The Union Constitution, Tier 1, 2, 3, 4. i dont really get the structure and organisation.
i also dont understand the goals of this union beside voting their leaders.
can somebody enlight me, please?

hint: http://uob.forums-free.com/

Hi Margo,

As a "kinda" Union of Beta (UoB) partner, I think I can try and answer a few questions on it for you.

We, CoP, were asked to be a partner in this Union. We agreed, pending discussion and development on certain issues.

It was, in our (CoP) minds to be a meeting place where different alliances were supposed to meet to discuss "regional" trade, defence and offensive matters. This however, was not coming together too well as we thought certain other members wanted to treat it as their own alliance instead of sovereign alliances meeting for the greater good.

The constitution was written in language detailing these "Tiers" that were just plain confusing. The Tier 1 was supposed to consist of the founding members (4 alliances) that would decide what would happen in the Union, and we weren't for it.

We tried to get concessions and councils setup so every alliance that joined would have a say in how things went.

We I think agreed on having the Tiers renamed to more palatable titles such as Tier 1 being renamed to Union Council that would include 2 members of the founding 4 and 4 open slots for other alliances chosen by vote of the majority.

Anyway, things didn't go well, because certain individuals wanted to control too much of what alliances can/can't do.

Hope I'm not too confusing.

I had wanted it to be somewhere like minded alliances could meet, provide below market access to resources to assist in growth, share military expertise and provide assistance if required.

All parties would negotiate together for treaties etc.

Example, the Foreign affairs division would compose the diplomats (or their associates) of each alliance, the DoD would be all the General of the alliances etc.

There would be a "chairperson" of each division (interior, economic, foreign affairs, military) that would report to the council.

I stopped participating after certain guarantees were unable to be met and communication kinda dropped off.

So, what do you think?

wow, so many good ideas. is sad that the project didnt end up what it was planed.
i think this is like other good theories ... end up ugly when put them in practice.
i dont know

thx for the detalied explanation

Yeah.

I still have hopes of doing something like that, but I need to find the right partners I guess.

Margo, What do you think of this?

DO you think it's something we can look at?

well ... of course. but in a not dictatorial way )


p.s. i tried yesterday to register to your forum, but i didnt get any activation email or something

I'm not sure I really *get* the concept of a Union of Beta. Isn't it akin to forming a system of government? I personally wouldn't want a government of any form in Ikariam that tells me what to do

I do believe though that CoP and XGX can become close allies - if we do it smartly we could essentially become the strongest peaceful collective alliance on Beta.

Do you think we can do this?

Oz I essentially agree with you.

I believe there should be "benefits" to being part of an alliance. For example, alliance members sell goods to each other at a fair price or do fair trades with each other. I am not talking about selling marble at 80g a piece - that is the non-alliance price! We would certainly need to agree on what is a "fair" price given the current market rate of each good.

We should also help each other when we are in need. I very often help smaller alliance members by sending them goods for free so they can grow and make our alliance stronger and larger. We all need to commit to doing that.

This is something I believe we should consider to enable XGX and CoP to become closer allies. Essentially we would have 2 alliances working as one, in both economic terms as well as militaristic and diplomatically. The challenge may be attaining diplomatic agreement as one alliance should not be more advantaged than another, whether it be due to member numbers or alliance total strength.

I am happy to engage in further discussion about this and come up with a future plan for both alliances strategy and direction pending margo's thoughts and approval.

i approve it, naturally.
if all COP's staff agree to follow Oz_Roper in his thoughts, we should begin planning