The Philosophy and Opinions of Malik Shabazz

What is your view on your current alliance?

INT endorsement of communism is dubious.

I've always suspected INT has orders issued to its members in war time. You shouldn't take that from anyone man; fight the good fight.

What is your view on your current alliance?

HB has a theme to it, which is why they have thrived and have lasted as long as they have, but many alliances I've seen lack this and as such they are either stagnant, irrelevant, or have ceased to exist. The funny part is that they actually wonder why they didn't go anywhere.

INT endorsement of communism is just an act. As a former member, I can tell you that the closest they actually come is a sort of funny house mirror image of NoR, a reverse-fascism, or if you like, good old fashioned Stalinism. INT's version of communism is totalitarian, militaristic, chauvinistic, and incompetent.

It's all a matter of opinion really, but every alliance should have a core set of beliefs.

so how do you answer to HB's current state of not filling out a competent gov and general stagnant state (confirmed by at least two members)

so how do you answer to HB's current state of not filling out a competent gov and general stagnant state (confirmed by at least two members)

Not that this is relevant or anything, but how do you explain NSO's piss-poor military planning?

I would not call it piss poor considering all the alliances that declared on them were like twice their TNS.

I would not call it piss poor considering all the alliances that declared on them were like twice their TNS.

I mean how their plan to roll NPO took off like a sack of bricks and they started a war they didn't have a chance in hell of winning.

Not that this is relevant or anything, but how do you explain NSO's piss-poor military planning?

You used the wrong adjective, I'd like to think. We didn't have much of a top tier to stand with, but we've done decent I think.

But yeah, nice dodge.

Drive, ambition are philosophy all take second place to a far far more basic tenant of alliance leadership. Basic administrative competence is a the core of any successful alliance, not some starry eyed dream.

Drive, ambition are philosophy all take second place to a far far more basic tenant of alliance leadership. Basic administrative competence is a the core of any successful alliance, not some starry eyed dream.

You can be the most competent leader in the world and your alliance will still fail. Why? Because you give your followers nothing to believe in, nothing to hope or fight for. They simply just exist. If you ask me, giving your followers something to believe in is a part of being a competent leader. The sad part is there are a lot of alliances that have not realized this and as such they have succumbed to inactivity.

Loki, this blog post is troll bait for Rey.

what is R&R's theme?

You can be the most competent leader in the world and your alliance will still fail. Why? Because you give your followers nothing to believe in, nothing to hope or fight for. They simply just exist. If you ask me, giving your followers something to believe in is a part of being a competent leader. The sad part is there are a lot of alliances that have not realized this and as such they have succumbed to inactivity.

1. People are far more likely to be involved in something and believe in something if the rest of the alliance is working properly. People don't give a 2nd thought to philosophy if their tech trades are messing up, if trade circles don't happen, if newbies are not being trained or the military co-ordination doesn't exist. In IRON we are far more active because all that stuff is so efficiently running along in the background that we do not even have to remotely consider it, giving time to consider CN.

Loki, this blog post is troll bait for Rey.

No, that would be your existence.

1. People are far more likely to be involved in something and believe in something if the rest of the alliance is working properly. People don't give a 2nd thought to philosophy if their tech trades are messing up, if trade circles don't happen, if newbies are not being trained or the military co-ordination doesn't exist. In IRON we are far more active because all that stuff is so efficiently running along in the background that we do not even have to remotely consider it, giving time to consider CN.

They go hand in hand is essentially what your saying.

1. People are far more likely to be involved in something and believe in something if the rest of the alliance is working properly. People don't give a 2nd thought to philosophy if their tech trades are messing up, if trade circles don't happen, if newbies are not being trained or the military co-ordination doesn't exist. In IRON we are far more active because all that stuff is so efficiently running along in the background that we do not even have to remotely consider it, giving time to consider CN.

Competence is a huge part in an alliance's success, I never denied that. However, even if the alliance is efficient, what is keeping members there other than tech deals and protection? People will begin to ask themselves questions like "What are we fighting for?" "Why are we a part of your alliance?" "Are you just using us for cheap tech deals?" Even if I'm receiving benefits from being in an alliance, if I feel like I'm going nowhere and I'm not a part of something greater than my individual nation; then I'm leaving fast.

"What are we fighting for?" "Why are we a part of your alliance?" "Are you just using us for cheap tech deals?"

It's called a community, genius.

Wait, wait, hold just one minute;

House Baratheon has both, Loki and Tywin?

Wait, wait, hold just one minute;

House Baratheon has both, Loki and Tywin?

And at least one is government.

I don't think alliances need some sort of "higher purpose" to do well. Just having a good time and being part of a community with friends is enough for many. Like Icewolf said, being organised and staying active account for more.

Besides, I'm a bit leary of the idea of imported concepts just being plonked into CN and expected to work. i.e. communism or nationalism in CN, what do they mean exactly? The economic realities of CN are based on tech trades, resources and aid, not any form of right-wing or left-wing economics.

Although beyond that there (thankfully) is a lot of real (as opposed to imported) differences between alliances anyway, with very CN-centric axis, such as neutrality/non-neutrality, tech-raiding/non-tech-raiding, elitism/non-elitism, authoritarian/laidback alliance management etc.

It's called a community, genius.

Community can be a purpose, one that is less significant than a grand purpose imo, but a purpose nonetheless.

Loki, this blog post is troll bait for Rey.

I know right. People like to take everything I say as a political attack.

Community can be a purpose, one that is less significant than a grand purpose imo, but a purpose nonetheless.

Then just about every alliance has a purpose. The only exceptions being when people go inactive for reasons outside of the alliance's control and small newbie alliances that don't know how to play anyway.

Then just about every alliance has a purpose. The only exceptions being when people go inactive for reasons outside of the alliance's control and small newbie alliances that don't know how to play anyway.

I think that community is less significant than an alliance's larger purpose. Having a community is one thing, but what's the point of having a community if you have no unifying beliefs?