Jump to content

iMatt

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    625

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by iMatt

  1. Kzoppistan

    Posted

    Again, it's not about breaking any rules. In fact, quite the contrary, a good leader is one the members can trust. And one way of building trust is to do what you say you're going to do. Such as following what ever laws are in place. I'm just advocating a free hand in order to deal with the various situations that arise.

    Also, too much policy wrangling kills the creative initiative behind creative processes and member participation.

    I understand and agree with you, I just wanted you to clarify for the masses ;)

    iMatt..... come home..... we miss you.

    I have a bad memory but it says you are TPF. I was in TPF for a month or so, did you mean me? This is a recruitment thread for Kzopp not me :P

  2. Kzoppistan

    Posted

    Thanks for the invite, you two.

    iMatt, interesting points. And I agree that many people won't do much if not prodded, but I also think that people adapt to the culture the find themselves in. And in cultures that expect the player to be self sufficient by keeping their trades and slots full, they will. In theory. ;)

    Haha - theory is an interesting theory.

  3. Kzoppistan

    Posted

    Hey Kzopp. Interesting that you chose to forge your own path here - I envision you mostly as sticking in an alliance until the end. I used to think that was me as well, then I learned how to leave alliances and not feel like a deserter or implying the alliance I'm leaving isn't a good alliance.

    Shoot me a PM if you're interested in joining Exodus. We're just starting, a nice fresh start, and have a lot of great personalities (all very active). Joining now would set you up to be on the ground floor when as we continue to grow. You'd have your hand (however big or small) in the formation of the alliance. Anyway, I'll leave it at that, and that we'd be pretty humbled if you chose to join with us.

    As far as your last part:

    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.

    I disagree on the fact that people can find their own tech deals/trades. Many people who wouldn't go searching for these things would accept aid or sent aid if told to. More work for those organizing but hey, if they want to do it, why stop them. It's worth it in the sense that there are better TCs and more TDs.

    I'm beginning to feel that 'collapsing' the hierarchy (of an alliance) a bit makes for a stronger community.

    I agree with this one. That's why big alliances fell out of favour and small alliances are now the thing to do. Smaller community, less distance between leaders and members.

    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.

    This type of alliance is certainly okay *as long as* the leader doesn't quit or get ousted. Think about it, having no rules on the top relies on that leader being benevolent, kind, just, etc. If that person steps down and another less virtuous person moves into their position it could spell the end of the alliance. Ahh - I'll rephrase because now I know your motivation/the example you're thinking about when you mention this. Yes, the small charter rules aren't the worst to not follow, following the "spirit of the charter" is all well and good - but it's a slippery slope. Give the leader the choice of where to stop breaking charter rules, and you may be asking for trouble

    Blocs:

    They're superfluous.

    Agreed.

  9. wickedj

    Posted

    Before the competition, the week before, the average nations created per day was 150-160. We are now seeing ~200-250, that's a *huge* increase.

    Probably a lot due to the two recruitments, but also the Facebook thing.

    And people shouldn't worry about how many people delete, since all other things being equal, an increase in the nations created per day is good news. I wonder how long this will keep up?

  12. Ferrous

    Posted

    Although not on the movie train of thought, if you've read Watership Down, which is what immediately came into my head when you started your example there, it's got an interesting example:

    There are a group of rabbits which live in a down and are fed by humans, but every few days one of them is caught/killed by the humans. They are all fed very well and don't have to worry about prey, but to pay for this they pay in lives (randomly chosen). They can up and go at any time, but they stay. In the same situation, what would humans do?

    I hope this relates, it's late, and was the first thing that came to mind.

×
×
  • Create New...