Question about the ODN

[Cortath]

Indeed, I'm not sure how to relate to the noble Cortath without being on opposite sides.

Quick we must disagree!

I surmize the object that shines so bright in the night sky is in fact the sun.

Take that, you you Francoist.

Aw, we can relate, Neboe!

And noble! You are far too kind. You were a statesman of the highest caliber. Still are. You, sir, are the gentleman.

hmmm i was once ADN as well (not as high ranking as yourself) so a part of me screams yes! but only if you drop the Pacifica AA and flag (i am sure Poper would have agreed).

Heh. Don't think that's going to happen. Who/where were you in ADN?

[Heft]

I avoided this thread because I assumed it would be just more empty ODN-bashing and I didn't feel like bothering, instead it's apparently turned into some sort of "We've always hated IRON!" wankfest.

As someone who was closely involved in most of these situations, I'll give my perspective, then.

Did IRON view ODN as an "annoyance?" ODN was always a liability to us, and was just about the only treaty we ever kept that never really benefitted us. Obviously that from time to time made things frustrating. We didn't keep ODN on just to use or manipulate them, though, we kept them because we felt it was the right thing to do and we couldn't just drop them (especially after they dropped Polar and everybody decided to start hating them). ODN offered very little strategic value, but we still decided to keep them under our protection because they were loyal allies and because they had generally been good to us and it would be wrong to just cut them loose, especially in a world that was hostile to them and that they didn't seem very prepared to deal with themselves.

We never had any interest in directing ODN's policies or making them do anything. We never tried to force ODN to sign a treaty with Valhalla, and it was never really communicated that ODN, at the least the gov, thought we were. From my perspective (And considering CJ only tried for it at my personal request, my perspective is kind of important here), the goal was to push ODN to not be so seemingly dependent on IRON. The idea being that if ODN were to start making headway in getting other strong allies they wouldn't have to rely on us. It was supposed to help ODN. Nearly everything I ever did regarding ODN was supposed to help them, or at least push them into standing on their own. I would have loved to have stood shoulder to shoulder with ODN, but it eventually seemed impossible that ODN would ever let itself reach that point. We were reluctant to sign an MADP with ODN because we didn't have any real indication that ODN would ever be able to rise to that level, and we didn't want an MADP partner that was in that position.

Someone mentioned how ODN's gov can routinely change. Many of the problems I personally had trying to work with ODN and trying to move ODN into a less dependent stance were how seemingly unstable and unpredictable the government and membership were. WalkerNinja was a good, promising Secretary General for a few months, and then he left, and then SoccerBum came in and he was pretty great to work with and he was obviously really working his $@! off to try and push ODN in a new direction, which was cool. And then he left. At about that point I got kind of tired of seeing Secretary Generals come in and try to build things up and try to basically work their membership into doing what they wanted them to do (ODN's brand of democracy is, quite frankly, terrible for long-term goals or planning, and one of the biggest reasons I'm so skeptical about ODN's ability to thrive on their own), and then getting burned out and leaving and having the whole process start over. Certainly some blame lies with myself personally and IRON generally, but damn if that wasn't frustrating.

When I told ODN that Polar government were deceiving them or manipulating them or couldn't really be relied upon, I fully believed it.

Many of our feelings and affections for ODN were genuine, though they were always mixed with frustration. IRON membership, especially, has always viewed ODN fondly. This is why there was such a strong feeling of betrayal when ODN seemed to casually break from IRON.

There's even more irony, of course, in that chat IRON and the NPO told me that the ODN would abandon us and that I should drop them now. I informed them that such a thing was impossible and our bond was too tight for such a thing to occur. You did so within a few months in order to re-align yourself to IRON and One Vision. Just sayin'.

I do remember something about ODN talking to you guys and not to us and DM getting upset or something, but I do not ever remember anything like that being said, at least not from IRON (it's entirely possible NPO dropped a few "can you guys drop them already so we can hit them?" lines I suppose).

