Jump to content

Democratic Vs Dictatorial Alliances


greatkitteh
 Share

Recommended Posts

UPNers of all people should know democracy sucks. Look at where it got you :v

This is funny coming from someone who would complain and complain but refuse to get in government and make the change she wanted. I love the bashing on the democracy you refused to make a difference in. So critical of government post-war yet so willing to continue to let other people lead. You represent the existantial problem with democracies.

  • Upvote 1

Contact me if you have questions, concerns, or just want to chat. I have an open door policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends. If a dictatorial alliance has a very stupid (AKA IQ=1) leader, the alliances is doomed to fail. If a dictatorial alliance has a smart leader (AKA IQ=160), it's obvious that it's going to succeed. Democractic alliances............51% of the members would have to have IQ of 120 or above in order to be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is funny coming from someone who would complain and complain but refuse to get in government and make the change she wanted. I love the bashing on the democracy you refused to make a difference in. So critical of government post-war yet so willing to continue to let other people lead. You represent the existantial problem with democracies.

here is logic!

 

ignores what she says!

 

respond with personal attack!

 

maybe she right if you argue like that???!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is funny coming from someone who would complain and complain but refuse to get in government and make the change she wanted. I love the bashing on the democracy you refused to make a difference in. So critical of government post-war yet so willing to continue to let other people lead. You represent the existantial problem with democracies.

Let the flame war begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends. If a dictatorial alliance has a very stupid (AKA IQ=1) leader, the alliances is doomed to fail. If a dictatorial alliance has a smart leader (AKA IQ=160), it's obvious that it's going to succeed. Democractic alliances............51% of the members would have to have IQ of 120 or above in order to be successful.

Fortunately 100% of our members have an IQ over 130.

  • Upvote 4

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So having elections to determine who gets a Gov position is a display of democracy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well !@#$ me, Mensa is a dirty, goddam, Democratic Alliance!  I didn't sign up for this shit...

Yes, I'm not sure how that can even be debated. A free election process where any member of the alliance can run for a government position is a characteristic of a democracy. I'm not saying that makes the entire alliance a democracy, but that means the alliance in question contains democratic elements. 

https://i.imgur.com/Jg0gWBo.mp4

 

You're actually reading this?

"Trade-ever trade and the increasing of their fortunes- seems to have occupied their minds above all else."[/center]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is funny coming from someone who would complain and complain but refuse to get in government and make the change she wanted. I love the bashing on the democracy you refused to make a difference in. So critical of government post-war yet so willing to continue to let other people lead. You represent the existantial problem with democracies.

Oh please, you know how much I've tried to get things going in the past. I've been bothering hans since alpha in a couple of cases (that I deemed dire enough to warrant me bothering. Won't spill here because reasons), but nothing was ever done. I'm pretty damn sure even he already forgot. Someone can only care for so long before enough is enough.

 

Also, implying the elections was never rigged at all. Don't tell me you never noticed the bribes going behind the screen in the last election :v

UedhRvY.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you on about mate, Rose is basically dictatorship under glorious Emperor Cailou. I mean the charter has democratic elements to it, but in practise these serve more as guidelines. The most obvious example is the charter states we must elect an Emperor, but in practise most of the Emperors have just been picked by the previous one, usually stepping up from the position of Regent. Cailou was elected, and Angelus might have been but I can't remember. Electing or Impeaching the Emperor is the only real democratic part of Rose, all power belongs to the Emperor, and the Lords Cabinet through powers granted by the Emperor.

For reference as Emperors we've had Pubstomper (Cailou I) -> Angelus -> Kurdnak -> Keegoz -- Election > Cailou II

 

The Emperor holds basically absolute power, but the system works because of the culture of Rose.

Indeedy. I like our system a lot. The only alliance I've seen widespread democracy work in is the GPA, because there's really not much else to do there. /o\
  • Upvote 2
xzhPlEh.png?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benevolent Despotism > All.

 

Indeedy. I like our system a lot. The only alliance I've seen widespread democracy work in is the GPA, because there's really not much else to do there. /o\

 

Didn't notice this until now. I have no idea if you're referring to P&W GPA or (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) GPA but ultimately it's irrelevant as the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) GPA is even more rotten and scornworthy (they'd had years to practice I guess). 

To start with GPA does not practice widespread democracy; Grillick, Don Juan, and others all stated as such and it's true enough. It's a democracy until someone goes against the grain and then suddenly certain things can't democratically be decided. Leaders cultivate members to be in essence religious fundamentalists for the religion of neutrality and fight anyone not part of it until they run them out. 

The absence of things to do doesn't as you put it promote good democracy, instead it promotes a one party state (well one idea I should say) and the taking out of anyone who stands against it. 

