Jump to content

Continuing death of democracy


Jets Nation
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/2/2018 at 12:40 AM, Thalmor said:

More democracy does not equal more involvement. A P&W player will have a base level of activity in the game, which will usually only go down if IRL things come up. You might have a member who has a high level of activity (logs in every day), but that could go down as IRL things happen or as they get bored of the game. You might have somebody who has a low level of activity (only logs in 1 time a week), and so they're barely playing and could just stop entirely any time. A person's level of activity usually either stays the same or goes down, and never really goes up.

New Pacific Order is an alliance that perfectly takes advantage of this. A lot of their members aren't very active, so they tax them 100/100 to get the full amount out of them and they re-distribute as necessary. Now, NPO does have very active members, but NPO's leaders know the reality of the situation and so they based their system accordingly.

Democracies also have a lot of problems that non-democratic alliances don't have. It's very easy for outside influences that don't have the alliance's best interest in mind to affect elections. Elections could mean that a person not qualified but popular gets elected, which could hurt the alliance as they have a bad time in their position. If you get really democratic, and put merges, war, and other FA decisions to a vote, then you can say goodbye to OPSEC and you could have a really autistic FA direction.

It's not like members in non-democratic alliances don't have a voice. Only stupid people ignore their members completely and chronically. If you as an autocratic leader do a lot of unpopular things for long enough, your members will !@#$ and you will usually have to step down. Additionally, if an alliance was making a big, secret move and the members eventually found out (like a merge), then if they all raise enough hell over it, it won't happen. Just because an alliance doesn't have elections, doesn't mean the members of an alliance have no sovereignty.

Also, don't look at nations in P&W as being nations. Instead, look at them as people. Nations are individuals and alliances are nations comprised of individuals. I've found that imagining things that way is helpful.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that there's room for growth in terms of playtime for the majority of leaders. I think there will always be a niche for players that have limited time and don't want to/can't get as involved. However, if you glance at other MMO games, you'll clearly see that as long as there's content, players will spend more time doing said content. Usually this means non-direct content that doesn't directly impact the major areas of gameplay. Things like roleplaying, the baseball simulator, and "backrooming" come to mind for PnW non-direct content.

I think there's an untapped market, so to speak, of leaders who would "blossom" by becoming more directly involved in the day-to-day and major decisions of the alliance. There's just simply no alliance that practices this because it's too hard due to the variety of issues you brought up. The real roadbump isn't that democracy is a failed system, it's that people who have never known democracy have to acclimate to it before it can truly be successful.

On 6/2/2018 at 7:23 PM, Insert Name Here said:

Thalmor makes quite a few good points.

It essentially boils down to communication imo. In the sense that leadership should be aware of what the membership wants. In some aspects of alliance management, sometimes an in-game alliance announcement is enough to get a good idea of what the members want regarding the direction the alliance is gonna take. Naturally there will always be several different opinions among the membership, and it's up to the leadership to make the final call, ideally one that will keep everyone at least somewhat happy.

I also agree with Thalmor on the involvement part. Democracy has many flaws, one of them being (as he rightly pointed out) the chance of someone not as competent being elected just because they're more competent than the opposition. For autocratic alliances to work, you gotta bet on meritocracy - finding out which members have potential and are willing to put the necessary time and effort into the job.

For me, the gist of it is having a gov that knows what they're doing and trying to cater to the membership as much as possible. Sometimes it's hard to balance these things out, but it's up to the leadership to take care of that. And if you know your members are game for pretty much everything, that gives you more freedom to do your job. There are many nuances, but surrounding yourself with the right people (both in terms of leadership and membership) is half the battle imo.

It's pretty interesting when you think about it. One might assume that the various departments of an alliance (FA, IA, MA and Econ) have very little in common. For instance, most people might think IA is easy, but if you wanna be a good alliance it can be quite tricky. Mass recruiting alliances have it especially hard from my point of view. It must take a lot of observation to find out, as quickly as possible, which members are fluff and which ones are good (the ones who prioritize warchest over infra, those who won't jump ship when the alliance is attacked, etc). Just here you can see how IA interferes with MA and will also with Econ, because you don't wanna invest in dead weight, you wanna cut out the fat as soon as possible to invest in good members. It also interferes with FA because, if you do try to cater to the membership, knowing you have mostly war minded or growth minded members will necessarily alter your FA direction.

