Arrghism, a governing philosophy

[Ogaden]

In another lifetime I have been in bureaucratic alliances, both democratic and undemocratic, and there are four underlying features that most "traditional" alliances have:

Defined ministries (finance, war, internal affairs, foreign affairs)
Defined government roles and portfolio limiting ministers to a particular area.

Meritocratic promotion style governance where you work your way up via a particular ministry.

Orders-based mobilization of members, where independent action is prohibited or discouraged.

I will explain why all of these features are inefficient and damaging. In any given alliance, regardless of whether it is an elite alliance or a mass alliance, there are a limited number of people who are interested in alliance government. Within that limited number of people, there are an even more limited number of people who are competent and capable of being alliance government, and among those, a limited number who will be active in governing at any one time.

 

When I say active in governing I don't mean active as in they log in everyday, but are actively pursuing alliance goals (coming up with guides, planning wars, talking to other alliances about common interests, etc). Your best government people are probably not running your alliance right now, the smartest people in your alliance probably don't want to run the alliance, and just want to play and lurk in the background.  Alliance charters are written as though everyone is clamouring for a government position, whereas the reality is that getting people who are motivated to be actively governing are rare and precious commodities.

 

There are a number of reasons why people might not pursue government in your alliance, chief among them are:

- Defined government roles are unappealing, they want to do something else where there is no defined role

- Ruling clique inner circle situation where government is basically a closed aristocracy

- Uninterested in government

- RL too busy

- Can't be bothered to jump through all the hoops of a "meritocracy"

 

These people who are interested in governing the alliance but don't for one reason or another are unrealized alliance potential.  For some it is not possible to realize that potential, you can't write a charter granting people more free time IRL for instance, and you can bring a player to power but you can't make them care.  For the rest though, you CAN realize that potential, by having an Arrghist government.  What is an Arrghist government?

 

Our governing philosophy is essentially that if someone is interested in leadership, let them do whatever they want.  They want to start a whole new program where they pursue bounties?  Let's make one!  Someone has new banking ideas?  Let them try it out.  They want to start a mentoring program?  They're crazy, but if they want that headache then go for it.

 

The classic failure of the ministry system is a classic situation most alliances have encountered:  Here's the scenario, your alliance has just been attacked, your economic and foreign affairs ministers quickly gather to figure out what's going on, but where's the war minister?  Noone wanted to be the war minister last election, so they nominated the old war minister who doesn't care anymore and isn't even online.  Who will plan the counter-offensive?  The charter forbids anyone but the war minister from issuing orders!  In this situation many alliances end up de-facto embracing Arrghism on a temporary basis as the Economics minister ends up planning a war offensive and the FA minister helps him send out attack orders, days later, after the war has been run into the ground.

 

Imagine instead a decentralized system, war is declared and every gov available at the time discuss what aspect of the war, who wants to do what?  Ok you plan the counteroffensive I'll send out war aid, guy who isn't even in gov volunteers to train the noobs how to fight, awesome let's promote that guy to mid level government and see how they do.

 

You would think a system where random people are promoted and given responsibilities would lead to ineffective leadership, but sadly this is not at all the case.  Inactive leadership is actually worse than no leadership at all, since without a minister to wait for orders, people would just take individual initiative.  This gets back to the final aspect, individual initiative.

 

In general, alliances look down on individual initiative, and consider government to be a much better judge of action.  Often this is true, however this assumes that government has unlimited time to determine the best course of action.  Consider the target list.  Every war, most alliances draw up a target list of enemy nations, painstakingly crafted considering every last detail.  The problem is that target lists are pointless.  You could have just left that to individual initiative, where your own players could get together and pick their own targets, and coordinate their own attacks.  Unlike target lists, this individual initiative has no expiry date (targets lists are worthless immediately following the first offensive, when score ranges no longer even resemble the old ones) and individuals spend much longer on each matchup.  If you tell your alliance to pick a target, they have all day to plan out an attack against the targets they chose.  Target lists, your poor milcom guys probably spent 3 seconds on each matchup.  Even if your milcom guy is a genius and your members are retards, you'll probably end up with about the same quality of matchups.  It isn't just this though, individual initiative also means your alliance is never waiting for orders.  Waiting for inactive government to respond to crises is crippling, especially to memberships who have grown to rely on orders and cannot act independently.  Individual initiative allows for swift action and reaction.

