New Alliances?

[Starcraftmazter]

Lots of exiled alliances coming back as they no longer need to fear existing.

[Death666Angel]

In my opinion, the recent war was a catalyst for this event. Not because it destroyed the NPO or the status quo or whatever it tried to achieve. But simply because it was a big-$@! war. After that kind of thing there are always harsh reactions. Either people were fully frustrated with their alliance during war and they left. Or they felt that the war marked the end of a period after having repaid their debt to their own alliance and will try something new. And a lot of people also got back into activity through the war after months of quiet lethargy and decided to get more involved again by starting something own.

[Warden]

And that's actually one problem that should be addressed... How can you give your alliance members a sense of progression without having a ridiculous number of people in government

Here's one way to solve that, I have seen a variety of alliances and they all have different forms of government. An alliance that has a democracy based government has an advantage to those that have empirical based governments where the government does not change much if at all. My point is, an alliance that is a democracy gives the members a better chance of becoming part of the government in some way, shape or form.

[Chancellor Bismarck]

I have a general question for all CNers.

Why do you think politically, there is an increase(New ones everyday) in alliances? Also do you think this trend with continue or die out?

This has been going on since well before the war, and it is natural that its still going on. Newer players and experienced players just want to try a hand at leadership, is pretty much it.

[DocOctane]

This only proves yet again that Opethian, leader of the PPF, has always been ahead of his time.

o/ sharks

[Vanadrin Failing]

Here's one way to solve that, I have seen a variety of alliances and they all have different forms of government. An alliance that has a democracy based government has an advantage to those that have empirical based governments where the government does not change much if at all. My point is, an alliance that is a democracy gives the members a better chance of becoming part of the government in some way, shape or form.

Perhaps, but you can still only have so many people in government. What about the people that would get voted out? If your government positions are the only carrot that's being dangled before your membership, then you have a problem... A government position should be something to strive for of course, but not the ONLY goal of the membership for advancement. It risks a bloated and ineffective government or defection of your most capable members.

In a 'meritocracy', you get the best people for the job appointed to those positions by the leader of the alliance, who theoretically would be wise enough to make the right choice for the benefit of the alliance. In a democracy, the most popular person gets the most votes, whether they're qualified or not.

Keep in mind that some of the largest and arguably most successful alliances have been empires... Not democracies.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Vanadrin Failing

[Incitatus]

New alliances always spring up after major wars.

[Ellis]

Lots of exiled alliances coming back as they no longer need to fear existing.

Like who?

Ok, it's possible that we might have followed Vox members to their new alliances and so they are more free in that regard, although that isn't so much to do with the ton of new alliances around, and while I'm not sure, FIRE may have been violating the moldavi doctrine now, if it still existed, I don't think I've seen any alliances disbanded due to our actions reform recently.

Keep in mind that some of the largest and arguably most successful alliances have been empires... Not democracies.

^^ This

[Vinzent Zeppelin]

Here's one way to solve that, I have seen a variety of alliances and they all have different forms of government. An alliance that has a democracy based government has an advantage to those that have empirical based governments where the government does not change much if at all. My point is, an alliance that is a democracy gives the members a better chance of becoming part of the government in some way, shape or form.

Not true at all -- I've seen cases in which democratic alliances re-elect the same officials indefinitely, effectively creating a glass ceiling of sorts; on the flip side, I joined Nordreich in February 2007, became a bank officer in April, and was Norden Verein government by July. Both had zero element of democracy; what they did have was the principle of meritocracy. It matters more how an alliance operates in practice rather than on paper. Ultimately, though, I think what factor carries the most weight in regards to member motivation and retention is: Give them something to do. New programs and projects help promote activity and overall growth, as people enjoy the feeling of helping to build something even if they don't have a prestigious title.

[Vinzent Zeppelin]

Like who?

Not the New Pacific Order alone, but I guarantee that the the over-arching shift in attitudes along with the diminished power of the NPO and allies wrought by this war were the key factors in facilitating the return of my alliance in particular.

[gfloyd2002]

I see several reasons, not all good, not all bad:

1. People who get blocked from advancement in their own alliance start one of their own. The Peter Principle at work. Crushtania had a nice blog entry on it somewhere I'm too lazy to look up.

2. People who have disagreements with factions in their alliance, split to form their own.

3. The treaty web is a mess. Easier to start from scratch and pick your spot than work with the baggage the old allliance is carrying.

4. Honest attempts at creating a community with friends, excluding asshats and increasing trust levels and communication.

5. Protectorates are handed out like candy. There is little risk to being too small to defend yourself.

6. There aren't any big alliances anymore that will just pick off little guys because they can. Wars are more likely to be caused by being part of the treaty web and having lots of ties. Being small and withdrawn is, oddly, safer.

7. Some people just selfishly want their own fiefdom to rule (badly) with an iron fist.

[Delta1212]

Like who?

Ok, it's possible that we might have followed Vox members to their new alliances and so they are more free in that regard, although that isn't so much to do with the ton of new alliances around, and while I'm not sure, FIRE may have been violating the moldavi doctrine now, if it still existed, I don't think I've seen any alliances disbanded due to our actions reform recently.

Off hand, I can think of IAA and CIS.

[Schattenmann]

It's because people aren't threatened by that giant NPO anymore. They feel like stretching their wings and striking out on their own.

I disagree. There's been a slight uptick in new AAs since NPO got punk'd, but there were already tons of new AAs forming all the time--Mireille wrote an essay on the subject over a year ago.

On to the question, I personally founded an alliance I've been wanting to try for a year at this point in time because, yes, while everyone's fighting they're distracted. I think maye other people want to ride the "brave new world" wave and start new things to creae a new world. I think other people are stretching after a long winter.