I've decided to strike out on my own for a bit and have now left The Foreign Division. It is a great community full of intelligent and friendly members (and they are really growing, too), however, there comes a point where one must choose their own path. Up until now, I was obligated to remain where the river of fate carried me, with my first alliance, due to holding gov. responsibilities, and to the second alliance by virtue of the merger.
I considered forming my own alliance but, unfortunately, I do not have an internet connection to call my own, so staying as active is as needed to be a leader or even a minister is very difficult. I'm still capable of being a reasonably active member and performing some light duties.
If you have any questions about my abilities or sordid past, feel free to ask. Also, if you'd like to give me your recruitment pitch, by all means, go ahead. Now's your chance to scoop up an experienced player.
Thoughts on alliance organization:
Being in both a medium and large alliance, as well as studying other designs has led me to believe that most organizations are over-complicated, bloated, and inefficient. People can get their own trades and find their own tech deals. Anything that isn't directly related towards military readiness, and to some degree, foreign affairs, is a waste of time and manpower.
Most alliances are structured upon some sort of government model. Which makes sense if you consider the player as a member of a country (called an alliance). But it stops making sense when you consider the environment of the game. Going by the fact that this is a nation simulation game, an alliance is actually a collection of nations who have agreed upon similar goals and abide by guidelines of interaction as states, not just as people, and I think the organization should be run that way. Therefore, having 'ruling bodies' lording over the 'masses' seems wrong to me. I've always felt that the highest authority of Kzoppistan was Mr. O. No one else. Not the company commander, not the minister of war, not the minister of soup-in-your-pants, not the 'council' or 'senators' or even the head of the alliance.
Sure, the U.N. has a sort of governing body and other organs of legislation and execution, every organization needs some, well, organization. But I'm beginning to feel that 'collapsing' the hierarchy a bit makes for a stronger community.
That is not to say that I am a proponent of complete democracy. Because I'm not, and never have been. Even though I have publicly supported developing a democratic body in Zenith (and have even argued on this very forum for the institution [and if I might be allowed to crow a bit] somewhat successfully, it was only for the sake of exercising my rhetorical and debating abilities), it was only because that was what the members thought would salvage the crumbling alliance. I disagreed with it personally, but once the vote was concluded I put my personal feelings away and pushed to make the organization the kind of democracy envisioned by the members. I am a proponent of giving all information to all the members, I am opposed towards governance by committee.
A most functional alliance, imo, is a marriage of the two previous opinions, and so is led by a strong leader, the founder of the alliance, who is unhindered by excessive and cumbersome charter rules, who leads by virtue of their character. And in that vein, a competent leader who informs and listens to the nations that who have decided to align themselves in the alliance. A leader who treats the other nation leaders as equals reigning over their own nations and yet has the fortitude to lead those peers forward.
They're superfluous. Especially considering that blocs rarely actually do anything. Blocs overlap the treaties of an alliance and thus are pointless. And since most alliances in CN are afraid of either: disengaging from the current treaty web and relying on only their bloc partners, or exercising their power over others, that means the power potential in a bloc remains untapped and worthless.