WikiName - User contributions [en]

User:TranqyPoo

2026-09-09T20:37:17Z

TranqyPoo: /* Sandbox */

=Sandbox=
I'm unsure if the society could function without money. Is there some way to incentivize or motivate the people to perform undesirable work?

If money is required, it can only be obtained directly from the government. No gifts or investing. Money is only used for individuals to purchase whatever they want (limited by the amount they have). I do not want to incentivize purchasing votes from people nor people living above others due to family wealth.

I'm thinking that people will be required to work for 20 years. The stress of the job directly affects how much time off they are allotted (more stress, more time off). Work should not be the primary experience of life; people should be able to live as they wish (so long as they abide by the people's laws).

The following are the core and unchangeable rules for the society:
* A vote that passed through consensus must be respected and obeyed by all citizens. Failing to adhere is identical to breaking a law.
* Consensus of the people is the only manner of passing a vote. ''People'' defined as all individual citizens (not a representative for a group of citizens).
** The criteria of consensus is subject to the people. It could be 60% or 95%.
* Votes shall last no shorter than 30 days to ensure all citizens have had the opportunity to vote.
* No political group shall exist, nor should an individual follow the vote of another person. That is, the voter should vote based on their own reasons; it is acceptable if they are coincidentally are same reasons as another.

===Roles and colors of the societies===
There are benefits for identifying the role of a society member by the color of their cloth. Particularly, to show what capacity they serve.
* Dark red → Medical. During medical emergencies, a person wearing the standard red clothing is automatically the most knowledgeable when no other medical personnel are around.
* Dark blue → Protector. They are the will of the people, whose entire goal is to protect them from foreign and domestic violence. This is a mixture of military and police functions. They enforce laws and provide the defense for the society. They automatically lose some privileges due to conflicts of interest.
** They lose their right to exercise freedom of speech concerning the political decisions of the society. That is, they cannot vote nor provide an opinion on the matter to anyone, including other protectors. The concern is if there is a division or an internal consensus to override the people's consensus, the people will not longer feel protected, but threatened; that violence rules over reasoning.
*** When a protector is married, part of the commitment is that the protector may express their opinion to their partner. The partner must keep this information private and if they favor the protector's opinion, must present it as their own.
*** Protectors are not excluded from the laws of the society. Any law broken is treated as if a citizen has done so. There are departments (internal and independent) which audit and hold protectors accountable.

User:TranqyPoo

2026-09-09T14:22:45Z

TranqyPoo:

=Sandbox=
I'm unsure if the society could function without money. Is there some way to incentivize or motivate the people to perform undesirable work?

===Roles and colors of the societies===
There are benefits for identifying the role of a society member by the color of their cloth. Particularly, to show what capacity they serve.
* Dark red → Medical. During medical emergencies, a person wearing the standard red clothing is automatically the most knowledgeable when no other medical personnel are around.
* Dark blue → Protector. They are the will of the people, whose entire goal is to protect them from foreign and domestic violence. This is a mixture of military and police functions. They enforce laws and provide the defense for the society. They automatically lose some privileges due to conflicts of interest.
** They lose their right to exercise freedom of speech concerning the political decisions of the society. That is, they cannot vote nor provide an opinion on the matter to anyone, including other protectors. The concern is if there is a division or an internal consensus to override the people's consensus, the people will not longer feel protected, but threatened; that violence rules over reasoning.
*** When a protector is married, part of the commitment is that the protector may express their opinion to their partner. The partner must keep this information private and if they favor the protector's opinion, must present it as their own.
*** Protectors are not excluded from the laws of the society. Any law broken is treated as if a citizen has done so. There are departments (internal and independent) which audit and hold protectors accountable.

User:TranqyPoo

2026-09-08T20:19:50Z

TranqyPoo: Created page with "=Sandbox= I'm unsure if the society could function without money. Is there some way to present one's duty as the reason for performing the necessary functions. ===Roles and colors of the societies=== There are benefits for identifying the role of a society member by the color of their cloth. Particularly, to show what capacity they serve. * Dark red → Medical. During medical emergencies, a person wearing the standard red clothing is automatically the most knowledgeab..."

=Sandbox=
I'm unsure if the society could function without money. Is there some way to present one's duty as the reason for performing the necessary functions.

===Roles and colors of the societies===
There are benefits for identifying the role of a society member by the color of their cloth. Particularly, to show what capacity they serve.
* Dark red → Medical. During medical emergencies, a person wearing the standard red clothing is automatically the most knowledgeable when no other medical personnel are around.
* Dark blue → Protector. They are the will of the people, whose entire goal is to protect them from foreign and domestic violence. This is a mixture of military and police functions. They enforce laws and provide the defense for the society. They automatically lose some privileges due to conflicts of interest.
** They lose their right to exercise freedom of speech concerning the political decisions of the society. That is, they cannot vote nor provide an opinion on the matter to anyone, including other protectors. The concern is if there is a division or an internal consensus to override the people's consensus, the people will not longer feel protected, but threatened; that violence rules over reasoning.
*** When a protector is married, part of the commitment is that the protector may express their opinion to their partner. The partner must keep this information private and if they favor the protector's opinion, must present it as their own.
*** Protectors are not excluded from the laws of the society. Any law broken is treated as if a citizen has done so. There are departments (internal and independent) which audit and hold protectors accountable.

