Jump to content
  • entries
    9
  • comments
    131
  • views
    8,375

Loki's Words of Wisdom #5 (For Alliance Leaders)


Malik Shabazz

1,359 views

There is a reason why some alliances last for years and others do not. While the competence of an alliance's leaders has a lot to do with its success, another thing that a lot of people don't consider is the beliefs that an alliance lives by. NPO has Francoism, GOONS has trolling, GPA and similar alliances have Neutrality, INT has communism; the list goes on and on. In order to keep membership, you must have a set of beliefs; an ideology, a philosophy, a purpose, a grand cause that everyone must work towards. As an alliance, if you having nothing attracting members other than "protection and free aid", then you seriously need to evaluate your alliance and make the right changes before it's too late.

If you have no purpose as an alliance, no reason to exist, then good luck attracting members who actually want to amount to something in CN. In addition, good luck in amounting to anything in CN yourselves. So if you plan on starting an alliance, or you are currently in the government of an alliance; I hope you heed this advice.

27 Comments


Recommended Comments



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.

Link to comment

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?

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.
Link to comment

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?

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...