Anyone want to turn the tide?

[Vilien]

You can start with me, shahman.

[Penkala]

I like your style. Come visit us in #is anytime.

See, this is hilarious, because IS is an example of yet another unnecessary alliance that already falls the cliche of many others. There's nothing special about your gov setup, about your membership, that other alliances don't have. You're another PC/RAD. So please begin by attacking your own unnecessary alliance or consolidating yourselves and other like alliances.

[Jackalope Despot]

See, this is hilarious, because IS is an example of yet another unnecessary alliance that already falls the cliche of many others. There's nothing special about your gov setup, about your membership, that other alliances don't have. You're another PC/RAD. So please begin by attacking your own unnecessary alliance or consolidating yourselves and other like alliances.

Just because gov setup, etc. is the same as other alliances doesn't make IS unneccessary. They have a particular breed of insanity that, if not quite original, is certainly entertaining.

I<3IS

[Zoomzoomzoom]

Well I hope to never see your face in a micro-AA.

[Penguin]

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%.

All your conclusions are certainly possible. I can't do much more than what I have without population statistics above the 20 member mark. It's possible that the relative percentage of the population in alliances under 20 members has increased, but I haven't thought of a way to test for that. I suppose I could sample the size of each alliance from one of the collected DoE topics each month to estimate the survival (more than 5 members?) or success (more than 20 members?) rate of new alliances, but that sounds like a lot of work.

I think it's reasonable to guess that the relative number of DoEs is accompanied by an equally (or almost equally) large increase in the number of disbandments, which would keep the total number of alliances relatively constant. If alliances used to last on average ~10 weeks and formed at a rate of 2 per week last year, but now they last on average ~5 weeks and form at a rate of 4 per week, there should be roughly the same rate of successful new alliances formed now that there was last year.

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.

Right, I assumed that the sampling error (catching topics that aren't DoEs with the words "Declaration" and "Existence" in them, and missing topics with "DoE" or "Decleration" or "Existance") would be evenly distributed throughout the past couple years.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Penguin

[White Chocolate]

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.

Mmmm. Well, this discussion has been reassuring in it's way.

I knew there was a good reason for NOT making a DOE or posting a notice every time we meet a "milestone." It took a little trial and error, but I finally also figured out that it's also a good idea to always slip in the name of our protectors (Hail International!!! We love you all There , that should do ) when meeting new people on Planet Bob.

[RustyNail]

Argent is a small alliance. We're as irrelevant as we've always been. I welcome the challenge of someone wanting to roll us. We're tiny and helpless and all alone in this great big scary world....

Not feeling threatened...just an example of how foolish of an idea this really is.

Great post, would read again and recommend to others. 9/10 stars!

[King DrunkWino]

I love the whole "you play the game exactly like I tell you to or you get we grief you," attitude. It's almost as good as the "screw it, we're just gonna grief you cause we're bored," attitude. >_>

Seriously, go hog wild with that and see how far it takes you. Better yet, why don't you kick it off with a good old fashioned shark week?

[RandomInterrupt]

As hilariously innapropriate as the OP is, the flood of smaller/newer alliances posting "bring it" or some variation is kind of retarded. First of all, there is no threat present. A general member of Polaris obviously can't declare alliance wars. So who are you posturing towards? Even IF he, or any other sanctioned alliance were to attack a tiny alliance and did actually "bring it", it would just lead to a small dead alliance. And don't come back with "but I have protectors!" Half of these small alliances are protected by folks that can barely protect themselves, let alone others. The other half are protected by alliances with a history of cutting and running when the pressure is on.

So to everyone saying "bring it", perhaps you should not beg for attention unless you actually seek it and perhaps you should recognize this as one person making a bad post and move on instead of scrambling to show how "tuff" you are. There's no pride in boasting your ability to hide behind your successful friends...

[Great Lord Moth]

A lot of these alliances are protectorates. Don't forget that. >_>

[shilo]

As hilariously innapropriate as the OP is, the flood of smaller/newer alliances posting "bring it" or some variation is kind of retarded. First of all, there is no threat present. A general member of Polaris obviously can't declare alliance wars. So who are you posturing towards? Even IF he, or any other sanctioned alliance were to attack a tiny alliance and did actually "bring it", it would just lead to a small dead alliance. And don't come back with "but I have protectors!" Half of these small alliances are protected by folks that can barely protect themselves, let alone others. The other half are protected by alliances with a history of cutting and running when the pressure is on.

So to everyone saying "bring it", perhaps you should not beg for attention unless you actually seek it and perhaps you should recognize this as one person making a bad post and move on instead of scrambling to show how "tuff" you are. There's no pride in boasting your ability to hide behind your successful friends...

My "bring it on" was a personal invitation. I know that Polaris is above such low quality content, thus I invited him to go start the crusade he is preaching personally.

That is not retarded, that is asking the guy to put the money where his mouth is at.

And I haven't been boasting with our protector, INT, who are btw, neither tiny nor have they a history of unreliability. They are honorable and good guys, and they know the game well.

