Increasing Alliance Acitivity

[supercoolyellow]

[size="7"]The Policy Corner[/size]

Freddie Mercury queried me, quite some time ago, asking if the next policy corner could be about alliances that purge inactive members. I decided to go with the theme but expand it to what an alliance can do to increase activity. Activity is one of the most important, and many times elusive, aspects of an alliance, and unless you are Paradoxian, or smug you are likely trying to increase the activity of your alliance. I would argue that activity is the catalyst of stats because alliance growth is the sum of the collective energy an alliance puts forward to better itself. There are other variables such as skill in leadership,experience, reputation, but in my mind all of these are less influential as the activity of an alliance, and activity can also lead to increases in many of these other areas.

Gauging alliance activity can also be a tricky thing, by my count there are three areas of activity. First there is forum activity, and it is by far the least public forms activity, but also the most useful in getting things done. Most of the important functions of the alliance happen in the forums, from creating trading circles, to new member education. Next is IRC activity, while not as much business is done here for most alliances it is important for interacting with other alliances, and making smaller, or more time sensitive decisions. The least important form of activity is OWF activity, and ironically it is by far the most public form activity. For example to the newer and uninformed player one might think that NSO is more active than FARK.

[color="#0000FF"]A short plug for MCXA:[/color] Many people think MCXA is inactive which is untrue, our forum activity is probably above average and our IRC activity is right on par, what causes people to think we are inactive is that we have only two-three members who regularly post on the OWF.

Also there are two ways to define average activity. The most popular way to gauge activity is the average activity of alliance members. The other way is to judge the over all activity of an alliance. Take for example the New Polar Order and the Corporation, if we judge the alliance based on average activity the Corporation is likely to be more active. If we judge based on total activity NpO is easily more active. I tend to judge alliance on overall activity because on any given day NpO is able to do more than the Corporation.

The first thing that an alliance can do to promote activity is in its admissions policies. Here are some options that an alliance can have.

1. Only admit experienced players.

This is likely to be a sure fire way to make sure every member of the alliance is active, and it has worked for alliances like Paradoxia and *gasp* Gramlins. My problem with this is that only a very few number of alliances can pull this off. When I see a new alliance try to do this, or a less well respected one I assume that they will not be able to grow, and will have a short lived stay on planet Bob.

2. In forum interviews

Many alliances do this in some form. TOP, MK, and most of all NPO does this. When you recruit a new nation a great many of players will just leave the game the next day and never think of it again. If a player has to go through a day or three of interviewing, they will have made it over that initial hump. Also alliances can use the interview to create friendships, and introduce applicants to the culture of the alliance. The question that NPO uses in its interviews is a good example of this.

What does the flag of the new Pacific Order represent to you?

Overall I think this is such a good idea every alliance should be doing it. I've been pushing for it at MCXA, and it has been implemented at a level, but I would love to see it taken farther.

3. IRC interviews

IRC activity should be a goal for every alliance. Some alliances achieve almost perfect IRC activity through requiring applicants to get on IRC before they are accepted. This can be very effective and makes it a lot easier to get new members to be active. Many new players find IRC daunting and overwhelming and this can give them the push they need to try it. The drawbacks are that many new members can applicants can be chased away by this. Also I have encountered many alliance members who have done a great deal of service for their alliance without every using IRC.



After Admissions, alliances will many times have to tackle the hard task of getting existing members to be more active. Here are the things I've seen done to try to achieve this.

4. In game mass PMs.

The idea behind this is that if you send PMs to your members linking them to important things going on in the alliance forums, that they will get on and read the posts. I used to swear by these when I was in charge of the Big Top Order. What I have now decided is that alliance members actually use this as an excuse not to read the forums. If anything important happens they will receive PMs about it and no longer feel the need to read the forums every day.

5. Activity Rewards

Some alliances have tried to pay members to be active. Most frequently by paying people by the post. This has also been done by paying people who serve as things like recruiters, or to the smaller nations who attack ghosts. Largely I think this can use up a lot of aid slots to have an impact, but I do think there is a way to do this. If an alliance offers aid to new members to achieve certain activity goals they can hopefully create a pattern of activity that will last them after they receive their aide. MCXA has done this both and it has gone a long way to increase activity and recruiting.