[potato]

We never had any interest in directing ODN's policies or making them do anything. We never tried to force ODN to sign a treaty with Valhalla, and it was never really communicated that ODN, at the least the gov, thought we were. From my perspective (And considering CJ only tried for it at my personal request, my perspective is kind of important here), the goal was to push ODN to not be so seemingly dependent on IRON. The idea being that if ODN were to start making headway in getting other strong allies they wouldn't have to rely on us. It was supposed to help ODN. Nearly everything I ever did regarding ODN was supposed to help them, or at least push them into standing on their own. I would have loved to have stood shoulder to shoulder with ODN, but it eventually seemed impossible that ODN would ever let itself reach that point. We were reluctant to sign an MADP with ODN because we didn't have any real indication that ODN would ever be able to rise to that level, and we didn't want an MADP partner that was in that position.

Actually, getting told off for signing a ToA with MK, being friendly to ASC (whom ODN held a treaty with pre-UjW) and a few others (VE comes to mind) was seen as IRON sticking its nose in ODN's business.

Someone mentioned how ODN's gov can routinely change. Many of the problems I personally had trying to work with ODN and trying to move ODN into a less dependent stance were how seemingly unstable and unpredictable the government and membership were. WalkerNinja was a good, promising Secretary General for a few months, and then he left, and then SoccerBum came in and he was pretty great to work with and he was obviously really working his $@! off to try and push ODN in a new direction, which was cool. And then he left. At about that point I got kind of tired of seeing Secretary Generals come in and try to build things up and try to basically work their membership into doing what they wanted them to do (ODN's brand of democracy is, quite frankly, terrible for long-term goals or planning, and one of the biggest reasons I'm so skeptical about ODN's ability to thrive on their own), and then getting burned out and leaving and having the whole process start over. Certainly some blame lies with myself personally and IRON generally, but damn if that wasn't frustrating.

Anyone who knows ODN a bit knows that the SecGen is pretty much a figurehead. Even with charismatic leaders such as WN or pingu, the REAL seat of power is in the Senate. Yes, some people swapped places but I, for one, was an ODN Senator for 4 terms in a row. That's 6 months in gov't. Not once did I ever get a PM/query/message from IRON, save Draz whom I knew from another game. Maybe you didn't need to talk to ODN but then don't come in complaining you didn't know anyone. Dip was SoS for ages too. Bar one or two people now and then, it was pretty much the same people leading ODN for a while. Most of the elected/selected people were taken from a pool including Yav, Kashy, Eric, shilo, Golan, myself, WN, soccerbum, Dip, Salka, Korlus ... Granted, you don't have to know everyone but after 6 months in gov't, I'd have expected our closest ally to have - at least - heard of some of us.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said though. I don't mean to blame IRON on this. A failing relationship has blame on both sides.

[Cataduanes]

Heh. Don't think that's going to happen. Who/where were you in ADN?

Just one of the crowd (same nick), first got into ADN when acting as MoFA for a small outfit called the UNFR, then i was a Nasicournian.

Someone mentioned how ODN's gov can routinely change. Many of the problems I personally had trying to work with ODN and trying to move ODN into a less dependent stance were how seemingly unstable and unpredictable the government and membership were. WalkerNinja was a good, promising Secretary General for a few months, and then he left, and then SoccerBum came in and he was pretty great to work with and he was obviously really working his $@! off to try and push ODN in a new direction, which was cool. And then he left. At about that point I got kind of tired of seeing Secretary Generals come in and try to build things up and try to basically work their membership into doing what they wanted them to do (ODN's brand of democracy is, quite frankly, terrible for long-term goals or planning, and one of the biggest reasons I'm so skeptical about ODN's ability to thrive on their own), and then getting burned out and leaving and having the whole process start over. Certainly some blame lies with myself personally and IRON generally, but damn if that wasn't frustrating.

PArt of that dependent state was the fault of the sec-gens and the govt of the time not our democracy, i think the fact our democracy is more vibrant than it has ever been puts paid to the myth that our institutions are unstable. Sure we had problems in the past regarding planning and so forth but this is the fault of individuals not our system of government.

