Talk:Malton Political Government Act
You've outlined a power structure, not a political system. How are any of these offices obtained? Your even bigger problem is the assumption that ratification on the wiki means it'll be accepted and implemented by the players of the game. Do you have any experience "running" a suburb, or even a building? Talk to any group about how hard it is to "run" a single suburb, multiply that times 100, and that's your situation. Creating an organizational structure over it isn't going to solve any problems. Look at the really big groups like DEM, that's the closest thing to a government you're going to get within the workings of the game. The wiki just doesn't bring game structures like that into being. They can be plotted a bit in the wiki and on boards, but for anything to "take", it's got to be played out in game, and I don't see how you accomplish your power structure in it, nor any reason to do so. It'd be pretty to think so though.--The Envoy 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that my group, the Malton Anarchist Federation, would be among those diametrically opposed to this. There is no need nor possibility for government. Whether we like it or not, we are in a state of anarchy. The M(A)F would hope someday for organized anarchy, where autonomous groups, collectives, communes and communities might loosely federate, where mutual aid would be established, and where freedom, equality, and liberty would be the mutual aspiration of nearly all survivors. But government here is both impossible unless successfully imposed through coercion, and undesireable. Perhaps a Paris-commune or similar type of system? --Luigi Galleani M(A)C | M(A)F 01:46, 27 March 2007 (BST)
Many of the ideas here are just plain awful, too. Why waste manpower (the only real resource in the game) powering EVERY building? Why have a separate division in charge of revives when EVERY survivor should be doing as much reviving as they safely can? You've got more commissioners for Stadiums and Forts than for revives- are they more important? And no, revives should NOT be a right; if Malton is to really function, they will (at times) need to be EARNED. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 03:26, 1 April 2007 (BST)
Really, I don;t think that the people of Malton would accept a government. The city is already split up into group turf and mittle overnment, and so only through massive military force and PK warring could any overall government be formed, and even then it would be wracked with insurrections from zombie and survivor alike. In a city like Malton, no one organization can control more than a few suburbs. The huge number of little governments, while resulting in some conflicts, also ensures that each suburb gets a lot of focus.
A number of groups would oppose an attemp at government, the Imperium, IMW, DARIS, DHMZ, and others already have or claim to have established governments, and other groups would oppose a government they do;t like (such as the socialit factions), or any government at all (the anarchist factions). -Fenian, 12:12, June 15th, 2007
I personally see this as unnecessary bureaucracy. What would this provide that the current group-oriented per-suburb approach does not? Right now, this looks like it would just be another claim to power for certain individuals. While this would add some interesting RP elements (the whole rebel forces vs. the big empire) I don't think this would be accepted by any more than a few groups, leaving most of Malton out of it. What I would rather see is a loosely organized confederacy set up between survivor groups so we could organize events such as the reclamation of Ridleybank, or the creation of a true zombie-free suburb. Despite the number of groups working towards survivor dominance, few cooperate on the level needed to reclaim whole suburbs. Perhaps revising this proposal to rid it of most of the departments and divisions (as well as essentially all of the executive branch, a republic organized at the group level would be fine) would help it gain wider acceptance. --Thelightguy 13:26, 25 August 2007 (BST)
Your Bill of Rights is Lacking
It says nothing about the right to be a zombie (although that is implied by the right to suicide) or the right's that zombies have. For example, when on trial, can one be held acountable for ones actions as a zombie? It would appear you can, as buying the brainrot skill voids your right to revives. But zombies SHOULD have the right to kill survivors. Also, rotters should have the right to revival; such revives are possible and survivors with brain rot have even more reason to maintain the safety of the community than the bulk of survivors who can more easily find revives. ... 23:22, 20 June 2007 (BST)
I agree Totally. I have put up the Peaceful Zombies Party, to campaign for rights for ZOmbies, and also proposed that it be changed to the 'Right to kill a hostile Zombie.--Sarpek 16:00, 21 June 2007 (BST)
I think the framer of this act believes Malton belongs to survivors and is not aware of dual-nature philosophies. I think we should all work to make sure this bigotted, hateful legislation be blocked into perpetuity, and move to create social legislation where the rights of surivors and zed to exist are both protected, or perhaps a two state solution is in order....--The Envoy 20:21, 21 June 2007 (BST)