6. Purging Inactive Members

I've heard a lot of great things about this recently. Ragnarok has embraced it quite publicly recently. For those alliances that view activity by its average and not its collective sum, they would be more likely to pick this route. Londo Mollari has told me that it can still increase the sum activity as well. Apparently Athens has tried purging and when members have been told they will be kicked out, they get back to being active and taking part in the alliance. I think this policy is much harder for democratic alliances where an elected government may find its self out of office if they remove inactive people from the alliance. The completely inactive won't vote regardless, but those who are sometimes inactive will have a large problem with their government.

I see a few problems with purging. First many players are active and inactive based on the time they have and what is going on in RL. the player who is inactive today may tomorrow be active. Also it no secret that many players might not be around until war comes, and then they come when they are needed and still contribute to the alliance. Also if a larger member is not active enough to buy tech, they can many times be used to give money to alliance aid programs because they aren't using their aid slots for anything else. At MCXA this has helped us achieve quite large aid funds even post war, as some members who aren't quite that active given generously when asked.



After these things an alliance can do several things to engage their members. Here are a few that I've seen.

7. Interesting posts

For members to get on the forums there has to be stuff that they can read an enjoy. This can take many forms. Every alliance does spam games, but to be honest I'm not a fan because they seem rather pointless. At MCXA we love to gamble, we gamble on what will be the peak radiation level during the war, and even when certain members will have their baby. When its in game tech we're gambling with I see no moral problems with it. Other fun things that have can be done are youtube video threads, pictures threads, you mom joke threads, the list goes on an on.

8. IRC trivia

For many smaller alliances a member can get on IRC and find nothing to do, having IRC trivia can help this pretty decently and generate discussions, especially in the public channels. The only trick is getting bot to do this.

9. Opening up the private channel

Another thing a new and smaller alliance can do is open up their private channel to a few friends outside the alliance. This helps the smaller alliance create new friends and make sure there is always somone to talk to on IRC, and help out new members who use IRC for the first time. For larger alliances this isn't needed and can mess with opsec.

10. Giving out positions

If encouraging members to take up positions is done with the right person it can be the push they need to become truly involved. Getting that newer member to be a diplomat may mean that one day they will be the future MOFA of your alliance. Once a member has a role they should feel obligated to be faithful in their duties. However if you push the wrong member who isn't already active, they can just abandon their duties and important functions can remain undone. For this reason I have a hard time trusting important roles to less active members.

11. Transparency

If the government of an alliance makes all the decisions behind closed doors, the membership will feel disjointed from alliance club. By involving members in alliance decisions the government can engage them, give members something to talk about, and help members learn how the alliance runs to train some to be future leaders in the alliance


[color="#FF0000"]My questions for you are...

What has been your experience with these methods and their success and drawbacks?

What else have you seen tried to encourage activity?

What on this list does your alliance currently do?

[/color] Edited February 3, 2013 by supercoolyellow

[Rebel Virginia]

[color="#0000FF"]Every time I have started up FAIL I have been sure to only admit a certain variety of ruler. The devoted kind that is willing to blindly follow me into the abyss. And it has worked. FAIL once had a peak member of three people. All were reasonably active, until one dropped off the face of the world. Then we merged into Rome. During another incarnation of FAIL, my only other member left. But while he was in FAIL he was active. That was also the story of the incarnation of FAIL before that. And before that too. So as you can see, FAIL has always had 100% or near activity. I take pride in that accomplishment.[/color]

[Banksy]

Do some alliances actually not send out PMs or conduct interviews....?

[Ashoka the Great]

To my knowledge, Nordreich currently does the following to one degree or another.

[s]1. Only admit experienced players.[/s] - However, I've noticed that newer nations are also the most likely to disappear without notice, resign, etc. Whatchagonnado?
2. In forum interviews
[s]3. IRC interviews[/s] - I've seen it happen, but it's not the norm.
4. In game mass PMs.
[s]5. Activity Rewards[/s] - Paying people to post seems like a terrible idea to me. Same with recruitment bonuses.
6. Purging Inactive Members
7. Interesting posts - Any alliance I belong to will have interesting posts.*
[s]8. IRC trivia[/s] - I hate trivia bots.
[s]9. Opening up the private channel[/s] - Although something like this has been under discussion at various times.
[s]10. Giving out positions[/s] - Positions are earned.
11. Transparency - Nordreich has an elected Parliament ('Althing'), and their discussions are visible to the entire alliance.