Main Page

2026-09-08T18:09:13Z

TranqyPoo:

This wiki is an exploration of a society ruled by consensus. It is a work of fiction, but seriously maintained as if it were real. One may cite real-world history for examples and comparisons, but may not use the historical event itself as a reason. That is, the decision should be based solely on reasoning and objective data. Articles should be written from the perspective of an primitive or ancient civilization, as if technology and specialized knowledge is not available. This is to apply the reasoning and the spirit of an agreed decision or law universally (not relying on conditions of a particular society). The idea is to provide all the necessary context within our work and to not be reliant on other sources. This wiki is a primary source, meaning we form our own conclusions even when the data is not available. This wiki is licensed under CC-BY-SA.

One can think of this website as an open-source government, with version control. Editors may create works based on our rulings, as a way to show what its manifestation would look like.

Vitally, political groups are forbidden. Each citizen must be able to have their own opinion, which is not tied to the thoughts of many (or similar ones).

If nothing else, this wiki serves as a philosophical thought experiment/case study on how a society could live when everyone mostly agrees with each other.

Main Page

2026-09-08T17:44:14Z

TranqyPoo:

This wiki is an exploration of a society ruled by consensus. It is a work of fiction, but seriously maintained as if it were real. One may cite real-world history for examples and comparisons, but may not use the historical event itself as a reason. That is, the decision should be based solely on reasoning and objective data. Articles should be written from the perspective of an primitive or ancient civilization, as if technology and specialized knowledge is not available. This is to apply the reasoning and the spirit of an agreed decision or law universally (not relying on conditions of a particular society). The idea is to provide all the necessary context within our work and to not be reliant on other sources. This wiki is a primary source, meaning we form our own conclusions even when the data is not available. This wiki is licensed under CC-BY-SA.

One can think of this website as an open-source government. Editors may create works based on our rulings, as a way to show what its manifestation would look like.

Vitally, political groups are forbidden. Each citizen must be able to have their own opinion, which is not tied to the thoughts of many (or similar ones).

If nothing else, this wiki serves as a philosophical thought experiment/case study on how a society could live when everyone mostly agrees with each other.

Main Page

2026-09-08T17:42:44Z

TranqyPoo:

This wiki is an exploration of a society ruled by consensus. It is a work of fiction, but seriously maintained as if it were real. One may cite real-world history for examples and comparisons, but may not use the historical event itself as a reason. That is, the decision should be based solely on reasoning and objective data. Articles should be written from the perspective of an primitive or ancient civilization, as if technology and specialized knowledge is not available. This is to apply the reasoning and the spirit of an agreed decision or law universally (not relying on conditions of a particular society). The idea is to provide all the necessary context within our work and to not be reliant on other sources. This wiki is a primary source, meaning we form our own conclusions even when the data is not available. This wiki is licensed under CC-BY-SA.

One can think of this website as an open-source government. Editors may create works based on our rulings, as a way to show what its manifestation would look like.

Vitally, political groups are forbidden. Each citizen must be able to have their own opinions and is not tied to the thoughts of many (or similar ones).

Main Page

2026-09-08T17:40:47Z

TranqyPoo:

This wiki is an exploration of a society ruled by consensus. It is a work of fiction, but seriously maintained as if it were real. One may cite real-world history for examples and comparisons, but may not use the historical event itself as a reason. That is, the decision should be based solely on reasoning and objective data. Articles should be written from the perspective of an primitive or ancient civilization, as if technology and specialized knowledge is not available. The idea is to provide all the necessary context within our work and to not be reliant on other sources. This wiki is a primary source, meaning we form our own conclusions even when the data is not available. This wiki is licensed under CC-BY-SA.

One can think of this website as an open-source government. Editors may create works based on our rulings, as a way to show what its manifestation would look like.

Vitally, political groups are forbidden. Each citizen must be able to have their own opinions and is not tied to the thoughts of many (or similar ones).

Structure

2026-09-08T17:36:26Z

TranqyPoo: Created page with "A nation comprised of citizens who each have the same amount of power; there is not a role which grants more with some exceptions. The protectors (of the people and law) swear to follow the will of the people. They sacrifice their life to not participate in such discussions. Why? The threat of a protector speaking out one's opinion is enough to consider them as dangerous (instead of unbiasedly protective). Any such notion contributes the idea that force can be used to co..."

A nation comprised of citizens who each have the same amount of power; there is not a role which grants more with some exceptions. The protectors (of the people and law) swear to follow the will of the people. They sacrifice their life to not participate in such discussions. Why? The threat of a protector speaking out one's opinion is enough to consider them as dangerous (instead of unbiasedly protective). Any such notion contributes the idea that force can be used to corrupt and not words. The protectors wear blue clothing to denote their societal role.

Since they have lost their free speech and some privileges of a citizen, they are entitled to the following:
* Recognition and respect for their service by the people.
* "Marriage" permits a protector to reveal their political thoughts to their partner. However, the partner may only use what they say as influence and not citeable (it must be as if it was the partner's original idea).

Those wearing red denote medical, maintaining the health of the citizens. Any one of these members can perform general medical duties, such as First Aid,<ref>Should every citizen know First Aid? If we are placing more importance on benefiting the society than personal choice, then yes. But there ought to be good reasons to make this knowledge mandatory.</ref> but the color refers to being specialized in a form of medicine (surgical, psychological, et cetera).

Should there be a 3rd member of this society? One that cannot participate due to natural ineligibility (mental illness, disorders, et cetera). They still get the benefits, but do not have a say. Unsure, I imagine their opinions (if controversial or not well thought out) would commonly be dismissed (on the idea itself, not by the person).

Any person who willingly commits to obeying a set of fundamental rules and has not been permanently banned is granted citizenship. Citizenship provide rights and power. Citizenship may be revoked by consensus of the people (would be reserved for extreme cases).

===Notes===
<references/>

Main Page

2026-09-08T17:34:46Z

TranqyPoo: