Best form of goverment for a village.

[Jakubas]

I want to know what the community thinks is the best government form to use in a village. I am maintaining a small village atm and I don't know how curios and food distribution should be handled.
I've heard of villages that use:
-Communism (everything is shared)
-Monarchii/Nobalism (the best players of the village choose who gets what)
-Dictatorship (The lawspeaker says who gets what and kills anyone who disobeys his oders)
-Pluralism (They don't share curios and food, distribution is probably taken care of by trading)
-Welfare (Everyone gets the same amount if items no matter how much work they do)

[TeckXKnight]

A benevolent dictator working through egalitarianism and reciprocity is the best, in my opinion. Everyone is equal except that the lawspeaker is more equal. Goods flow is give and take but everyone should be getting something out of it. The lawspeaker should be the one controlling who gets what and requests should be traveling through them. This only works for smaller villages and only if the lawspeaker is heavily active and in good standing and influence with the village.

[Jakubas]

Now, what would be the best system for a bigger village?

[Shruikan]

I want to know what the community thinks is the best government form to use in a village. I am maintaining a small village atm and I don't know how curios and food distribution should be handled.
I've heard of villages that use:
-Communism (everything is shared)
-Monarchii/Nobalism (the best players of the village choose who gets what)
-Dictatorship (The lawspeaker says who gets what and kills anyone who disobeys his oders)
-Pluralism (They don't share curios and food, distribution is probably taken care of by trading)
-Welfare (Everyone gets the same amount if items no matter how much work they do)

-Communism (everything is shared)
-Monarchii/Nobalism (the best players of the village choose who gets what)
-Pluralism (They don't share curios and food, distribution is probably taken care of by trading)
-Dictatorship (The lawspeaker says who gets what and kills anyone who disobeys his oders)
-Welfare (Everyone gets the same amount if items no matter how much work they do)

red = bad

[Berdy]

If you have a larger village, a city planner/form trader and a militia leader will be needed. You will need to pre-plan your expansions and stages you want your village to go through. A small slum village should be made to test people who want to join. This village should not be near your main village. Also you will need to make a trade outpost away from your city too. I wouldn't use ranks within the village, but you could. Loose Pluralism, and what I mean by loose is a general village discounts and chairty work. And a tax that go towards high Q kilns and other huge investments. Plots should be advised to have personal brick walls to house there personal property. Also set up a court system. You will also need a well defined contracts between players of what service they will provide and for what. Everyone will need a copy of this information on a single sheet. And all players should be fairly active. And make sure you have access to good Q stuff(clay, dirt and water).


Also everyone needs to have fighter alt(s) that they maintain to ward off attacks. ;D But make sure your trusted militia leader is the strongest and has strong allies within the village. Just in case of civil unrest.

These are my plans for a village in W7 atleast.

[LadyGoo]

I want to know what the community thinks is the best government form to use in a village. I am maintaining a small village atm and I don't know how curios and food distribution should be handled.
I've heard of villages that use:
-Communism (everything is shared)
-Monarchii/Nobalism (the best players of the village choose who gets what)
-Dictatorship (The lawspeaker says who gets what and kills anyone who disobeys his oders)
-Pluralism (They don't share curios and food, distribution is probably taken care of by trading)
-Welfare (Everyone gets the same amount if items no matter how much work they do)

-Communism (everything is shared)

Must be used on the early stages of the game/village building. Like you know, if you won't have someone only for 'survival', someone only for 'farming' and someone for 'ua/mc' you won't progress fast.

-Monarchii/Nobalism (the best players of the village choose who gets what)

Not sure whether this one exists. Well, it is logical that the ones, who do the top-q trees will get the top-q soil and etc. Usually villages do understand who need stuff more and give resourses to the ones who need it most (if someone died/ best warrior to be equipped first or given battle char and etc. etc.). Summing up, re-arranging resourses usually is not rly decided by some elite, but happend naturally.

-Dictatorship (The lawspeaker says who gets what and kills anyone who disobeys his oders)

Usually, the LS who is siding this type of ruling is retard. =D So, he or his village won't exist for long. However, there is another side of the coin, when noone in the village is capable of leadership/ some people inside are acting unproperly (arguing, rising displease, doing nothing). <-in such kind of situation there is no room left. but the LS has to become a babbysitter.

-Pluralism (They don't share curios and food, distribution is probably taken care of by trading)

OK for big villages. But for developing ones with population of 5 people just sounds silly.

-Welfare (Everyone gets the same amount if items no matter how much work they do)

Seen this working successfuly only in the really-really tight communities (knowing each other in real life/ playing together for worlds and etc.).

IMHO, every village has a mixture of everything dependingly on who is in the village, how many people, how good they know each other and etc. At least, Dis has the mixture of everything:

Communism in the very beginning of the world. Some people were hunting food and gathering stuff, some building, some doing something else and etc.

Nobalism can be seen when some issues are rising, such as whom to accept to the village, some major decisions. Usually, so-called elite or the core also takes all the fire/hard work/dies in fights and they are playing quite stable through the world (low rate of quitting in comparison with mediacore/softcore players).

Dictatorship, our LS usually do not interrupt into all players decisions or whatever happens, but he has the right of veto if stupid thing might be decided by the majority. So yeah, as was said by TeckXKnight, LS is more equal. Although, I disagree in that all the goods should flow through one person. Such kind of thing was happening in A.D. As a result, some people had to wait for their goods for weeks from Koya. LS should not be the person to bare all those issues, most likely the end person for major political/village decisions. He is an analytic.

Pluralism, we have lots of plots and separate little communities/groups/teams within them. Yeah, you might expect them to give for free some stuff for you (the majority), but things hard to produce some times are traded/exchanged. For instance, you have lots of con food and you need some agi = exchange it.

Welfare, can be seen inside of the plots and in some cases people leave some goods on the idol for everyone.

A small slum village should be made to test people who want to join. This village should not be near your main village.

Disagree. It's an unhealthy way to approach requitting people into the village. Some people just hate the idea of working in a slum village, althought they might be really good players. Also, such villages just put you in a place of a second-sort person. People should be treated as people and equals. If you want to requit, requit someone whom you'd trust your account/hf/your belongings. Would you trust this to someone whom you already reated as second-sort? With proper requitting you will never have to punish or calm civil risings.

[Saif_Mahlik]

Delegate roles and responsibilities based on peoples expertise and skill whilst retaining supreme command of the armed forces and the villages.

[Saif_Mahlik]

Delegate roles and responsibilities based on peoples expertise and skill whilst retaining supreme command of the armed forces and the village

[Rugila]

I have mostly been in a villages that has had Nobalism as its goverment.
Thing works well, when there's a single leader. But it's pure hell, when there's two players equal to each others

Like a cook, if there's 2 cooks that can cook exactly the same quality of food.. Who get what and how much?

[LadyGoo]

But it's pure hell, when there's two players equal to each others

It was stated there is basically 2 types of leaders. Battle one and some civil type:

If you have a larger village, a city planner/form trader.

Would rather classify it like 'outer politics' leader and 'inner politics' one. When they're separating roles, it's pretty much balanced.