Perhaps it's just Nordreich, but if one wants to see this group of people extremely active, start a war. If there's even the slightest chance it could head our way, activity will spike as long as that possibility remains.




* - I do believe I channeled RV for a second there.

[Seth Muscarella]

We've implemented many of these methods within the past 6 months, and have recently talked about implementing a couple more of them. Overall i'm impressed with your coverage; they are almost all good ideas. One i particularly don't find effective though is the prizes for forum activity. It's my belief that if the need for work is clearly laid out, people will take it and therefore start to become active through their job when they wouldn't have been so before. Now if you create incentives for job activity, or in our case, sending almost 100 members to FARK's forums to spam them to death, then membership will eat that up.

In Sparta's purges, we make sure to give the potential list of nations the benefit of the doubt. Since we know that most of our members are new to the CN scene, we are sure to give them ample time to respond, i.e. they would be deleted from inactivity if they really didn't see our messages, and if they still do not respond, then they are attacked and messaged yet again. I feel it's an effective method of not only purging the grossly inactive, but bonding remaining members together in the fight. I'd say there's something psychological about forcing your members to fire upon their old friends, but i'm no psychologist. ;-P

In closing, yes to giving out positions. I considered becoming a diplomat for Sparta to be one of the highest privileges in the Alliance and hey, this is my second run at EoFA now, with a short stint as both Deputy Ephor (before the constitution change) and Elder (before my second nomination to Ephor).

[SynthFG]

1. Only admit experienced players.
Works less well than you would think,
an experianced player moving alliance is usually dissatisfied about the game in general as well as there former home,
there's also the culture shock of moving to a new home, especialy if they used to be a player in there old alliance with access to lots of jucy sensitive info and are used to haveing there voice listened to and respected, suddenly being a base member and loosing that access and respect can cause them to slip away

tbh a majority that I have seen have a tendancy to be active for a week or so then slip into inactivity and eventualy delete

[GearHead]

[s][b]1. Only admit experienced players.[/b][/s]
We don't do this.

[s][b]2. In forum interviews.[/b][/s]
As we have an open membership policy, with a law in place that makes it illegal to ask about the past of a player (our founding principles are based on second chances - a place to start fresh without worrying about your past), we don't conduct any interviews or ask any questions for entry.

[s][b]3. IRC interviews.[/b][/s]
See above.

[b]4. In game mass PMs.[/b]
[i]What has been your experience with this method? Successes and drawbacks?[/i]
We send mass PMs for certain things, and they seem to be very successful in getting members to sign up for certain things or look at certain announcements. If you word the PM to where it seems as there is much more to learn by clicking the link provided, you will get more respondents. In general, I'd like to see the use of mass-PMs increased in TFD, even though we already do it a couple times a week.

[b]5. Activity Rewards.[/b]
[i]What has been your experience with this method? Successes and drawbacks?[/i]
Well, in TFD we play favorites. Basically, we have very few economic programs, but these programs are made to boost a nation basically from the lower to the mid to upper tier. As you can imagine, they would be very selective. The selection of these programs is based on activity and ability to follow instructions properly. If one is active and has a little bit of intelligence, he can be a part of one of our programs, and essentially have his nation built for him. The others that don't bother with contributing...well, they don't get invested in.
However, I've thought it would be cool to have awards for members getting on IRC. Basically, if a young nation began to visit IRC regularly and became a part of that community, they'd be rewarded with aid towards their nation. This sort of links to the favorites thing I just said though, since if a nation really did do this, they would likely get classified into the group of members who would be eligible to have their nation built for them.

The successes of this would be that the active core would be strengthened. The drawbacks are, it doesn't really serve the purpose of what "activity rewards" would be for, which would be to actually bring more members into the active core. It strengthens the core, but doesn't really increase the size of it.

