Charles Bolivar

You had to, imagine the reaction if you hadn't 🤣

Just imagine if memberships declared war on their govs for merging without proper consultation and discussion 🤔

This is just too good

Wait what. So if I am reading this right...a merger was pushed through without much consultation with your own members, and then you attacked your own former members when a few of them formed their own AA and discussed with their own friends about joining them in this new AA. At the same time considering these same members were given no choice in the matter or were barely informed of the merger at all? Do you think you "own" the members of your alliance? 🤔

Jesus, it's like I've met my doppelganger. Fine points dear sir. Fine points indeed. I would just like to add that much of the criticism aimed at democracy in games such as PnW and CN comes down to the notion of elections and how they are typically misused and/or abused. The typical "democratic" alliances are pretty much nothing more than the usual tried and tested elitist alliance model where instead of meritocracy (nepotism most of the time), we have the veneer of democracy disguising yet again another elitist model where a few key individuals with the right connections make the decisions as per their own interests and thoughts. Very rarely do we see an outsider come in and shake things up in either the typical meritocracy or the so called democratic AAs. Most of the time it's just easier to form a new AA and avoid the trouble of debating it out with the gov of an alliance. But back to elections. Sure, the leaders of an alliance have been elected, and that's the issue. The same bunch with the same guiding ethos tend to be elected over and over and they tend to make decisions which cater to their own interests be it treaties, taxation, government structure etc. How many of these so called democracies actually put the actual decisions to a vote? How many gov leaders considering a taxation change actually put the proposal to their members, give them the relevant information and likely benefits to arise from such a taxation change and let them make the decision? Not many I believe. So what's my point? It's not elections which make a democracy but adherence to the principles of democracy which matter. Namely collaborative and consultative practices, open and transparent discussion and genuine efforts to build consensus. Also, I also find the logic that "democracies don't work in this game because the few AAs to have attempted it have all failed" to be particularly amusing. I reckon at least 95% of the alliances claiming to be merit based have also failed, some spectacularly so, but you don't see anyone using that logic against them. Indeed, a few of the alliances I've been in over the years which employed the utilisation of democratic principles have been pretty successful. Early tS (as partisan will know) was quite democratic internally in its outlook with most of the old guard and experienced members, even outside of gov, being involved in the discussion making progress with their viewpoints often making a difference to the final decision reached. Arrgh is another example, perhaps the best for that matter. Sure, they don't fit the traditional mould of a democratic AA but their adherence to members having considerably more say in how their alliance operates, individual decision making power and open transparency sets them as pretty unique in this game. I doubt very strongly anyone could make a reasonable case to say arrgh hasn't been successful, indeed, they have outlived easy 95% (probably closer to 99% if I must be honest) of the alliances in this game. So yeah, in short, I don't believe effective democracies are inherently inferior. I do believe they are harder to achieve, implement and maintain but I also believe a fully functioning democratic AA employing democratic principles is inherently superior in every category to the traditional meritocracy model. A knowledgeable and active membership base engaged with their alliance's direction, passionate about their alliance's interests because they have a real stake in the alliance prospering? That's unbeatable and no cookie cutter elitist model alliance with a majority of their alliance membership excluded from the decision making process with little stake in the alliance's success will ever be able to match that level of engagement.

See you in about a year my old companero 👍

Is it still a horde if there is only one member? 🤔

Well that's the thing, decisions have to be justifiable to both your own member base and the larger community too. Rogue alliances doing as they please will quickly run into particular difficulties in that aspect which has also historically been the case in this game.

Treaties, whether they exist on paper or not, act only as manifestations of the FA work which occurs behind the scenes. It's the relationship between two alliances what counts, not the presence of a visible or invisible agreement or treaty. Alliance sovereignty 101 right there.

Read what im saying. I said minimise risks, not take no risks. Read, ponder and comprehend 👍 You are confusing pointing out faults in logic with complaining. Whether accidentally or deliberately I don't know. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was accidentally. What reason do I have to complain about after all? We won by simply employing a better FA strategy. One which I hope tS will return to moving forward given it did to a large extent guide its first few years of existence. Quite successfully too I might add. Like surely you have to be wondering why you lost? You can't just lay the blame at our doors and accuse us of being nasty lying so and so's. We amassed greater numbers across a coalition with widely varying beliefs in an attempt to curb a potential threat which did us all a favour in attacking a few of us in the end. That's our role in this, you need to consider your own role in this too, however, and think on the reasons why such a coalition was able to be built in the first place. Reflect on the reasons for the loss, ponder on options moving forward and implement solutions. Or don't 🤷‍♂️

You mean a toxic environment like the last few conflicts which were steeped in the failure of creating multispheres without the faintest shred of success? The notion of minispheres is much akin to the outdated notion of 19th and 20th communism in that sense. In an ideal world it makes perfect sense, but we don't live in an ideal world sadly. We live in the real world governed by human personality, and the human condition precludes the notion of an artificially created multisphere system. Now if we had a multisphere system which developed out of genuine beliefs and feelings where alliances and spheres refused to work with each other out of genuine ideological divisions, that would work. But like I've said now, whilst possible, it's possible but also unlikely. After all, we were just in a coalition which included the commonwealth after we attacked them only a few months earlier, I would have fully expected commonwealth to refuse to assist us in any manner whatsoever but hey, a common cause against a potential common threat temporarily united us. If that doesn't act as enough evidence to support the notion that artificially created multispheres is a foolish concept then I don't know what is.

