Of traditional government

[Raphael]

Fair warning this is a long post.

 

I've been mulling over some thoughts lately and I wanted to put pen-to-paper to help shape them out. This is by no means a definitive work but rather a thought and some opinions that are open to change as time and circumstances necessitate.

History and background: For those who don't know, I've been playing nationsims for too long. I grew up playing these games, as did many others here, and I've seen quite a bit happen. I used to think this was a horrific waste of time but honestly it's not been for a myriad of reasons I don't want to get into. To quickly rattle off a few positions that I think make me qualified to talk on this topic: I've founded alliances in more than one game with mixed success, I've disbanded alliances in more than one game with mixed success, I've been high and low gov in small micros and huge 500+ member groups, I've started/won/lost wars, and I'm semi-known for being unorthodox at this point in my PnW-life. I personally feel that being uberserious takes the fun from these games, but that's a tangent. Point is, I've seen and done all there is to do in these kind of games. My mind naturally creeps towards "what's next?"

Typical alliance structures don't vary much. There are usually two executive heads (leader and a second), a group of high government usually divided into departments, and their respective low gov helpers. This formula is sometimes tweaked, t$ has an executive board, Arrgh has the admiralty etc, but the formula is generally adhered to.

What a lot of people don't know is how this formula actually came into being, why alliances are rigidly structured with an executive branch at the top and usually lack a judicial or legislative component and avoid democracy. Ironically most alliances are modeled after the New Pacific Order - the villains of yesteryear. The NPO was the "premier" alliance in another nationsim similar to PnW and in the early years of that game there was a lot of experimentation going on with different government setups including within NPO itself (who was originally democratic!). A couple of years in and things shifted towards efficient bureaucracy and away from roleplay, and their success was mimicked across the board. Granted, this oversimplifies the process quite a bit but I don't want to get bogged down on history lessons right now.

 

Why do we all follow this same formula of elitism? Long has the argument been made that meritocracy dictates succession and government lineup, and long has that been a flowery lie. The best players usually don't rise into leadership, and I'll explain what I mean. Given the departmentalization of the typical structure, players tend to specialize in one or two fields. In reality, almost all of these fields overlap, but I digress. The leaders of most alliances tend to be the players that specialized into foreign affairs and diplomacy, as in real life so too in PnW: Networking and social skills are far more important in gaining leadership roles than actual competence at running the alliance. The actual top of most alliances are not the most competent for the position, but rather the most popular or most outgoing. Another piece of deconstructing the meritocracy argument is the tendency of players to cling to their seats. Many high government, seconds in command, and even leaders themselves are well past the point of needed retirement. Yet they hold up their seats with claims of stability or a lack of competency in their would-be successors. The hard truth of this game is that most alliances follow a form of elitism in the belief that newer players are incapable of leading the alliances they inhabit, and the most active and engaged players in this game usually languish in low government seats. Tangentially, I also see this as one of the causes of so many new alliances constantly being formed across PnW, and why groups todays seem to struggle to maintain even 100 members when alliances ten years ago would easily have two or three hundred. We still have a large playerbase, but the active players won't tolerate being sheep to be herded and no matter how many times "meritocracy" is repeated into the air, people do recognize that inactivity and incompetence is being rewarded due to seniority over activity and interest.

A culture that kills. This traditional power structure must offer some benefit, right? To be carried along by the older players for so long and to have spread to almost every alliance in the game/genre, how can this setup be so bad? The cultural of elitism is a self-defeating one. Much like a serpent devouring its own tail, this system inevitably causes its own collapse by suppressing player interest and pushing new blood out. As many of you have probably noticed, and as a few of us have observed over the years, cutting the playerbase out of the game is one of the worst cultural decisions ever made in any game genre that I'm personally aware of. Ninety nine percent of people who play this game will never truly experience the politics behind it other than being told what's happening. This will, has, and does kill interest in the game itself over time. Not only do new players see this culture and decide to never even begin the journey to becoming government, older players become dissatisfied over time and stop logging in just to receive marching orders. Now granted, many do play this game with the intention of never becoming government, but I think we can all agree that we play within a closed-off system that voraciously discourages new blood from joining. The best they'll get is forming their own micro, and even that is usually discouraged.

