bullshit. People don`t start rebellions for fun or
because they want to stick something to themselfes. People don`t think
it`s fun to loose what they and maybe their ancestors already have
been working for for a livetime. People don`t think it`s fun having to
suffer throughout the civil war that may accompany a rebellion. People
don`t think it`s fun to die. There are so many things that just ain`t
right that you could die a million times each day --- but as things
are, you try to live with them.
Some people may be curious and think it fun to join an ongoing
rebellion, but what do you think how many of those who did either died
soon or learned otherwise?
We forgot the temptation of having power here. I know how it feels,
and I say those who enjoy it are seriously sick and should better not
have any.
> Yes it is. You think that you're "too old", but in truth you're
> naive as the rest of us.
LOL, that`s a really good one :) I can feel it being true from your
point of view, but think of it: For one thing, it`s just your point of
view which is as true or false as anyone elses. On the other hand, RL
not being romantic does not have to do with either age, nor with being
naive. --- I shall tell you in private why I eventually think that I`m
"too old", but I won`t post that here.
> and stationed guards at the exits of every NPC controlled station
Would there still be unowned stations?
> If I own a station under Itani rule, then I guess I'll have to abide
> by whatever the my boss says I do, or face the consquences. Is this
> concept a new one to you?
It`s not a new one. But I imagined that it is up to the owner of a
station to define the rules that apply within his domain. I was
thinking like the owner is the boss, not merely another agent of his
government.
> And how do you set home at a station you can't dock at anyways?
You happen to have set it before the owner changed. The owner may
change again, and your character may be able to respawn again then. So
death is not permanent, and it would be pretty unlikely for a player
to have such a bad standing with all station owners that there`s no
station left where he could respawn. But it would be possible, and if
some character behaves badly enough, he may find himselfe suddenly unable
to respawn for a while or two.
> It's not like it takes very long ot level up anyways.
It takes awfully long.
> Do you do this sort of thing with real people? Maybe that's why life
> seems so unromantic for you.
I trust in my judgement about people. Do you think that makes life
unromantic?
> Look, if I don't want to let Dr. Lecter on my station, he doesn't
> get onto my station. I don't want to have to wait for him to start
> blasting my convoys away, so that he loses the necessary "points"
> where upon I finally have the justification to bar his entrance.
He is under Itani protection. With your station under Itani
government, you will have to let him in.
As said, player to player standings is something that would have to be
thought about.
> It's not really owning a station if I have to act in accord with a
> set of arbitrary numbers, now is it?
It`s not really owning a station if you have to act in accord with a
set of arbitrary rules given by your government, is it?
That`s the point of being an agent of your government, as you
propose. Making station owners governmental agents may greatly
contribute to installing governmental structures, but it`s not like
really owning a station.
Besides, I don`t mean that you would _have_ to act in any given way
according to the standing you have with another player. You _can_ set
up your station to deny or allow access according to standing, but you
don`t need to, and even if you do so, you can make exceptions. It`s
like the little notes or numbers you stick to them --- no more than
something that might be useful. A character might be stuck respawned
in your station without a ship to leave, but he could still bribe you,
or call his friends upon you to destroy your station if you don`t let
him go.
> Think about it, does the manager of a McDonalds have a "Player
> Standing" that he checks for each customer that stops in? He has to
> use his own judgements,
Of course he can use his own judgements, as you can as a station
owner. But the manager of McDonalds doesn`t guard the door of his
branch office 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He has employees, and he
`sets up` his employees to apply his very judgements --- like a
station owner would want to set up defaults that are based on his
judgements.
It`s easy for the manager and his employees to judge if a customer is
wearing shorts or not, they can easily see that and don`t need to know
anything else about that customer. But a station owner cannot see if a
player is wearing shorts, so what does he have to judge that player?
And what do his `employees` (the defaults he sets up) have? You the
owner may know the player well enough or not know him at all, but
defaults are for automazition. So you may set your PTP-standing to
default to neutral towards all players, set a particular standing for
particular players and then set defaults in your station that use
standing to determine how to interact with a player. I don`t want to
force anyone to use that, but it would something that I think could be
useful.