I believe democracy in this game is kind of a waste of time. It drives attention from the essential (like the stuff mentioned above) to something that doesn't really benefit the alliance, but it's interesting that there are democratic alliances out there,and some of them actually make it work, so there's obviously no exact recipe for a successful alliance.

Well really think on what you're saying here: Something that adds content, potential conflict, and potential fun to a game is a waste of time?

I think the common tropes about democracies can be as easily dismissed here as they are in real life. Do less-than-ideal candidates come up for vote? Yes. Do they get elected sometimes? Yes. Are leaks an issue in a democracy? Yes. However, those answers don't change with any government type. I would even go so far as to point out that the typical autocratic systems most alliances have in place only further complicate those issues. You would list the top 15 alliances as examples of autocratic success, yet would ignore the other 500 failed alliances due to some aspect of a poor leader seizing power. Even the top 15 have their own issues, a glaring one being the stagnant and slow-moving nature of major politics because of long-tenured leaders.

Every degree of democratic influence you introduce into an alliance structure only serves to increase the competency of your membership as a whole. It's the same concept as showing more and more of a math formula to someone instead of simply giving them the answer. Having more direct control over their fate, and therefore more direct understanding of how their fate was made, can only serve to benefit the world as a whole.

On 6/2/2018 at 8:04 PM, Buorhann said:

A proper IA isn't easy, lol.  That or MA are probably the most demanding areas of the game.

FA is by far the easiest.  You don't even have to try at that unless you're doing a big plot.

 

I guess to me, IA handles Recruitment and making sure everybody has optimal builds - depending on the size of the alliance, that can be pretty stressful.  Econ tracks down taxes/production, creates budgets, etc.  MA, obviously, handles organizing targets during war or raiding, makes sure people are on at a specific time to hit, etc.  FA is like...  just bullshitting around with people and be friendly, information just comes naturally after that.

I believe politiking has stagnated because of reasons I previously listed above. It could become a complex and fulfilling role again if a handful of major alliances were to merely pivot away from autocratic handling of politics and "loosen the leash", so to speak.

On 6/2/2018 at 8:07 PM, Epi said:

^^ What they said.

Though Autocratic alliances aren't wholly Undemocratic anyway. You'd be hard pressed to find a single alliance in this game that doesn't issue polls or a Census to it's members, so they know their policy is popular and that people will be invested in doing what's asked. 

To me, there is a distinct difference between a ratified (read: codified, permanent) democracy and what almost every alliance runs on now (read: autocracy with some minor consideration for the individual.)

To put it succinctly: It's the difference between asking for permission or asking for forgiveness.

 

Also sorry I quoted and long-replied to everyone. I got excited that so many people replied with actual thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Well really think on what you're saying here: Something that adds content, potential conflict, and potential fun to a game is a waste of time?

I think the common tropes about democracies can be as easily dismissed here as they are in real life. Do less-than-ideal candidates come up for vote? Yes. Do they get elected sometimes? Yes. Are leaks an issue in a democracy? Yes. However, those answers don't change with any government type. I would even go so far as to point out that the typical autocratic systems most alliances have in place only further complicate those issues. You would list the top 15 alliances as examples of autocratic success, yet would ignore the other 500 failed alliances due to some aspect of a poor leader seizing power. Even the top 15 have their own issues, a glaring one being the stagnant and slow-moving nature of major politics because of long-tenured leaders.

Every degree of democratic influence you introduce into an alliance structure only serves to increase the competency of your membership as a whole. It's the same concept as showing more and more of a math formula to someone instead of simply giving them the answer. Having more direct control over their fate, and therefore more direct understanding of how their fate was made, can only serve to benefit the world as a whole.