As far as recruitment aid: we do give out recruitment aid, but not without some work. We require all new recruits who are to receive "First Aid" to finish at least 3 (I think) 1x1 tech deals, and then they are added into TFD organized continuous tech deals. So, at best, you have the members working a month to get their 3M. The truth is, they actually get more from their tech dealing, and the reason we do this is because it exposes them to tech deals straight away, so that they aren't still oblivious to the profitable practice 6 months down the road, still at 10k NS. After the first aid is received, they can go through our Academy, and get another 3-6M (I forgot what it was) for the basic course. More specific courses can be taken, but that's not part of the path of a new member, really.

Successes to this are: members who go through this process generally are serious about building their nation and often times even being active on the forums, etc. Drawbacks are: there are a fair bit that don't go through the process because it's too long for them. I honestly would like to see us change the rules to where going through the process at least to "First Aid" is a requirement (for new nations only, though), and the ones who don't do so would be "purged" (although this really just came to mind like 30 seconds ago).

[s][b]6. Purging Inactive Members.[/b][/s]
We don't do this. I've thought about it before, and still am not sure if it would be a good thing for us...
See above for hypothetical thoughts on this though.

[b]7. Interesting posts.[/b]
[i]What has been your experience with this method? Successes and drawbacks?[/i]
Don't all alliances have these? We do. Yes, they do bring more members to post than in your average spam or announcement topic. So, yes, they do work. But I really don't think there are many alliances that don't have these. You'd have to lack any form of creativity not to have it.

[b]8. IRC trivia.[/b]
[i]What has been your experience with this method? Successes and drawbacks?[/i]
We used to have this a LONG time ago. It generally made people on IRC stay online longer, and made the channel a little more active. But it didn't really hold anybody's interest that wouldn't have stayed otherwise.

[s][b]9. Opening up the private channel.[/b][/s]
We have enough people in ours that we don't need to do this.

[b]10. Giving out positions.[/b]
[i]What has been your experience with this method? Successes and drawbacks?[/i]
Well, we don't give positions out to inactive people in the hope that they will be active. We give them to active people that show that they want to contribute. I'd rather take an active inexperienced guy than an inactive but experienced guy as my Deputy any day.

[b]11. Transparency.[/b]
[i]What has been your experience with this method? Successes and drawbacks?[/i]
We have really worked on transparency in TFD alot in the past year/year and a half. The results have been great. Members who would be interested in the topics that get released get fed, and they usually end up moving up the ranks in some way or another. Without this, I think there would be fewer interested members, and thus, less fresh blood flowing upwards.


[i]What else have you seen tried to encourage activity?[/i]
Tech dealing. This was something you failed to list: inclusion in the normal everyday economics of the game. If you can bring a good portion of your members to take part in these things, you can generally rely on them to contribute militarily and financially when needed. If a nation won't even tech deal, how do you know they'll fight?

[ratonbox]

As long as you manage to get your alliance to be more of a community you won't have too many problems in maintaining a rather acceptable level of activity. Other things that increase overall activity are:
the alliance theme(more interesting or more controversial = more activity), the place where your members come from(people from paradoxplaza have always been active, in TOP or in other alliances) and war, like zog said.
Oh, and alliance size kind of damages the activity level. A small tight-knit alliance always has a large activity level. Take Nemesis for example.

[LJ Scott]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='04 May 2010 - 07:42 AM' timestamp='1272955319' post='2286198']
[b]1. Only admit experienced players. [/b][/quote]

It's not just about admitting "experienced players", but also importantly, an applicant has to "fit" the alliance they're applying for. There aren't that many alliances which look at it from this perspective, and as such you have people joining an alliance for a few months and then wandering off to a new alliance, because the prior alliance just didn't suit them. In Umbrella we can teach a newer player everything they need to know, and build their nation extensively. We can't however make them fit in with our group. They'll either fit right in, or they'll lurk on the outside until they've had enough and leave. We're also not going to change the dynamic of our group just for one new member, regardless of who they are or what size their nation is.

[b]2. In forum interviews[/b]

I wasn't actually aware you could get into an alliance without this. Again similarly as above, we use forum question and answer sessions for all new applicants, ranging for around 5-7 days in length (An improvement on the old 30 day process). It's through these on which we'll base our opinions on whether to vote positively on an applicant (in Umbrella all applicants are voted on by the Umbrellan Guard [21 members], so you have to convince a good third of the alliance that you'll fit). Typically our Q&A's with applicants will contain social and general intelligence, a long with questions relating to CN itself, both in-game mechanics, and the real-politik world.