Besides, the manager of McDonalds does not really own his branch
office. If McDonalds tells the managers to serve customers regardless
if they wear shorts or not, they will either do so or loose their
concession. They are no more than agents of McDonalds, like the
station owners are no more than agents of their government. You will
have to serve even customers who call themselfes "Dr. Lecter", if you
want it or not. In unmonitored space, they can blow up as many of your
convoys as they want, using the very ships and weapons you have sold
to them :P
Either own a station of your own or administrate a station of your
government. Now what do you choose? I guess we could have both
options.
> Governmental structures are in effect. Right now they're limited to
> pretty much guilds,
Guilds are no governments. They don`t even have any territory.
> Look, the beauty of living life is that it *is* on a 'player to
> player' basis.
Letting the question of beauty aside, I agree. But the game doesn`t
know anything about that, so if you want that to come into play by
means of the game (i. e. not by what players do in the game), you need
ways to `tell` the game about it. One such way could be PTP-standings.
Hm, you may as well lock down your station while you are not playing
or too busy with playing to maintain your station, but I don`t think
it a good idea. You may as well set both the selling and buying prices
for every single commodity, every single ship, every single piece of
equipment for every single player to your liking, but that would be a
lot of work. Deal with only 10 commodities, 5 types of ships, 20
pieces of equipment and only 30 players, and you have already 60000(!)
prices to set up and to constantly maintain. Automazation is simply a
must --- or would you want to do that?
> That is a gross oversimplification of the governmental structure I
> so proudly originally suggested.
It`s only supposed to be something that could be helpful in running
stations.
How do you think it should work? How would you run your station?
I trust in my judgement about people. Do you think that makes life
unromantic?
Yes.
He is under Itani protection. With your station under Itani
government, you will have to let him in.
Not if I don't want to let him in.
How do you think it should work? How would you run your station?
I'd have people requesting to dock ask permission first. If I like what I see, they come in. If I'm not available, the next highest dude in my little chain of command gets to decide.
Sorry, but that`s bullshit. People don`t start rebellions for fun or
because they want to stick something to themselfes. People don`t think
it`s fun to loose what they and maybe their ancestors already have
been working for for a livetime. People don`t think it`s fun having to
suffer throughout the civil war that may accompany a rebellion. People
don`t think it`s fun to die. There are so many things that just ain`t
right that you could die a million times each day --- but as things
are, you try to live with them.
That's exactly the kind of attitude that makes controlling masses of people so easy. It's called subservience. I've found that generally 90% carry this train of thought, while 10% aren't afraid of taking risks. That's why societies tend to end up stacked like a pyramid, with a few dudes ruling on top, and a whole bunch of people down below. It's also why heroism is rare. Besides, people may not think dying is fun, but I can tell you for a certainty there are a whole bunch of males over in Iraq right now that think killing is just great! The dream that tommorrow can be a better place, that's what starts rebellions, and it's a dream built entirely on romance and too much hope. What a perfect environment VO is for that, wouldn't you say?
By the way, in case anyone is still interested in this thread, a basic equation for fun goes like this. Mystery = Excitement. The obvious problem with that is the very act of understanding why that equation works kills the mystery. That's why you're probably telling yourself right now "That's not how it works! There's got to be something more to it then that." and the very fact that you think there's more to life than equations makes it so. Which kind of kills the mystery. So everything I've just typed here is totally false. Or is it?
unromantic?
Yes.
He is under Itani protection. With your station under Itani
government, you will have to let him in.
Not if I don't want to let him in.
How do you think it should work? How would you run your station?
I'd have people requesting to dock ask permission first. If I like what I see, they come in. If I'm not available, the next highest dude in my little chain of command gets to decide.
Sorry, but that`s bullshit. People don`t start rebellions for fun or
because they want to stick something to themselfes. People don`t think
it`s fun to loose what they and maybe their ancestors already have
been working for for a livetime. People don`t think it`s fun having to
suffer throughout the civil war that may accompany a rebellion. People
don`t think it`s fun to die. There are so many things that just ain`t
right that you could die a million times each day --- but as things
are, you try to live with them.