 

Heh, you'll come to the conclusion that, in this game, democracy is an absolute waste of time. Of course incompetent leaders seize power, thus the importance of trusting competent leaders with power in an autocratic alliance. Most P&W members have no clue whatsoever about the game's politics, so decision making should be up to those who are indeed familiar with the political / alliance landscape of the game. I do agree that leaders shouldn't stay that long in power. However, and contrary to what you said, a long time leader can keep things interesting - just look at TEst's leader, who often got the alliance in wars during his time (about a year iirc) in power when the old TEst was still around.

I only get democracy in P&W as another role play aspect of the game. Apart from that it consumes time that should be invested in what really matters. It's been widely proven in this game. If you have shitty leaders, the alliance will necessarily be shit - then it doesn't matter if it's an autocracy or a democracy.  Thing is, democracy just opens the door for incompetent people to get into gov over more competent but also more unpopular people. Democracy is what ultimately brought alliances with potential (like UPN back in the day) to their knees. Not even gonna talk about Valkyrie because that basically turned into a meme alliance due to their tendency to vote on everything.

Can you make it work as a democracy? Yes. Is it the best way to go about things? As proven time and time again in this game, no.

Edited by Insert Name Here
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Things like roleplaying, the baseball simulator, and "backrooming" come to mind for PnW non-direct content.

"Backrooming" is inherently exclusive and undemocratic.  The whole point of backrooms in FA is to have only the essential leadership present and to avoid informing others until after a decision has been made.

4 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Well really think on what you're saying here: Something that adds content, potential conflict, and potential fun to a game is a waste of time?

I think the common tropes about democracies can be as easily dismissed here as they are in real life. Do less-than-ideal candidates come up for vote? Yes. Do they get elected sometimes? Yes. Are leaks an issue in a democracy? Yes. However, those answers don't change with any government type. I would even go so far as to point out that the typical autocratic systems most alliances have in place only further complicate those issues.

Alliance governments exist to be effective, not to maximize conflict, and especially not to maximize internal conflict, which is the kind democracies are are best at breeding as compared to autocracies.  Yes, member engagement is important, but it is balanced against the need for self-preservation and operational effectiveness.

4 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Even the top 15 have their own issues, a glaring one being the stagnant and slow-moving nature of major politics because of long-tenured leaders.

The primary reasons for the slow-moving nature of inter-alliance politics are the need to see positive returns on infrastructure investments and the necessity of building large stockpiles of resources and money for waging war.

4 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Every degree of democratic influence you introduce into an alliance structure only serves to increase the competency of your membership as a whole. It's the same concept as showing more and more of a math formula to someone instead of simply giving them the answer.

This is wrong.  Most rank-and-file members of alliances would be interested in additional control, but most are also not prepared to commit the time necessary to make effective and responsible use of that control.  My alliance, for example, could tell its members to build their nations however they like in the hopes that some of them learn more about nation-building.  We don't, though, because we already know what the optimal builds are.  Any additional activity this spurred would be better spent on tasks that need doing rather than tasks that were done months or years ago.

The material benefits of alliances are two-fold: alliances provide safety in numbers and they allow players to benefit from expertise beyond their own.  "Competency" is measured at the alliance level, not the individual level.  Giving every member of an alliance the same expertise and experience is a waste of time and resources that are better spent diversifying.

4 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Having more direct control over their fate, and therefore more direct understanding of how their fate was made, can only serve to benefit the world as a whole.

I believe politiking has stagnated because of reasons I previously listed above. It could become a complex and fulfilling role again if a handful of major alliances were to merely pivot away from autocratic handling of politics and "loosen the leash", so to speak.

