Working form of COA Constitution

For all who might read these humble words placed upon these servers, let them stand as a tribute and lighthouse to all that is of fair, right, love, and life.


We, the free peoples united under the banner of The Coalition of Alliances, say the following with all fervor and earnestness:


1 .) That all players who so choose to unite under our shade tree shall have sanctuary, and the right to prosperity and trade without undue hardship or duress.

2 .) No member is of any more worth than another, and all will be given a share equal his due, where a share is deserved, according to The Rules of Profit Sharing.

3 .) No Representative has any more authority than another. Each has a vote and a say, and each may present thier case without fear of retaliation.

4 .) We come together, as joined as one as may be possible, in the spirit of freedom. The selfish and scornful, they have no place here and will be denied water, shade, and companionship.

5 .) No member so joined may, at any time, attempt to extort another for any purpose whatsoever, be they of high rank or low.

6 .) Grievences of all types will be addressed, be they concerning members of, or players outside, this allaince. No member may retaliate against another for voicing his opinion and any attempt to do so will be cause for immediate actions to be decided by the appropriate authorities.

7 .) Every member will be given an opportunity to ply his might where he sees fit, with ever few orders given as to where that must be. Members will be given suggestions as to what may or may not benefit the Coalition as a whole and are wholeheartedly asked, and encouraged, to abide by these suggestions.

8 .) If a decision is reached by the Representatives that causes our members to be "oredered" to do something, their continued membership hinges upon following those "orders." I feel the need to explain this. Your Representative would not vote for something if he or she felt it would damage the Coalition. Sometimes our members may have to make sacrifices in order to help achieve a goal.


The Representatives of each individual alliance are hereby charged with the following duties:


1 .) To listen, as such we can read, to any Representative who wishes to stake a claim, or make a point known. Any Representative may request that he or she not be interrupted until the point or claim is laid out in full, and every Representative is charged with holding their tounges, or fingers, until that Representative releases the floor.

2 .) To be steadfast in announcing all situations where a member is threatened, has voiced a concern to you, or wishes to make something known to the other Representatives.

3 .) No Representative may make any decision on his or her own that impacts any, or all, other alliances within our family. Any decision made that effects the Coalition as a whole must be rattified with a majority vote where at least 75% of the Representatives meet, 0 exceptions withstanding.

4 .) If any representatives are absent during a time that a vote must be called, then the vote will commence. If the absent vote(s) would swing the decision, one way or another, then the absent Representative(s) must be given a chance to cast their vote(s), excepting only in situations where speed is of major importance.

5 .) At any time, any Representative(s) may ask another to step down and his or her alliance to elect another to speak on their behalf. The Representative(s) so asking must then present their case to the remaining Representatives, and the Representative that is requested to stand down would present their case. A majority vote is required in a meeting where ALL Representatives must be present to forcefully cause a Representative to stand down from his or her position. The only exception to this is if one or more Representatives have been and are continuing to be absent. In this case, another Representative must be chosen from the alliance that is not being represented to stand in his or her place.

6 .) You are sworn to be the voice of your allaince. As this is the case, only Representatives may use the "ChatBox," during those times when Representatives are discussing anything in an official capacity. Any member may sit in upon such conversation, but may only type a single period (.) every 4 minutes to keep their session from Timing-Out. This "ChatBox" is otherwise open to ALL members who wish to use it. We ask that the Representatives check whatever medium is normally used for messages from his or her individual alliance to insure that your voice is the true voice of the people.

7 .) Any decision may be called to the table for a re-vote, but only once by each Representative. It is your duty to ensure that it is the proper time for you to call that decision down, and present your case when you do so.

8 .) ALL conversations concerning decisions that are to effect the Coalition will be logged and posted to the forum under an appropriate category. As a senior member of the forum, a duly appointed Representative, and one having the access to do so, I will take charge of this duty myself. If I am not present, another should be charged with this duty and should copy-paste the conversation to a document on their terminal at regular intervals to insure the integrity of the conversation. That person should then post the conversation when it is concluded.

9 .) No vote may be called where it would effect the structure of command of any of our member alliances. Those concerns are solely the responsibility of the governing body of the concerned member alliance and will not be handled by the COA, but should be handled internaly.


Where it occurs that one or more or our member alliances should come to be at war with another faction, alliance, or player:


1 .) All members of that alliance who wish to be given safe haven are to be given such in another of our member alliances.

2 .) Any player who wishes to join his might with that of the warring member alliance has leave to do so.

3 .) No one of our member alliances may declare war on any player, faction, or alliance without the vote of the Representatives.

4.) If for some reason a member of one of the member alliances attacks someone from another member alliance, they must make reperations or the leader must kick them out. If It happens more than once, the player must be kicked out automatically, EVEN if they repay the victim.
4A.) Exceptions:
- Moonshots are not considered attacks


The Rules of Profit Sharing:

It is best if the highest ranking player to participate in a battle is the one to provide ALL of the cargo ships, as well as recycle the debris. This will help head off any "Pushing" issues that might otherwise come of OUR way of sharing.

1 .) Any player who participates in a battle will be given a share of the profits that is proportional to his losses vs. the total losses. This includes the debris field left from such a battle.

2 .) The ratio of the resources gained will determine the ratio of your share, where a share is due.

3 .) All units are to be divided in this fashion, except for Duet. Duet will be divided equaly as determined by the amount of fuel spent to participate, until all players involved have obtained that cost back. If the amount of Duet falls short of covering this cost, then it shall be divided proportionally so that no player takes losses, in the form of a %, more than another.

