Merlinus

It's an interesting take on things, Drummer. I've known many successes in my life that will, I believe be successful long after I pass this world. For instance, I've written some pretty good books that I believe will still be a good read long after I pass to my reward, when I die. Dying itself is easy; everyone does it once. But leaving can tell much about a person, and many good testimonies of success are from the way a person leaves this life. That's legacy. I've taught people things they didn't know, and ignited their passion for success in those things. They have succeeded, from their work, to their families and friends, and the world has been changed because good people did good things. I always believed I could do successful things; I've never not given my own ability doubts. Nice work. Congrats on the good grade.

I'm biased, but I'll put my thoughts into this disucssion anyway. Having fewer, large alliances makes the game "[i]more interesting[/i]', or "[i]more fun[/i]" for who, exactly? The benefit of rolling micros benefits who, exactly? Killing off the promise of a new generation of players to the game is precisely what [i]IS[/i] killing the game, in my view. At first it was that you needed to be with an alliance for growth, nation-building, learning the game, and developing a community of players. Then, it was that you had only a choice between going with a "[i]sanctioned[/i]" (read as "[b][i]real[/i][/b]") alliance to have [u]any[/u] chance at all of survival. Growing into a 700 or 7000 member alliance does nothing for the average member whatsoever. Government and other leadership positions are generational, regardless of elections or appointment. Tiered "[i]significance[/i]" (member caste system) is a fact of life in mid and large allainces. I joined TOOL when they were just zooming through the sanction barrier. Net result? This year, the number one complaint? Not enough activity. Why? Because every member matters, and it is governments obligation to prove that every alliance day! Using lower tier nations as "[i]collateral damage[/i]" or as "[i]meat shields[/i]" is certainly a strong reason to begin your experience in the game, isn' t it? Yes, it may answer an immediate necessity, but it is most often done dishonestly. The rebuild aid doesn't come. There are no partners with which to stagger, or "we will help you rebuild after the war!" On day two of a 3 month war, this is the message sent, and received. Yes, this is a strong reason to join that large alliance, for certain. Forgive my sarcasm, but we all know it to be true. No, it doesn't HAVE to be that way. It is chosen to be that way for convenience, and to allow the "more important" (read "Real!") members, the favored few, the opportunity to PM, save their pixels, and have one or two "GRAND BATTLES" for the fun of it. Certainly not all, but many alliances have this to offer their newer members. And, you want to further eliminate future growth, even outside the alliance that cannot, or will not sustain it's current membership? Micro Alliances are the whipping post of the game right now. Yet, when the mergers happen, where are those 20+ percent of members who choose NOT to merge to go? If they begin a new aa, based and bult on the culture they come from (or create a new one, for that matter) they are IN the game, playing with a new community of players, many of whom are new to the game. We still average over 200 new nations per day. There are places for these new players to exist in safety as they learn the game, under the guidance, mentoring, and experience of protectors, who have one hell of a tough job to do in order to do the job right! Smaller communities grow from different needs, expectations, and game play. The game is, however being played! Their voice matters in their aa, just as some of the voices I "hear" here matter in your alliances. The difference is, these new voices matter, have weight, and accountability within their aas. Growth to independence is the goal of most [s]micro[/s] new aas that I see. Yes, there is constant positioning, recruiting (with its hilarious mistakes--just like YOU made when you began), and talks of Treaties and/or merging. But this is not the end goal of the leaders I meet. Their intent is to grow, strengthen their nations, create viable Treaty existence, and prepare to be significant in the next battle. I know it CAN be done right, because I was in a premiere alliance that would just not do it any other way, no matter what. That's a core value our founding members have taken on our new journeys. It is most surely a fundamental principle of my new aa. I can find no reasonable explanation that should cause this to change, or stop. This thread seems, in my personal view, to be nothing more than a self-serving whinefest for the larger alliances that have the same problems my previous aa did. They have many members, yet few active contributors to the alliance, or the game. That is NOT the fault of the newer alliances, and it should be the responsibility of those same alliances to step forward, create protectorates for their next generation of players. The game will grow, and again be relevant to all players, not just the few who are "too big to fail". As we have recently seen, that philosophy is a very dangerous one, with the potential to evict hundreds of players out into the stratosphere of Bob with no anchor. There should be a place for those willing to play the game, and learn the game with absolute authority guiding them. New alliances, be they small or large, should take hold of that responsibility for once, and commit to creating the monster race of tomorrow, one worhy member at a time. We are, and we're doing fine. Yes, we have goals, and we will announce them proudly to the OWF as they are reached. Why? Because, just like everyone else, they are hard earned, and worthy of recognition. Pulverizing the game, or purposely causing the demise of the game simply because you think (erroneously, I might add) that you can, as we recently witnessed (again) is still pipe dreaming at it's finest. The small, newer aas have a small environment to gauge and correct such erroneous thinking, and preserve the integrity the game should have. It's not the newer aas who are controlling the game, and it is not they who are diminishing the game for hubris, bragging rights, or alleged "power" over Bob. These good folks are, in my view, the next (and naturally developing) generation of exciting allinaces and players who will take the history of the beginning, place it squarely where it belongs in their careful, arduous, and demanding learning, and write the future history of this game. If that seems a dangerous threat to a large alliance, I would submit it is that same large alliance who should be woodshedding itself with its not nearly capable warriors, weak NS, no warchest nations and turn it's own house around. THAT would make a difference we all could see, and appreciate. That's what is busily happening in the new alliances, mine own included. I'm proud of it. I'm proud of the players who are lending their considerable experience as we begin to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason. There is no excuse for bad play other than that of an incapable player. Any alliance who would let such a member exist without accountability is, in my mind, the next one to disband. Would you simply expel them, rather than take the time, treasure and talent to carefully mold them into superior warriors, diplomats and treadesmen? Many do, then point to the "ills" around them and cry. Insolence. What major league team would purposely destroy it's own feeder system of junior players? And declare at the same time it's strength, honor, and community? I mean no offense, but this constant ragging on micros is simply ludicrous. It is not our fault sanctioned or larger alliances are not playing this game well, or to the level of their own enjoyment. Before you point your finger in what you may think is a "safe" direction, know that it is NOT a safe direction. It is a false direction, and you point your fingers for no purpose other than to avoid your own accountability and responsibility for keeping new players safe, vital, and active. Until then, consider the blame to be yours, and fix it. If you want or need help, ask a reasonably aged micro for help. There are plenty of them out here who, for a nominal fee, will help you re-invigorate your alliance to new growth that is valid, warranted, and deserved.We could be your most powerful weapon to success. You believe the "[i]best[/i]" option, for the sake of the game no less, is to eliminate that resource? Idiocy in its most basic form. I think my best advice would be to remember your first year as a new member, in a new alliance. Remember the pains of learning, and the joys of the first tech deal's success. The new aa members look to you to see if those things we teach them really do matter. I know that, in many cases, the new members I reach out to are disappointed by what they see as a slow, boring game. I just keep asking myself which game they are seeing, and who are they looking at to give them that opinion. We plan to absolutely stuff our new members with obligatory actions, advanced learning techniques, and expectations of the highest level in those things we consider to be our strongest points as a new aa. Yes, it's hard. Yes, it requires absolute commitment by ALL members of the leadership team. But, even as our newest members learn, so are we as leaders learning how to promote, encourage and support those same values we are working to instill in EVERY member. I highly encourage and recommend the same for the largest communities of the game. In the least, you will get great nations reaching mid-tier in record time. At worst, you will be compelled to "remember" what you may have forgotten: why this game matters as much now as it did that magical day, way back in 20__, when you first logged in. That's our task. Think of us as the junior league if you will, but do not let that thinking cause you to mistake the reality that this "junior league" will be the very best players on the planet in not so long a time, just as you see yourselves and your alliance today. Befriend us. Become our alliance mentors--it doesn't take a formal protectorate to do that. We are members of the same community, after all. That's a challenge that could, I think, make this game significant for EVERY player, and EVERY alliance, no matter the size.

