Thierra

Technically, BoTS was not a protectorate at the time of the outbreak of war - Polaris had upgraded their treaty shortly before IIRC. Still, the protectorate aspect still applies, even if only in spirit. How you brought OV into this is beyond me though - I think AJ mentioned them only to create analogy. As far as the necessity of protectorates, what do we say about having a protectorate agreement instead of having any of the other alphabet soup treaties were use in the Cyberverse? The idea of signing an MDP with a new alliance is laughable, but isn't that what a Protectorate is anyway? An MDP-PIAT-ToA-ish combo?

I agree with all your details.

Granted, I pointed that out in the OP. They are very important in alliance politics... the question was, should something that has pulled their protectors into long wars (and even global wars) time-after-time be justified? Do the benefits of protectorates mitigate the inherent risks?

I think Gramlins is "just right." They are obviously well-known for their high average NS's (though so are many others), but Gramlins don't seem to flaunt it as much as other alliances celebrate their own mediocrity

Historically, I think Andromeda was a terribly underrated alliance when they were still around. They seemed to have done a lot before they were absorbed (sorry merged).

Do people who have no concept of how to run a government know to ask a larger power for protection? I feel like a new alliance made up of people who just started the game wouldn't even know to ask. I exclude "people who can't run a government correctly because of incompetence from this - they know to ask for Protectorates as they've probably been around for a while. I just think it's silly that we sign them left and right for everyone. Even larger alliances who have a substantial number of gifted people who are politically-savvy get protectorates. New Sith Order, a collection of excellent political minds, still had a temporary protectorate with STA. It's almost like a rite of passage that we've created; a tradition that often acts as an unnecessary middle step that could be replaced by a treaty with actual substance. I will throw it out there, though, that TBB and WalkerNinja almost convinced me to renounce my treaty-unfriendly ways

I feel Pacifica (ironically) helped Legion in keeping their alliance together. If I recall, they said they would declare on anyone that left Legion during the carrying-out of their terms. So, I commend them for correctly deciding that Legion > annihilation. Very good. As far as your claim that people use "______(name of your alliance)_____ means something"; this is a fairly effective, if overused element of propaganda. Few alliances in recent years have actually "meant something" other than the community and family-warm fuzziness that propagates throughout their off-site forums... off the top of my head, Vox Populi, MCXA (before they became uni-color), and the neutrals. Aside from that, alliances only "mean something" to the people in it, which isn't a surprise. I'll throw it out there that Legion ducked out in less than a week, and lost only a fourth of what the Grand Global Alliance did. As far as underrated alliances, I want put a tally next to Ordo Verde. How this small alliance ended up scoring more tech than they possibly know what to do with is amazing as a fun story and an interesting display of how inter-alliance politics work. Aside from that educational aspect, they really have nothing else that gets me going.

Also, if Chuckles contracts a rare form of influenza, Mary gets to be empress for another 48 hours or so.

So are PIATs (which I hate) and simple tech-deals between alliances. The latter of which also doesn't stink up the alliance politics section of the board, so this is really win-win. Definitely true. I'm not such a fan of that because it's fairly infantilizing for the new alliance. The protector, therefore, simply extends their foreign policy through a smaller arm, and we don't have two alliances anymore... we have one alliance and one annex. Magnanimous, to be sure. Helping new alliances come about is what keeps the Cyberverse healthy with a stable influx of new alliances to take up the slack where older ones fail, disband, or decline. That said, the case for micro-alliances needing protection if they have five or six people in it... are we granting them protectorates to further the proliferation of an infinite number of tiny one-man shows? There's a new alliance formed every other day, many of which die out right away because they weren't solidly founded and didn't have enough people. Perhaps this is caused by our overwillingness to sign protectorate agreements; why would an alliance take the time to develop something truly amazing and solid when they could half-$@! it and create something that a bigger alliance is going to protect either way?

I wouldn't call BLEU/allies as being part of a bipolar system. They were a good bloc, but give the others that existed concurrently and warred around them, the BLEU treaty seemed to be the one that was more likely to be avoided if a conflict arose. Also, their slow transition from military to a solely economic-focus... and then the transition from that to disappearance... disqualify them from being a "pole." If anything, BLEU relations only became a real "pole" right before many of those powers were owned in warfare.

Anyone who's ever worked with Lusitan of The Foreign Division should sing his praises (granted, I have a bias).

Excellent point. If anyone sees a GATO member on the OWF (which would be something), apologize to them for me.

