BamaBuc Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Having been in both alliances that utilize democracy and those that don't, along with a few who use combination tactics...I'm mostly against the idea of democracy in an alliance. The main reason I go against democracy is that it typically doesn't work in a meritocratic fashion - that is, the person elected to any given position might not be the person most suitable for the job, but rather somebody who compensates for their lack of competence by being the most charismatic (or best known) of the candidates.I also feel that democratic alliances lack consistency. An alliance's stance on the same issue could change radically between elections, and interest groups both foreign and domestic can easily capitalize upon this fact to try and steer an alliance in a given direction. Yep. It's a popularity contest most of the time. An incompetant member who's always on IRC and the spam forum is more likely to win than a quiet, competant, hardworking guy who rarely posts outside the Finance department. I remember back in TOOL's mass-recruiting days, the recruiters always won elections because the masses of newbies knew them. That's not to say they were incompetant, a lot of them were very good in gov. And it wasn't their fault everyone knew them. Plus, only our lower-level gov was elected, so we didn't have a problem with upper positions. But yes, factors like popularity and charisma tend to decide elections more than competance and devotion to the alliance. Full democracy only works in smaller, tighter-knit communities where everyone knows who is and isn't competant. Consistency is the other big thing. Like I said earlier, if you change military systems every month, you're screwed when a war comes. FA is even more killer. An alliance that changes it's foreign policy direction every month is destined for failure. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 The nature of the Cyberverse seems to diminish the drawbacks of dictatorship while exacerbating the weakness of democracy. Dictatorship is always going to be quicker and more efficient. It's the social consequences that make it unappealing. In CN however, we can leave our alliance instantly and usually without consequence if it gets bad. Plus, the dictator's ability to implement true control over subjects is very limited. No one's going to instal surveilance cameras in your nation to watch you. Democracy on the other hand is hobbled by the fact that alliance members have varying degrees of presence/activity in this realm. Despite all this, I think life in CN would be even less interesting without what little democratic control we have in Silence. The inefficiency is worth it to maintain a sense that we're all a part of the direction our alliance is taking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Democracy fails in CN, but like all rules there are few exceptions like TOP(The better one), GATO(The old one) and ODN(The "I'm here just to survive" one). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammer Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I have to say I think the FAN system of government is best. Democracy, but where not all can vote, and those elected have long terms to achieve alliance goals. The problem with a lot of CN democracies is the terms are too short for their to be any real achievement before another election ycle and disruption. That, and most let any old fool vote.... FAN wiki link for reference: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Federat...f_Armed_Nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) So I have heard from many people on these forums and through out the game that an alliance with a full democratic system of government can not work? Why is this? The main requisite of a "full democratic system of government" that most people would agree on is that all the offices are held by people that is elected by the membership, or are appointed by elected officials. ITT there are several sanctioned alliances that have that requisite, thus the only possible answer to your question is that the people you heard that from are wrong. (If you were meaning "direct democracy", then again it can work: see LSF as the most famous example). Edited July 30, 2009 by jerdge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Any electorate that elects on the basis of irc activity alone is a poor example, for me it has taken alot more than being 'around' to get elected, i have earned my position through merit not just popularity. Democracy fails in CN, but like all rules there are few exceptions like TOP(The better one), GATO(The old one) and ODN(The "I'm here just to survive" one). Some of us in ODN actually have put our money were our mouth is, it would be nice if you remembered that from time to time D34th. Polars are not the only ones on Bob to have showed commitment above and beyond the call of duty, or did you think your the only ones? Edited July 30, 2009 by Cataduanes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Full democracies (or rather, direct democracies) work much more efficiently in smaller numbers. It's easy to reach a consensus out of a pool of 20-30 members, provided they're all active; this gets a little more tricky when you have 150+ members all with differing opinions. That's where the republic democracy comes in. By electing leaders to make the decisions on behalf of the alliance, it caters to a large group who would not be able to efficently vote on all matters, especially when the majority aren't educated on the subject at hand. This can create an entirely different set of problems, however, when those same members who are more casual in their gaming also don't necessarily elect leaders based on their ability. Instead, they'll support people they know, or are those who are most popular in the alliance regardless of whether or not they are the best fit. If you don't know your alliance's political stance for example, and have no interest in knowing, who would you rather elect? The guy who is regarded as a bold FA advocate but perhaps never spoke with you one on one, or the person who helped you out when you were new? Dictatorships eliminate this entirely, by instead having a central figure to make these decisions for the rest of the alliance. They may either lead alone or appoint the other positions based on their opinion of who should get it. This system is, essentially, dependent on having the right person as said dictator. If you get a poor leader, you'll most likely have a poor government and policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Some of us in ODN actually have put our money were our mouth is, it would be nice if you remembered that from time to time D34th. Polars are not the only ones on Bob to have showed commitment above and beyond