[b]3. IRC interviews[/b]

Again I wasn't aware that you could get into alliances without this. IRC activity is key to improved co-ordination in war time, along with building the communtiy within the alliance.

[b]4. In game mass PMs.[/b]

We've never recruited in-game, and would never. We're just not interested.

[b]5. Activity Rewards[/b]

If you have to bribe people to remain active, then I'd hate to think what you'd have to do when a war comes around.

[b]6. Purging Inactive Members[/b]

We have in the past kicked out members, or been on the verge of just before they left, due to inactivity and having subpar nations. Having meatshields would be pretty nice, but you can't build a reputation on being an effective war machine, if you have inactive and subpar nations holding you down. I'm of the opinion that dead weight is worthless.

[b]7. Interesting posts
[/b]
I think we provide several enviroments that cater for our members interests, whether it be the public Poll of the Day, to the joys of !@#$BIRD !@#$CAVE, or simply our member/allied friends social forum, Kevins Bedroom. We definately provide some pretty unique threads, anyone who's read NFL Generics "Girls I've Dated" thread will atest, for people to get involved with.

[b]8. IRC trivia[/b]

I've never been sold on this. It's sort of "fake acitvity".

[b]9. Opening up the private channel[/b]

Again I don't see the point behind this. We like to mock Athens in private, not in front of a crowd. We do however, have several channels where members and members of allies converse and I think that's more than enough. Also I think in opening up your private channel, that you're selling yourself short and giving away one of the draws to your alliance.

[b]10. Giving out positions[/b]

Outwith the Triumvirate, this is how we essenitally work. Those showing interest in areas, will usually find themselves promoted into those areas providing there is room. We are after all a small alliance and we don't want to end up with a ridiculous sized government.

[b]11. Transparency[/b]

I've never seen an alliance as transparent as Umbrella. Treaties are voted upon by the membership, and the discussion always involves them. New policies are discussed membership wide, and then discussed some more, and then voted on by the membership. As soon as we can, notice is given regarding our imminent entrance to a war, similarly with who we shall be engaging. No alliance can obviously be 100% transparent, but I think we do more than enough, and definately more than most.

[ktarthan]

[b]Only admit experienced players.[/b]
Look at the ANS of GOONS, and you will see where we stand on this. (It's about 7.5k right now, with 233 members).

[b]In forum interviews[/b]
GOONS doesn't just let anyone join - we have an application process that makes sure applicants will fit well within GOONS. (If you do not already know what the important criteria is, then you probably won't get in)

[b]IRC interviews [/b]
Never seen this happen.

[b]In game mass PMs.[/b]
We reserve these generally for wars, and other events that require the highest attention possible such as elections.

[b]Activity Rewards[/b]
Our only "reward" at the moment is for graduation from training. From that point if you have free aid slots to recieve a reward, then you're doing in wrong.

[b]Purging Inactive Members[/b]
I think this can be a good idea, but only when "inactive members" is synonomous with "ghost". If someone is flying our AA, but is not willing to war/aid/tech deal, or be on IRC or the Forum, then I don't consider them a member of the alliance. It's just empty NS. Lately we've been trying to ghostbust our applicant AA - we've got it from about 50 members down to 37.

[b]Interesting posts[/b]
I think this is more a symptom of activity rather than a cause. Once it happens it's likely to foster more activity, but without activity in the first place these things will have a hard time taking off.

[b]IRC trivia[/b]
I can't stand IRC bots, although maybe if enough interest was shown a separate trivia room could be made.

[b]Opening up the private channel[/b]
I think a better alternative to this is simply being more active in your public channel. To me, a private channel is for alliance use only.

[b]Giving out positions[/b]
I don't think that "giving out" positions to newer members is a good idea, but recentl GOONS added several gov positions and we did not allow any of our government/advisors/emeritus to run. The runners still had to earn their spot in the election, but it introduced some new blood into our leadership.
I think a side-issue with this is that active leadership is required for active members. The new members of government have been very active in their roles, and I feel this has translated to a positive effect on the membership activity.

