What makes an alliance?

[Heyman]

So then I suppose ghosts are part of your alliance then.

Conflict is not the same as directed competition. Competition within an alliance that results in a directed end goal is a very positive thing. For example, two officers competing for promotion will direct their energy towards the advancement of the alliance. This is mutually beneficial for the alliance as well as the individual who is promoted. Internal conflict, on the other hand, is negative and uncontrolled, and presents itself in the form of opposed political or military factions, party politics, government wings (example security vs military, or executive vs judiciary), or deconstructive bickering. The latter stunts and reverses growth and freedom of potential.

The NSO is designed to promote positive directed competition and reduce negative uncontrolled conflict. We even have a steam release valve in the form of upper government coups, meaning that the leader (Ivan) can be quickly and easily replaced if the alliance is divided, with a minimum of conflict taking places to do so.

Don't give me that.

Competition is a type of conflict.

I do see, however, that you could tell the difference between a positive and negative conflict, albeit misphrased and miscategorized.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Don't give me that.

Competition is a type of conflict.

I do see, however, that you could tell the difference between a positive and negative conflict, albeit misphrased and miscategorized.

Whatever terminology you prefer, the principle is the same.

[Starfox101]

I will eat my hat the day starfox adds a detailed reply of substance to any thread.

Ah, I see.

You can't refute my simple, one liner, so you take a potshot at me. Interesting.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Ah, I see.

You can't refute my simple, one liner, so you take a potshot at me. Interesting.

"Another terrible essay, that said nothing more than the obvious, and ventured into nonsense."

How do you refute a statement with no substance?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Starfox101]

"Another terrible essay, that said nothing more than the obvious, and ventured into nonsense."

How do you refute a statement with no substance?

You could prove how your essay wasn't saying anything more than the obvious, but by reading over what everyone else had said, it appears I'm not alone in this thought, and you'll struggle with that one.

[Unko Kalaikz]

You could prove how your essay wasn't saying anything more than the obvious, but by reading over what everyone else had said, it appears I'm not alone in this thought, and you'll struggle with that one.

Why don't you explain in detail how my essay stated only the obvious instead? Am I supposed to write another essay showing that this essay stated more than the obvious or something?

In any case, you stating that I am "stating the obvious" just means you know I'm right and you hate that fact. Come back when you seriously have examples of where I go off into "nonsense."

Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Starfox101]

Why don't you explain in detail how my essay stated only the obvious instead? Am I supposed to write another essay showing that this essay stated more than the obvious or something?

In any case, you stating that I am "stating the obvious" just means you know I'm right and you hate that fact. Come back when you seriously have examples of where I go off into "nonsense."

Again, I don't need an essay to get a point across. Saying alot of words doesn't make you look any smarter.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Again, I don't need an essay to get a point across. Saying alot of words doesn't make you look any smarter.

Your point is not worth anyone's time because it has no substance to back it up. It's a nicer looking version of "NO U"

Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Erich Ludendorff]

What an innovative way to interpret the concept of alliances. For so long have I wondered at the complexity of this topic. You are truly one of the greatest minds of our time.

[shahenshah]

1 Word: Community

[Ellis]

1 Word: Community

Like he said, community is one of the tools of an alliance rather than the simple making of one.

For example, way back when, I'm told the orders were pretty much one community, but they were two seperate soveriegn alliances. (While it could be argued that one would not have made a move without the other, they had the right to, so...)

[Unko Kalaikz]

yeah an alliance is a bit more in character and formal than a community, as the OP notes.

4chan was not an alliance, but there was an alliance that drew from the 4chan community, /b/. Same thing with LUE and the GameFAQs forums, and a few other alliances. I don't think anyone will say GameFAQS is or was an alliance.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva

[TehChron]

Again, I don't need an essay to get a point across. Saying alot of words doesn't make you look any smarter.

I can attest to this.

Ive been trying for years, but it just doesn't work. Trial and error are one's friends.

[DogeWilliam]

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

That is what makes an alliance.

[Darth Andrew]

The authority of reason.

