mrminer reports: lets overthrow this dictatorsh ... #4908
Labels
No Label
1. kind/balancing
1. kind/breaking
1. kind/bug
1. kind/construction
1. kind/documentation
1. kind/enhancement
1. kind/griefing
1. kind/invalid
1. kind/meme
1. kind/node limit
1. kind/other
1. kind/protocol
2. prio/controversial
2. prio/critical
2. prio/elevated
2. prio/good first issue
2. prio/interesting
2. prio/low
3. source/art
3. source/client
3. source/engine
3. source/ingame
3. source/integration
3. source/lag
3. source/license
3. source/mod upstream
3. source/unknown
3. source/website
4. step/approved
4. step/at work
4. step/blocked
4. step/discussion
4. step/help wanted
4. step/needs confirmation
4. step/partially fixed
4. step/question
4. step/ready to deploy
4. step/ready to QA test
4. step/want approval
5. result/cannot reproduce
5. result/duplicate
5. result/fixed
5. result/maybe
5. result/wontfix
ugh/petz
ugh/QA main
ugh/QA NOK
ugh/QA OK
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
12 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: your-land/bugtracker#4908
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
mrminer reports a bug:
Player position:
Player look:
Player information:
Player meta:
Log identifier
Profiler save:
Status:
Teleport command:
Compass command:
abstractly, i'm curious how well a minetest server could function as a constitutional democracy, but in my experience servers tend to work much better as benevolent dictatorships. as a point of reference, every "anarchy" server i've played on has been absolutely terrible - both in terms of gameplay, and social structure.
the politics and social structure of minetest servers is not analogous to IRL communities or countries. IRL political structures mostly exist because people have little if any choice about where they live or who they live with, but people still want to co-exist. all minetest servers are voluntary associations - each server is just one of many, this is just one game of many, and there's many other ways to experience community outside of games in general.
on your-land, we can just tell disruptive players "you don't fit here, please find somewhere else", and that decision doesn't prevent that person from living their life as they see fit, outside of the server. there are also hundreds (thousands?) of other servers out there, and it's pretty cheap to create your own small server if you want to do that, and create your own social order.
notably, your-land provides a whole lot of feedback mechanisms that most minetest servers lack, and i feel like this is a huge part of its success. it may not be a democracy, but these mechanisms allow for a far more democratic experience than most other successful servers. your-land is either the number one or two server of all time, so far as i can tell.
i don't think this issue should be left open for very long, but i'm curious to hear what other people think.
As a minister elected by the Senate of the (democratically constituted alliance) Cities Republic of YourLand, I can say from experience that democracy is very tedious and sluggish even on a game server. If democracy is to be more than a nice word, several conditions are necessary: 1. a consensual constitutional order with 2. a balanced separation of powers laid down therein, and 3. mature and active participants. The last point is the hardest point.
In this case, active does not mean building blocks, but community. This can also be learned on a game server. And a good basis for this are the processes in every small community here and start with two players among themselves. How does togetherness work in a party, like in a city? Good places to practice democracy on a small scale. For life outside in the rl, because that's where it matters.
Boot
Foreign minister of the Republic
Could be fun to try as an experiment on another server, let people vote to trigger admin (kick/ban) or WE actions, etc... Maybe even combined with previous idea of player-submitted mods - voting to enable or disable mods. Basically take the idea "admin is a bot controlled by the crowd" to the max X)
But again, not on YL.
Well if its democracy you want....
How about a vote that
wait your voting ... for a godless land.. bwah. && What Bla said.
Oh, democracy... Democracy is hard.
TLDR: NOTABUG WONTFIX
What kind of decisions can be even made democratically?
YL already does employ significant part of public opinion when making decisions. We do all vote for Bailiffs. You can voice your opinions on how server rules will be interpreted via bailiffs by active (run for it) or passive (send votes) means. Stuff is being build, but basically any functionality requires public consensus on whether it's good enough. There are loads of feedback mechanisms to propose changes in behaviour, systems and processes. There are more people in STAFF. If one feels particularly displeased with any single of them, one can talk to any of the remaining, or discuss with any other player on the server first.
Democracy needs informed voters making informed decisions. And taking responsibility.
There are loads of decisions which by their nature cannot be made democratically, as the average Johnny knows nothing about. Code and design do need an authority with decisionmaking power. Do we run mod A, or mod B? Do we upgrade to newer versions now? Redhat or Debian? Pay for more RAM? I'll be happy to share my opinion whenever asked, but I'm happy as hell I'm not the one making the decision and taking responsibility over it. This point is very important in reference to whosit's proposed admin bot: loads of server hopper players will not care about results of their decisions. They will simply ruin the thing and move on.
One man, one vote.
Historically, this wasn't the case for probably a lot longer than you might think. And it's not promissing the brightest future [1]. And since YL has zero "immigration control", it's democratic means should be protected from trolls, script kiddies and the like. Using levels for that works fine: it gives advantage to long-term players over on-and-off players, significant contributors over passive tourists and dedicated YourLanders over server hoppers. Afterall, it's those players who helped YL to rise to the pedestal.
Minetest as a whole is a perfect capitalism.
You can play on loads of servers, and you can start your own, and you can pay somebody to run it for you, should you wish to. This server is run like a corporation: CEO (Alias), board of directors (STAFF), labour union (bailiffs) and shareholders (common players). Each group has it's own interests. And depending on their skillset and contribution, they each should have different power in different areas of YL activities.
Rule of the majority, while preserving rights of the minority.
I'm quite happy with the situation as it is - functional democracy needs to guarantee certain rights to minorities, which I'm afraid would not work in one-man-one-vote-free-for-all democracy - especially with PVP not being a viable means of enforcing any kind of rules. Be it languages in global chat, be it differently themed builds on the server... Can you imagine if daydream had to destroy their yacht, because it doesn't fit the server theme? I personally think it doesn't fit the theme. And I'll be very happy if - had such a vote happened - their rights as a minority would be protected by any kind of benevolent dictator.
If it works, don't fix it
YL is maybe the single best server of all minetest I played on, and the community around it contributes in considerable amount. And the community is a result of server design (gitea, chat bridging etc.) and is strengthened by self-feedback loop: we know what we like, and we know what we won't tolerate. Such community wouldn't come to life if the server wouldn't invite it.
Ravise I agree
Democracy could work here fairly well perhaps on city level, but probably not on full scale on server level. There are already some democracy elements here, like the bailiff elections. Maybe some others aspects could become subject to voting? But in the end, Alias would effectively always have veto rights ...
@whosit: Even other servers do not deserve the downfalls of democracy on a server. It doesn't really work.
Like some here already mentionned, democracy in RL is important - because you can't just log out and switch to another server like you could in a game. In a game where the involvement of each player varies, the whole situation is very diffrent. It's not about living your life but about playing a game together. Trolls would have too easy a life - because they don't have to spend time here.
Sure, practicing some democracy like Boot suggested can't hurt. The Republic is proud of beeing democratic :-) But it's also voluntarily.
Small groups have other means of achieving solutions than complex societies.
And in the end Alias is just...er..assistant of the mayor of Haven anyway :-)
Now after all those love letters to YL I'd like to close the issue, unless @mrdeveloper comes forward with practical suggestions or actionable items?
Yeah just close it - it was always just a joke :P
#4908 (comment)
🥳
Maybe you should take a closer look at the terms before using them incorrectly here. And in general, a bug tracker is not a suitable place for such statements. And especially superfluous in issues that have already been closed (since two months).
Jammy: For your own protection I removed your comment.