Alliance Revivals

[nippy]

It depends entirely on two things: 1) how much they are composed of members of the original alliance, 2) whether they try to forge a new identity or flounder around imitating their glory days.

VE did it right. GOONS, not so much.

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean on the first thing mentioned? Is it better to have more or less members from the original alliance? If more, why? Aren't the same members forming an older alliance more likely to produce the same results that caused the previous alliance's demise in the first place? If less, why? Wouldn't it make less sense for people who were never involved in the original alliance to revive it?

We at GOONS have experienced this second scenario first-hand. We had a person whom had nothing to do with the 'Goon Order of Neutral Shoving' come to us with a proposal. He intended to revive the old AA and requested that we aid him in doing so. This person still exists in this game and is considered an enemy of the 'Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism', along with the other two members of the Neutral Shoving AA, not only because they've decided to steal a legacy that doesn't belong to them, but because they've taken it upon themselves to attack our newest members on a regular basis. I hardly think a resurrection by a third party is a good idea.

I would also like to hear what it is about GOONS coming back that you consider 'not right'? What could we have done better? You've been around a very long time, Doitzel...I know you strive for drama, whether you're in the middle of it or just commenting on it. What about our alliance doesn't suit your desires?

[ChimpMasterFlash]

@ nippy, Most these guys are talking about something they know nothing about. Lets see what we did wrong. We announced we were starting a new GOONS order in CN, got 60 solid players. Did a small SA drive got 100 more thus 60 stayed. Wonder what happens when we do a large SA drive targeting 10k members? :iiam:

Heh, we have yet to start recruiting new CN players since we are 99% SA players only

[Farore]

As long as the alliance has in its leading position an old member of the original alliance then I don't see a problem with it, if it doesn't have an original member, then I don't truly see it as being a comeback but more of a group of people who loved the alliance and so try to imitate it. The only problem is that alliances that stopped existing with a good reputation could be tarnished by the new reformation.

[New Frontier]

If it died, it died for a reason. However, some people feel they can correct these mistakes to ensure a better future. This usually doesn't work because some of the key members are spread throughout the cyberverse. People are usually hypocritical in the sense that certain alliances are welcomed back while others need to play dead, but I believe it has to do with the government as one of the main priorities.

If an old alliances' former founding, or ruling government, brings the alliance back, usually it is accepted more so than regular common members trying to attempt the same situation. All in all, I believe if something dies and you truly value it -- do what you can to have it. But, as the above gentleman said, you can always create and establish something new with a new start and future. I am a little iffy about it, but from time to time, I miss ONOS and can understand why people miss the name and environment they once were apart of.

Lord Zion and I came close to refounding ONOS back in spring. Sometimes I wonder how that would have gone.

[Ejayrazz]

Lord Zion and I came close to refounding ONOS back in spring. Sometimes I wonder how that would have gone.

Lord Zion created it, but was couped for a reason.

[New Frontier]

Lord Zion created it, but was couped for a reason.

I know the reason. I wonder if you do.

[WarriorConcept]

As long as the previous people who were in charge don't mind, why not.

[theArrowheadian]

@ nippy, Most these guys are talking about something they know nothing about. Lets see what we did wrong. We announced we were starting a new GOONS order in CN, got 60 solid players. Did a small SA drive got 100 more thus 60 stayed. Wonder what happens when we do a large SA drive targeting 10k members? :iiam:

Heh, we have yet to start recruiting new CN players since we are 99% SA players only

We are so ignorant of the might GOONS and their SA drives. OH NO! It doesn't matter because even if GOONS even amasses a large scale force, you're starting on the ground floor and you can't possible control them all and at this point only a completely new player would want to be in GOONS for god knows what reason.

The community doesn't take the new GOONS seriously and that means if you even become a force to be reckoned with, the community will cut you down.

[Ardus]

I'd really prefer we tried to stay away from alliance revivals. I'd rather we had new alliances with new names conducting new plots and schemes. I'd rather we drove this game forward rather than constantly reach into the back for old news. It may just seem like names, but Mushroom Kingdom and Umbrella are very different alliances from what they would have been if the people at the helms had reformed LUE and Genmay six months to two years down the road. And if you do disband with a real intention to reform, you better hold fast to that grudge and execute on a timetable. Two years is way too long a wait to try and shout for Lazarus.

