Not Rating Alliances

[Qaianna]

In the more recent thread, some of the lower-ranked alliances in the world were being rated. Quite a few, my own included, earned a lot of 'Who?' 'N/A', '5 - don't know', and similar responses.

Here, then, is what I'd like to ask about. In general, would this be a good thing in not standing out as a bunch of idiots, or a bad thing in not being noticed by The Right People (TRP, soon to announce their DoE and protectorate under Those Big Guys..OK, just kidding) in the world?

Frankly, given some of the past history I've seen, it's not all bad to be hidden from view..

[Sephiroth]

If an alliance isn't interested getting in involved in war being relatively unknown can be a good thing, although I imagine it gets boring after a while.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Methrage' date='25 April 2010 - 01:59 AM' timestamp='1272178756' post='2274078']
although I imagine it gets boring after a while.
[/quote]

that right there is the thing, if we just wanted to collect infra, being unknown would work, but it is detrimental to fun.

[KagetheSecond]

It's both good and bad. I want people to know about OMFG because of our really really ridiculously good looking membership and stats, but as an alliance, we don't want to be major players on the world stage.

[Rickyman1984]

I truly don't see the need for being well known. Most of the time I hear someone talk about a thread they read on here the next sentence is something along the lines of "LET'S ZI THAT !@#$%^& WHO SAID THAT!!!!" with an occasional "that Bob Janova makes a nice point and seems reasonable".

Keeping activity on your forums is vital, keeping contact with your allies is vital, but beyond that I don't think notoriety has much tangible effect on your alliances success or failure. If your alliance is thriving internally, other alliances will start to take note and check you out. I think making introductions slowly over IRC and diplomats is a considerably more pleasant experience than actively trying to gather attention and make big splashes.

[Thomas Jackson]

Being under the radar is great for when you want to rebuild. It also puts far less pressure on you when you make decisions since no one is looking over it with a magnifying glass looking to make a mountain over an ant hill. Unless you have a fun group of people in your alliance, it will get boring eventually.

[Ashoka the Great]

There's something in public choice theory called '[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance"]rational ignorance[/url]'. Putting this theory into terms that apply to Planet Bob, time spent getting to know newer/smaller alliances is time [i]not[/i] spent cementing relationships with current friends or working on internal alliance development.

There are only so many active members/hours in the day.

(And yes, being under the radar is a good thing.)

[Andre27]

I see the discussion we were having about this on our forum has moved here.

There is certainly something to be said to stay under the radar especially since getting on the radar often means your alliance messed up in some way.

So not attracting attention and only maintaining contacts with those already known to you can keep your alliance out of harms way.

The other side of the medal though is that one misses the opportunity to make new friends which is really all that matters.

If one wishes an alliance can go neutral and not involve itself in any of the politics taking place on planet bob, but speaking for myself that would make me lose interest in the game all together rather quickly.

[commander thrawn]

Being unknown can work wonders for your alliance, especially if you are much better at war than average, since people will underestimate you.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='commander thrawn' date='25 April 2010 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1272224127' post='2274638']
Being unknown can work wonders for your alliance, especially if you are much better at war than average, since people will underestimate you.
[/quote]
Problem is, if you're good at war, you only get to be underestimated once

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='25 April 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1272236714' post='2274973']
Problem is, if you're good at war, you only get to be underestimated once
[/quote]
Talk to TOP and Sparta. We were underestimated both times.

[ktarthan]

I feel that the "world's stage" is one of the few worthwhile diversions on this planet. If my alliance were not wanting to be on it, I would probably be searching for another alliance.

[IronSoldier820]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='25 April 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1272206938' post='2274301']
There's something in public choice theory called '[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance"]rational ignorance[/url]'. Putting this theory into terms that apply to Planet Bob, time spent getting to know newer/smaller alliances is time [i]not[/i] spent cementing relationships with current friends or working on internal alliance development.

There are only so many active members/hours in the day.[/quote]
The logic you employ here is pretty solid, but I've always based my Foreign policy on getting to know the new and upcoming alliances in order to try my luck with becoming friends first with future success stories. Granted, a lot of new alliances don't make it, but when you've been there since the beginning for those that do, they really appreciate the support and you get rewards with a strong relationship that could easily surpass a relationship with a pre-existing alliance any day.

That's just personal experience talking, though. I've tried my hand at both, but I find that cementing relationships with current friends isn't time as well spent as getting to know everybody. This derives from my experience of being rather under-appreciated by friends that I had tried to cement relationships with, but then ended up getting taken for granted.

[Kzoppistan]

Zenith: Under your radarz, stealing your kittehz

[Xiphosis]

All depends on what you want out of CN and how involved you want to be. The more known, the more !@#$ you gotta deal with, so just take it for that.

[Jakome]

I could see staying in the shadows is alright for newer alliances sure but making allies and voicing your opinion for good or bad is bound to get yourself noticed. Sure, you can be a hugely successful nation without much fan fare but; what are you really at that point other than a 2 clicks a day guy.

Alliance boards can be fun and all but 60-300 people pale in comparison to the fun these boards offer.

[eyriq]

I reckon you get attention when you deserve attention.

[Omniscient1]

No publicity is bad publicity right? so I would say the second option. Then again I always disagreed with that statement so I have added nothing to the thread. Just posting so I can get noticed by The Right People

[SiCkO]

Most alliances that aren't well known usually have inactive gov and membership. There have been exceptions to this where alliances order the silence (Legion almost always silences their members during crisis and bad threads so that they dont hurt themselves PR wise on the OWF) But most of the time it just is a sign of inactivity or non - participation

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='SiCkO' date='01 May 2010 - 05:02 AM' timestamp='1272686536' post='2282280']
Most alliances that aren't well known usually have inactive gov and membership. There have been exceptions to this where alliances order the silence (Legion almost always silences their members during crisis and bad threads so that they dont hurt themselves PR wise on the OWF) But most of the time it just is a sign of inactivity or non - participation
[/quote]


Lack of recognition means inactive...

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='SiCkO' date='30 April 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1272686536' post='2282280']
Most alliances that aren't well known usually have inactive gov and membership. There have been exceptions to this where alliances order the silence (Legion almost always silences their members during crisis and bad threads so that they dont hurt themselves PR wise on the OWF) But most of the time it just is a sign of inactivity or non - participation
[/quote]
I'd actually say the opposite. Low membership alliances can have extremely high activity levels, especially in Gov. You've had experience with us, you should know that

[abdur]

OMFG has been one of the best alliance I had the privilege to be a diplomat to. (Just putting that out there )

As far as the publicity part goes, usually alliances are noticed because they did something bad. If they can get a few active posters to post smartly on the OWF once in a while, that would be awesome publicity.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='abdur' date='02 May 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1272828944' post='2283993']
OMFG has been one of the best alliance I had the privilege to be a diplomat to. (Just putting that out there )

As far as the publicity part goes, usually alliances are noticed because they did something bad. If they can get a few active posters to post smartly on the OWF once in a while, that would be awesome publicity.
[/quote]
As long as they're not overshadowed by a few active posters who post stupidly here. Don't think it's too common to see yourself hailed as a good poster (aside from a select few notables); it's pretty easy to find yourself on the other side of the fence, tho.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='03 May 2010 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1272907072' post='2285106']
As long as they're not overshadowed by a few active posters who post stupidly here. Don't think it's too common to see yourself hailed as a good poster (aside from a select few notables); it's pretty easy to find yourself on the other side of the fence, tho.
[/quote]
Absolutely. People love a villain, especially when it lets them cast themselves as the hero.