 

Your members are smarter and more capable than you give them credit for.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Ogaden

[DragonK]

I made big mistake by showing interest in gov't and competence to do it. I could have been lurking in shadows. XD

[Ayayay]

I agree with quite a bit of this tbh. However, "Your members are smarter and more capable than you give them credit for." Ehh, it's one of those situations where one (or particularly a couple) of people spoil the bunch. Even if you give people all the tools they need to succeed you'll still have the people who ignore it and do whatever they want. A majority of the time they're fine and no one cares about it. But then someone goes off the deep end and then the entire alliance gets punished for it. 

 

A laissez-faire government system is, theoretically, the best one. But it doesn't work very well in practice.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Malal

[Chapsie]

This is actually a very well thought out and inspirational post. It's sort of an eye opener because now that I think about it, it's not like you are recruiting sub par nations or dimwits at all times. There are people behind those pixels and the majority of them are not complete morons; they can act and think independently. 

 

Thanks for this man, honestly.

 

EDIT: Of course no government system is perfect, but experimenting with ones that work well is a good step in the right direction.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Chappie

[Thedark]

I for one wholeheartedly agree that alliances should scrap war target lists and let their members chose their targets with uncoordinated attacks when they go to war.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Thedark

[Jodo]

For the people who skimmed the OP, go back and read it. Especially if you are currently "government".

 

It's 100% true based on my many years of playing games like this.

[Truerror]

While I must say that I agree (mostly), there is one advantage in categorizing gov positions: Coolness factor.

 

Simply put, it's cooler to tell people that you're the "Minister of Something" than just "Minister".

 

Yes, coolness is a thing. Deal with it.

[Lordship]

I agree with some of your points here, though I think you're assuming a lot of the leadership isn't active. This would however be terrible during coalition warfare where you have to coordinate with other alliances and allocate your resources very carefully.

 

Your scenario makes sense if it was a democratic alliance, however if the alliance has 1 leader that makes final calls on everything, I don't think it does.

 

I am of the strong opinion that the leader has to be real active in order for an alliance to realize it's full potential. A #2 that can fill in this roll in the leaders absence is also very beneficial (the best case I can think of is NPO Frawley/Roquentin)

[Frank Todd]

Hm, this was a little more in depth than I would have initially imagined. I totally agree though (and I'm Gov and 2nd-in-command in the alliance).

 

Granted there are those who do go into the Gov position with aspirations of progression towards making the best alliance, but there are certainly those whom enter the Gov spot for purely the title and supposed weight that comes with it.

 

War lists are extremely pointless, especially in this games mechanics. If it were a matter of anything goes and any nation could attack any nation... Then maybe, but it's not like I could start flinging shit at a noobie who just joined another alliance, and as such makes the pickins' quite obvious.

 

Kudos to you sir, well thought out.

[King Wally]

Such a Random Insane Alliance culture you have there Ogaden ​

 

 

 

 

... and on that note I shall go back to my Lurking

[Lordship]

I'd have to disagree. Target lists are extremely useful when trying to organize a good blitz. Then creating a list of priority targets after the war is underway helps pinpoint what fronts need the most help.

 

At the end of the day it comes down to the leadership and this is what separates the average alliances and the great ones. A change in system and random disorganized activity is no substitute for quality leadership and decision making, at least in my opinion.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Titles.

 

If you want Ministerial Titles, give yourself one.

 

High Exalted Grand Poo-Bah, Yogi of the Inner Outies, Uber-Badass Emperor of Toast, Grand Chancellor Hong Dong and the Illuminated Big Kahuna of New Mexico.