Acknowledging the good with the bad. This system, as with any, is not completely evil in its design or implementation. The traditional setup is a clear and ordered hierarchy that allows a division of labor amongst government - and it pulls much of its inspiration from real life posts like Foreign Secretaries or Ministers of the Interior. It also offers a precious commodity that I personally find overvalued: Stability and continuity. Even if your alliance is stagnant, collecting loss after loss in wars, and shrinking by the day as your pool of interested recruits dry up - it exists. For many this is the ultimate goal, endurance is its own legacy and more agree with that statement than I think would admit it in public. The only problem with this line of thinking is that PnW is a game meant to be enjoyed, not a real life institution. The longest lasting alliances here will never be remembered outside of a wiki that may or may not outlive the game itself. While I respect the longevity of many groups, change is the only constant and change is healthy. I hope that novelty is one day valued as much as stability in this game, as I believe it provides the more interesting experience of the two.

What to change? What do you actually suggest? This is an insanely complicated question, one I don't have a full answer for - I really only have theories that would require testing. This community is not very receptive to failed experiments, so the risk is high but I believe that the cost for not trying at all is higher still. Decentralization of politics is something that needs to happen, the same twenty figures cannot control the narrative of the entire game for years at a time and expect novel or interesting things to happen. Term limits on positions would be an obvious first-step for any alliance looking to try something new, limited democratic functions, exploring judicial and legislative options for government rather than a simple executive branch setup. Creativity is the key to making this game interesting and fun, and I personally think it's time to try new methods and try to move away from a traditional setup in every single alliance.

 

tl;dr - be bold and try new things

 

[Lysander]

I like the general idea of this, and completely agree with pursuing new structures that are more flexible than what we have currently.

 

At the same time, I think you missed a very important benefit of the current executive structure - response times. We could certainly move to a legislative-style system, more like the few democratic alliances that still exist, but you still end up with a leader/2ic because there needs to be a response.
 

To clarify: If we take a theoretical legislative alliance, and they get hit by some outside alliance; a legislative-oriented alliance must vote on a course of action, which can take time and cause delays. If they’re appointing people to deal with this stuff until it can be voted on (IE appointing a “Prime Minister”), then it’s still the executive system, just more openly debated within the same stagnant government system.

Of course, I don’t fully know what you mean by “legislative” but without any specialization that allows for competent people in all fields to be represented, it’s difficult to see how a legislative group could work. A ruling legislature within an alliance of 5-15 people does no real good if one of the traditional departments suffers as a result (IE the AA falls behind on Econ or internals).

 

Like I said earlier in this post, I don’t disagree with spicing things up in any way. I do want to make sure we’re not skipping over the benefits of the current system, though, because doing so means any replacement ideas might fail to do enough.

[Popat]

Just now, Lysander said:

I like the general idea of this, and completely agree with pursuing new structures that are more flexible than what we have currently.

 

At the same time, I think you missed a very important benefit of the current executive structure - response times. We could certainly move to a legislative-style system, more like the few democratic alliances that still exist, but you still end up with a leader/2ic because there needs to be a response.
 

To clarify: If we take a theoretical legislative alliance, and they get hit by some outside alliance; a legislative-oriented alliance must vote on a course of action, which can take time and cause delays. If they’re appointing people to deal with this stuff until it can be voted on (IE appointing a “Prime Minister”), then it’s still the executive system, just more openly debated within the same stagnant government system.

Of course, I don’t fully know what you mean by “legislative” but without any specialization that allows for competent people in all fields to be represented, it’s difficult to see how a legislative group could work. A ruling legislature within an alliance of 5-15 people does no real good if one of the traditional departments suffers as a result (IE the AA falls behind on Econ or internals).

 

Like I said earlier in this post, I don’t disagree with spicing things up in any way. I do want to make sure we’re not skipping over the benefits of the current system, though, because doing so means any replacement ideas might fail to do enough.

If you have made and raised an alliance to scratch. I don't think you will give away the leadership to someone. You don't what the next successor will do. Will he continue the legacy or drown the alliance?   A leader will think It is better to not take the risk and keep the AA in their hands. 

It is much better to enjoy the power and dominance you have. If it is transferred , It will be given to an old trusted player , not to some random newbie. No wants to 'try' new things as those new things can effect the alliance negatively.

[Keegoz]

I refuse to retire. You can't make me.

[Ragnar-Danneskjold]

Be the change you want to see in the world.

 

Coup your current alliances leaders and try something radical.

 

Gotta put your money where your WoT is.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Ragnar-Danneskjold

[Velyni Vas]

I have nothing constructive to add. It was a good read. Thanks for putting this here.

[Kevanovia]

Just now, Keegoz said:

I refuse to retire. You can't make me.