The thing is that you seem to atribute more influence and power to the role of Secretary-General than is actually the case, our govt is a team and the Sec-Gen is but one component part of that, we are standing on our own two feet now and our current leaders and the faces behind the scenes doing the nuts and bolts are the reason why....as for burn out i fail to see it that way, people leave for a variety of reasons yet we have many who have worked tirelessly for a long time and continue to do so long after the Walker's and Soccer's have exited the stage.

Besides i would say our current sec-gen and government is far superior to either of those administrations (no disrespect boys ) and the coming months i am sure will show that to be true. Our weakness in the past regarding internal org and planning has been worked upon and we have improved in leaps and bounds during the last few months of relative isolation and while certainly not the model of efficiency compared to some for us it is huge improvement.

You refer to the membership as unstable which i disagree with, perhaps past administrations were simply not good at seeking to build consensus and perhaps tried to impose orders rather than persuade unlike our present govt which has sought to engage the rank and file to a larger degree. Alot has changed since Walker's departure perhaps its time you got to know ODN better. And for the record i do not hate IRON but i do hate 1V with all my heart.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Cataduanes

[Heft]

Anyone who knows ODN a bit knows that the SecGen is pretty much a figurehead. Even with charismatic leaders such as WN or pingu, the REAL seat of power is in the Senate. Yes, some people swapped places but I, for one, was an ODN Senator for 4 terms in a row. That's 6 months in gov't. Not once did I ever get a PM/query/message from IRON, save Draz whom I knew from another game. Maybe you didn't need to talk to ODN but then don't come in complaining you didn't know anyone. Dip was SoS for ages too. Bar one or two people now and then, it was pretty much the same people leading ODN for a while. Most of the elected/selected people were taken from a pool including Yav, Kashy, Eric, shilo, Golan, myself, WN, soccerbum, Dip, Salka, Korlus ... Granted, you don't have to know everyone but after 6 months in gov't, I'd have expected our closest ally to have - at least - heard of some of us.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said though. I don't mean to blame IRON on this. A failing relationship has blame on both sides.

Just one of the crowd (same nick), first got into ADN when acting as MoFA for a small outfit called the UNFR, then i was a Nasicournian.

PArt of that dependent state was the fault of the sec-gens and the govt of the time not our democracy, i think the fact our democracy is more vibrant than it has ever been puts paid to the myth that our institutions are unstable. Sure we had problems in the past regarding planning and so forth but this is the fault of individuals not our system of government.

The thing is that you seem to atribute more influence and power to the role of Secretary-General than is actually the case, our govt is a team and the Sec-Gen is but one component part of that, we are standing on our own two feet now and our current leaders and the faces behind the scenes doing the nuts and bolts are the reason why....as for burn out i fail to see it that way, people leave for a variety of reasons yet we have many who have worked tirelessly for a long time and continue to do so long after the Walker's and Soccer's have exited the stage.

Besides i would say our current sec-gen and government is far superior to either of those administrations (no disrespect boys ) and the coming months i am sure will show that to be true. Our weakness in the past regarding internal org and planning has been worked upon and we have improved in leaps and bounds during the last few months of relative isolation and while certainly not the model of efficiency compared to some for us it is huge improvement.

You refer to the membership as unstable which i disagree with, perhaps past administrations were simply not good at seeking to build consensus and perhaps tried to impose orders rather than persuade unlike our present govt which has sought to engage the rank and file to a larger degree. Alot has changed since Walker's departure perhaps its time you got to know ODN better. And for the record i do not hate IRON but i do hate 1V with all my heart.

I never said we didn't know anyone else, and I didn't mean to indicate that the Sec-Gen was the entire government, but there seemed to be a definite trend of someone coming in and trying to get something done, an then moving forward a little, and then then leaving, and everything moving back a little. The senate was there but from experience it was generally the secretaries that were handling foreign affairs issues and thus they were the ones we interacted with the most. And the one common thread waws that they all seemed to have difficulty getting ODN to actually move forward and follow their leadership. In general, I got the impression that ODN never let their leaders actually lead, leaving the direction and goals of the alliance primarily in the hands of a directionless, amorphous blob of opinion. Maybe you've managed to make it work out better, or maybe the varying forces within your membership and government happen to be pulling in mostly the same direction right now, but I still have my doubts.

