"If the group is run to the satisfaction of the group the way They want it there is no reason to change it.

It's like someone stepping down just for the hell of it. If the group is run like people want it changing it simply not needed.
It's not power hungry to want to keep your people happy. Their happiness matters. Bring in a bunch of outsiders to take over for you and change the system into something your people are not interested in is just going to cause strife.

Ultimately what your people want matter. If they are against it and you plow through you would get demoted. Not in a good way."

"What if they are radically different? HIstory has shown us what happens when two totally different peoples are forced to live side by side - it usually ends in death.

By all means if we have common ground and get on then I'd welcome the union etc but otherwise we'll keep on our side and they can keep on theirs."

"Pedro you ask why everyone would not want to join in one big group and survive together? Why doesn't Canada want to join the US, why isn't South America one big happy country, why did the United States of Central America crumble? The answer is simple they are sovereign and different they have their own ideas their own culture most importantly their own identity. That is the reason in this scenario we have multiple faction they are all from different areas and have developed into their own, and wish to be their own that is why we have different factions. Yours and theirs is completely different from another, just because they are trying to survive doesn't mean they will be willing to sacrifice their identity for that. Also their respective governments would prefer to remain in control they wouldn't want to share their flock with you if it meant losing more of their power."

"We aren't talking about countries, which have a history, a shared identity and a well defined structure and sense of self. These are bands of survivors who likely did not know each other pre-Z and have banded together for survival. They number in the tens and hundreds, not tens of hundreds and hundreds of thousands. They come from societies which are used to having modern conveniences, large societies with access to a wide variety of skills.

In this scenario they have been established for just four years, but even if they had been going for a decade, the chance to expand and consolidate the gains of each group is too good of an opportunity to pass up. Communities that size lack the diversity to thrive for long.

Has it not occured to you why the US is called exactly that? Because despite having fifty states with diffferent ideas, the common interests are what make the US worth anything. If instead the 13 colonies had stayed separate, America would be as disparate as Africa.

If two groups can band together and the food supply is sustainable, they are far better off together than alone."

"Economy is quite natural as well, barter is natural economy. You're absolutely right on the economy point though, which is pretty much why I didn't change the system in place in the scenario, which is essentially a semi-barter system in reality. The "currency" can only really buy one thing, food from the state, so it seemed obvious to me that barter was how the rest of the economy functioned."

"Pedro I'm only criticizing you because I'm worried very much, that you and your dozen or so people will just try to walk up to some king with a 1000 man strong army and tell him that he should give up his power just so you can unite into one big happy family. Afterwords he/she will probably just laugh and send you on your way if your lucky, at worst you'll be lynched by your ball sack and set on fire. So really Pedro just because this is the apocalypse doesn't mean everybody would want to unite and work together. There will be plenty of groups that have sovereignty and the idea of being absorbed wouldn't appeal to them."

"You never fail to give a detailed, well thought through answer Pedro but you forget that most people have a different logic to you. Do you think we would have these stupid conflicts if everyone had your logic?

Don't get me wrong Pedro I'm no idiot. If my little "Enclave" are living like the ancient Britons in mud huts and dressed in rags and next door was Pre war Pedroville with running power, electricity etc then I'd want in. But I can just see people's logic clouded with fear and being desperate for an answer or leader that makes sense of what has happened leaving you're ideas to fall on death ears or on the tips of their spears..."

""People will view any influx of new faces as the chance to find someone to spend post-Z with."

No they won't. They will look at the group they belong to first then make a call. May be positive or negative but people won't just go "Oh new people." and completely ignore the fact where those new people come from.

"Actually they sound very similar to how I would have handled things from the beginning."

Yes and your way sounds very unappealing. Why would a tight knit group (who once again is doing fine without you) want to be dissolved into a group that is not at all like them?
For new people? Not enough when you factor in the complications.

"It sounds like they would be wary of merging, particularly with a larger group, but the benefits of merging outweigh the deficits. Safety, security, community. 85 people isn't long-term sustainable."

They have safety and security and if they wanted community they would have stepped forward before.

One cannot deny your logic Pedro but just because it's logical does not mean people will go along with it.
Not everyone will have the New People Equals Nothing But Good mindset you have. I will definitly be one of them."

"1: It's not "Nothing But Good". The first encounter with strangers is going to be approached warily, slowly and with the expectation of violence. Raiders, anyone?

But after the initial meeting, why wouldn't you view new people who (a) are not going to attack you (b) want the same things as you (c) and are in fact just like you (I don't buy this whole "Not at all like them" bollocks)

1: As for "if they wanted community they would have stepped forward before" maybe they did. In the scenario messages go unanswered for months, who says some haven't been missed or ignored completely? Maybe the fact that the scenario city is in such a bad state is reason not to. But if it were well run, and people were happy, then anyone would be inclined to become part of it."