I feel like you're always on the cusp of retirement and then these threads pop up that keep you going.

Damn you @Roberts! We almost got rid of him! 😂

[Emperor Adam]

17 minutes ago, Roberts said:

why alliances are rigidly structured with an executive branch at the top and usually lack a judicial or legislative component and avoid democracy.

Response time and simplicity. Not to mention stability. I know you address some of this further into the post, but I'll expand a bit. The average member does not know the political landscape of the game. While partial fault is on FA leadership, its not fully on them. Plenty of news channels and other resources exist to at least get an idea of it, even if it lacks significant detail. 

 

27 minutes ago, Roberts said:

The actual top of most alliances are not the most competent for the position, but rather the most popular or most outgoing

Somewhat true, but you're missing some things here. Every aa I've been in actively invites people to learn govt work in the dept of their choice - this has been true for every one of them - from KT, to t$, to even Assassins Order way back in the day. The issue? The people who aren't outgoing don't apply. And if they do, they more often than not fizzle out due to lack of communication. You *have* to be some level of outgoing to be any gov role. Communication is paramount- both with other gov members and your rank and file. If you're reserved, you might be okay in a lowe position but you probably won't excel in leadership - trust is important for that role and you can't have trust if you don't talk.

 

35 minutes ago, Roberts said:

Many high government, seconds in command, and even leaders themselves are well past the point of needed retirement

Agreed - but ties back into previous points a bit. FA especially is a very very difficult role to get filled, partially because it can be intimidating for newer folks, but also partially because you have to have a certain personality and drive to "break in" to the FA upper echelon. That's definitely a fault with the current (and historical past) FA enviroment that should be addressed - but it exists and needs to be accounted for nonetheless. I've addressed this a bit in the past, but I think the community as a whole needs to readjust and be more willing to assist new alliances rather than pushing them to the side. There's a consistent complaint about the same few alliances running the politics - but any new blood is laughed away instead of guided into fixing their mistakes. Protectorates are being made, but not often properly trained, if at all. It seems a trend to sign a decent sized micro, minimally help them, then expect to absorb them when they inevitably fail from lack of guidance. 

43 minutes ago, Roberts said:

I also see this as one of the causes of so many new alliances constantly being formed across PnW

Only problem I have with this is we're as a whole allowing them to go to waste as mentioned above. Imo the more the merrier.

 

47 minutes ago, Roberts said:

The only problem with this line of thinking is that PnW is a game meant to be enjoyed, not a real life institution

.. enjoy PNW? Might be your worst take yet

 

I think a big problem with all of these as well is leaks. Every major and most minor aas have been burned more than once by leaks - and its lead to a very reclusive governing standard fueled by justifiable paranoia. Its difficult to be open with your alliance when you're also looking over your shoulder constantly. There's middleground that can be reached, certainly, but its easier to keep things brief and under wraps.

[Pascal]

make any top alliance collapse speedrun any%

[Deraj]

“We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams…”

[DragonKnight]

3 hours ago, Ragnar-Danneskjold said:

Be the change you want to see in the world.

 

Coup your current alliances leaders and try something radical.

 

Gotta put your money where your WoT is.

Say no more.

 

@Canbeccome out with yo hands up and nobody's gonna get hurt!

[Emeralds]

I can imagine the Legislative structure be like

#Announcement channels 

Members we got hit by KT... There's a window of 1 hours to vote if we should deposit our excess resources and attack or speak with the attacking party for peace. Damn never mind, if you have more planes dogfight, deposit your excess resources now!!!!!

.... Actually, I support your opinion on a change, but I can only see it has a function of Internal Affairs. Every IA department could look into what you have said and see what can be done without agitating their members.

[hidude45454]

[Kastor]

I’m confused, when I felt this way I made an alliance that set out(and was apart) of the biggest game change in the history of Orbis. 
 

stop whining on the owf and go be the change you want to see in the world. 

[Ketya]

It feels like the behavior change you seek needs some sort of in-game incentive (due to the downsides of that change mentioned by others here).

For example, alliances choose government type. If they choose the one with those additional branches, then they get an income benefit. In exchange, they have a periodic in-game voting for those branches, and they can only declare wars if all branches click the “approve” button in-game.

 

Even after making voting in-game and declaring wars in-game, pretty sure people can still game the process

[Insert Name Here]

I'm seeing the word "voting" thrown around a lot here. I hate to break it to y'all, but democracy in pnw sucks ass. You don't need to invent the wheel to find out who's got potential for any role: it's literally whoever takes an interest to find out how things work.

