[POLL] Do You Want Dial Up War to End?

[Kadin]

9 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

but if someone in say a low gov position is extremely talented, it will not matter how talented they are if they disagree openly with upper gov on say FA direction or some other major decision. Their opposition will likely preclude them from further advancement until they start to espouse the party line therefore supporting the notion that the interests of an a core leadership are maintained and supported. Basically, merit is only going to get you so far unless you are on the same bus as upper gov. It's probably a significant factor in why we see so many micros form. Up and coming talent with different ideas and vision from that of the older gov wish to take an alliance in a different direction but can't do so due upper gov denying them the opportunity eventually leading to the formation of new alliances.

What you're describing is bad leadership, not an inevitable consequence of non-democratic government. If you're blocking a skilled and hard-working person from advancing simply because of a disagreement on a particular issue, then you are no longer acting to the benefit of the alliance so much as you are acting to the benefit of maintaining the status quo. I can tell you that I have worked with many people who I had disagreements with on major issues, even at the highest levels of alliance leadership, and I've personally facilitated the advancement of members who I inevitably clashed with on occasion once they got into government. That's not meritocracy, it's just dictatorship and inflexible leadership. I don't blame anyone for leaving under those circumstances, and frankly, it seems to be more the rule than the exception. The number of times I've found myself bored or even openly antagonized in alliances with inflexible leadership or no true opportunities for growth is much higher than the number of alliances I've seen that are truly committed to doing the right thing. Either way, what you're talking about here is a problem of leadership rather than government type.

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi

[Charles Bolivar]

15 hours ago, Kadin said:

What you're describing is bad leadership, not an inevitable consequence of non-democratic government. If you're blocking a skilled and hard-working person from advancing simply because of a disagreement on a particular issue, then you are no longer acting to the benefit of the alliance so much as you are acting to the benefit of maintaining the status quo. I can tell you that I have worked with many people who I had disagreements with on major issues, even at the highest levels of alliance leadership, and I've personally facilitated the advancement of members who I inevitably clashed with on occasion once they got into government. That's not meritocracy, it's just dictatorship and inflexible leadership. I don't blame anyone for leaving under those circumstances, and frankly, it seems to be more the rule than the exception. The number of times I've found myself bored or even openly antagonized in alliances with inflexible leadership or no true opportunities for growth is much higher than the number of alliances I've seen that are truly committed to doing the right thing. Either way, what you're talking about here is a problem of leadership rather than government type.

Exactly, and poor leadership isn't solely reserved for democratic alliances. I'd say that poor leadership seems to be equally prevalent across varying government types and that it is the quality of talent present within a gov which is more indicative of an alliance's ability rather than the style of gov employed.

12 hours ago, Epi said:

How'd we even arrive on the subject of democracy, people voted in a poll and it was split 50/50 on continuing the war. Given no one outside the war likely voted for it to keep going, that means those against stopping are the majority. 

Attack Rose's gov. Model and others in a diff thread. 

No.

[alyster]

12 hours ago, Epi said:

How'd we even arrive on the subject of democracy, people voted in a poll and it was split 50/50 on continuing the war. Given no one outside the war likely voted for it to keep going, that means those against stopping are the majority. 

Attack Rose's gov. Model and others in a diff thread. 

Mate DM what s*** you've been smoking, I need some of that. 

[Sir Scarfalot]

14 hours ago, alyster said:

Mate DM what s*** you've been smoking, I need some of that. 

Um, honestly, I don't actually see what's wrong with his post there? The only issue I see with it is that if anything the non-combatants might well be absolutely happy to see the war continue since that gives them at least that much more relative economy and growth compared to both sides, but as far as I've seen from posts and statements from the few neutral parties there are, the consensus outside of the combatants is that both combatants are dumbasses that should have quit months ago.

Edited November 3, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[RadDad]

Lmao at people with over a billion net loss who voted they dont want the war to end. And the leader of an alliance that already peaced out voting Undecided. You already decided. 

Edited November 3, 2019 by Loki the psycho