Democracy for the rules?

[markusdark]

I have heard a few times that a lot of the rules are as they are due to the Democracy of the way the rules are voted on. But I find this in error. A Democracy is run by the people - not by representatives of the people. And it's not even a Republic as we do not vote on who will represent our chapters at the negotiations. The closest I can come to is a Plutocracy, where the 'wealthy' set the rules - basically those who have shelled out the franchise fee.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for a Democratic system but if that is to be the case, then I want it to BE a Democratic system. I would prefer to not only have my voice count in how the rules are set forth but also have the results be made public. Even with the system now I don't know if my chapter owners are voting as my chapter would like or just for their own beliefs. I would love to know how badly my submission for latex weaponry was shot down in '08 - or if it was even brought to the table. Not to mention being able to address the issues that were brought up and be able to submit a refined document for '10.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

But we're still, in the long run, a business in the sense that those people who have paid to get a licensing agreement have an investment more than the player does.

Perhaps a better analogy would be a limited stock corporation, where those holding stock (the investors) have a vote.

The owners make decisions based on what they think is best for the game, using their own personal experiences and those of the players in their game. I don't know of any other business that gives licensees as much say as the Alliance does.

 

[Talen]

To me, it feels more like any business run by a board of directors. Customer input is important, but it doesn't give you decision making powers. Licensees "own" a part of the game in the form of a licensed chapter, so they get a say.

Which always made me wonder. Has anyone ever tried to buy into part ownership of the game itself without being a chapter owner? Is it even possible?

 

[Mike Ventrella]

To me, it feels more like any business run by a board of directors. Customer input is important, but it doesn't give you decision making powers. Licensees "own" a part of the game in the form of a licensed chapter, so they get a say.

Which always made me wonder. Has anyone ever tried to buy into part ownership of the game itself without being a chapter owner? Is it even possible?

How it works is that I license the right to use the Alliance rules to individuals, not businesses. Those individuals can of course start a corporation if they want and allow the corporation to use the rules. If so, you can certainly invest in that business if they allow it.

The reason I don't license to businesses is because I spend a lot of time talking to the individuals and making sure they're going to run a quality game and make us all look good. I have said no to many. I also don't want, for instance, to give a license to a business and then that business is sold to someone who has no idea what it takes to run an Alliance game and then makes us all look bad.

Unlike many such businesses, you the player have a lot of say into our game. We actively seek your opinions here on this Board. (In fact, many ideas in our Rule Book originated with player suggestions here.) And each chapter owner brings your concerns to our Owners Board.

(It's slightly confusing with Faire Play, Inc.... as one of the stockholders and owners of FP, Inc. I have kind of licensed the rights to myself. If I were to leave FP or be bought out, then those rights would go away.)