For the second time, I agree with Ardus! This is a huge undertaking. Much good luck to you all.

Your idea has no merit. For those of us seriously attempting to create meaningful alliances without the benefit of losing our identify through merger with larger, "more acceptable" alliances, we look forward to our growth and success. It's not the way many new entities come into existence, but it is certainly one that is valid. At least we are working for things that many alliances have let go the way of the dodo, like friendship among new alliances, members and spheres. Combining alliances for no purpose other than attempting to hang on to whatever the group considers significant is one thing. Openly abusing those who are working to do the right thing is not, in my personal view, such a reason. Thanks.

I've been here less than two years, so my view is limited. I agree with Kopp on this one, entirely. I haven't had a day since joining that I did not wish to be here. Some relate peace with boredom. For me that is not, and never has been the case. Peace is when alliances form, grow and prepare. This is when the player has the most influence in the game, because they have the greatest impact upon their own nation, and thereby the alliance they serve. In war, however, that is not the case. So, I strongly prefer a majority of peace, with the occasional chaos and unbelievable terror thrown in for good spice. But the best spices carry their own flavor, and should be used sparingly. Recovery is but one first part of peace. It is not the only thing. If we truly wish improvements, new wonders, new parameters to the game, I have no problem suggesting we pay for them through monthly subscription payments. "[i]Even the oxen is worthy of his hire.[/i]" Whether or not such a plan leads to reinvigorated admin team activity doesn't really matter. In my personal opinion, we have been given a game that invigorates, excites, stimulates, and provides many hours of entertainment pleasure. For me, it will for many months and years to come, even if no single change is made. Over four hundred new players this week. After more than seven years, that is a success we should all applaud, support and encourage.

Congratulations to my IRC friend youwish. May the Admins smile on your administration. Much good fortune on your journeys.

As the leader of a new alliance, I have developed a new appreciation for the difficult task of "beginning". Congratulations on your work. Good luck on your journeys.

Umm, Satellites don't exactly move in space. They are stationary, in geosynchronous orbit WITH the earth. So, they DO move actually, about 17000 mph, or at the exact same speed as the spot they are to own OVER the earth. They don't orbit.

