On the nature of alliance leadership structure

[Foltest]

I see a lot of threads talking about not wanting this world to turn into another - due to the stagnation of said otherworld. I've seen mention that mechanics play a large part, keeping older nations out of reach of newer groups in a perpetual cycle that can never be broken except from within (which it will never be since it's in the self-interest of the old nations to stick together). I've seen mention that the notion of treaties play a large part, ever-complicating our world in the interest of avoiding or mitigating the damage caused by a war.

 

However - outside of the proper discussion threads - there's no point to debating the mechanics.

 

Other than creating a 'culture' of less-paper-more-war, there's not much to be done about the treaties for the most part. Although I'm sure some could force treaty cancellations as a result of war but to encourage the winning side to become more powerful seems counter-intuitive to the idea of competition.

 

 

 

 

Another such piece I've seen mentioned that I feel like is easily changed with perhaps the largest impact: The actual people who have traditionally lead the groups of the otherworld for years. Some out of desire to maintain their personal power, some out of necessity to hold the mantle of leadership because none else would carry it.

 

Calling on these power-mongers to resign is like calling to the wind to stop. So I'd rather critically analyze the systems in place. The idea that alliances are a necessary grouping is de facto in nation sims at this point. We work together, we win together, we lose together. However, many people also consider autocracy to be the de facto system to use to govern these alliances - asking us to not only surrender our individual will but also take away a portion or all of our income, to be entirely determined by the governing body with varying degrees of input from the members. I believe these systems of closed-door governance, in the name of efficiency, have limited involvement in one of the most intriguing parts of the game - the politics.

 

To all those in power now - I urge you to consider a more transparent and interactive form of alliance governance. I'm not dumb enough to believe people will flip to democratic forms of government on a whim - you can't sacrifice your competitive edge to satisfy every desire of every member. That's fine if you wish to play that way. But simply consider this - the enjoyment we glean from being part of the true political game. Would you play if you couldn't be involved? If we want more people to be active, we have to involve them in the most active part of the game: Politics.

[Vosunda]

Speak for yourself.

 

Sparta is bloody transparent.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Sounds like revisionism to me! 

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

I believe these systems of closed-door governance, in the name of efficiency, have limited involvement in one of the most intriguing parts of the game - the politics.

 

To all those in power now - I urge you to consider a more transparent and interactive form of alliance governance. I'm not dumb enough to believe people will flip to democratic forms of government on a whim - you can't sacrifice your competitive edge to satisfy every desire of every member. That's fine if you wish to play that way. But simply consider this - the enjoyment we glean from being part of the true political game. Would you play if you couldn't be involved? If we want more people to be active, we have to involve them in the most active part of the game: Politics.

Oi m(5+3), thing is we've already been seeing alliances splinter off from bigger alliances. Those with the will and drive to get the most involvement form alliances. Some of which are successful and some that aren't. The rest just join whatever positions are available in an alliance.

[SoS]

Arrgh is one of the few alliances that do something similar to your proposal for the convenience of the raiders.

 

There's a few problems with a serious alliance doing what you propose. "Serious" meaning the alliance has FA and builds an economy.

 

1. There's work to be done that few people are willing and able to do.

 

2. You can't trust anyone and everyone to officer access.

 

3. Opsec goes out the window when everyone knows the plan.

 

4. Nothing gets done when it requires a herd of cats to come to a consensus.

 

That being said, I like your train of thought and it has been shown to be effective in the rare cases it is plausable. You just have to overcome a number of problems to make it work. We may see more of it in the future now that many people have developed or carried over trust.

 

To be clear, do you propose a change in mechanics or in playstyle? I gather it's playstyle.

[Crust]

To me it's evident that most people don't want to play in a completely democratic alliance, because it inevitable means they all have a responsibility to put in work on the matter. If they thought the work was worth it they'd have either been given the position or made their own alliance. Which is what's happening already.

 

But that's not to say that an alliance can't be transparent just because it's autocratic.