[b]Transparency[/b]
Allowing membership to vote on as many decisions as possible could easily have a positive effect on activity, but I don't think that it is crucial. GOONS is more of a representative democracy; we elect the government who make the decisions.

[Mixoux]

I really don't think there's any fool-proof method to judge another alliance's activity. Some simply do not post on the OWF/public IRC channels in large numbers because it has never been stressed as being important. I can count on one hand how many members of my alliance do both of these, but I wouldn't say we're inactive.


[b]Only admit experienced players.[/b]

It helps, but not as much as you'd imagine. They may know the game well and not flake out, but there's many larger rulers who simply do not devote much time to their nations anymore; everything has been done already.

[b]In forum interviews[/b]

This definitely shows whether or not they're a good fit, which makes a big difference in whether or not they'll participate in the alliance and feel accepted, like LJ noted.

[b]IRC interviews [/b]

Much the same as above, as well as proving they can/will use IRC. This along with forum introductions are probably the most crucial element to GOD's recruitment process: If you can't do this, you're outta luck. I'd hope that most alliances do this.

[b]In game mass PMs.[/b]

Mostly for urgent, short notice announcements. War time PMs and the like that might get missed. Ideally you shouldn't be running your alliance through mass PMs, or get too liberal with them - they tend to lose their effect after a while.

[b]Activity Rewards[/b]

Should not exist. If you need some kind of reward to stay active, then there's something seriously wrong.


[b]Purging Inactive Members[/b]

We've done it, though never on a huge scale (having a small membership contributes to that too though). If you can't be depended on to aid and fight in wars, other worldly excuses not included, then you have no use for us.

[b]Interesting posts[/b]

Byproduct of activity.


[b]IRC trivia[/b]

Good for public channel gimmicks, that's about it.

[b]Opening up the private channel[/b]

Shouldn't be needed, but if you trust certain allied members enough and they get along well with the membership, go for it I guess.


[b]Giving out positions[/b]

Another byproduct of activity, depending on how your government structure is set up. Generally members who are active and devoted to their alliance will want to help out in some form, which leads to deputy/lower gov positions. Democratic alliances have the extra benefit of elections and the activity that's formed from that.


[b]Transparency[/b]

Depends on your alliance, but generally this can help members feel 'in the know' about what's affecting them. GOD is completely autocratic and probably 90% or so of our decisions are made without prior membership knowledge, but it's never been a problem because that's the way we function. Members joining us from a democratic, highly transparent alliance would most likely have trouble adjusting.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Mixoux

[Bilrow]

[quote]4. In game mass PMs.

The idea behind this is that if you send PMs to your members linking them to important things going on in the alliance forums, that they will get on and read the posts. I used to swear by these when I was in charge of the Big Top Order. What I have now decided is that alliance members actually use this as an excuse not to read the forums. If anything important happens they will receive PMs about it and no longer feel the need to read the forums every day.[/quote]

From my experience if you go to far the other way and mass PM too much to your membership you create a situation where they start ignoring the messages because they 1) are getting drowned by pointless messages and 2) start to ignore ones that are important.

So there is a balancing point on what is good and what becomes a hinderance in using this method.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Bilrow

[potato]

Do what MK does: talk at length about penises in between discussing who we're going to roll next. Oh and being racists apparently.

[James I]

Fake edit: I started comparing my past experiences with my current ones and mapping out a formula for what best works, but, partly out of boredom of speaking of something that isn't MK and partly for the sake of reducing repetition, I leant gradually closer and closer towards simply stating what MK does as the post went on. Also, rambling.

[b]1. Only admit experienced players. [/b]

We don't [i]only[/i] admit experienced rulers, but most applicants admitted have been around the block a few times. On the rare occasion that we get an applicant who appears "inexperienced", we often later find out he's been somewhere else previously in another incarnation. Having said that, I don't think an applicant [i]has[/i] to be experienced to fit into MK, but they really do need to fit in, which is something that is more likely to come with previous experience of this world. My past tells me that less experienced rulers have a far greater tendency to just melt into the background. I imagine that less established alliances would struggle to implement an experienced applicants-only policy because those applicants are far more likely to go to a more established alliance.