[Vilien]

As hilariously innapropriate as the OP is, the flood of smaller/newer alliances posting "bring it" or some variation is kind of retarded. First of all, there is no threat present. A general member of Polaris obviously can't declare alliance wars. So who are you posturing towards? Even IF he, or any other sanctioned alliance were to attack a tiny alliance and did actually "bring it", it would just lead to a small dead alliance. And don't come back with "but I have protectors!" Half of these small alliances are protected by folks that can barely protect themselves, let alone others. The other half are protected by alliances with a history of cutting and running when the pressure is on.

So to everyone saying "bring it", perhaps you should not beg for attention unless you actually seek it and perhaps you should recognize this as one person making a bad post and move on instead of scrambling to show how "tuff" you are. There's no pride in boasting your ability to hide behind your successful friends...

I don't have a protector, for the specific reason of not thwarting those who make empty threats against me and my alliance. Anyone who has a problem is encouraged to submit their complaints via the usual channels. Asking people to laugh off the suggestion of their destruction is kind of ridiculous, don't you think?

[ModusOperandi]

Eat. Me.

How about all of those new alliances and micro-alliances continuously declare war on your nation regardless of your buddies?

[RandomInterrupt]

Asking people to laugh off the suggestion of their destruction is kind of ridiculous, don't you think?

If I thought that, I wouldn't have posted it. It was pretty clearly a misguided yet empty stance, and the person issuing this suggestion has no ability to collect. No one of note stated any support of such a thing, and has treated it as a joke. As that's what it is, a joke.

So yes, I would expect folks to take a joke suggestion as a joke and not use it as an excuse to fluff up feathers.

Eat. Me.

How about all of those new alliances and micro-alliances continuously declare war on your nation regardless of your buddies?

Then there's be a lot less micro-alliances, I am guessing.

Edited August 2, 2009 by RandomInterrupt

[Jphillips412]

Eat. Me.

How about all of those new alliances and micro-alliances continuously declare war on your nation regardless of your buddies?

I'm thinking this course of action is about as unwise as Shahman's OP.

[Vilien]

If I thought that, I wouldn't have posted it. It was pretty clearly a misguided yet empty stance, and the person issuing this suggestion has no ability to collect. No one of note stated any support of such a thing, and has treated it as a joke. As that's what it is, a joke.

So yes, I would expect folks to take a joke suggestion as a joke and not use it as an excuse to fluff up feathers.

Nothing in the OP indicated that this was a joke.

[Jphillips412]

Nothing in the OP indicated that this was a joke.

Nothing in the OP also indicated he has any means to accomplishing this.

[Vilien]

Nothing in the OP also indicated he has any means to accomplishing this.

The suggestion may have been ridiculous, but it was still a slight against my alliance (if you could really call a one man AA an alliance anyway), and I responded to it in kind. I haven't acted on it any more than offering a response.

[Jphillips412]

The suggestion may have been ridiculous, but it was still a slight against my alliance (if you could really call a one man AA an alliance anyway), and I responded to it in kind. I haven't acted on it any more than offering a response.

I understand it being a slight against your alliance, and many other alliances but I'm sure your time could be better spent refraining from getting bent out of shape about an idle dislike by one person. If it were the opinion of Polaris (which it's not), I can definitely see some merit in giving it the attention it's gotten.

[Vilien]

I understand it being a slight against your alliance, and many other alliances but I'm sure your time could be better spent refraining from getting bent out of shape about an idle dislike by one person. If it were the opinion of Polaris (which it's not), I can definitely see some merit in giving it the attention it's gotten.

Don't worry, I'm not that bent out of shape. As far as doing something better with my time, someone who posts as frequently on the OWF as I do is certainly not worried about that kind of thing.

[HeinousOne]

The suggestion may have been ridiculous, but it was still a slight against my alliance (if you could really call a one man AA an alliance anyway), and I responded to it in kind. I haven't acted on it any more than offering a response.

I am sorry but MA has already proved and set the precedent that an individual nation acting or saying anything contrary to the policies of said alliance government is not to be held responsible for what they say and should anyone attempt to try and do such, that is holding them responsible for their words and idle threats, then they shall be met with the full fury of said alliance.

Don't blame Polar. Point your finger elsewhere.

[King DrunkWino]

The suggestion may have been ridiculous, but it was still a slight against my alliance (if you could really call a one man AA an alliance anyway), and I responded to it in kind. I haven't acted on it any more than offering a response.

Well, think about it this way: He did post it in the OOC area instead of something like World Affairs. I know most folks don't really RP per say, but folks to, I dunno, post a bit more freely in terms of sarcasm and the like. It's tough to put into words really but I've always thought of it as putting on a suit and going to a kinda fancy event (in the IC areas,) vs hanging out in a bar with people you know (the OOC areas.)

Anyway, yeah I'm pretty sure the OP was a parody of a few recent "OMG TOO MANY NEW ALLIANCES," thing.

[SiCkO]

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

i dont think the forum could handle some many DoWs

still a funny idea though

[Ivan III]

Now this idea could be cool:

Because of this topic, all the small/micro alliance make a big bloc and get rid of many larger alliances that do not like micro alliances/small alliances.

that could be fun

Edited August 3, 2009 by Ivan III

[Vanadrin Failing]

Heh... Actually, we've had a few offers from other small alliances to multi-merge into something larger. Thing is... we're not in this simply to be BIG, we're in this to try some new stuff that we couldn't do under any other format.

Right now, we just lack the manpower to set these economic, military and diplomatic theories in motion.