Kadin

Pretty good advice here. It's easy to be tempted to hand out government positions just to fill the spots, but that's really not the best way to go about it. Noir, for example, only has three current government members: Me, Jodo and Conroy. The Triumvirate. Does that mean we don't have any other positions or members we could give them to? Not at all. It just means that we haven't filled the positions. We're not in any particular rush to do so because we feel good about getting the work done with just us three, and want to make sure the government we select can be trusted to stay long-term and do their job effectively.

I think the bigger question here is why the protectorate wasn't secured in advance, and in private. Generally, I would say that if you can't secure a protectorate for free, then you might not be in the ideal position to build an alliance from scratch in the first place.

Please don't do this. OBL is a massive waste of money and time, and I don't want it connected to the city stadiums in any way. Ever.

Ministers are supposed to be specialists. They are supposed to be experts in their field, so to speak. You don't get that when you elect them. They have to be appointed. For what purpose? If the council's approval is required to do anything (especially treaties or war declarations,) then you might as well not even bother. It will be a disaster. I can guarantee that. If the council has no actual power, then fine, but don't pretend that it serves a purpose. Everything else here seems pretty obvious, and won't really make or break a democratic alliance.

Democracy produces poor leadership choices. It truly is a popularity contest, and just because you vote your friend into office doesn't mean he's going to be the right man for the job. Even in really active alliances, some of the people I have observed being elected or nominated to run for election are truly mind-boggling. At the end of the day the bottom line is simple. When you choose a leader based on the democratic process you are not necessarily choosing the best man for the job. You are choosing the most popular person. This is an important distinction, and a lot of people don't seem to realize it.

Oh, please. As if that had anything to do with it.

You conveniently forgot this one. This is clearly the highlight. And I am a vastly better option than Pre has ever been if this is what you're looking for in a leader. That's a fact. Prefontaine, I hate to break it to you, but every time I have had the misfortune of entering government when you left it, we have had to clean up your mess. The fact is that, without people outside of the alliance liking you personally, you have no redeeming features as a leader. You don't build or grow alliances. You are pretty much a frontrunner through and through, and without that advantage of being popular you fall flat on your face. You put people in positions where they will thrive.. Right.. that's why you made sasha and baraboo MoW. It has nothing to do with the fact that you wanted "yes men," I'm sure. You can say it, but that doesn't make it true. Even if people who wouldn't know any better happen to believe it. At the end of the day, Pre, you have never been as great as people tell you you are. It's a shame you've allowed the undeserved praise to get to your head so much, because your results simply don't match up. Guardian was feared under your most recent period of leadership because they had old nations with lots of score, and any alliance that had been around for as long as Guardian had in this game would have had the same. When other alliances started actually growing and improving, then Guardian got left behind. That's just the reality of what happened. You can have your little groupies and followers all you want to lick your balls, but it doesn't make you any good at these games. As always I will let the results speak for themselves. It sure would be nice if others would be more skeptical of all of your hype.

Not in the first triumvirate period, but in the second, yeah. With three leaders democracy isn't as much of an issue because there are more chances of getting it right. With a single leader it's hit or miss.

When I led Guardian in the Triumvirates we were much more successful. We had friends, won wars, and grew/improved as an alliance. The haters can deny it all they want but those are the facts. Every war Guardian has lost has been under someone else's watch, typically during periods of Democratic rule.

If you consider relying on old nations with lots of score results then sure. As far as actually building an alliance? Nope. That's why it fell apart so fast in his absence.

I wouldn't even give you a Minister spot. You do nothing particularly well and rely on popularity contests to gain and maintain influence. On the other hand, I am all about results. That's why it's so funny to me when someone like you tries to criticize. You truly do not even see reality.

I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is then I suppose it is fitting. I hope they've learned that, when you choose to shun your best option repeatedly, perhaps it won't always be the case that the one you've shunned will be happily willing to pick up the scraps of what remains. At the end of the day it was democracy that gave role players the impression that they were superstars. That was a basketball reference, by the way, not an attack on hodor. I don't even know hodor.

You don't just try to pee-emptively solve problems that don't currently exist. I find it highly unlikely that this will become such an issue that such a drastic change to game mechanics will be necessary.

I blame democracy for Guardian's decline.

That NAP should be gone by now IIRC. Here's the thread. http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5977-the-nap-heard-round-the-world/ It was posted on the 23rd of April, about 3 months and 3 days ago.

I think this is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, and offers no benefit.

Wait. Did the OP seriously just call John McCain a progressive?

Does bank looting work with applicants? If so, then I agree, that should be changed.

Technically I was replaced by McHenry, aka the guy whose job I took in the first place. I feel pretty good about it. Anyway, I was just trying to make a point about how silly you all sound talking tough on the forums when you know you won't do anything about it. Not trying to sign BoC or anyone else up for a conflict, although I wouldn't mind the increased gas prices if a war did break out.

Shouldn't this stuff be in the national affairs board or w/e?

Don't mind me, just fishing for likes. Everyone pls like this post.

You have to pay the access fee of 2 million to make a team. It can be sent directly to my nation.

Just ignore him. He's trying to get a response from people.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment and say those are some pretty tough words from an alliance that knows it doesn't have the power to roll BoC and allies. I'm obviously referring to Mensa here. You guys gonna put up or shut up?

Had to give Morgan something, I'm sure, to seal the deal on the merger.