the call of duty, or did you think your the only ones? Here is OWF and my comments or opinions have nothing to do with official NpO's opinions about your alliance, I hope that be clear. I would like to say that I haven't seen any changes in ODN FA policies yet, all I see after GW3 is your guys canceling your treaties with the weaker side, and you can't change it just saying "we changed", as everyone said to TPF and NPO, first change and then claim that you have changed not the contrary. Until there I will keep my opinion about Optional Defense Network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Here is OWF and my comments or opinions have nothing to do with official NpO's opinions about your alliance, I hope that be clear. I would like to say that I haven't seen any changes in ODN FA policies yet, all I see after GW3 is your guys canceling your treaties with the weaker side, and you can't change it just saying "we changed", as everyone said to TPF and NPO, first change and then claim that you have changed not the contrary. Until there I will keep my opinion about Optional Defense Network. Yeah well it seems the official line does not radicaly differ from your own, i am not saying its not justified but you conviniently forget how some in ODN actually fought beside you last August (Dujek for one), your penchant to snipe at us insults them more than anyone else and perhaps that is something you should bear in mind before issuing more generalizations. As for change yeah we still have to as a community prove in actions and i hope one day we do just that, but i for one have nothing to be ashamed of and i will be damned if i will stand by and let all and sundry take a pop. if we manage to prove people like you wrong one day nobody will be more pleased than i. EDIT: many typos, etc, etc...its late and i have had a few shots and beer chasers Edited July 30, 2009 by Cataduanes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remaliat Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 The simple fact of the matter is that 90% of the Cybernations people are ignorant to anything outside their own nation and the bare minimum they need to play this game, turning over control of an alliance to a mob of people is a ridiculous notion and one that no self respecting alliance can do. Meritocracies are the best way to run an alliance as it allows those who are truly capable of running an alliance do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Yeah well it seems the official line does not radicaly differ from your own, i am not saying its not justified but you conviniently forget how some in ODN actually fought beside you last August (Dujek for one), your penchant to snipe at us insults them more than anyone else and perhaps that is something you should bear in mind before issuing more generalizations.As for change yeah we still have to as a community prove in actions and i hope one day we do just that, but i for one have nothing to be ashamed of and i will be damned if i will stand by and let all and sundry take a pop. if we manage to prove people like you wrong one day nobody will be more pleased than i. EDIT: many typos, etc, etc...its late and i have had a few shots and beer chasers If you think that my dislike for ODN is because noCB war you are highly wrong, my dislike for ODN comes since GW3 when I was in CDS and was abbandoned to fight with GOONS alone after we declared togheter and after that you guys surrending without us. That being said I don't know why you think that NpO's official line does not radicaly differ from my own because I already saw Penguin and Grub talking in a very good manner about your alliance and you right here in this forums so I really can't see from where you got this opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) A mob?? i see no mob in control at ODN, nor GATO for that matter Edit: in reply to Ramaliat. Edited July 30, 2009 by Cataduanes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) If you think that my dislike for ODN is because noCB war you are highly wrong, my dislike for ODN comes since GW3 when I was in CDS and was abbandoned to fight with GOONS alone after we declared togheter and after that you guys surrending without us.That being said I don't know why you think that NpO's official line does not radicaly differ from my own because I already saw Penguin and Grub talking in a very good manner about your alliance and you right here in this forums so I really can't see from where you got this opinion. Ah yes you will find no disagreement over CDS (i was pro-CDS back in the day), another bad decision (made largely by leaders now in Valhalla) yet i wish to be judged by AA based on the present, considering everyone is complaining about grudges towards NPO, etc, etc here we are with someone confirming a grudge, you have been consistent in your sniping so why the surprise over my reaction? did you think all ODNistas were too spineless to pipe up? Penguin has been cool, and Grub has been shall we say at times generous and other times certainly not and others? i think we both know how things are between ODN and Polaris right? i am for one no longer willing to be silent, we have shown regret but if blood is all that your after you know were we are, stop sniping and take a shot. Edited July 31, 2009 by Cataduanes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Colt Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 I believe this is straying a bit too far from the thread's subject. Anyway, democracies failing is nothing new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tron Paul Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Democracy CAN work in this game, it just needs to fit the right alliance. The following are generally good things you see in successful democratic alliances: Size - Democratic Alliances need alot of members. The more members you have = the more people you will have competing for positions. Competition is a great thing in democratic alliances because people will do anything to get a vote. Great IRC communications - Typically [see GATO, ODN, etc] democratic alliances will experience high turnovers. Everytime an old established ally is replaced by a fresh, unknown youngling, an alliance is in danger of losing treaty partners. Trust me. Many queries will be tossed out and many people will want to get "in touch" with new government members. Alliances in the modern game are constantly seeking to improve and will find any excuse to drop a treaty. If a democratic alliance does not have five star IRC communications, it will not have five star friends. Great Forums - Typically if you have a large, competing alliance with that lovely democratic turnover you are going to have a lot of people scratching their heads at forum commands. Many nations will fail in