That's exactly the kind of attitude that makes controlling masses of people so easy. It's called subservience. I've found that generally 90% carry this train of thought, while 10% aren't afraid of taking risks. That's why societies tend to end up stacked like a pyramid, with a few dudes ruling on top, and a whole bunch of people down below. It's also why heroism is rare. Besides, people may not think dying is fun, but I can tell you for a certainty there are a whole bunch of males over in Iraq right now that think killing is just great! The dream that tommorrow can be a better place, that's what starts rebellions, and it's a dream built entirely on romance and too much hope. What a perfect environment VO is for that, wouldn't you say?
By the way, in case anyone is still interested in this thread, a basic equation for fun goes like this. Mystery = Excitement. The obvious problem with that is the very act of understanding why that equation works kills the mystery. That's why you're probably telling yourself right now "That's not how it works! There's got to be something more to it then that." and the very fact that you think there's more to life than equations makes it so. Which kind of kills the mystery. So everything I've just typed here is totally false. Or is it?
>> Do you think that makes life
>> unromantic?
>
> Yes.
Being romantic means to enjoy the thought that something you would want to become true actually becomes true, and to enjoy imaginating how things would be then.
Once you found out that such things don`t become true, being romantic is no more than painful.
Judgement about people doesn`t have much to do with that, if anything at all. So how would it make live unromantic?
> I'd have people requesting to dock ask permission first. If I
> like what I see, they come in.
That would mean not to obey the rules of your government. You would go by your own rules.
> That's exactly the kind of attitude that makes controlling
> masses of people so easy. It's called subservience. I've found
> that generally 90% carry this train of thought, while 10%
> aren't afraid of taking risks.
It`s not about taking risks, it`s about what you can do, what you can not do and what others let you do and not do, and it`s about what you consider as worthwhile.
> Besides, people may not think dying is fun, but I can tell you
> for a certainty there are a whole bunch of males over in Iraq
> right now that think killing is just great!
If those were thinking that dying is fun, they would not think that killing is great.
> The dream that tommorrow can be a better place, that's what
> starts rebellions, and it's a dream built entirely on romance
> and too much hope.
Hm, maybe that is what has changed, the believe that tomorrow could be any better than today.
> What a perfect environment VO is for that, wouldn't you say?
Not at all. Take a risk in VO, and you are dead, that`s all.
> That's why you're probably telling yourself right now "That's
> not how it works! There's got to be something more to it then
> that."
No, I`m not telling me that.
> and the very fact that you think there's more to life than
> equations makes it so. Which kind of kills the mystery.
I don`t believe in equations at all. But there`s not much to live, either.
> So everything I've just typed here is totally false. Or is it?
How should I know? It may perfectly true for you. You are romantic.
>> unromantic?
>
> Yes.
Being romantic means to enjoy the thought that something you would want to become true actually becomes true, and to enjoy imaginating how things would be then.
Once you found out that such things don`t become true, being romantic is no more than painful.
Judgement about people doesn`t have much to do with that, if anything at all. So how would it make live unromantic?
> I'd have people requesting to dock ask permission first. If I
> like what I see, they come in.
That would mean not to obey the rules of your government. You would go by your own rules.
> That's exactly the kind of attitude that makes controlling
> masses of people so easy. It's called subservience. I've found
> that generally 90% carry this train of thought, while 10%
> aren't afraid of taking risks.
It`s not about taking risks, it`s about what you can do, what you can not do and what others let you do and not do, and it`s about what you consider as worthwhile.
> Besides, people may not think dying is fun, but I can tell you
> for a certainty there are a whole bunch of males over in Iraq
> right now that think killing is just great!
If those were thinking that dying is fun, they would not think that killing is great.
> The dream that tommorrow can be a better place, that's what
> starts rebellions, and it's a dream built entirely on romance
> and too much hope.
Hm, maybe that is what has changed, the believe that tomorrow could be any better than today.
> What a perfect environment VO is for that, wouldn't you say?
Not at all. Take a risk in VO, and you are dead, that`s all.
> That's why you're probably telling yourself right now "That's
> not how it works! There's got to be something more to it then
> that."
No, I`m not telling me that.
> and the very fact that you think there's more to life than
> equations makes it so. Which kind of kills the mystery.
I don`t believe in equations at all. But there`s not much to live, either.
> So everything I've just typed here is totally false. Or is it?
How should I know? It may perfectly true for you. You are romantic.
So pretty much, yun isn't romantical, SMM is...?