Anyway, my main point in posting was to balance things out and explain how things looked from my side.

[Cortath]

Just one of the crowd (same nick), first got into ADN when acting as MoFA for a small outfit called the UNFR, then i was a Nasicournian.

Ah, a Nasi.

Ah, the Athens Accords. I think that's what tied us back in the day.

[merlin]

Walker's exit was probably unavoidable.

I do agree that we have had a problem with consistency in leadership. I can understand why this would have led IRON to believe that we are unreliable. However, much of their frustration was a result not of an inability to motivate the membership- after all the IRON MADP passed unanimously on our side- but of the seeming lack of interest from IRON's side. That doesn't absolve our leaders, but having nothing to show after a total of 8 months of very pro-IRON foreign affairs direction is disheartening. I was not privy to most of your discussions with ODN's past leadership, but I find your honesty here refreshing. I would hazard a guess that your wish for the ODN to be more independent and self-reliant was not fully communicated previously.

[Heft]

Walker's exit was probably unavoidable.

I do agree that we have had a problem with consistency in leadership. I can understand why this would have led IRON to believe that we are unreliable. However, much of their frustration was a result not of an inability to motivate the membership- after all the IRON MADP passed unanimously on our side- but of the seeming lack of interest from IRON's side. That doesn't absolve our leaders, but having nothing to show after a total of 8 months of very pro-IRON foreign affairs direction is disheartening. I was not privy to most of your discussions with ODN's past leadership, but I find your honesty here refreshing. I would hazard a guess that your wish for the ODN to be more independent and self-reliant was not fully communicated previously.

I get the feeling that neither side was fully communicating their desires.

[Diomede]

Thread entitled "Question about the ODN" turns into impromptu Q&A.

Would make a good Onion article if CN had it's own Onion...I think I just came up with the best idea ever. Perhaps "OWF thread fails to be hijacked, mass panic ensues" would be funnier.

I lolled quite a bit. Thank you.

Heft, your input is both welcome and a good read. Some of what you say about ODN's democracy, I feel is pretty accurate. Especially, for instance*:

I got the impression that ODN never let their leaders actually lead, leaving the direction and goals of the alliance primarily in the hands of a directionless, amorphous blob of opinion.

*Disclaimer: I have often been accused of also being directionless whilst in ODN government. Whether this is true or not, I feel it's ridiculous to compare the two in the first place.

Prior to leaving as Assistant Sec Gen I pushed for 3 month terms because I picked up on IRON's and other's discomfort with how often our governments changed. However, I must balance this with what Potato said. I was in ODN government for 6 straight months, followed by a 3 month break (a month was spent in GGA and R&R) and again, months within government again. Like with Potato, I never really got any IRON interaction unless I initiated it.

Something I do find distressing though, is why yourself and/or IRON weren't blunt with ODN about such things? Honestly, if you'd have approached ODN while I was in gov and basically said that yes, you consider ODN to be a liability, directionless and dependent on you and whatnot, then I'd have welcomed it. Would have helped with some (imo) necessary changes such as the longer government terms.

[merlin]

Meh. Pretty much everyone has come to the agreement that longer gov terms are simply symbolic. Either you are willing to stick it out for three years and do what's necessary or you aren't. The means of retaining power are fairly immaterial. I can't recall the last time someone was not re-elected because of a decision to change policy or something like that. In fact, it's been nearly two years since the incumbent secretary general lost an election.

[Heft]

I lolled quite a bit. Thank you.

Heft, your input is both welcome and a good read. Some of what you say about ODN's democracy, I feel is pretty accurate. Especially, for instance*:

*Disclaimer: I have often been accused of also being directionless whilst in ODN government. Whether this is true or not, I feel it's ridiculous to compare the two in the first place.

Prior to leaving as Assistant Sec Gen I pushed for 3 month terms because I picked up on IRON's and other's discomfort with how often our governments changed. However, I must balance this with what Potato said. I was in ODN government for 6 straight months, followed by a 3 month break (a month was spent in GGA and R&R) and again, months within government again. Like with Potato, I never really got any IRON interaction unless I initiated it.

