Duties and Checks/balances of Watcher and Sentinel

[Hroderich Gottfrei]

In times of crisis, not having an executive leadership can be absolutely disastrous for the group maintaining cohesion and responding effectively. The trick is to strike a balance between what the organization can do and maintaining the freedom of the members.

[hark]

Of course, I intended for command to be a very loose thing unless absolutely necessary. Depending on how things workout I would like my suggestion to be flexible enough to range anywhere from total anarchy to military dictatorship as suits the needs of the situation.

[chaiguy]

@ Hrod this is the definition I got for anarchy Microsoft Word.

Anarchy (Noun)
1.Chaotic situation
A situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control

2.Lack of government
The absence of any formal system of government in a society

It would be a lot less confusing for me if you would not use such obscure meanings for words to make your point.

[doomcrow]

Well total anarchy would be Chaotic of a society and not neutral. Neutral has no bias for either. I don't think we are looking for complete anarchy to let everyone do however they please, right? Having some structure in place avoids total anarchy, but not to the point where there are bylaws and sub-bylaws and everyone is bound to restrictions, carrying us into a lawful society. So far what we've been striving for have been trying to aim as down the middle as possible and that's a good thing.

[Hroderich Gottfrei]

Actually, Chai, I use precise meanings when I speak.

The word "Anarchy" comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, from ἀν an, "not, without" + ἀρχός arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader", "without rulers."

Anarchy has an incredibly precise meaning that has been distorted by vernacular and media usage to represent chaos, when that is in fact not the definition. The difference between having no rulers and no order is very significant and could fill several volumes of political science books, but the simplest importance is this: Humans tend towards a hierarchical order; Anarchy is a system in which there is no inherent authority to a specific class, group, or individual - all interaction (following, leading, performance of any action) is voluntary. Authority is the singular right to impose your will upon another and anarchy does not recognize this as legitimate or ethical. Anarchy has nothing to say about organization or groups so long as every member is performing those actions of their own volition. It's the difference between a book club saying "This is the book we're going to read this month and discuss on the last saturday of January" and an authoritative organization (usually a government) saying "This is the book you will read in January. We will discuss this on the last saturday of the month. Failure to comply will be met with force and punishment [of some sort]."

I highly suggest you read up not only the definition from MS Word but other dictionaries - and I especially suggest you check the etymology of the word. The vernacular definition of a word (especially one like anarchy, which has a very specific meaning) does not always match its formal and actual definition.

For example, the word "niggardly" has nothing to do with the racial epithet. It derives from the Old Norse nigla = "to fuss about small matters". This causes an issue with under-informed individuals who cry foul at its use. It shares a a similar sound to the epithet but would be considered a false cognate (if the words were identical, which they are not).

TLDR; Anarchy in and of itself has no bias for against order, but a strong bias against the authority of one or any individual to impose his or her will upon another person.

[chaiguy]

@ Hrod: Unless a person studies linguistics they're not going to know any of this. Expecting people to look up obscure meanings for words makes things confusing IMO.

[Hroderich Gottfrei]

I am by no means a person who studies linguistics. When I use words, I use them with precise meaning, and not obscure definitions by any means. I used anarchy in the literal definition of the word. I was not attempting to mislead or confuse and I provided contextual support for the word in my post.

"My absolute preferred governmental system is free-market anarchy - a land without rulers where everyone is their own sovereign. Do I think I'll see that? Probably not. But the authority of the Sentinel derives from the voluntary acquisence of the Keepers to his vision - if they disagree with it, they're perfectly able to make that clear and to change the direction. But we do it without violence. Anarchy != Chaos. Anarchy is neutral, neither for or against leaders, only maintaining that all things be voluntary."

Essentially, my contention is that we always remain a voluntary organization and do not recognize the authority of force as legitimate.

[Hroderich Gottfrei]

Chai, I'm not trying to knock you, just to make my position clear. I have nothing against you and I apologize if you felt my verbiage was misleading - it was never my intention. I don't expect you to look up every word I use - I only ask that you consider the supporting text and, if you're still confused look it up or ask me. I spend a large amount of time studying philosophy and economics (more philosophy, but hey) and I sometimes forget that I'm not speaking to people who have been as inclined to study up on it. We have different areas of knowledge expertise, and that's something to celebrate. I have something to teach you from time to time, and you'll likely always have something to teach me. That's one of the little things that drives me in life. =]

[Lorhayden]

So if I'm correct it looks like this.