[Big Brother]

Interesting post, I think you're right about a lot of things but personally I don't believe that having a government with designated ministries necessarily hampers individual initiative, at least that's not something I've experienced as a member of t$.

 

Our governing philosophy is essentially that if someone is interested in leadership, let them do whatever they want.  They want to start a whole new program where they pursue bounties?  Let's make one!  Someone has new banking ideas?  Let them try it out.  They want to start a mentoring program?  They're crazy, but if they want that headache then go for it.

 

You mention that "there are an even more limited number of people who are competent and capable of being alliance government, and among those, a limited number who will be active in governing at any one time". With this in mind and in relation to the Arrghist philosophy, if competent and motivated people are rare commodities and you let everyone who wants to do something do it, what happens when people who aren't competent are allowed to do whatever they want? What happens if they end up harming the alliance more than they aid it? Do you just let them screw up or do you step in and clean up the mess? Doesn't it strike you as a bit risky for people to start running all kinds of programs when you can't ensure the quality of the work being done?

 

 

The classic failure of the ministry system is a classic situation most alliances have encountered:  Here's the scenario, your alliance has just been attacked, your economic and foreign affairs ministers quickly gather to figure out what's going on, but where's the war minister?  Noone wanted to be the war minister last election, so they nominated the old war minister who doesn't care anymore and isn't even online.  Who will plan the counter-offensive?  The charter forbids anyone but the war minister from issuing orders!  In this situation many alliances end up de-facto embracing Arrghism on a temporary basis as the Economics minister ends up planning a war offensive and the FA minister helps him send out attack orders, days later, after the war has been run into the ground.

 

I think such a scenario is more of a failure in being flexible rather than a failure of the ministry system itself. I can only speak based on the experiences I have in my own alliance but in such a scenario, if we were surprise attacked and the people usually in charge of preparing us and planning the overall war were absent, I highly doubt we'd have any trouble organizing and coordinating ourselves between member nations without government leadership. We've fought many wars, we know how to coordinate with each other, where to get a hold of each other and what to do. We try to make sure everyone, in the absence of official government leadership, has the know-how to handle themselves. And when wars rage, despite initial target lists (which lose much of their significance after the first, planned strike), it's mainly regular member nations who communicate with each other and coordinate. So really, I don't think having a government organized in ministries and encouraging individual initiative are really such mutually exclusive things. If the government is flexible, if it can keep its eyes open for potential, allow people who want to take the initiative to do their thing and make sure that as many alliance members as possible know what to do (as in know how to best play the game) and know where they can talk and coordinate with people, I don't see why you can't have both a centralized government and private initiative.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Big Brother

[seabasstion]

i completely agree. i've always believed in a 'carve your own role' approach to leadership

[Boony]

Don't know what you mean. Target lists are great for the first wave of attacks. It allows for a quick and efficient attack right before update (and then they can buy, attack again, etc). Countering should, and is in tS, up to the members.

 

I also disagree with your premise. Unless your alliance has an apathetic culture or is really small, you'll always find people that care and want to move up into gov roles.

[greatkitteh]

Someone should join arrgh and make them oromote themselves to Fa, then treat with us.

[Shadowstar1922]

I think your examples of the classical alliance set up is the worst that there can be. I think anyone who is a War Minister or whatever and does not have a couple other people advising them or being on a council or just being there helping to plan everything out is an idiot. Something as big as war cannot be managed by one sole person. To think that everyone else just stands by and waits like a puppy is a little naive and if that really happens in your Alliance then I suggest you move to a new alliance.

 

But on the other hand, this ideology is really interesting and really fosters well if you have an Alliance of people who are dedicated and motivated. You are also completely right about the whole, ¨aristocratic government cliques¨ though. 

 

As much as I prefer the Meritocratic-bureaucratic system I cant really see this one as bad or inefficient. I mean it works for Arrgh and Arrgh is a successful and organized alliance, so it obviously works lol. 