Something I do find distressing though, is why yourself and/or IRON weren't blunt with ODN about such things? Honestly, if you'd have approached ODN while I was in gov and basically said that yes, you consider ODN to be a liability, directionless and dependent on you and whatnot, then I'd have welcomed it. Would have helped with some (imo) necessary changes such as the longer government terms.

I don't know. Wasn't a priority, assumed ODN was working towards that goal anyway, we were reluctant to come out and say "hey get off our teat" or whatever. Pick one.

[Haflinger]

I am struck by the astonishing levels of irony in this topic.

Ah well. Diomede might remember what I'm thinking of. But it looks once again like I was right when I really wish I wasn't.

[Diomede]

Sucking on IRON's teat? Not sure about other ODN gov, but me, hardly. Citing the entire lack of communication issue, I never really payed attention to IRON. I always worried more about alliances that we didn't have to approach to get any discourse from - like R&R, Vanguard and Invicta.

I'm not sure what you mean there Haf, but ok.

[bill n ted]

Actually, getting told off for signing a ToA with MK, being friendly to ASC (whom ODN held a treaty with pre-UjW) and a few others (VE comes to mind) was seen as IRON sticking its nose in ODN's business.

Having an MADP partner on one side (NPO) who didnt particularly like ODN, MK or ASC then having ODN on the otherside with an MDP with us (IRON) sat in the middle. Being sat in the middle of two allies who dont like each other is no fun; but when ODN sent 2 of its senators over to NPO to patch up relations with Pacifica culminating in a complete cluster$%&@ later requirng Akasha to go to NPO to clean the mess up; that was then topped off with treaties with MK and ASC. (Did the Senator situation happen before or after the MK/ASC treaties?)

If my memory is right (and this was quite a long time ago 18months+) we asked what the hell was ODN doing; one moment wanting to get better relations with the NPO (and making a hash of it anyway) and then the next moment doing the complete opposite by signing treaties which put ODN even closer to the shooting range.

Ill echo Hefts point about ODN government and the system that allows them to get into government. Government terms are far too short, 3 months here is nothing especially in an alliance leadership position. What I personally found frustrating was that when I did start talking and trying to build some form of rapport with ODN leadership (Diomede, Soccerbum,Sunstar,WalkerNinja,Akasha) by the time I did start trusting that person there would be another election coming up and wham; that person is no longer in government and has been replaced with someone that I had never even heard of never mind had any trust or dealings with.

Again Ill echo Heft; I personally always felt (and still do) that ODN is run by the membership not the elected members of government. Ive always doubted the ability of the ODN government to do something that was massively unpopular to the membership but required for the good of ODN as a whole; Im assuming the root cause of that is fear that whoever rocks the boat and upsets the members will never be elected again and will be replaced by some yes man by a disgruntled membership come the next election. Ill agree with everyone that ODN's general lack of direction was also a concern, that was a contributing factor to the turning down of the MADP but the thing that really nailed it was the concern over government stability.

As Ive said in many colourfull ways as have others, Bama especially; ODNs legacy is canceled or simply ignored treaties when they are needed. Either by design or default ODN manages to get treaties spread here; there, and everywhere. When a situation develops and becomes clear as to where a war will blow up ODN seemingly has 57 excuses already lined up as to why it wont/cant honor a treaty for every plausable situation it may find itself in.

With that semi constructive post over Ill go back under my bridge )):

[shilo]

I don't know. Wasn't a priority, assumed ODN was working towards that goal anyway, we were reluctant to come out and say "hey get off our teat" or whatever. Pick one.

In my time during government (and I too have been in government for not a short time) I only found IRON government (the membership of IRON steadily interacted more with ODN, and has been a very pleasent presence on the ODN forum ever since) approaching ODN government when either ODN was told "to not do something" (ie treaties, members etc, as mentioned countless times above) or shortly before larger international events, where IRON was trying to make sure we follow their lead, and possibly get information from allies IRON is not treatied with.