You then let the person explore their area(s) of interest, make a few mistakes if needed and go from there. For FA in particular, you wanna run as tight a ship as possible, and have as few people involved as possible, unless you completely trust them, and even then it's risky.

[Raphael]

22 hours ago, Ragnar-Danneskjold said:

Be the change you want to see in the world.

 

Coup your current alliances leaders and try something radical.

 

Gotta put your money where your WoT is.

My brother in Sheepy, I'm in Arrgh. Every captain here is their own master, we are the definition of radical.

[Raphael]

22 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

Response time and simplicity. Not to mention stability. I know you address some of this further into the post, but I'll expand a bit. The average member does not know the political landscape of the game.

To address you and @Lysander at once, I think response time is the weakest reason given and I didn't even bring it up in my post as such. Minimal creativity could solve this issue by having emergency positions or figureheads for certain roles like quick FA needs or war. Many alliances already have this built into their current model: the FA head will often make calls in lieu of a full government discussion.

22 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

You *have* to be some level of outgoing to be any gov role.

This is a good point that I think I glossed over too much in my post, thank you for highlighting it. This being essentially an MMO, minimum social interaction is required for every role. We could have Econ gods among us who are simply too introverted to ever check discord.

22 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

Protectorates are being made, but not often properly trained, if at all. It seems a trend to sign a decent sized micro, minimally help them, then expect to absorb them when they inevitably fail from lack of guidance. 

I think this ties into some of the points I was trying to make about the entire system being stagnated. T$/WANA, TKR/Morf, Rose/Vexz, Cata/Keegoz, Grumpy/SRD, etc. many of the major groups have people who are or recently were the heads of their alliance/FA openly stating they had no time or no passion for the game anymore. Some of them have gone on for years in this state.

So we have a bunch of burnt out people running almost every alliance that would sign a protectorate - and we're shocked protectorates don't get the attention they might need when the alliances themselves can barely manage their own position? It's all a connected issue in my mind.

22 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

I think a big problem with all of these as well is leaks. Every major and most minor aas have been burned more than once by leaks - and its lead to a very reclusive governing standard fueled by justifiable paranoia. Its difficult to be open with your alliance when you're also looking over your shoulder constantly. There's middleground that can be reached, certainly, but its easier to keep things brief and under wraps.

I agree but I think we need to step back and really ask is the state of our game worth what these people would consider "necessary" to prevent leaks? This is a game, stuff is going to be gossiped about. OPSEC is very important but perhaps we've gone overboard and sacrificed too much just to keep usually-obvious plans from being confirmed.

20 hours ago, Pascal said:

make any top alliance collapse speedrun any%

Might be a good thing. Veins seemed to have more fun in Mythic anyway.

11 hours ago, Kastor said:

I’m confused, when I felt this way I made an alliance that set out(and was apart) of the biggest game change in the history of Orbis. 

Who are you?  

 

[Avatar Patrick]

I agree with the general premise of the post but disagree on the last part about legacy alliances. It's one thing to do bold experimentation if you're a struggling, relatively new micro with nothing to lose, but I think it's to much to ask major alliances that have put literal years of effort into getting where they are to do the same. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[luciuskonst]

This does raise an interesting question, how might major alliances be persuaded to explore new styles of leadership that allow for more player engagement? Even if we are suddenly in full agreement with Robert's sentiments, alliances still need to be incentivised to take action. And to be frank, I'm not certain if "other players have fun" is a strong enough incentive when considered in isolation.

[namukara]

On 7/7/2023 at 8:03 PM, Emeralds said:

I can imagine the Legislative structure be like

#Announcement channels 

Members we got hit by KT... There's a window of 1 hours to vote if we should deposit our excess resources and attack or speak with the attacking party for peace. Damn never mind, if you have more planes dogfight, deposit your excess resources now!!!!!

.... Actually, I support your opinion on a change, but I can only see it has a function of Internal Affairs. Every IA department could look into what you have said and see what can be done without agitating their members.

It would likely have a role in less urgent FA matters, right?

It'd give me an outlet every time I have a new and wonderful FA idea whose brilliance isn't recognised by the leadership of the alliance I'm in at the time.