elections, resign from their posts, and start over [ex, going from military to foreign affairs]. You need to communicate properly to these nations so that they work effectively in the alliance. Also, democratic alliances typically aren't as flexible in war time so you need to have great forums to send messages effectively. I'm a fan of the President/Vice President democratic system, when used properly. Triumvirates are too slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDragon Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Democracy works for GATO, and has worked perfectly for the last three years. BD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroknia Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Total democratic alliances can work, the only problem I've seen is that non democratic, partially democratic and pseudo democratic alliances don't understand them well enough to conduct appropriate diplomacy with them. That is the real reason we hardly see it around these days. I think the fact that people are talking about "government members" in terms of a democracy just prove this point. Representative Republics I am not even close to a fan of. Democracies and more dictatorial alliances, I am a fan of. The latter in that situation is, I have to agree with the NPO, democratic by whether the nations of the alliance stay or go... I guess that also makes me rare because I am not a patriot in any sense of the word and I think more people SHOULD leave their alliances if they govern inappropriately. It is just silly to stick with a government you disagree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) The simple fact of the matter is that 90% of the Cybernations people are ignorant to anything outside their own nation and the bare minimum they need to play this game, turning over control of an alliance to a mob of people is a ridiculous notion and one that no self respecting alliance can do. Meritocracies are the best way to run an alliance as it allows those who are truly capable of running an alliance do so. Governments need to be accountable however. Polar learned that lesson rather brutally last year as an incompetent, lazy and all around ineffective government ran the alliance into the ground, diplomatically and internally. Edited July 31, 2009 by essenia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahman Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) Governments need to be accountable however. Polar learned that lesson rather brutally last year as an incompetent, lazy and all around ineffective government ran the alliance into the ground, diplomatically and internally. Do name the members of the government who did such things! I was not aware of this happening! In fact, I recall only one very proud leader hurting our PR. on the original post, they don't work because of the turnover rate. Also, if someone spends the last week of a month soliciting votes, they aren't a good minister, now are they? Edited July 31, 2009 by shahman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 A true democracy doesn't work in real life either, why would it work in a CyberNations alliance? Couldn't agree more. I assume we are talking about representative democracy here, since that is what everyone refers to as democracy. The main two problems with it are corruption and inefficiency. With a dictatorship you have just corruption, but no inefficiency - so it's good that way. I am however quite fond of communism (aka the only true democracy), like used by The International. The reason is that, it is democracy in such true form, as no corruption can occur. Arguably it may not be as efficient, but quick decisions can still be made as necessary be elected representatives. The best thing to do in my opinion is to have no elected position, and to ask all members for input on all decisions and have a high level of transparency. This way you get the best of both worlds - having a practical true democracy on one hand, and having the ability to make quick decisions in times of necessity and act on them on the other hand. It's also good to have foresight and discuss and vote on how to deal with issues before they occur, which I have always found to be very beneficial towards making democratic processes much more efficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 I find so long as you have an educated voting body Democracy works best. Democracy has worked for many alliances MHA,GATO, my own (MCXA ) and countless others. Democracy often polls the best results as the general membership has the opportunity to take a role in the governmental process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahman Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Couldn't agree more.I assume we are talking about representative democracy here, since that is what everyone refers to as democracy. The main two problems with it are corruption and inefficiency. With a dictatorship you have just corruption, but no inefficiency - so it's good that way. So, as a noob here, America "doesn't work"? One of the most used governmental systems "doesn't work"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Ah yes you will find no disagreement over CDS (i was pro-CDS back in the day), another bad decision (made largely by leaders now in Valhalla) yet i wish to be judged by AA based on the present, considering everyone is complaining about grudges towards NPO, etc, etc here we are with someone confirming a grudge, you have been consistent in your sniping so why the surprise over my reaction? did you think all ODNistas were too spineless to pipe up?Penguin has been cool, and Grub has been shall we say at times generous and other times certainly not and others? i think we both know how things are between ODN and Polaris right? i am for one no longer willing to be silent, we have shown regret but if blood is all that your after you know were we are, stop sniping and take a shot. ODN has a long history of not honoring his treaties or not sticking by their friends but you want to me change me judgement about ODN just because they didn't did that in the last month? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assington Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Governments need to be accountable however. Polar learned that lesson rather brutally last year as an incompetent, lazy and all around ineffective government ran the alliance into the ground, diplomatically and internally. I would say half our 'allies' not being our friends had a lot more to do with our downfall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 So, as a noob here, America "doesn't work"? One of the most used governmental systems "doesn't work"? There is absolutely no need to bring that into this particular discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.