[Prefonteen]

Interesting post, I think you're right about a lot of things but personally I don't believe that having a government with designated ministries necessarily hampers individual initiative, at least that's not something I've experienced as a member of t$.

 

 

You mention that "there are an even more limited number of people who are competent and capable of being alliance government, and among those, a limited number who will be active in governing at any one time". With this in mind and in relation to the Arrghist philosophy, if competent and motivated people are rare commodities and you let everyone who wants to do something do it, what happens when people who aren't competent are allowed to do whatever they want? What happens if they end up harming the alliance more than they aid it? Do you just let them screw up or do you step in and clean up the mess? Doesn't it strike you as a bit risky for people to start running all kinds of programs when you can't ensure the quality of the work being done?

 

 

 

I think such a scenario is more of a failure in being flexible rather than a failure of the ministry system itself. I can only speak based on the experiences I have in my own alliance but in such a scenario, if we were surprise attacked and the people usually in charge of preparing us and planning the overall war were absent, I highly doubt we'd have any trouble organizing and coordinating ourselves between member nations without government leadership. We've fought many wars, we know how to coordinate with each other, where to get a hold of each other and what to do. We try to make sure everyone, in the absence of official government leadership, has the know-how to handle themselves. And when wars rage, despite initial target lists (which lose much of their significance after the first, planned strike), it's mainly regular member nations who communicate with each other and coordinate. So really, I don't think having a government organized in ministries and encouraging individual initiative are really such mutually exclusive things. If the government is flexible, if it can keep its eyes open for potential, allow people who want to take the initiative to do their thing and make sure that as many alliance members as possible know what to do (as in know how to best play the game) and know where they can talk and coordinate with people, I don't see why you can't have both a centralized government and private initiative.

 

We have actually had such situations occur.

 

ProxyFest- when Rose pre-empted us, we immediately launched a succesful counterblitz (launched more wars than our opponent did, despite numerical disadvantages and their first-strike advantage). While government was on at the time, it was our active core of long-standing members which rallied on their own initiative and began organizing strikes. Internally, there was little distinction between govt or 'members' from a planning pov, that night: Everyone was involved.

 

OktoberFest- When UPN/DEIC pre-empted us, none of our government (milcom, FA, econ) was online. Members mounted a small counter of their own and arguably didn't do bad. Numerical differences were too big on this one: The DEIC/UPN mass managed to fill most of us up.

[Spaceman Thrax]

Good read! A solid middle finger to people who think there's only ever one way to do things always has intrinsic value to me.

 

OktoberFest- When UPN/DEIC pre-empted us, none of our government (milcom, FA, econ) was online. Members mounted a small counter of their own and arguably didn't do bad. Numerical differences were too big on this one: The DEIC/UPN mass managed to fill most of us up.

 

I was around. I think the extent of my "leading" was saying "yeah go ahead and light them up" to our active members though.

 

Our approach is kinda hybridized. We have a good system for target lists, but from there it becomes a matter of laying out broad objectives, monitoring matchups for specific places that need attention, and making sure everyone is supplied rather than specifically dictating whatever every person should be doing. The nuts and bolts of each particular match up are something we have a pool of experienced members around to help size up.

 

I'm really averse to the idea of clearly defined roles. I've been Econ head, an advisor, and now FA head while doing about 90% of the same stuff I've always been. In games as in life, in my opinion at least, bureaucracy is the worst. Hahaha.

[Sisyphus]

I'm always better at FA when I'm supposed to be managing some other ministry.

 

Idk what that has to do with anything, but yeah.

