Jump to content
  • entries
    6
  • comments
    103
  • views
    3,079

Yes To Memebrship Democracy , No To Dictatorship and slavery!


oOoMidooOo

670 views

Well i would Like to say That Most Allainces In CN now are turning to Gov Power and thats it and even if they say They Are democractic You just know it , that its really Not.

Not to mention The Amount of alliances that Dont Want their Members to say ideas or help Ruling.

I'm Here TO offer Democracy To Higher levels of Transperacy and Membership Ruling.

The Sovereign Is an Alliance Based on those Values , Where members Can see how their Government Are dealing and Democratic Ways and a open Community for Loyal And Determined Members.

Help Us To start This Great Alliance.

At the moment There is 3 Gov positions Open for expereinced Players And loyal:

- Minister of Defence

- Minister of Internal Affairs

- Minister of Foreign Affairs

So what are you waiting for..?

If you Wish TO Speak and ask more about , you could find me at #cn-sovereign . And i'm online most of the time.

OR Pm Ingame : ruler Name : oOoMidooOo

Or Register & apply at our forums with a short desrciption of you wanting the positon

Our forums : www.cn-sovereign.tk

37 Comments


Recommended Comments



Having been in a variety of structures, I can say I prefer the top-down "enlightened despot" type for its ease of administration, but I suppose a democratic setting keeps players interested.

Link to comment

One of the things about CN that has always intrigued me is the ability to vote with one's feet. This is something that, quite obviously, people in RL cannot do with the same kind of ease.

Considering that most CNers choose to exist in alliances that are dictatorships of one kind or another, trying to rally people around "Democracy" will probably not be very successful.

Democracy is pretty terrible in CN just about everywhere IMO.

Adjusted to reflect my personal view.

Link to comment

Not really.

Democracies Allow Initiative , allows ideas to be brought.

It depends how well you use it. ;)

A democracy allows you to advance by talking about doing things well. A meritocracy allows you to advance by doing things well. I've been in both, the dictatorship is far better.

Link to comment

In an oline game, most players don't give much attention to alliance affairs. That why "democracies" are innefective, and more often than not they are turned into Demagogy, wich isn't much different than a dictatorship.

On the other hand, dictatorships have their inconvenences, too. General membership tend to alineate from the alliance affaires, it's easy to turn the alliance into a buch of sheep. The rulers Ego will soner or later manifest out with devastating results. If officials suddently dissapear (due to leaving the alliance, burning out, or RL issues), the consequences can be devastating, too - specialy if it's the Head.

On both systems, stage-coups and general infighting can lead to severe problems, too.

As a rule, the right way to rule an alliance, in any massive-multiplayer-online-game, is to have a good core of dedicated members who know how to run things and get along well, and work like a council. The leaders being choosen much by acclamation, being primus-inter-pares, with power to do what has to be done, but who know to heavy take into account the general feelings of the membership in their decissions.

Link to comment

Idc What anyone says about my Writing style <_<

You should - you could promise the world to potential applicants, but unless you use proper rules of grammar, your alliance will look less competent and you will be less likely to attract the qualified applicants you are seeking.

Link to comment

If you're actually interested in making an alliance,that has a government style you believe is good, you should gather your friends (who share the same political ideology as you) and make it. Giving the position to anyone who asks for it is bound to fail for obvious reasons.

Link to comment

It's not that democracy is a bad idea in theory, but that it can only truly work depending on the quality and intelligence of the masses/member-base. I would much rather trust my alliance in the hands of a solid leader who knows what he's doing, then on the votes of a bunch of often inexperienced players. This is just a general statement, and not meant to apply to any particular alliance.

Link to comment

So wait, you're offering up appointed government positions based on the merits of experience and loyalty... while espousing democracy? That... doesn't sound like democracy.

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   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.

×
×
  • Create New...