[Ole]

The thing is, like i've stated before, The more autocratic and dictatorial the alliance structure is in theory, the more democratic it can afford to be in practise, and the reverse, for example: TEst is alot more Democratic than UPN, in UPN(atlest when i was there, i have been told it just got worse after tho) almost noone knew anything, only the very top knew the plan untill the last secound, and even after things were done, the membership never got the full story. In TEst we more or less share everything with everyone, theres a mild discussion about what to do, and then its done. efficent and democratic, we all know whose incharge and we all know that we'll be heard. This can be argued to have more with our requritment policy, but our system of governance factors in aswell, eliminating powerstuggles, elections and the need to lie to the membership rather effectively. 

[greatkitteh]

The thing is, like i've stated before, The more autocratic and dictatorial the alliance structure is in theory, the more democratic it can afford to be in practise, and the reverse, for example: TEst is alot more Democratic than UPN, in UPN(atlest when i was there, i have been told it just got worse after tho) almost noone knew anything, only the very top knew the plan untill the last secound, and even after things were done, the membership never got the full story. In TEst we more or less share everything with everyone, theres a mild discussion about what to do, and then its done. efficent and democratic, we all know whose incharge and we all know that we'll be heard. This can be argued to have more with our requritment policy, but our system of governance factors in aswell, eliminating powerstuggles, elections and the need to lie to the membership rather effectively.

In UPN, there probably is a bigger risk of spying involved considering the alliance is huge. A better comparison could be GPA since there would hardly be spying there.

 

Then again, I never joined other alliances so I might sound like a north korean.

Edited March 28, 2016 by greatkitteh

[Buorhann]

-snip-

 

It's easier to maintain information with small alliances compared to larger ones.  Easier to hunt down leaks if they happen in a smaller alliance.

[Auctor]

Can't imagine why Holton's access to information on a higher level might be restricted by any alliance.

[Avruch]

Mensa's government is elected by members every three months. Where does that fall on your spectrum of democratic alliances? 

[Foltest]

Each alliance has their own brand and their own system. New blood is always needed to keep upper level politics interesting but I wasn't advocating democratically electing leaders.

 

Each group has their own way that they can keep members interested and informed.

[Keegoz]

In Rose it is more of a, if you ask then you'll likely be told kinda thing.

 

Unless I think it is too opsec to be public knowledge.

[Prefontaine]

In Rose it is more of a, if you ask then you'll likely be told kinda thing.

 

Unless I think it is too opsec to be public knowledge.

 

Then there's also the Abbas clause. 

 

EDIT: Forgot to address the OP.

 

I've often said longevity comes from a fun system taken advantage of by the players. It's up to the admin to create a fun, fair system for us to play our stupid political games in. It's up to us to not let our stupid political games ruin the game by creating a boring, uninteresting environment. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by Prefontaine

[greatkitteh]

Mensa's government is elected by members every three months. Where does that fall on your spectrum of democratic alliances?

Exepect Preffier acts as supreme dictator of Mensa.

[Senatorius]

From.... sparta.... we are all under an oppressive regime.... need help... no telling if or when seabass will see this... might be my last...

[Buorhann]

Exepect Preffier Vanek acts as supreme dictator of Mensa.

 

Yeah, he's a dick.

[greatkitteh]

Post removed by the United Purple Nations Elite

[Pfeiffer]

Exepect Preffier acts as supreme dictator of Mensa.

 

Yeah, he's a dick.

 

He had it right the first time.

[seabasstion]

From.... sparta.... we are all under an oppressive regime.... need help... no telling if or when seabass will see this... might be my last...

 

come here boy!

[Kurdanak]

Unless I think it is too opsec to be public knowledge.

In which case, we inform our members through a routine of public leaks.

[greatkitteh]

He had it right the first time.

Post removed by MensaHQ Truth Dioist PEOPLES censorship organazaion

[kalev60]

While OP might be right on the trend of more autocratic AA's being the popular way to go on these kind of nation sims, forcing a shift to more democratic governance isn't truly an option either. Variety is a charm,having options is a luxury, it adds to the game, to FA, to general interest levels on how these alliances come together or fall apart, it makes political landscape more interesting. Imagine a world were all AA's on Orbis would operate on democratic ways, 3 month long debates and polls on whether to declare a war, sign a treaty or even raid a nation. Does that sound fun to you?

Edited April 4, 2016 by kalev60

[Olivert Reise Arnor]

From what I understand, membership in an alliance is voluntary. I know that I have not joined one myself. I imagine that, if one is unhappy with the opportunities presented to them in their current alliance, then they can simply join another one.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Julius