Alliances don't exist to "benefit the world as a whole".  They exist to benefit their memberships.  Pivoting away from autocracy would put alliances at a competitive disadvantage against those that remained autocratic.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order for a democratic alliance to be successful, the dedication and activity levels of each individual have to be similar, which they usually aren't. It either becomes a popularity contest which ultimately doesn't lead to more involvement, since the unpopular people will fade into the background or it's someone who is essentially volunteering to the do the actual work in the alliance and won't get contested in the election heavily. People like the idea having a say but making stuff happen is a lot more difficult/tedious. Administration isn't fun and there's no incentive for anyone to do the unfun stuff if they have to get approval all the time for anything.  The demands of the less involved player are often ones that aren't realistic so often in a democratic alliance, you will have to convince people of rather obvious things. There's no real evidence when democracy has been tried in both direct and representative aspects that it increased overall involvement.

PW requires far more fast paced decision-making than CN and democracy often hobbled major alliances that applied it there against autocratic ones, which is one of the main reasons most of the people who made alliances in PW early on went with autocratic government types.   The members of democratic alliances usually weren't more involved on average due to the baseline Thalmor brought up. Eventually the allure of having a say fades away and the game ultimately can't be interesting 24/7 even with democracy and some people just don't want to put in the time to become informed, so it ends up falling into an oligarchy that agrees to let one of them be the leader for x amount of time.  If anything it's far easier for an autocratic leader to make a big FA change since they didn't have to convince their members  to sell prior treaties which is often the case in democratic alliances. Many democratic alliances actually hindered the ability of their leaders to alter FA paths.

Anyone can be a good member in an autocratic alliance as long as they show up to fight in wars, whereas in a democratic alliance one can only be a good member if they make sure to inform themselves/put work in or just stay out of the way.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Insert Name Here said:

 

Heh, you'll come to the conclusion that, in this game, democracy is an absolute waste of time. Of course incompetent leaders seize power, thus the importance of trusting competent leaders with power in an autocratic alliance. Most P&W members have no clue whatsoever about the game's politics, so decision making should be up to those who are indeed familiar with the political / alliance landscape of the game. I do agree that leaders shouldn't stay that long in power. However, and contrary to what you said, a long time leader can keep things interesting - just look at TEst's leader, who often got the alliance in wars during his time (about a year iirc) in power when the old TEst was still around.

I only get democracy in P&W as another role play aspect of the game. Apart from that it consumes time that should be invested in what really matters. It's been widely proven in this game. If you have shitty leaders, the alliance will necessarily be shit - then it doesn't matter if it's an autocracy or a democracy.  Thing is, democracy just opens the door for incompetent people to get into gov over more competent but also more unpopular people. Democracy is what ultimately brought alliances with potential (like UPN back in the day) to their knees. Not even gonna talk about Valkyrie because that basically turned into a meme alliance due to their tendency to vote on everything.

Can you make it work as a democracy? Yes. Is it the best way to go about things? As proven time and time again in this game, no.

Well as I mentioned above, wasting time is generally what we're here to do. The goal is to have fun while wasting time. I would again contend that competent leadership skills are grown through exposure. Isolation erodes, engagement strengthens. Poor leadership and favoritism operating under the guise of "meritocratic promotion" is a fault common in all systems. It's why networking is so important in everything you do.

4 hours ago, Edward I said:

"Backrooming" is inherently exclusive and undemocratic.  The whole point of backrooms in FA is to have only the essential leadership present and to avoid informing others until after a decision has been made.

Alliance governments exist to be effective, not to maximize conflict, and especially not to maximize internal conflict, which is the kind democracies are are best at breeding as compared to autocracies.  Yes, member engagement is important, but it is balanced against the need for self-preservation and operational effectiveness.

The primary reasons for the slow-moving nature of inter-alliance politics are the need to see positive returns on infrastructure investments and the necessity of building large stockpiles of resources and money for waging war.

This is wrong.  Most rank-and-file members of alliances would be interested in additional control, but most are also not prepared to commit the time necessary to make effective and responsible use of that control.  My alliance, for example, could tell its members to build their nations however they like in the hopes that some of them learn more about nation-building.  We don't, though, because we already know what the optimal builds are.  Any additional activity this spurred would be better spent on tasks that need doing rather than tasks that were done months or years ago.