[Ardus]

We are so ignorant of the might GOONS and their SA drives. OH NO! It doesn't matter because even if GOONS even amasses a large scale force, you're starting on the ground floor and you can't possible control them all and at this point only a completely new player would want to be in GOONS for god knows what reason.

The community doesn't take the new GOONS seriously and that means if you even become a force to be reckoned with, the community will cut you down.

And they'll suck every MK nuke when they try.

[cookavich]

There are alliance revivals, and then there are sad attempts to save your floundering alliance by taking on the name of one that is long dead.

Edited December 26, 2009 by cookavich

[Darth Andrew]

After joining and staying with the reformed IAA (until early November) so as to relive the past, I am of the firm belief that dead alliances should stay dead. Even if many of the old members want to reform a dead alliance, they should stay away from it and create a new name/identity, as the past can never be fully recaptured.

[New Frontier]

We are so ignorant of the might GOONS and their SA drives. OH NO! It doesn't matter because even if GOONS even amasses a large scale force, you're starting on the ground floor and you can't possible control them all and at this point only a completely new player would want to be in GOONS for god knows what reason.

The community doesn't take the new GOONS seriously and that means if you even become a force to be reckoned with, the community will cut you down.

I, for one, celebrate the day we came together as a community to elect a spokesman.

Granted, I was surprised you won, but it was still a good move altogether.

[Logan]

I've never really thought about reforming Tetris as a bad idea at all. There are very few players who were veterans of the old Tetris, and only one off the top off my head, Gen Lee. And I am almost positive that he has no qualms with us reviving the alliance. My comrades at the time didn't have the experience that they have now from being in government in former alliances, so I don't even regret disbanding the other times.

I try not to hate on other alliances reforming because I have done this myself, twice. But some are really terrible.

[nippy]

We are so ignorant of the might GOONS and their SA drives. OH NO! It doesn't matter because even if GOONS even amasses a large scale force, you're starting on the ground floor and you can't possible control them all and at this point only a completely new player would want to be in GOONS for god knows what reason.

The community doesn't take the new GOONS seriously and that means if you even become a force to be reckoned with, the community will cut you down.

The amount of childishness that reads into your posts sufficiently negates anything said in them, whether truth be spoken or otherwise. I find it mighty arrogant of you to assume you are worthy of speaking for the 'community', considering your lack of eloquence.

Edited December 26, 2009 by nippy

[Nintenderek]

I'm just going to quote my post from another thread because I'm too lazy to come up with a new one, saying the exact same stuff.

People should be allowed to revive alliances if they want to. Sure, it would be nice if they did it with the proper leadership, however \m/ is just a name. As you've all conveniently pointed out over and over, this is not the old \m/ it's a new one, and they should have the equal chance to survive on Planet Bob as any other alliance should.

That's my opinion on it. There's no way anyone can bring back the old \m/ or the old VE, or the old Browncoats. However, I see no reason why new people can't use the old names and flags. It doesn't mean it's the same alliance. Yeah, it's nice if it would be done by people who were relevant to the old alliance. Does it always have to be that way? No, it doesn't.

[Cobalt]

or the old VE

I'd say a VE was brought back to as a close a version of its predecessor as possible. Unlike many "remakes" it included a majority of its former members, government included - that might be partially due to the relatively short time span between the Green Civil War and VE's reformation around the UJP War. However, I would say the feel of the community at the "old" VE is still alive in the "new" VE (I use quotes because, lets be serious... the "new" VE has been around for 2 years... it can lose the "new" tag).

And I'm not saying this as a current member, but as someone who knew the old VE, and has known the new from a foreign and domestic perspective.

[Nintenderek]

I'd say a VE was brought back to as a close a version of its predecessor as possible. Unlike many "remakes" it included a majority of its former members, government included - that might be partially due to the relatively short time span between the Green Civil War and VE's reformation around the UJP War. However, I would say the feel of the community at the "old" VE is still alive in the "new" VE (I use quotes because, lets be serious... the "new" VE has been around for 2 years... it can lose the "new" tag).

And I'm not saying this as a current member, but as someone who knew the old VE, and has known the new from a foreign and domestic perspective.

I don't care if the same people are there or not. The old VE disbanded. The newer VE has not. There was a gap between the forming of the new VE and the disbandment of the old one. They are indeed two separate alliances with similar membership and similar names and flags.

