Would a purely democratic clan work?

[Ladezkik]

I am talking from my own experience here, so feel free to argue against me or correct me if I'm wrong about something.

Every clan in the history of BL has been founded as a clan with a leader (or a group of leaders) who has managed the affairs of the clan, starting builds and dealing with the members, determining to what direction the clan is heading. (I am aware that C was democratic to some extent for a period of time, but the fact is that it was founded as a clan with leaders.)

I see one major issue with the current structure: clans mostly end up relying on the leaders to keep things happening. This means that if the leading members of a clan are too inactive (everyone stops playing some day), the clan easily dies from lack of activity.

What I've been thinking about lately (to the extent that I actually wrote a constitution for a clan I almost founded with Momentum) is the idea of a completely democratic clan, where the power would be equally divided among the members. I realize many might see this as a totally Utopian idea, and that decision making would take far more time, but the major advantage of a clan like this would be that when properly run, it should survive even if the member base changed completely. It would be a clan which exists for its own sake, instead of existing for the sake of its leaders.

Possible or not? Discuss.

[Ad Bot]

[Big Brother]

Woah, creepy. Me and Quark were talking about this for hours a few days ago.

[Mysteroo]

How would something like this work? it sounds like it might be complicated

[Tingalz]

that would just end in dispute.
clan leader should have all the power he wants, that way it's possible to get things done quickly.

[Ladezkik]

How would something like this work? it sounds like it might be complicated

There would have to be a set of rules which rules how the clan works, not unlike a constitution. I actually wrote one which seemed to mostly cover how the clan should work. (rules related to starting votes, amount of votes needed and such) It would definately be more complicated, but by no means impossible.

Woah, creepy. Me and Quark were talking about this for hours a few days ago.

Must be something in the air. :p

[Big Brother]

nah quark proposed the idea and we both expanded on it lol

[Ladezkik]

that would just end in dispute.
clan leader should have all the power he wants, that way it's possible to get things done quickly.

Given that the members abide by clear rules of conduct, there should be no disputes capable of killing the clan. (Why would anyone be in the clan if they are not ready to accept majority rule and the rules set by the clan?) I'd really like you to elaborate.

The fact that leaders get productive things done quickly is a double-edged sword. A leader can kill a clan equally quick. Having no leaders is not just about everyone having equal power, but also about everyone bearing equal responsibility.

[Lugnut]

sounds good and bad, primarily because of speed issues in a leader-based system
the GBLD is currently suffering downtime as our leader is also our host, so no one can do anything.

[Uristqwerty]

Someone would still have to be permanently in charge of any topic created, so if they weren't around, things could still die off easily.

[Ladezkik]

Someone would still have to be permanently in charge of any topic created, so if they weren't around, things could still die off easily.

Nothing prevents having a rule on how the topic is dealt with and what responsibilities the owner of the topic has towards the clan. Things like these would be found in the constitution of the clan.

I nonetheless agree that this is the most likely way the clan would die.

[Custard]

If you wanted a democracy, you'd have to limit your own powers. Therefor, you'd have to vote to kick people, or invite people into the clan.

Also, clan rights can be derived from the person who owns the topic and it's text; so in a sense, someone could make a mock democracy, but in all truths that someone would own the clan entirely.

Anyway, if you're a leader who can oversee a mock democracy like this without corruption, then go right ahead!

I'm sure it'd do fine. after all, democracy works best in small communities.

[Tingalz]

Given that the members abide by clear rules of conduct, there should be no disputes capable of killing the clan. (Why would anyone be in the clan if they are not ready to accept majority rule and the rules set by the clan?) I'd really like you to elaborate.

The fact that leaders get productive things done quickly is a double-edged sword. A leader can kill a clan equally quick. Having no leaders is not just about everyone having equal power, but also about everyone bearing equal responsibility.

Complete Democracy: Someone suggests something should happen, several people disagree, situation escalates to fighting. Barely anything gets done.

"Dictatorship": Leader says what should happen, everyone agrees because they know he is in charge. Projects would actually get done since people would have to agree with the leader.

Keep in mind that the leader would have to be well respected, talented, and intelligent.

[Custard]

Lets make this simple; How about we start with one ruling figure... This figure develops laws and regulations.

After this process, the leader steps down from his position and runs a democracy off of this nomocracy (group of laws depicting how the government should function)

[Tingalz]

What seems to be going over everyone's head here is that clans are made to get projects done. You aren't running a country, people don't need equal rights or anything like that. People just need to get along and be productive.

[Mysteroo]

Maybe you should kick start this, wait for say- 3-5 people to join, then step down and let everyone else start running it. They'd vote on what to do next, the names, layout, everything