The material benefits of alliances are two-fold: alliances provide safety in numbers and they allow players to benefit from expertise beyond their own.  "Competency" is measured at the alliance level, not the individual level.  Giving every member of an alliance the same expertise and experience is a waste of time and resources that are better spent diversifying.

Alliances don't exist to "benefit the world as a whole".  They exist to benefit their memberships.  Pivoting away from autocracy would put alliances at a competitive disadvantage against those that remained autocratic.

Democracy is not the same as collectivizing the game experience. The entire point is to strengthen the individual engagement. To that end, backrooming is still an acceptable and encouraged form of non-direct content. As to divisive internal conflicts being generated by democracy: If a leader makes an unpopular unilateral choice in an autocratic system, does this not produce the same or worse results? Disagreements are natural and shouldn't be repressed. That's the beauty of the system, finding common ground from which to work forward on.

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

In order for a democratic alliance to be successful, the dedication and activity levels of each individual have to be similar, which they usually aren't. It either becomes a popularity contest which ultimately doesn't lead to more involvement, since the unpopular people will fade into the background or it's someone who is essentially volunteering to the do the actual work in the alliance and won't get contested in the election heavily. People like the idea having a say but making stuff happen is a lot more difficult/tedious. Administration isn't fun and there's no incentive for anyone to do the unfun stuff if they have to get approval all the time for anything.  The demands of the less involved player are often ones that aren't realistic so often in a democratic alliance, you will have to convince people of rather obvious things. There's no real evidence when democracy has been tried in both direct and representative aspects that it increased overall involvement.

PW requires far more fast paced decision-making than CN and democracy often hobbled major alliances that applied it there against autocratic ones, which is one of the main reasons most of the people who made alliances in PW early on went with autocratic government types.   The members of democratic alliances usually weren't more involved on average due to the baseline Thalmor brought up. Eventually the allure of having a say fades away and the game ultimately can't be interesting 24/7 even with democracy and some people just don't want to put in the time to become informed, so it ends up falling into an oligarchy that agrees to let one of them be the leader for x amount of time.  If anything it's far easier for an autocratic leader to make a big FA change since they didn't have to convince their members  to sell prior treaties which is often the case in democratic alliances. Many democratic alliances actually hindered the ability of their leaders to alter FA paths.

Anyone can be a good member in an autocratic alliance as long as they show up to fight in wars, whereas in a democratic alliance one can only be a good member if they make sure to inform themselves/put work in or just stay out of the way.

Admittedly a democracy would, by necessity, be more complex than an autocracy. This wouldn't have an impact on efficiency or effectiveness though. It's just a different way. You lay out good points but I believe each one could be solved with a simple checks and balances system, much like real life.

My concept of democracy doesn't really include electing people to then go dictate to the group though. I think we all agree that voting for people who then take total control over things just goes poorly all around. Representatives are obviously needed to present a cohesive public face but ideally one would want a more direct method so as to place onus on the individual.

A good example of a check/balance would be a simple activity requirement. Many alliances have this already just to avoid bad wars or raids. You could get more in-depth with requirements as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Edward I said:

Alliance governments exist to be effective, not to maximize conflict, and especially not to maximize internal conflict

Unless you're Valkyrie, to the point of having multiple different unity parties 

Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]>    God your worse the grealind >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem with a system of checks and balances is the celerity of a decision making process is paramount in this environment. If your decision generating mechanism requires more than two hours to put wheels into motion, then your alliance is condemned to be a novelty and/or utterly useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A full republican government structure usually tends to suck. TFP's current government form is sorta elective monarchy at this point, since we don't actually have terms but gov is done via nomination and general acceptance from gov and membership. However, a lot of decisions are run through the membership in order to take suggestions and opinions on things. It's a bit slower, but usually helps me cut down on workload and also pick up things that I missed on by myself. However, it's probably a bit of a unique thing that stems from both the fact that most of our membership usually sticks to themselves and rarely outside of the alliance and from there being a very distinct lack of codified roles, rules, and procedures to follow. Much of our actual democratic processes is done because that's how I'd rather it be.

Edited by Quichwe10
  • Upvote 1
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.