[Sketchy]

On 7/8/2023 at 12:25 AM, Roberts said:

n't know is how this formula actually came into being, why alliances are rigidly structured with an executive branch at the top and usually lack a judicial or legislative component and avoid democracy. Ironically most alliances are modeled after the New Pacific Order - the villains of yesteryear. The NPO was the "premier" alliance in another nationsim similar to PnW and in the early years of that game there was a lot of experimentation going on with different government setups including within NPO itself (who was originally democratic!). A couple of years in and things shifted towards efficient bureaucracy and away from roleplay, and their success was mimicked across the board. Granted, this oversimplifies the process quite a bit but I don't want to get bogged down on history lessons right now.

Er... I would argue the way alliances are generally run is a natural outgrowth of the game mechanics and human nature, not something specifically modelled after NPO.

Democracy isn't some default state we have moved away from.

On 7/8/2023 at 12:25 AM, Roberts said:

Why do we all follow this same formula of elitism? Long has the argument been made that meritocracy dictates succession and government lineup, and long has that been a flowery lie. The best players usually don't rise into leadership, and I'll explain what I mean. Given the departmentalization of the typical structure, players tend to specialize in one or two fields. In reality, almost all of these fields overlap, but I digress. The leaders of most alliances tend to be the players that specialized into foreign affairs and diplomacy, as in real life so too in PnW: Networking and social skills are far more important in gaining leadership roles than actual competence at running the alliance. The actual top of most alliances are not the most competent for the position, but rather the most popular or most outgoing. Another piece of deconstructing the meritocracy argument is the tendency of players to cling to their seats. Many high government, seconds in command, and even leaders themselves are well past the point of needed retirement. Yet they hold up their seats with claims of stability or a lack of competency in their would-be successors. The hard truth of this game is that most alliances follow a form of elitism in the belief that newer players are incapable of leading the alliances they inhabit, and the most active and engaged players in this game usually languish in low government seats. Tangentially, I also see this as one of the causes of so many new alliances constantly being formed across PnW, and why groups todays seem to struggle to maintain even 100 members when alliances ten years ago would easily have two or three hundred. We still have a large playerbase, but the active players won't tolerate being sheep to be herded and no matter how many times "meritocracy" is repeated into the air, people do recognize that inactivity and incompetence is being rewarded due to seniority over activity and interest.

Lmfao. No. The game has a talent shortage, not some hidden surplus of brilliant players being held back by the evil old elitist cabals. Your argument is a generalization. Some alliances are led by people who as you would say have "actual competence at running the alliance" and some of those people are terrible at FA and despite having internally competently run alliances, consistently find themselves in bad FA situations.

Some alliances are indeed run by FA operators who possess no skills at managing alliances, running departments etc. But that is what the purpose of a second in command and high government is, and the better alliances find that balance. Some leaders are skilled at FA and have the ability to manage people, delegate tasks, run individual departments. 

In short, some alliances, are bad. That does not suggest a wider formula of "elitism". The truth is, this game lacks talent in pretty much every field. Most alliances are not teeming with back benches of talented potential government members. There is not enough competent Econ/IA/Milcom/FA people to go around.

On 7/8/2023 at 12:25 AM, Roberts said:

A culture that kills. This traditional power structure must offer some benefit, right? To be carried along by the older players for so long and to have spread to almost every alliance in the game/genre, how can this setup be so bad? The cultural of elitism is a self-defeating one. Much like a serpent devouring its own tail, this system inevitably causes its own collapse by suppressing player interest and pushing new blood out. As many of you have probably noticed, and as a few of us have observed over the years, cutting the playerbase out of the game is one of the worst cultural decisions ever made in any game genre that I'm personally aware of. Ninety nine percent of people who play this game will never truly experience the politics behind it other than being told what's happening. This will, has, and does kill interest in the game itself over time. Not only do new players see this culture and decide to never even begin the journey to becoming government, older players become dissatisfied over time and stop logging in just to receive marching orders. Now granted, many do play this game with the intention of never becoming government, but I think we can all agree that we play within a closed-off system that voraciously discourages new blood from joining. The best they'll get is forming their own micro, and even that is usually discouraged

This has been the case for literally the entire existence of the game. This game is played at different levels. Different people are comfortable with different levels. You are looking at everything through the lens of politics, and assuming that it's how everyone perceives the game. Many players don't care about FA at all. They login, press some buttons, fight people, buy shit. Some people want a community to engage with. Others want to run the internals of an alliance and never see the FA, some want to run the bank etc. Some players like doing their meta news shit, radio shows, or playing other games with their community. Some want to raid, see their loot numbers go up, be on the war leaderboards, spy people, be a troll, shit post. Some like to make bigass forum posts complaining about the people generating content for the game they play.