I will give an example:

John and I decide to break off of our own alliances and ACS this player.

I send 1000 LF, and he sends 200 bombers.
We get 2.7kk Metal and 2.5kk Crystal and 1.4kk Duet, including the debris field.
I lose 450 of my LF's and he loses 12 of his bombers.
I spent 15k Duet to fly there, and he spent 146k duet to fly there.
My loses total 1.8kk units. His loses total 1.08kk units.
My loses are 62.5% of the total losses, and I will recieve 62.5% of the loot.
I recieve 1,687,500 Metal and 1,562,500 Crystal and 774,375 Duet PLUS the 15,000 I spent to fly there = 799,375. The duet for my fuel comes out first, and then we divide what remains as loot.
He recieves 1,012,500 Metal and 937,500 Crystal and 464,625 Duet PLUS the 146,000 he spent to fly there = 610,625.

If we had only gotten 120,000 duet, then we figure....
My flight cost was 9% of the total cost to fly, so I get 9% of the 120,000 = 10,800
His flight cost was 91% of the total cost to fly, so he get 91% of the 120,000 = 109,200

In cases where a player takes no loses in a battle, but where his contribution was at least 10% of the total ships, then shall that player have a share of the loot equal to the ratio of ships that player provided, as held up against the total number of ships.

All other cases must be brought before the Representatives IMMEDIATELY!



Well, guys. I think that just about does it, as far as I can tell. If there is anything that you feel I have missed or misrepresented, please let me know. Let the Amendments Begin!

One thing I'd Like to Mention, Is that When an Alliance signs on to the COA, and the Constitution, It is the Alliance leader who signs. Not the Rep, Cause They could change over time. Of course, For our three alliances, It would be the leaders and reps, Cause We are the founding members, and The alliances sign in order. Us, Then GTF, then HRE. Another thing is subsection 3 of the War category. The reps arent going to vote to allow war if they don't want their Alliance involved! How then, are subsections 1 and 2 going to come into play? Finally, Subsection 6 of the Reps Duties. If an alliance leader Believes that his/her needs are not being addressed, And they HAVE contacted their reps, and it still has not been addressed, then I personally believe that the leaders should be given turns to state what it is.

I think we are on the right track. there are a few things that i would like to address. the use of articles in the constitution is a very good idea. article #1. are we going to agree that anyone who wants to join will be accepted? does it mean we will accept other alliances? if so i have no problem with it just want to clarify. for example if an alliance is at war and want some help and apply for COA does it mean we have to accept it? i think that is what it sounds like right now. in addition to, who has the authority to accept or deny? Articles 2 and 3 may be combined i think they sound fairly the same. Article 4 may be should focus on the principle of team work and the consequences of violating them... article 5 sounds redundant but well written. the other articles look good. I think there should be something mentioned in the constitution that would allow for changes as the COA will evolve. In addition and lastly as long as we keep the constitution as general as possible and outline the main principles behind the creation of the COA we will be good.

for the duties of representatives.
I like the ground rules that are depicted in those articles. #5 may be rewritten a bit to sound better but the idea is there. Over all this is a wonder work that kinslayer put together i can only imagine how much time this took. thank you.

OK, I am currently wrapped pretty tight in UNI 35, but I work on these suggestions as I find the time. Thank you, TDK and Cber, for the input.
Tomorrow after school is probably when I can get to this.


TDK - This took 2 1/2 hours, but that does not count the hour or so I spent changing single words, or correcting punctuation. I think it is the vote of the Reresentatives that will decide if an alliance can join while they are at war or believe that war is soon to be upon them. Other than that, I vote that admittance is automatic upon an application.

Cber - Do you mean that the leaders of the alliances are to be as Representatives also, or is it that you feel that they should be involved in the conversations with Representatives in the ChatBox?

I will address the other points later, when I have more time.

Well, Let me Address TDK first. I believe that an alliance should be denied admittance if it is in a war to prevent alliances from joining and then leaveing once we have helped them. Exceptions should be possible, but only if there is a majority vote from the REPs. Kin, I do not think that The leaders should be automatically reps. But they DO represent their alliances as their leaders. If of course they are chosen by the alliance to be their rep, I dont think theres a problem. Now, I DO believe that the leaders should be allowed to be involved in discussion in the chat box in a limited manner. I think they should be allowed to interject if they do not believe their Rep is voiceing concerns of theirs.

ok, good thank you both for clarification.

I must apologize for seeming to delay this venture, but I have been fairly busy these past couple of days. Too many things on my plate. I will be able to be on here around 21:00 hours server time to discuss some of these points with you. I would ask that the other reps post something similar, basicaly what time we might be able to expect you to be here in the forum, even if that is only for a specific day.

I have to flexible as my schedule...well i dont have one because i cant maintain one. basically i have too many variable in rl that will influence my time, BUT i will try for 2100 server ( i am assuming game-server time.)

OK, I am here.

TDK, yes, if I reference a time, it is game server time, as that is the one time we all have in common.

well, i think it is good as is. i vote YES for this wonderful work.

The new rule is That IF for somereason a member of one of the member alliances attacks someone from another Member alliance, they are forced to make reperations or be kicked out. If It happens more than once, They get kicked out automatically.




*NOTE TO SELF* *PUT THIS RULE IN*

I think this is a great constitution and I really hope our confederation of alliances really can make a difference in protectiong the weaker players.