The last time I remember having had any kind of candid, longer discussion about ODN-IRON relations was during Furytears tenure as IRON's SoS, 1-2 months after the Maccers debacle, when we were trying to work past grievances of old. We had some direct, honest talk, and I'd say it was a direct prelude to us steadily increasing relations up to signing the Blood Brothers Pact.

Regarding more constant leadership: while in terms of SecGens, we have a relatively constant changing of leaders (none has lasted longer than 3 consecutive terms as of yet) on the level right below SecGen, ie Secretaries or Senators, we've had some relative constant Senates (and the Secretaries above all have been very constant).

Imho, it is more a thing of commitment, it has been mentioned above, it rarely, very rarely, happened that a current office holder was not reelected. For the very large part, RL simply made it difficult to continue serving more terms in a dedicated manner.

Of course, in a democracy, we don't have someone as 'leader' sitting idle, who infact is totally inactive, and barely ever around. Merlin for one has been in government for ages, Sunstar as well, it's all possible, it's just the fact that in ODN, any kind of presence must be real, ie you can't be SecGen and continue being SecGen if you visit the forums once a week.

I am sure that if you take an honest look at activity and presence, ODN hasn't been changing leadership more often than let's say IRON has pretty much inactive council members.

Edited May 2, 2009 by shilo

[merlin]

Off the top of my head, I don't believe any of those you mentioned (Diomede, Soccerbum,Sunstar,WalkerNinja,Akasha) lost an election from the time we had a treaty with IRON. I suppose there was always the potential for them to be replaced, and some of them stepped down during that time period (all of those people left at one point or another except Sunstar), but I see their departures as at most tangentially related to the system itself. They would know better though.

You are correct that the ODN is run by the membership; we are a democracy after all. However the government can very well act in a way which is massively unpopular to the membership. Canceling on Polar is really the best example of this.

[Cataduanes]

<snip>

Wow!

While you have not covered any new ground i am impressed that this time you did not resort to base trolling, it seems that your not just a pretty face....you should be 'constructive' more often mate, people might have more time for you

Anyway pleasantries aside you have not covered any new ground in that post and your points have been raised earlier and answered in kind so i will not bore everyone repeating my own stand, suffice to say all retorts can be found elsewhere in this thread. However i will touch upon one of your points which is the question of treaties; i agree that past administrations were guilty of a lack of strategic and practical thinking with their persuit of certain treaty and a degree of naivity at times, and lesson have been taken on board in this regard...of course there will be consequences for our most recent action and yes we fully understand the doubts most of Bob will have abut signing on with us and i accept that, only by our conduct from this point onwards can we quash that perception...of course i know you among others will remain higly dubious and in some cases outright hostile but in my eyes that is a small price to pay if it helps restore ODN to a path it should not have abandoned a long time ago...

Also get from under the bridge man, you won't get any sunshine down there .

Edited May 2, 2009 by Cataduanes

[Soccerbum]

<snip> I personally always felt (and still do) that ODN is run by the membership not the elected members of government. </snip>

This is true. This is one of the things I couldn't ever really get over about ODN. I guess it's one of the reasons why you can say its still around, though - it has a very loyal membership.

Anyways, this thread is interesting. Keep it up, I like reading what people have to say.

EDIT/

I also want to say that if I have said anything hurtful regarding IRON, it wasn't meant towards those with which I had a great relationship with while in ODN, but rather towards IRON as a whole (mainly Council). It's strange that the frankness and directness exhibited here was never really exhibited to this extent... at least, while I was in government.

Edited May 2, 2009 by soccerbum879

[bill n ted]

Also get from under the bridge man, you won't get any sunshine down there .

Lies. We have lots of sunshine

[Doitzel]

Ill echo Hefts point about ODN government and the system that allows them to get into government. Government terms are far too short, 3 months here is nothing especially in an alliance leadership position. What I personally found frustrating was that when I did start talking and trying to build some form of rapport with ODN leadership (Diomede, Soccerbum,Sunstar,WalkerNinja,Akasha) by the time I did start trusting that person there would be another election coming up and wham; that person is no longer in government and has been replaced with someone that I had never even heard of never mind had any trust or dealings with.