Five is not an impressive number; it is an incredible number. Congratulations for figuring out how to do it, well. The game has evolved over that time because of players like yourself, and has presented to those who. like me, have less than two years experience with a much different, but IMHO a much better game. Thanks for that. I'll see you in five more.

Thank you very much. Good luck to you, as well, as you journey together into the future of hope and prosperity.

One of the most basic tenets of Contract Law is that it is what the document [b]says[/b] that has legal standing. That includes any "[i]intent[/i]" clause which is present. Absent such a clause, the document must pass scrutiny on its face. If the party proffering the consideration has unstated, or even invisible/unstated ulterior motives in that consideration which pass through to the agreement by the accepting party, it is the accepting party's responsibility to fully understand that to which they have agreed. It is completely possible, even reasonable to have a sound contract with lousy inclusions, as it is possible to have a lousy (yet legally binding) contract with good provisions. Both can easily pass legal scrutiny in any court of competent jurisdiction, and can be held binding on both parties regardless of the document's construct. If, however, any part of the consideration requires as a natural result of the writing an unstated (either more restrictive or more liberal) outcome, such parts of the contract [u]can[/u] be adjudicated. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, there is no such court of competent jurisdiction within the game for such scrutiny; the resulting reality is the court of public opinion. It is left to the community of players to govern itself, which can sometimes seem as if the inmates have taken control of the asylum. Yet, for years the community has held a relatively reasonable control over itself. This may have the unintended outcome of defining the boundaries or limits of acceptability (or not, given the plethora of divergent comments on OWF) of the game itself. It does not, however, have direct impact on game mechanics. I'm reminded of the first definition I ever heard of a Contract: " [i]A contract is a false document created by two liars, who sign their forged agreement and then put the lie into a desk drawer. The first liar to ever see the document again...loses.[/i]" That definition seems to fit here for some innocuous reason. I enjoyed the discussion between Heft and Lusitan very much. Raising this issue to the level of acceptance of both the Rules of Debate, and of Rhetoric is interesting to me. I add this to perhaps provide a basic point of mutual understanding for future or further discussion.

Please feel free to check out our forums at [url="http://s4.zetaboards.com/the_rosicrucians"]The Rosicrucians[/url] and join us in chat at #tootr. We enjoy making new friends. New players are always welcome.

This is a question addressed in our Charter. Any person declaring PZI/EZI of another player creates, in our view, an OOC penalty which doesn't affect the game, but the player. When an alliance does it, the problem is only magnified by an order of magnitude. Our severest possible punishment of an IC nation ruler (the basic game definition of a player) is a one-time ZI of that ruler's nation. At the moment that occurs, the penalty has been paid, and no further penalty can be levied. The nation is dead. This is, in our view, the carrying out of a death sentence. At the point ZI has been accomplished, judgment ends and mercy begins. We consider the matter forever closed. If the re-rolled nation chooses to attach anger, animus or violent action against us in the name of the previous nation, that is their choice, and ours to deal with as we see fit. We accept a "clean screen" and a clear record. If the re-roll does, no problem with us. The actions of the new nation are taken as we see them. If the player chooses to incorporate their player history into the new nation, especially in the game play of the new nation, they attach the consequences that go with it. But, they do have the option of creating a new nation with no attendant prejudice from us as an alliance. The purpose of punishment is not only retribution, but rehabilitation. Restoration comes with the player's decision to re-roll. How they handle that is entirely up to them, not us. This is true for any player in the game. Most would reasonably choose a complete restart, choosing (in our view) wisely. Some would choose retribution, choosing poorly. But, it is the player's choice. They are still in the game, with the opportunity to take those steps and actions necessary to build a better, stronger nation worthy of the respect and admiration of the other players in the game. We do also fully recognize this to be OUR law, not THE law of CN. We simply feel that having ours codified represents and offers to others a different, and better standard of gamesmanship.

[i]"The negative energy you all display at times is worrying and in some cases getting a girlfriend might be advisable, in others get a piece of rope and go string yourself up somewhere."[/i] Given your aa, and the incredibly poor reflection it is bringing to the planet, this just simply could not be worse form. Incredible way to disregard your alliance, especially now. Just incredible.

Peace is good. permanent intrusion with aa government is frowned upon. Understandable given this particular situation, but if you want to determine how the aa governs, merge them into your aa as a Protectorate and teach them. Else, the war never ends.

Congraultaions, Wally et al. Much good luck on your journey.

Legend hath been born this day. Congrats, Artemis! I love my Protector!

Wally, you are doing a good job. I'll look forward to your assistance...soon.

Your accomplishment is one that every alliance hopes for, yet very, very few have achieved. I stand amazed at your accomplishment today. Congratulations. Tomorrow, my Alliance will be five days old. In five years, we will be five years old. I have no doubt that you will be celebrating ten. You have done an amazing thing. Enjoy, and remember.

How can they if they do not exist?

Color: Black Alliance: [url="http://s4.zetaboards.com/the_rosicrucians"]The Rosicrucians[/url] IRC: irc.coldfront.net Channel: #tootr

@Ashoka: I agree. Astute observation. @Melancholy: Lower your expectations. TPF has standards.