venatorvenator wrote:The concern seems to be that too much power will be held by few unknown people, and that there will be too many rules and too much homogeneity.
Instead of a union why not just propose a confederation, where faction and regional leaderships would be able to talk to each other about their stuff? No leaders, no constitution, no rigid control from above, just a better communication channel and openness toward different playstyles.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this has been attempted in various iterations of
Skype Conference Rooms. Those who entered last year's conference witnessed the conversation devolve rapidly. Today it is called "Shit Trade Chat (Officially a bully free zone) - Daily Dose of Kittens:
http://i.imgur.com/1O2XcQC.gif"
I think it behooves any of us interested in more collaborative playstyles to begin small. Yes, start as a hermit, Yes, find a village of your own—but when you feel ready, the option to graduate to a larger group is open to you. That's the point of the Edelreich. It is invitation based.
But at the same time, the group is a closed system, in that its resources are fundamentally for its members and at the disposal of its members. The group is also semi-permeable, wherein it accepts virtually
anyone with very low barriers to entry.
The old iteration of this group was based on the U.S. Constitution, so there were undisputed village leaderships, which at the same time had a Union-wide influence.
I see your point there is plenty of worry about who will be in control, who are the unknowns, and if there will be too many rules, but the greatest way to control that outcome is to join the talks: Add
sovietskya on Skype to speak to jcm. Adding your voice into the mix makes the group more diverse, and
very few detractors have added their voice.
I do not know what it will become after handing it to jcm and his group, (I'm still not the leader guys, and I don't want to be the leader) I just know I want to be part of a larger democratic group than the average village.