[civiclove]

for me ....i always welcome NONE alliance Revivals..

since they have more than 20,000 member

hopefully never disband or out of member...

NONE alliance is the biggest member in planet BOB...

be that forever....NONE...

love you full......

Edited December 26, 2009 by civiclove

[Il Impero Romano]

I don't care if the same people are there or not. The old VE disbanded. The newer VE has not. There was a gap between the forming of the new VE and the disbandment of the old one. They are indeed two separate alliances with similar membership and similar names and flags.

Speaking literally of course, you are correct. One thing cannot be another thing. However in matters like this there are many metaphorical considerations such as "does the new embody the spirit of the old" or do they have "substantially the same" values, government, members, etc. With the new and old VE, we do. Therefore, we don't consider in terms of new an old internally, but rather just pre and post reformation.

I think a big difference between VE's situation and some others is the amount of time, as Tungsten pointed out. The time period between death and reformation for us was short, as such we were able to put together basically the same alliance all around, and continue to grow where we left of (i.e. we have been relatively large from a few months after reformation onward). A good question would be: How much does the length of time between death and reformation affect an alliance's ability to successfully reform?

Edited December 26, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Jens of the desert]

From the many experiences I have had, reviving an alliance is impossible, and I shouldn't see how it could be anything more than that, as, after time, too many of the things which made the former alliance what it was, have changed or gone altogether.

[Farnsworth]

Floundering is officially the word of the thread.

I definitely approve of reformation attempts if executed properly and competently.

After all, I only returned to CN knowing I could also return to VE.

[Doitzel]

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean on the first thing mentioned? Is it better to have more or less members from the original alliance? If more, why? Aren't the same members forming an older alliance more likely to produce the same results that caused the previous alliance's demise in the first place? If less, why? Wouldn't it make less sense for people who were never involved in the original alliance to revive it?

We at GOONS have experienced this second scenario first-hand. We had a person whom had nothing to do with the 'Goon Order of Neutral Shoving' come to us with a proposal. He intended to revive the old AA and requested that we aid him in doing so. This person still exists in this game and is considered an enemy of the 'Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism', along with the other two members of the Neutral Shoving AA, not only because they've decided to steal a legacy that doesn't belong to them, but because they've taken it upon themselves to attack our newest members on a regular basis. I hardly think a resurrection by a third party is a good idea.

I would also like to hear what it is about GOONS coming back that you consider 'not right'? What could we have done better? You've been around a very long time, Doitzel...I know you strive for drama, whether you're in the middle of it or just commenting on it. What about our alliance doesn't suit your desires?

If you are using the same name you should be comprised at least largely of the same alliance you once were. Does anyone really consider Jack Diorno's NAAC to be the NAAC? No. Why? Because Jack Diorno (and whoever else) was not in NAAC, and nobody that was in the NAAC at the time wants the NAAC to come back. It's a matter of legitimacy. If you're going to make a grab at the name you need to have a legitimate claim at it. Not to mention, those who were involved in a first incarnation's demise are more likely to understand, in hindsight, what caused its downfall.

The matter of identity is where the redemption from past mistakes comes in. If, like GOONS has done, the new incarnation simply tries to ride on the wave of the past then they're going to wind up the same way. Guess what: it wasn't reckless foreign policy or idiot leaders going off their rockers that got GOONS killed, it was their insistence on being highly-active griefers that were "playing SomethingAwful" (read: refusing to assimilate into the CN community and taking a no-distinction approach to IC/OOC matters) that made them the enemies of pretty much the entire game. Yeah, you got rid of the bad foreign policy, idiot leaders, and high-strength nations that make those so dangerous, but your attitude is the same as the old GOONS, so to me the war's still on and you need to be swept under the rug again.

[Hymenbreach]

The name of an alliance is the least important thing about it. All methods of advertising are legitimate in order to grow your alliance. Although if Legion had fallen and someone unconnected had tried to revive the name, I am not sure how I would react.

[Doitzel]

The name of an alliance is the least important thing about it. All methods of advertising are legitimate in order to grow your alliance. Although if Legion had fallen and someone unconnected had tried to revive the name, I am not sure how I would react.

You didn't seem to mind when the NPO did just that.