I suppose we have differing thoughts on what good FA is 🤷‍♂️ I view it as maintaining the collective security of an alliance and placing the alliance in an effective position to achieve its goals. You apparently believe FA's goal is creating a fun atmosphere by placing your own members in losing conflicts by creating unnecessary risk. The goal is to minimise risk, not walk blindly into it and just say "hey, we are being rolled but this is fun right?". You can do that as an ordinary member all you want, but as a member of an alliance gov ( a gov I was once a minor player in before your time for that matter), you simply can't place the collective wellbeing of the entire AA at risk over a whimsical wish. Least I think so anyway 🤷‍♂️

It's also incredibly naive.

So you regard the creation and maintaining of multispheres to be a greater cause than the wellbeing of your own alliance ? Would you willingly allow your own alliance to be rolled solely due to maintaining an artificially created minisphere?

So you would be ok with your leadership willingly allowing your alliance to be rolled in the pursuit of maintaining an "artificial" multisphere when it could make common cause with potential allies against a common foe? I think not. If I was a member of an alliance and my FA leader said " hey, we could have teamed up with so and so to combat the enemy but we said no, because we wanted to keep multispheres because of my own personal ideology and that is why you are all rolled," I'd be asking for that FA leader's resignation. Any divide between multispheres has to be ideological to the extent that they refuse to assist each other at all. It's possible but unlikely, hence why the notion of multispheres as its currently portrayed is inherently flawed.

I don't know if you will make them again. That's up to you lot, you might make entirely new ones after all? 🤷‍♂️ The issue with microspheres is that people get caught in a trap of arguing for or against their merits when the truth is much more simple. "Planned" microspheres are nothing more than foolish delusions which have no logical basis on reality since any divisions between the spheres are artificially created and therefore aren't real. For a true multisphere system to arise, spheres have to be seperated by deep ideological differences which no common cause can unite across, which is extremely difficult I admit. It's possible but unlikely in my books. People can argue about planned multispheres all day if they want, they might as well argue about unicorns, the lochness monster or other fantastical beasts if they prefer because it's entirely a waste of time. They are simply illogical at the end of the day 🤷‍♂️

Creating little spheres each with their carefully regulated boundaries with the same leaders and alliances in charge which go to war every so often rehashing very same arguments over and over is the the very nature of boring. I'd rather take on and defeat a hegemon instead. That's way more fun. Why did you deviate though?

The perception of power, even without it being exercised, often leads a fear that it may be exercised in the future. Any good FA person worth their salt recognises this and prepares for it accordingly. It's why I don't see the big deal about this fuss that various alliances in "our" coalition prepared for such a possibility to occur which did eventually come to pass. Any good FA person recognises this principle and utilises it. We can of course say tS declared because they got wind of the coalition "forming" but then it becomes a chicken or egg scenario when the truth is simply much simpler. It's the rules of the game. Conflict between competing power spheres is inevitable along with the formation of coalitions based around roughly similar interests. It's always been that way and it always will be that way. And tbh, if you want to act hegemonic, do it. If you don't, then don't. Hegemonies via the exercise of hegemonic power often create the very dissent which brings them down, potential hegemonies are often nipped in the bud before they reach a more authoritative level. The exercise of power, of the perception of power in certain instances, invites challenge. Defeat is inevitable in this game at the end of the day. So do what you can to delay the inevitable if you have the ability to do so 🤷‍♂️

I'd argue placing artificial limits on your own expansion is suicidal in its own right to be honest. The game will, and historically has for that matter, corrected itself when imbalances in power occur. We are in our I suppose 4th or 5th era of a differing sphere being the top power and the result is always the same. An alliance or sphere gets powerful, acts as the ruling power before it all eventually falls apart. At the end of the day, it's not your job to curb your own influence and growth, that job belongs to the opposition and that is precisely what happened here.

Much better.

Return to your older and more successful ways. You know it's the only reasonable option going forward.

Some of us change, some of us don't and just become what we were always meant to be 👍 No scheming since knightfall? You are getting sentimental in your old age indeed. Perhaps you have stumbled upon the real issue at hand?

Can confirm, however, I will add partisan also offered his own resignation to these of us in the tS old guard and the alliance in general if I remember correctly. Impero's timing with his subtle demands that partisan step down changed the narrative entirely though 🤣 Alas, the good ol days..

Yes, I was quite surprised by the path that you took tbh. Becoming a tad sentimental in old age are we? 🤔 Careful though, considering options is somehow akin to planning out a war these days I am told.

I'd have more respect for quack if they had attempted to sideline rose and swamp to be honest. That would be a shrewd, and logical for that matter, piece of FA work if you had attempted and achieved it. Certainly worthy of respect. Instead all we got was 6 weeks of victim narratives about dogpiles and moral grandstanding.