Alliance law is simply contract agreement enforced by the alliance government. Since there is no world government to enforce contract, alliances do so internally. For alliance law to exist requires there be a governing mechanism (a sovereign institution) to enforce it.

By extension, a group of nations who agree to defend one another but do not surrender individual sovereignty cannot be considered a legal alliance, because there is no legal enforcement mechanism (they would be closer to the pacts and treaties we see between alliances). Same goes for a community.

What makes your reason more authoritative than mine?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Darth Andrew

[Mirreille]

At the apex of alliance evolution is the authoritarian alliance, in which organization is arranged as a chain of command, which is the ultimate expression of unity of command theory. The alliance is designed for efficiency, reduced internal conflict, and growth. At this point the alliance may have reduced internal conflict to the point of allowing for directed conflict, that is war against external enemies for the advancement of the alliances self interests. Assuming capable leadership this alliance is always the best at promoting freedom of potential.

I don't agree with having an Authoritarian alliance as being the apex of alliance structure. It may well be the "ultimate expression of unity of command theory", but that hardly makes it the ideal alliance structure. it DOES sound like a structure that magnifies the effect the leadership has on the alliance as a whole. So if you have a great leader it may be really great, but if you have a bad one, it will be really bad. Something with checks & balances would make for a more stable alliance over the long haul.

[Xyro Gravi Flatona]

For the sake of any new players, I'll quote the Cyber Nations Information Index:

Alliances - Alliances are player created groups managed outside the game. Alliances offer player protection during wars, organized strategies in game, increased player interaction, and often offsite forums and communities of their own. There are no hard coded benefits in the game to being part of a player created alliance. Many of the player created alliances attempt to gain “control” over particular teams. This gives the various alliances a color identity and an opportunity to gain happiness by trading with one another in the game. There are a few in game screens in the World Statistics page that provide statistics and detail player created alliances. Alliance score is determined by the following equation:

((alliance nations / total nations * 1,000) + (alliance strength / 100,000)) / 3

So in game, groups of people who are managed outside of the game are considered an alliance. The index does not specify 'sharing of the same in game affiliation as an alliance'. So everyone in 'none' can legally call themselves an alliance so long as they have an off site management system. Actually, since alliances are player created groups, alliances with only one person should not be possible. The creation of an alliance in game should require at least two nations. A person trying to create an alliance should be asked who their co-founder is. At that point, the co-founder is contacted via igpm asking if they wish to create an alliance with the founder, but doing so will replace your current AA if your wearing one.

Now I quote part of your OP:

First, lets begin by discussing what is not an alliance. An alliance is not a community, a forum, a chat room, an in-game alliance affiliation, or a charter/constitution. With the exception of a community, all of these things are simply tools for an alliance that enhances communication, alliance governance, and coherency. A community is simply an OOC network of individuals that either is based on the alliance, or the alliance is based on. Even all these things together do not make an alliance

To make this game interesting, alliances implement these things you mentioned to increase the depth of nation / alliance involvement with each other. There must be a community before there can a management system, thus making community a very large part of any alliance. One nation can not be a community, so there can be no management system. If there is no management system, there is no alliance, as far as in game is concerned. This is where an alliance gets to define itself, so the makeup of one alliance may be very different than another. The possibilities are vast, with regards to what exactly can define an alliance.

I joined GPA almost two months before the War on Peace. The community back then was unstable, and at one point I considered leaving over it. But I didn't. I just couldn't. A stable community is very important to the well being of any alliance. In our case, we saw the need to stabilize our community, which happened while we were paying our reps. There will be occasional disagreements between members within any alliance. Some get resolved without anybody leaving, but some don't.

Thank you for your post, Count da Silva, I enjoyed reading it.

From,

XGF

[King DrunkWino]

Yet they are all included in my definition.

Yes, as steps toward what you theorize as the pinnacle of alliance government. What I'm saying is your presentation of gradual alliance structure evolution is entirely subjective based on the goals and wants of any particular alliance. Yes, most trend toward what you describe. However, the clear bias towards an authoritarian structure being the best is simply your preference. In fact, the entire thing is based largely on a particular preference. By that criteria then whatever an individual prefers is automatically what they see as the apex of alliance government.

