Anyone want to turn the tide?

[Jack Diorno]

I find it insulting you are wishing to obtain global support to declare war on alliances for no reason other then their smaller size in comparison to your own alliance.

The Abortion Disco has your name good sir.

[Geoffron X]

What the hell kind of topic is this? The Liquor Cabinet is a new, small alliance as well. Does this make us unnecessary?

That is not what makes you unnecessary.

(sorry)

[Horatio Longworth]

Oh, that's no fun. There's got to be a better way to end you boredom.

[Joe Kremlin]

Have all alliances under 10 members have one giant war amongst themselves. The winner absorbs all the loser alliances and becomes relevant.

[BamaBuc]

You keep talking about rights. Are these rights published somewhere?

We all have the "right" to do whatever we want as long as we stay within the law and the game rules. They have the right to form small new alliances if they want. You have the right to attack them for being new and small if you want. You also have the right to be an absolute hypocrite if you want.

-Bama

[Francesca]

Bring it on.

[kobiashiy]

This hurts my feelings very much

[Nintenderek]

All alliances are new at some point or another. I mean, I wish there were less alliances too, but you can't just go around destroying alliances because they are new lol.

[Dochartaigh]

wow Shahman. This is amusing to say the least.

[Grumpdogg]

Have all alliances under 10 members have one giant war amongst themselves. The winner absorbs all the loser alliances and becomes relevant.

Now there's an idea!

[Iosif]

Now there's an idea!

I find it hard to believe that the hostile attitudes shown by Polaris itt are a mere coincidence

A BEAST OF HABIT INDEED

[Penguin]

I find it hard to believe that the hostile attitudes shown by Polaris itt are a mere coincidence

A BEAST OF HABIT INDEED

Or a beast of sarcasm.

Also, I thought of a way to estimate DoEs to expand on my earlier point. Searching the Alliance politics section for "+Declaration +Existence" and sorting by last post date ought to give a fairly unbiased estimate of the rate of new alliance formation. Although it certainly has a fair share of false positives and misses some DoEs as well, I decided to try it anyway...

It seems the number of DoEs per week has doubled since last year, that or everyone has gotten better at spelling "Declaration of Existence". I still maintain that there is probably an equally large increase in the rate of disbandment.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Penguin

[shilo]

We've had many new (an unnecessary) alliances popping up during the summer. What to do with them? Well,I've had this idea bouncing around my head for a short while. I have now decided I want to show my idea to the general CN community.

DoW these mini alliances, and cause disbandment.

Although I am quite confident your alliance doesn't officially endorse you, I personally invite you to bring it on .

Your entire argument is flawed as it is, since you failed to provide any reasoning why an alliance actually is necessary or not, and especially any criteria which would define such.

While not really thought provoking in any sense, your OP surely was almost original, but as the true inventors of Let's bash new unnecessary alliances_tm, IS, are supporting you in your argument, you lost your thread intellectually already.

The only question remaining here would be: are you necessary?

Edited August 2, 2009 by shilo

[Heyman]

The hell is this?

Let them do their thing, dude. You've got no business with them, unless you feel like you want to act as the filter at your own nation's expense. But seriously, let the natural order do it's duty.

[Vedran]

We've had many new (an unnecessary) alliances popping up during the summer. What to do with them? Well,I've had this idea bouncing around my head for a short while. I have now decided I want to show my idea to the general CN community.

DoW these mini alliances, and cause disbandment.

I can totally see this happening and not backfiring in any way. None of them can defend themselves or have any big friends anyway.

A brilliant idea. I salute you.

[Grumpdogg]

In all seriousness, it's probably just that we see the DoE's and then rarely see any disbandment notices (for obvious reasons). It's not a major problem for me, but I do feel sometimes it's a bit of a shame when new players join up in a friend's mirco alliance, and then when that folds they don't stick with CN at all. However we have to remember that new alliances do tend to bring in new players to CN (and some do stay), so that's gotta be a good thing.

MOAR NAYSHUNZ PLX

Edited August 2, 2009 by Grumpdogg

[the rebel]

I follow our lord Admin's view that those DoE are not alliances if under 20 members.

[Master Hakai]

Still enjoying watching everyone take this so seriously and get all huffy/puffy over it, as if the OP were actually planning to go through with this or something. Funny!

[BamaBuc]

Or a beast of sarcasm.

Also, I thought of a way to estimate DoEs to expand on my earlier point. Searching the Alliance politics section for "+Declaration +Existence" and sorting by last post date ought to give a fairly unbiased estimate of the rate of new alliance formation. Although it certainly has a fair share of false positives and misses some DoEs as well, I decided to try it anyway...

It seems the number of DoEs per week has doubled since last year, that or everyone has gotten better at spelling "Declaration of Existence". I still maintain that there is probably an equally large increase in the rate of disbandment.

Nice graph, but you may also want to try searching by "DoE". Some people don't spell it out.

-Bama

[Iosif]

Nice graph, but you may also want to try searching by "DoE". Some people don't spell it out.

-Bama

Actually, most people don't spell it out.

[AirMe]

Bring it.

[bzelger]

Or a beast of sarcasm.

Also, I thought of a way to estimate DoEs to expand on my earlier point. Searching the Alliance politics section for "+Declaration +Existence" and sorting by last post date ought to give a fairly unbiased estimate of the rate of new alliance formation. Although it certainly has a fair share of false positives and misses some DoEs as well, I decided to try it anyway...

It seems the number of DoEs per week has doubled since last year, that or everyone has gotten better at spelling "Declaration of Existence". I still maintain that there is probably an equally large increase in the rate of disbandment.

But even if rates remain proportional the number of baby alliances should be increasing. For it to remain constant the average quality of the alliances must be dropping and disbandment becoming more frequent. If the failure rate is constant at 8 alliances disbanded per 10 formed, then we would previously have seen (for example) ten new alliances every week and eight failures for a real total of 2 new alliances. If the rates double you get 4 new alliances a week.

If the number of alliances has remained constant in spite of a dramatic increase in DoEs the implication is that either the average alliance size is dropping (so that so many are below 20 members that they don't show up on the "display all alliances" page), or that the failure rate is 100%.

Nice graph, but you may also want to try searching by "DoE". Some people don't spell it out.

-Bama

All he can reasonably get is a relative change. Unless "DoE" has become more or less prelevant than "Declaration of Existence" his parameter is fine. Also, searching for a 3-letter string doesn't work here.

[Iosif]

DoE* works though, you'd just have to pick all non-relevant results out.

[Prime minister Johns]

I can not believe that he just said that.

I do not support this idea or anything like it.

I personally see most micro alliances as a potentially valuable sources of tech sellers and a thing to be encouraged rather than destroyed.

[Deadshot]

Stupid topic is stupid. Of course though if it has IS's support it must be win though.

Oh and bring it.