Guardians suggest policy, this policy has probably been discussed at the Watcher/Keeper level before hand, and then the Guardians + Inner Circle hash out the details of the policy and put it to a general vote. Policy passes, Sentinel/Watcher keep us all on track in regards to the policy. Is this in general correct? If so lets lock it in.

[Lorhayden]

We need to get a political scientist over here they could probably write a dissertation on the creation of a government. I'm just saying...

[Hroderich Gottfrei]

I could fill in for that, but I've already done my part, bringing Austrian Economics/Voluntary Free Markets and Organization to the table.

[chaiguy]

Jan 19, 2013 10:55:39 GMT -6 Lorhayden said:

We need to get a political scientist over here they could probably write a dissertation on the creation of a government. I'm just saying...

Maybe we could go to one of our allies like Pax Gaming and either ask for advice or look over their charter for inspiriation. It seems like they've been setting up guilds in multiple MMOs for awhile now.

[doomcrow]

Jan 19, 2013 10:55:39 GMT -6 Lorhayden said:

We need to get a political scientist over here they could probably write a dissertation on the creation of a government. I'm just saying...

My undergraduate degree is in History & Political Science, with a focus on PoliSci

[Lorhayden]

BS - International Relations, MBA - International Business

I was in no way suggesting we were not on the right track. We are and it actually looks like we are pretty much in agreement about how power will flow throughout the group. Sent/Watcher are not "rulers" they are more like administrators, and organizers. They help us to focus our efforts, we though give them the direction for that focus. We already know these are elected positions. Positions that they can be deposed from through calling for a No-Confidence vote and then a vote for Removal. We don't need to over think it. A lot of this will be fleshed out when the game launches, but for now this is a good general structure. Lets lock it in.

[Drake]

I have an AA in BS...

But in all seriousness, the way I see it:

The Sentinal is there to make sure the Rings are working together smoothly and to manage the Inner Circle. For Inner Circle matters they may cast a Tie Breaking Vote. They are also the Figurehead of the Circle there to show a single face to other organizations. The Sentinal is also concidered a Warden of the Circle and recieves a vote on Circle Wide matters just as any other Warden does. The Inner Circle may put forth a vote of No-Confidance to begin the process of Elections for a new Sentinal. It is possible for the current Sentinal to be Confirmed and remain Sentinal after a sucessfull vote of No-Confidance if the Circle votes to keep them.

The Watcher is the Sentinal's Backup and assistant. Like the Sentinal, they are also concidered a Warden of the Circle and recieves a vote on a Circle Wide matters just as any other Warden does. The Watcher is appointed by the Sentinal but must be Confirmed by the Inner Circle

The Inner Circle is composed of the Elected Guardians, they piece together proposals that may be submited for vote. They decided if a matter needs voted on only by Wardens or if Keepers should also recieve a vote. Gardians are concidered a Warden of their Ring when it comes to voting on Circle Wide matters. Wardens of a Ring may put forth a vote of No-Confidance in their Guardian to start the process of Elections for a new Guardian. Like a vote of No-Confidance for Sentinal, it is possible for the vote to deturmine that the existing Guardian stays.


In addition to votes of No-Confidance, there needs to be Regularly Schedualed Elections for Sentinal and Guardian positions. Terms should be staggered so there arn't elections in every Ring at the same time.

Example: (With a 6 Month Term)

January: Guardian of Crystal, Guardian of Earth
Febuary: Guardian of Gold, Guardian of Iron
March: Guardian of Light, Guardian of Shadow
April: Guardian of Steel, Guardian of Wood
May: Sentinal
June: No Elections
July: Guardian of Crystal, Guardian of Earth
Aug: Guardian of Gold, Guardian of Iron
Sept: Guardian of Light, Guardian of Shadow
Oct: Guardian of Steel, Guardian of Wood
Nov: Sentinal
Dec: No Elections


If a Sentinal or Guardian is Replaced Mid-Term, the new one must still be re-elected during the normal Election Cycle to continue in that position after the election.

Term Limits

I don't know if we should do Term Limits, but if we do, I would recomend it being Consecutive Term Limits. By this I mean a limited number of Consecutive Terms, but after some one else has held that position for at least one term they may be elected back again.