One of the first treaties that many alliances (dare I say it... all?) sign is the Protectorate Agreement. The Declarations of Existence that clutter the Alliance Politics section are usually complemented by these promises that the big-boy alliance is going to protect his little brother (or sister) from meanies who come after them. But how useful are they really? In response to incidents regarding protectors/protectorates over the past few years (most epically during the Unjust War, in my mind), what is the benefit of having these agreements with small micro-alliances? I came come up with a few: the ability to cultivate a new alliance and welcome them to the Cyberverse, the safety is ensures the protected alliance from others who may prey on them, and the distinction is gives to the protector for being significant enough to protect both themselves and a third party (or several, like RagnaBlok). But how does the protectorate agreement do this in a way that the other treaties do not? This is not advocacy against the PIAT and the ODP, which are entire other subjects. These protectorates sometimes force their protectors to make difficult decisions, especially when treaty conflicts come into play... even if clauses are included to prevent it. They otherwise provide the same benefits as an MDoAP... or a one-sided MDP. And as these treaties sometimes, if the relationship is good, blossom into "big-boy" treaties, why sign them in the first place? Clearly, these treaties, which have existed for years, are the products of a by-gone age. Alliances no longer declare war whenever they feel like it (noCB or Karma War debates aside). I equate the protectorate with the pre-modern concept of a child's governess. Once very essential to the proper care and upbringing of a child... it is now an antiquated institution that has died parallel with its decaying usefulness. In the days of old, perhaps large alliances did prey on the smaller ones just for fun, but today, this would be deplored by the inter-alliance community. Now these are just my opinions - I'm sure that many, especially those who are in alliances that are large enough to have these agreements and act upon them. I am curious, however, and ask that supporters of this increasing unnecessary aspect of alliance growth (that could easily be replaced with a tech agreement, ODP or PIAT) to share some insight. Discuss.

Legion has been "rolled" more times than I can count. If you notice the commonality in your military defeats, it's generally several alliances versus you at the same time. So either your military is failing, or your politics leave much to be desired. Neither of which is anything worth clinging to with pride. The thing you're under-rated for is your perseverance. I think you're the only alliance that had been slapped down as many times while still maintaining the strange and often irritating will to survive is GATO. As far as your comments on having more NS than the IAA, Legion has four times as many members. You may take this as a compliment for the second area in which you are not flailing. P.s. "Viceroy."

I thought, for a second, we had a reincarnation of the GLBT-friendly alliance. This is much more Rainbow Brite (on acid), so I approve. Good luck

Good luck. I'll throw it out there that having a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" clause as the third most important item in your charter is probably not the best of messages to send. Even \m/ put their marriage clause at the end of their charter

What he said - we've been expecting regular updates, remember? Oh, and congrats on making it through a year!

They did get to be the voice of many sanctioned alliances. Oh wait... that was just one of them. Nvm.

^ And we have a winner! Sorry JTKode. Apparently there is always room for improvement.

Woo! Also, I might be the vanishing member...

I assume you did that "in [my] honor"?

This isn't a contest or anything of the sort. It was just a friendly shout-out to an alliance with a great recruitment message. I know - praising an accomplishment is so much harder than diverting attention from it. Try sequins next time. NPO better start something scandalous soon - unlikely trolls are popping out of the wood-work left and right

So it's been a while since I've gotten any... and I was flooded (as usual) but a number of cookie-cutter tomes of information, and a new trend of "HEY YOU! JOIN US BECAUSE WE USE ALL-CAPS!" messages. There was one message that I liked, and I thought it was simple enough, but good enough to deserve a shout-out. It's from Jtkode from Ascended Republic of Elite States. Good aspects: It can be mass-produced without having that unfortunately sterile quality that the other ones had. It was also casual and didn't mention the alliance name right away, which was a great way to approach it. Possible problems: I received it as a nation of almost 30,000NS who has been here for nearly three years Probably should limit the search field to people with under 1,000NS. Also, there's no provision for female CN players, but that's not as obvious an issue as the assumption-of-newb. So yeah, props ARES for a good message/recruitment staff :-)

Agreed - any lesser alliances, which is most, would probably have disbanded had they reached the point that GGA did. They do seem to maintain a number of virtues that many alliances in the upper tiers otherwise lack.

I think the big bleh is that this is really the first fall in a few years when there isn't some scandal or something to hate on. Two years ago, it was the Unjust War, and that was the entirety of the fall (pre-war, during the war, and the implications of post-war). Last year it was the War of the Coalition, which had a long run-up-to, and a long post-war because of those implications. This year, however, fall is just... normal. The early-summer war that was always have was large enough that it's fatigued everyone too much. This "morality brigade," which I don't really follow as much, probably doesn't help the situation. The lack of the usual enemies for the first time in years (really any of the evil axis-powers of the Initiative, and later the numerous Coalitions) has left a vacuum that no one has stepped up into just yet. But it'll pick up. The best thing about these vacuums is they don't stay open for long... and when multiple people try to take said position, that's when the excitement will pick up again. Oh, and deth: "Patience, young one"