If your doomposting was actually true the game would have died a long time ago. I don't think we can agree that we play within a closed off system that voraciously discourages new blood. I think most alliances would happily take more government. Some people are not suited for it and will always find it hard to break into government, and we can say that's unfair or whatever but go play any other multiplayer game that requires you to interact with others and you'll see the same situation.

On 7/8/2023 at 12:25 AM, Roberts said:

Acknowledging the good with the bad. This system, as with any, is not completely evil in its design or implementation. The traditional setup is a clear and ordered hierarchy that allows a division of labor amongst government - and it pulls much of its inspiration from real life posts like Foreign Secretaries or Ministers of the Interior. It also offers a precious commodity that I personally find overvalued: Stability and continuity. Even if your alliance is stagnant, collecting loss after loss in wars, and shrinking by the day as your pool of interested recruits dry up - it exists. For many this is the ultimate goal, endurance is its own legacy and more agree with that statement than I think would admit it in public.

This I can at least agree with. Operating your alliances for the sake of legacy or longevity without proactive action and generating interesting content within the game is a weak purpose. But this undercuts your point. You both recognize the majority of content is generated by certain players and take issue with this, but in the same breath you yearn for people to do more.

 

On 7/8/2023 at 12:25 AM, Roberts said:

Decentralization of politics is something that needs to happen, the same twenty figures cannot control the narrative of the entire game for years at a time and expect novel or interesting things to happen. Term limits on positions would be an obvious first-step for any alliance looking to try something new, limited democratic functions, exploring judicial and legislative options for government rather than a simple executive branch setup. Creativity is the key to making this game interesting and fun, and I personally think it's time to try new methods and try to move away from a traditional setup in every single alliance

Then perhaps all of the stifled low gov people you referred to should band together, form a new alliance, and come take their position at the table. This idea that gatekeeping is what holds back alliances is honestly silly. If you bring value, alliances will flock to you, if you are competent, alliances will work with you. You can't sit in your bubble building cities and expect to be taken seriously, you have to assert yourself, which is why FA operators are leaders, more often than not.

I would suggest like others in the thread, that instead of trying to proselytize the game into conforming to your idea of how things should be, you should simply make the alliance you envision, and prove it's viability. The excuse that we are not tolerant of failed experiments, is just that, and excuse. If you have conviction in what you are saying, then you shouldn't see the risk of failure.

Stop criticizing the people making moves if you aren't willing (or able) to manifest all these ideas you are arguing for. 

 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

5 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I would suggest like others in the thread, that instead of trying to proselytize the game into conforming to your idea of how things should be, you should simply make the alliance you envision, and prove it's viability. The excuse that we are not tolerant of failed experiments, is just that, and excuse. If you have conviction in what you are saying, then you shouldn't see the risk of failure.

 

This is quite literally how I formed Grumpy, I took my experience of playing these games for a number of years, and then started an alliance that did exactly what I would have wanted an alliance to be like if I was a member.

As for the lack of competency, I would almost argue it makes for more interesting politics to have incompetent people running things, because they make stupid mistakes which lead to fun outcomes.  Competency is learned thru making mistakes.

[Raphael]

On 7/9/2023 at 1:38 AM, Avatar Patrick said:

As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

To clarify my post: My main thought behind everything I'm bringing up is that the entire political system of the game is indeed broken. These established AA's with "nothing to lose" are already seeing the ramifications of their lackluster policies, some are adapting others are withering. Many of them rely on inertia to maintain their status at this point. Meaning many people sit on their AA because they have little interest in the game anymore and that happens to be where they're parked. The active new blood goes elsewhere, and time will tell on how long you can rest on laurels.

[namukara]

4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

This is quite literally how I formed Grumpy, I took my experience of playing these games for a number of years, and then started an alliance that did exactly what I would have wanted an alliance to be like if I was a member.

As for the lack of competency, I would almost argue it makes for more interesting politics to have incompetent people running things, because they make stupid mistakes which lead to fun outcomes.  Competency is learned thru making mistakes.

Sadly it can also lead to people leaving the game. I've seen that in a few micros I've been in, especially ones which initially seem to have a bit of momentum and then just fail to get over the hump as it were. 

There's no more toxic environment than a micro in its dying days, because that's when the blame starts to get handed out and tired and angry people say things they later live to regret. I know I've been on both the giving and receiving end of this during my time in micro politics, which is partially why you've got me forever because I'm not doing that one again. Three times is enough.