Again Ill echo Heft; I personally always felt (and still do) that ODN is run by the membership not the elected members of government. Ive always doubted the ability of the ODN government to do something that was massively unpopular to the membership but required for the good of ODN as a whole; Im assuming the root cause of that is fear that whoever rocks the boat and upsets the members will never be elected again and will be replaced by some yes man by a disgruntled membership come the next election. Ill agree with everyone that ODN's general lack of direction was also a concern, that was a contributing factor to the turning down of the MADP but the thing that really nailed it was the concern over government stability.

This does not make ODN completely unmanageable as an ally or friend, it simply requires a different approach to keeping the alliance as a whole in good graces. More than anything else ODN is a forum community and you have to establish rapport with both their current leaders and with that forum community. It is surprisingly easy, actually, and I gained quite a loyalty from ODN back when I was NPO's "orange colony". The same can be said of electron sponge's friendships there, which ran deeper even than the old NS ADN connections.

ODN needs to address its problems with continuity in government with longer, rotating terms or perhaps partial oligarchy (less likely to happen), but I think the reasons for many alliances' failures to maintain a steady relationship with them lies as much in their failure to understand what ODN is all about as much as ODN's flakiness.

[shilo]

This does not make ODN completely unmanageable as an ally or friend, it simply requires a different approach to keeping the alliance as a whole in good graces. More than anything else ODN is a forum community and you have to establish rapport with both their current leaders and with that forum community. It is surprisingly easy, actually, and I gained quite a loyalty from ODN back when I was NPO's "orange colony". The same can be said of electron sponge's friendships there, which ran deeper even than the old NS ADN connections.

ODN needs to address its problems with continuity in government with longer, rotating terms or perhaps partial oligarchy (less likely to happen), but I think the reasons for many alliances' failures to maintain a steady relationship with them lies as much in their failure to understand what ODN is all about as much as ODN's flakiness.

Very nicely said.

But as I tried to get into as well, the lack of understanding is equally a fault of ODN as well: Most alliances never quite figured out that ODN is not an alliance in the classical sense, more like a forum community with an attached CN alliance (although that slowly has been changing), but ODN also approached other alliances in the way ODN likely wanted to be approached, without consequently (not in all cases, but in some) adapting to the totally different character of other alliances. And IRON likely is the best example here.

[Pingu]

It is not simply that some other alliance leaderships, used to a more oligarchic or even feudal model, do or did not 'get' ODN - many have not been interested, beyond telling ODN to change because its system was inconvenient for them. Those who have got it, and understood the importance of encouraging genuine rapport between the memberships, who have had enough respect to meet ODN where it is rather than simply insisting that it change, are the ones where a meaningful inter-alliance relationship has been possible. Doitzel's post above speaks to that. ODN-R&R ties are of that sort. The enduring friendship with Legion is part of that. For a long time the relationship with Polaris was of that kind.

Which brings me to my second point - for all the complaining about democracy, two of the gravest missteps in ODN's history have come about against the wishes of the mass of ODN members or without their consent. The first was the bizarre maneuvring that provided NPO with its excuse to launch the Citrus War - where democracy was not yet properly institutionalized and a small number of officials acted secretively and without popular consent. (Almost all of them abandoned ODN as soon as NPO invaded; those who didn't, such as Pope Hope and Portugal, earned enduring respect and affection.) The second was the decision not to stand by NpO when their other allies were abandoning them. I still don't know the full details of whatever it was IRON et al were able to use to convince those then in government that NpO was in the wrong, but a majority of the ODN General Assembly was ready to go to ZI for Polaris. Officials used procedures put in place to address the perceived problems of 'too much democracy' and 'inefficiency' in order to impose a bad decision.

On turnover of leadership - others have said many perceptive things above. The key, it seems to me, is that there is plenty of talent and experience always circulating through government, usually in a good balance between new blood and old-timers. ODN is genuinely the meritocracy some others claim to be - any ODN member can achieve high office through hard work and persuasive abilities. But what they have to understand is that those in office remain servants of the membership. They have to be OK with that. I think some former ODN leaders now in other alliances were the ones who found out that ultimately they were not OK with that, that they wanted to be in an oligarchy - so they went of to find (or found) one. I think that attempts to make ODN an oligarchy like any other will continue to fail. I hope so.