[Mikey]

To be honest I find most of this to be more an issue with rigidly following a charter, or a charter too rigidly written, than with specifically designating government roles. Maybe we are somewhat the exception but in SK we have clearly defined positions, but people also just do and work on what they like. For a while I handled recruiting, the ACDC and internal events/competitions as our FA guy because they were things I was interested in so I started them. We still discuss everything and the Master of Coin is as free to propose FA and war policy as the Lord Commander. We also tend to help out in various areas. When I was running FA in beta I probably did more work in econ because it was important and Moridin could use the help. I don't doubt that the current gov also works across "department" lines. Its a waste not to put all your heads together, and I would be surprised if there are many alliances that don't act similarly (if so, y'all are !@#$ing up). But I do think it can help to have defined individuals who can put their foot down and make the final decision in a given area if discussion gets too drawn out, agreements can't be reached (when we first went paperless it proved quite controversial) or other factors necessitate an immediate response. As you say, already alliances will allow people to handle things they normally don't if they have to (your MoE example taking on war duties in the event of an attack). If you are flexible enough to allow that as is, I really don't think it makes a huge amount of difference if you define your positions or not.

 

I'm honestly not sure how else you run things than meritocratically or democratically. If someone wants to be involved in Econ in arrgh, are they immediately elevated to the same position as your other high gov, with access to all your OPSEC and such? Certainly with us if a member wanted to start a program I imagine they'd be free to do it, and people who we trust and work wel lin the departments are essentially involved in all the planning and running of it, rather than necessarily being compartmentalized to a specific task. But there is some truth to the saying that too many cooks spoil the broth, and it can be valuable to have someone who can make the final descision when necessary. I also don't think its a good idea to just hand out full high gov access to everybody who wants to help. I think there are times where you might want to discuss something privately among the higher gov members, to first decide if its even going to be considered doing, before then putting it before your members at large to discuss and taking the risks that come with broader disclosure. (say war plans, switching sides, anything that might be damaging if it got out).

 

Essentially i agree with you on being flexible and allowing members more input and opportunity (though it still might not bring a lot of people - in my experience a lot of people just don't want to deal with government work, including myself atm), I just don't think it actually makes any difference if you just have an open structure like arrgh or have specific positions but are flexible with it. We've always seen the charter as more of a guideline than a super serious rigid ruls eet (I mean its a browser game for godssakes, not the cornerstone of a legal system that will affect anyones lives). But then I believe that honestly treaty or paperless, one gov structure or the next, it can all work if people are interested and involved in their alliance.

[LostWorld]

[DragonK]

You mention that "there are an even more limited number of people who are competent and capable of being alliance government, and among those, a limited number who will be active in governing at any one time". With this in mind and in relation to the Arrghist philosophy, if competent and motivated people are rare commodities and you let everyone who wants to do something do it, what happens when people who aren't competent are allowed to do whatever they want? What happens if they end up harming the alliance more than they aid it? Do you just let them screw up or do you step in and clean up the mess? Doesn't it strike you as a bit risky for people to start running all kinds of programs when you can't ensure the quality of the work being done?

 

Well I was about to write an essay to this but instead will just copy it from our charter, already well written by Ogaden:

 

Let it be known that the freebooting pirate anarchy of Arrgh sails the seven seas.  Our thirst for glory and plunder be as fierce as our thirst for rum, that be fierce indeed.

 

Let thee know the laws of Arrgh!

 

The Freebooting Pirate Anarchy of Arrgh! lives for fun, freedom and plunder. Anyone with the stones to join our merry band and terrorize the seven seas may do so if a Commodore or Admiral will vouch for them. Any captain of Arrgh may be promoted to any position though higher ranks include more responsibilities

 

The first rank of Arrgh! is the Admiralty led by the Grand Admiral, who speaks for Arrgh! as a whole and is the figurehead of the alliance. The Grand Admiral is otherwise the same as a regular Admiral. The Admiralty collectively makes all alliance-wide decisions by majority vote except for declarations of war and signing letters of marque. To promote a Captain or Commodore to Admiral or to demote an Admiral to Commodore requires a majority vote of the Admiralty.

 

The second rank is the Captains Council encompassing all the member captains of Arrgh. Commodores lead the Captains and provide on-the-scene leadership. Any admiral may promote a Captain to Commodore or demote a Commodore to Captain. Commodores are also given the right to vote for declarations of war or letters of marque.