And this little gem...

Now that you are familiar with the basics of political theory, it is my hope that you may use this to adjust your mindset to advancing the interests of your comrades and constituent nations to their fullest.

This whole theory works for you. That's fine and dandy. However, it will not work for everyone. There are much more and dare I suggest interesting ways to structure an alliance. It's far greater for an alliance to create something that they all enjoy rather than following a cookie cutter path like the one outlined here.

[Delta1212]

Wait a minute! You're not Vladimir!

[TehChron]

Wait a minute! You're not Vladimir!

Is it too long for you to work with, then?

Or are you just making excuses for your lack of inclination to do an effective parody?

And here I thought better of you...

Ok, that was a lie.

[Sal Paradise]

Wait a minute! You're not Vladimir!

A poor plagiarist of.

[Totila]

What is not an alliance

I have seen some confusion from some fellow nation rulers regarding what an alliance is, or what alliance law is, so in the interests of a more educated world I will attempt to shed light on this issue. A grasp of political theory, even if only political theory calibrated for an online game, will certainly give many advantages and insights to the intelligent alliance officer.

First, lets begin by discussing what is not an alliance. An alliance is not a community, a forum, a chat room, an in-game alliance affiliation, or a charter/constitution. With the exception of a community, all of these things are simply tools for an alliance that enhances communication, alliance governance, and coherency. A community is simply an OOC network of individuals that either is based on the alliance, or the alliance is based on. Even all these things together do not make an alliance.

Why are alliances needed?

An alliance is a legal pact between a group of nations whose primary purpose is the reduction of the state of nature between said nations as well as external threats. The state of nature is a state of absolute freedom for the individual nation.

Why is the state of nature undesirable? In the state of nature, nations must fend for themselves and are in a state of heightened conflict. They are vulnerable to raids and other forms of conflict. Thus they must dedicate most of their thought and resources to defense, or sit in impenetrable peace mode which stunts growth and restricts economic opportunities. In practice we see the vast majority of nations not belonging to an alliance are much smaller than the average nation belonging in a sanctioned alliance (or most larger alliances for that matter).

This brings into play the concept of freedom of potential vs. absolute freedom. A nation in the state of nature (i.e. absolute freedom) languishes in constant conflict. It is in the interests of the nation to enter a state of heightened freedom of potential. Freedom of potential means that some freedoms are given up in exchange for the ability to thrive in a situation of decreased conflict. In layman's terms it is trading a level of freedom for security.

Levels of alliance evolution

An alliance reduces the state of nature first by reducing the level of conflict between its members. This begins with a nonaggression pact but is best accomplished by instituting a sovereign institution (popularly called the alliance government) that can resolve disputes between member nations. This basic action alone can eliminate most or all military conflict between nations, allowing for civil discourse and the implementation of measures to provide for a common defense against external military threats (usually a defense or war department).

Some alliances stop at this point. Although nations in this alliance will certainly do much better than nonaligned nations, they could do better. The next level of alliance evolution involves reducing non-military conflict between members. Conflict can take many forms, war is simply one form. To reduce other forms of conflict, nations may choose to surrender other freedoms to the sovereign institution, such as free speech, or declare war, or the ability to commit fraud. Each of these things result in less internal conflict for the alliance, and potentially less external conflict as well depending upon the caliber of leadership.

If alliances continue to evolve, they will seek to reduce internal and external conflict even further. This can be done by instituting operational security procedures... limiting information to a need-to-know basis. Treaties might be signed with external entities. The concept of unity of command may also be implemented (the best way to reduce conflict at the top). Democratic policy votes may replace consensus, Elected officials might replace democratic policy votes, and finally appointed officers might replace elected officers. All these steps can lead to further reduced internal conflict if done correctly.

At the apex of alliance evolution is the authoritarian alliance, in which organization is arranged as a chain of command, which is the ultimate expression of unity of command theory. The alliance is designed for efficiency, reduced internal conflict, and growth. At this point the alliance may have reduced internal conflict to the point of allowing for directed conflict, that is war against external enemies for the advancement of the alliances self interests. Assuming capable leadership this alliance is always the best at promoting freedom of potential.