 

Of course you talk of your own experiences and I can't dispute them, but I mean of course the GPA would be a beacon of greatness in the eyes of yourself and others like Belisarius... for obvious reasons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience "Democratic" alliances with democratic charters and elections and stuff less democratic than dictatorial alliances. 

 

There seems to be more of a gennerall debate and trust in the "less" demorcratic alliances, and more of a top down rule in the Democratic alliances. 

  • Upvote 1

Ole2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In another game, I was in an alliance called Dictators United. We were a micro alliance, but we pretty much ignited a world war... Twice. (Both times due to stupidity, but whatever.) I have to say DU was the most underrated alliance. 

Bloc Party did some damage and they were an autocratic alliance. 

 

I have to say autocratic alliances are the best. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember you! Weren't you one of the people that jumped ship when the water got a bit treacherous?

 

lol what? I fought an assload of people in that war, and Atzuya was easily the toughest one who fought the hardest, despite being hit by 3 people as strong or stronger than him while he was fighting a bunch of offensive wars.

 

The idea that he jumped ship (during the war at least) is laughable.

wF9Bjre.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you on about mate, Rose is basically dictatorship under glorious Emperor Cailou. I mean the charter has democratic elements to it, but in practise these serve more as guidelines. The most obvious example is the charter states we must elect an Emperor, but in practise most of the Emperors have just been picked by the previous one, usually stepping up from the position of Regent. Cailou was elected, and Angelus might have been but I can't remember. Electing or Impeaching the Emperor is the only real democratic part of Rose, all power belongs to the Emperor, and the Lords Cabinet  through powers granted by the Emperor. 

For reference as Emperors we've had Pubstomper (Cailou I) -> Angelus -> Kurdnak -> Keegoz -- Election > Cailou II

 

The Emperor holds basically absolute power, but the system works because of the culture of Rose.

It's generally held (Or at least in my case) where the Emperor cannot decide who from the lords should become the next Emperor. So when I stepped down Caillou and Belisarius ran for Emperor, you are then elected for life. Rose is more of a oligarchy, which is good because the only people who should be in-charge of making decisions are the ones who at least know what is going on.

  • Upvote 2

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's generally held (Or at least in my case) where the Emperor cannot decide who from the lords should become the next Emperor. So when I stepped down Caillou and Belisarius ran for Emperor, you are then elected for life. Rose is more of a oligarchy, which is good because the only people who should be in-charge of making decisions are the ones who at least know what is going on.

 

That's nearly exactly what we do. Only difference is we have that election beforehand, so the successor is known.

 

i.e. The King doesn't pick his successor, the Small Council does. They pick the KH, he auto takes over when the King steps down. Once you're King you're King for life.

 

Generally seems to have worked pretty well for us over the last 5 years. Oligarchy ftw.

wF9Bjre.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol what? I fought an assload of people in that war, and Atzuya was easily the toughest one who fought the hardest, despite being hit by 3 people as strong or stronger than him while he was fighting a bunch of offensive wars.

 

The idea that he jumped ship (during the war at least) is laughable.

I don't even know the gender of this person anymore. You called the player a "he" the other called the player a "she" nonetheless, this is my exact reply to a similar comment. "I never denied her contribution during the war, I wasn't even referring to war. You did."

Edited by Kelson

https://i.imgur.com/Jg0gWBo.mp4

 

You're actually reading this?

"Trade-ever trade and the increasing of their fortunes- seems to have occupied their minds above all else."[/center]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think either system is superior. Though dictatorships tend to not have as much internal political drama.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to not disrespect the UPN'ers who have heavily contributed to the alliance in the past, even if they are trying to make cheap remarks.

 

As for the topic, in my opinion neither absolute of an authoritarian or democratic government is going to be effective in this game. Each has it's own pros and cons, and you need to strike a balance -- which will be different for all alliances depending on a number of factors. I don't think any significant alliance in P&W is strictly either (even if they define themselves to be), and it will just be a matter of a degree. 

 

In UPN's case (being a mass-member alliance with a significant (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) community core but many new members joining all the time) I think a democracy is beneficial to make sure that members feel engaged and involved. We want there to be a clear and transparent path of progression. At the same time we have to remain conscious of the fact that sometimes the full "democratic process" isn't efficient in certain cases, and there needs to be room for figures in leadership positions to have the authority to make a quick decision. And there are other challenges that come with democracy, such as ensuring that it doesn't turn into a popularity contest, and the right people are getting elected for the positions. So we try to strike a balance that suits our needs and situation. And of course it's an always evolving structure, as we implement changes to learn from our past mistakes. 

 

And at the end of the day even the "authoritarian" leaders are accountable to their members, and members essentially pledge their vote of support by staying in that alliance, and any good leader will listen and regularly consult their members when making decisions.

 

tl;dr there is no universal right or wrong, but its very dependent on several alliance defining factors.

Edited by Saru
  • Upvote 1

200px-UPN.svg.png

Second in Command of UPN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.