[Cataduanes]

Man Doitzy your understanding of ODN is quite refreshing, your a dangerous man indeed

[WalkerNinja]

Which brings me to my second point - for all the complaining about democracy, two of the gravest missteps in ODN's history have come about against the wishes of the mass of ODN members or without their consent. The first was the bizarre maneuvring that provided NPO with its excuse to launch the Citrus War - where democracy was not yet properly institutionalized and a small number of officials acted secretively and without popular consent. (Almost all of them abandoned ODN as soon as NPO invaded; those who didn't, such as Pope Hope and Portugal, earned enduring respect and affection.) The second was the decision not to stand by NpO when their other allies were abandoning them. I still don't know the full details of whatever it was IRON et al were able to use to convince those then in government that NpO was in the wrong, but a majority of the ODN General Assembly was ready to go to ZI for Polaris. Officials used procedures put in place to address the perceived problems of 'too much democracy' and 'inefficiency' in order to impose a bad decision.

This is very much the case. I centralized a lot of power and authority in myself and my then secretariat. In my estimation, ODN had failed to succeed as an alliance because it did not behave as a successful alliance does. Whereas most of our officials (whether they would agree or not) tended to be lead around by the GA, I was very much the opposite. If they chose to elect me, then I would lead in the manner I saw fit. If they were unsatisfied with the results, they could replace me. In that sense, I understood the ODN just as well as its allies. I understand it better now.

In the end, I wound up infantilizing the General Assembly and started developing a messiah complex. I was on the brink of being a new CK. Fortunately, I had the good sense to step down and stay away.

Yes, it was a mistake. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

This goes to:

Electron_Sponge and Random, who have always been (and still are) fantastic guys. I still love reading your posts, and like to think that in a different game with different names that we could be pals. I still think you dealt with me less than honestly, but I personalized the decision too much. ODN should have bled for you. I'm sorry.

-and-

The ODN. I tried to make you something that you aren't and never could be. I realized it too late and apologized many months ago. For those that are crapping on your democracy right now, realize that the system isn't much different than TOP's. If TOP can do it, you can too.

--------------------

As for communications with IRON.

I will be the first to say that I was heartbroken to see OBBP ended. I was more than a little angry when it happened. I understand it, but it still stung.

That being said, most of what ODNers are complaining about is true. Shortly after the signing of that document, it became pretty obvious that we were the brother pumping gas at the station up the road, and IRON was the brother than was running a multi-national corporation.

From reading this thread, I think that it was based largely in a failure to communicate. Apparently IRON wanted us to go out an proliferate treaties on our own so that we could be independent. That displays a lack of understanding on their part. ODN has been (and probably will always be) a monogamous alliance. In those days the ORRPLE fire had largely extinguished (or would be soon by some bad dealings), and the Blood Brother's pact was going to be comparable to a new ORRPLE.

After the first couple of months with no advance notice on things like the formation of the Continuum, One Vision, no invitation to the Wolfpack war, and inumerable other little common-courtesy things, there was a pretty popular cry to cut the pact since it seemed that you guys weren't interested in treating us like equals. For the most part, I squashed that. Yep, that's me killing democracy.

Now, on a personal level, I always got along just fine with IRON. I still know and like lots of IRON Councilors. While they weren't always as forth-coming as I would like, I felt like we were (and are) simpatico. It seems to me now that any ODN/IRON relationship will have to be completely reimagined from the ground up.

Good luck on that you two.

Edited May 2, 2009 by WalkerNinja

[shilo]

By all means, the honesty, the bluntness shown here on the OWF, by past and current leaders of ODN, IRON and NpO, damn, had it happened earlier.

This is the frankest talk I have ever observed about ODN, past mistakes and allies, and the people involved.

This can definitely be the stepping stone in rebuilding friendships, with more candor and honesty attached right from the start, and also hopefully a better understanding for all parties involved.

Edited May 2, 2009 by shilo