The alliance and you

Now that you are familiar with the basics of political theory, it is my hope that you may use this to adjust your mindset to advancing the interests of your comrades and constituent nations to their fullest.

OOC:I think this concept of an alliance is too theoretical and doesn't depict the reality. A CN alliance today is a team( more precisely, an ooc group of players who are going to play the game as a team). You can play CN alone or as a part of team, but a team member will be more successful because of more security etc that you pointed out. Remember that the oldest alliances did not evolve naturally, ie, the way you pointed out, because they already existed as teams in other games or were from some internet community.

[Schattenmann]

An alliance is a bunch of people who wear the same AA.

So when Vox Populi wore the TOP AA for a few weeks, we were members of TOP? Facinating.

Another terrible essay, that said nothing more than the obvious, and ventured into nonsense.

Add it to the collection.

I find that a large percentage of the people that will see this essay need the obvious pointed out to them. I think it was a good essay.

Wait a minute! You're not Vladimir!

It is dreadful that until he gets going about Francoism and/or NPO Vladimir has it spot-on on so many subjects. The State of Nature and the need for alliances is absolute fact. It's even built into the admissions process of my former anti-NPO terrorist alliance: "In the state of nature, a nation is the property only of its ruler; a ruler is accountable only to himself. As an unaligned ruler, you stand before this altar in the portico to the Temple of Justice as a wild animal.

Before you may pass the threshold, you must outline your qualifications, and verbalize your intentions, but most importantly: acknowledge your new existence as part of a body greater than your own nation, signified by an oath to the Cult."

Fortunately for nature, everyone I speak to is more interested in nature than my alliance

da Silva, I think you will find that your essays are ill-received for two main reasons, unfortunately,[OOC] they're both OOC:

First, the Western world has moved into the Post-Modern Age, and while their parents were raised in the Modern Age and could read your essay wihtout losing their minds, the players of CN are post-modern and as such they are staunchly steeped in the idea that truth is not absolute. We know that truth is absolute, but they just can't handle it. So, you will never be correct, because every smartass kid that disagrees with you is just going to say "that's not what the truth is for me [or] in my alliance. Hurrr." or "I think you're right about most alliances, but my alliance is different and you can't apply your definition to every alliance." In a self-fulfilling argument, they will use their "personal reality" to argue against reality.

For example:

What makes your reason more authoritative than mine? Hurrr.

Second, the people that play this game cannot distinguish between in-game definitions and real world definitions; they're the dictionary- and wikipedia-quoters. I run into this whenever I venture into CN academia and it drives me bat!@#$ insane. They will be unable to understand you because they're applying their collegiate dictionary from America to CyberNations despite the fact that CN is not the real world. They will basically use the dictionary to incorrectly argue with you for a week straight and claim that they're right because you're using the wrong definitions of words, while in fact it's the other way around.[/OOC]

I guess we all know what my pet peeves are, now, too.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Schattenmann

[Unko Kalaikz]

Schatt, I guess you and I are in the same league of old fools who believe in things like objective reality and material analysis.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Count da Silva

[kingzog]

Somehow, I cannot shake the feeling that everything you write is satire.

Indeed.

As satire? C- It's cute, but not as well-developed as it could have been. In fact, I think it's likely to have gone over most people's heads.

As complete exposition? D- You have at most a basic understanding of the subject. The only thing that keeps this from being a failing grade is the belief that you could do better if you actually tried.

As basic primer? B Not bad. Your key flaw is the assumption that authoritarianism represents the acme of alliance development. The lower grade is not due to my disagreement with you -- indeed, I think there's plenty to suggest that you are correct -- but rather because you have failed to address, in advance, those whose 'alliance tradition' is democratic. (It may simply be that your use of the word 'authoritarian' is misplaced. If so, please consider using another word and re-submit.)

(OOC: Now....is the above written as an alliance leader or as someone who happens to have earned money by teaching essay-writing to college students? Hmmm....)