 

The Captains of Arrgh! are free to undertake any expedition in search of plunder they desire, but should seek sanction from the Captains Council in a coordinated raid to avoid complications. Raids gone bad are the responsibility of the irresponsible Captain to resolve.

 

Should the Grand Admiral prove unworthy, the Admiralty or the Captaincy may mutiny at any time and select a new Grand Admiral. This is encouraged and should occur at the drop of a hat or just for the hell of it.

 

Anyone can leave Arrgh at any time for any reason, and may return at any time for any reason.

 

Scurvy dogs who betray the trust of their fellow Captains will walk the plank, at the discretion of the Admiralty.

 

As you can see anyone can easily get to rank of commodore, wich is a bit limited compared to admiral. But majority vote of admirals is required to propmote someoen to and from admiral, wich ensures the quality of top rank gov't. Even the grand admiral himself might be replaced (and has been so many times over) to ensure our representation to other alliances is on mark as well.

[DragonK]

I'm honestly not sure how else you run things than meritocratically or democratically. If someone wants to be involved in Econ in arrgh, are they immediately elevated to the same position as your other high gov, with access to all your OPSEC and such? Certainly with us if a member wanted to start a program I imagine they'd be free to do it, and people who we trust and work wel lin the departments are essentially involved in all the planning and running of it, rather than necessarily being compartmentalized to a specific task. But there is some truth to the saying that too many cooks spoil the broth, and it can be valuable to have someone who can make the final descision when necessary. I also don't think its a good idea to just hand out full high gov access to everybody who wants to help. I think there are times where you might want to discuss something privately among the higher gov members, to first decide if its even going to be considered doing, before then putting it before your members at large to discuss and taking the risks that come with broader disclosure. (say war plans, switching sides, anything that might be damaging if it got out).

 

 

It's more like family thing anyone who joins high gov't is entitled to all of it's benefits. Also as pirates we do little to none of ecob programs. And if you want to do econ programs and you get the position of admiral to do it, then just do econ and ignore everythign else. I consider doing good econ programs by having raid list updated, having frequent bountys on individuals, and oragnizing mass raids. I do that when I can and try focuse more on it. If there is FA thing going on, and I don't feel liek doing it, I can just give quick and full sumamry to andother admiral and ask him to finish the negotiations for me and vice versa. In the end we talk about ALL important stuff, and OPSEC stuff more or less publicly or in private admiral and commodore only room. If they feel like contributing they contribute to conversation. If htey are there only to run the bank and it does not interest them overly who we raid they remain silent or ask bank related questions. There is not much to leak, and we know due to our revolving door policy that there is always a spy in our midst, so we tell our guys as much as we possibly can without making possibilitys for leakeage to be any advantegeous to people it's leaked.

 

For instance when I organized the SD raid, I talked to all admirals first, even included our commodore that was onlien at the moment and few trusted members that were on. Nothing leaked. SD was dumbfolded how and why we hit them. Those preparatiosn went on for almsot a week. Unfortunantley, due to soem Leeroy Jenkins from unnamed alliance I had to reveal the target a fill hour earlier than what I said to my guys, so few people were late, since SD pretty much disbanded few turns afterwards lol.

Edited August 4, 2016 by DragonK

[Boony]

Without clear roles there is no unity. Take FA for example. The hear of FA generally decides the direction the alliances is going FA wise. The FA head then relays certain information to the people under them that support the general goals of FA. If everyone is doing their own thing, it'll be a mess.

 

Same goes with econ. Although for econ the general goal is grow, you should have a direction. Are you going to focus on cities or infra? Are you going to focus on helping people with stockpiles?

 

Even in war you have goals besides beating the other side. If you're fighting multiple alliances, you're going to have to allocate nations depending on where your allies need help. You need a head of military to be able to relay that to members.

 

Strong efficient alliances won't be random in their leadership.