[b]2. In forum interviews[/b]

I think everyone does this in some form, although at varying length. Even those in MK go on for differing periods of time. Time spent at interview will depend on the applicant's activity. In the recent past, we've had a rule that an applicant must stay as an applicant for at least 24 hours, but I'll admit I've forgotten if that's still the case or not. If memory serves, it was longer, but I haven't noticed any drop in the quality of our graduated applicants. Although I can understand the merits of keeping an applicant waiting for longer - proof of commitment etc. - an applicant who can pass his tests, answer any questions and have background checks performed on him, all in the space of six hours, is absolutely fine by me. He is sure to be displaying a real keenness to get involved in the alliance.

As well as answering questions on a wide variety of topics (often politics-based), applicants are expected to first pass a basic nation-building examination, before going on to take the more MK-specific culture and military exams. These are open-book tests, but do require a modicum of committed time, so they test patience and basic intelligence, more than anything else. Passing these tests is a decent indication that the applicant will be active.

[b]3. IRC interviews[/b]

All applicants to the Mushroom Kingdom speak quickly with a member of our wonderful Culture team on IRC. Usage of IRC is, indeed, a good indicator of activity.

[b]4. In game mass PMs.[/b]

In-game mass PMs are important in keeping up-to-date those in your alliance who are unable to fully immerse themselves in this world as others might be able. I wouldn't have said they improve activity to a great degree, and a PM received too often will just be ignored by an inactive member. But yes, these are undoubtedly important if you are to keep your [i]whole[/i] alliance informed of goings-on. Many MK members, including myself, are much easier to contact via the forums though. Something that I, with the help of supreme deputy Infinite Citadel (ok, so he did it), asked a few members was what their preferred mode of contact was, and the response was that the six or seven surveyed preferred a forums PM. So a lot of the time it is perhaps easier to keep people informed and responsive using other methods.

[b]5. Activity Rewards[/b]

We don't have a tariff that gives greater rewards for those with greater activity. Reward for those who are active will come through their being about, and it will come in a whole host of ways. Activity opens the doors to opportunities, I suppose.

[b]6. Purging Inactive Members[/b]

I don't believe we have previously expelled a member for inactivity.

[b]7. Interesting posts[/b]

Interesting is one way of putting it. I think the topics and posts in MK's social areas are enough to cater for everyone. You just need to be careful not to take (any of) it too seriously all of the time, and you should have a good time. Beyond doubt though is that it is the relationships and dialogue between members of the Mushroom Kingdom that make it an active alliance. You’re right that “interesting” posts breed activity. Activity does not necessarily give you a bunch of exciting content. Although you do need some activity for the interesting posts to exist, of course. So I’m talking in circles here, but I think what I’m saying is at least somewhat coherent.

I will add that I think that our boards not having a "Count to 1,000,000" thread is a source of some pride.

[b]10. Giving out positions[/b]

If you're active, you might get a position. You won't get a position on the understanding your activity levels will rise. This is the way it should work, I think.

[b]11. Transparency[/b]

Opacity. I find it very difficult to judge how much transparency there is from up here in the ever so cosy ivory tower. Efforts are made to remedy this problem, where it is made known as one.

[flak attack]

[quote name='James I' date='04 May 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1273012595' post='2286856']
[b]6. Purging Inactive Members[/b]

I don't believe we have previously expelled a member for inactivity.
[/quote]
Try missing three roll calls. We have a policy, I don't know how often it's enforced though, since it's never been a problem for my battalion

[quote name='James I' date='04 May 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1273012595' post='2286856']
I will add that I think that our boards not having a "Count to 1,000,000" thread is a source of some pride.
[/quote]
$%&@ you LJ. You know what I'm talking about.

More input from me later.

Edited May 5, 2010 by flak attack

[Xiphosis]

I am happy to say we do every single thing listed in the OP already.

[James I]

[quote name='flak attack' date='05 May 2010 - 04:43 AM' timestamp='1273031003' post='2287272']$%&@ you LJ. You know what I'm talking about.[/quote]

Mission complete...

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='flak attack' date='05 May 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1273031003' post='2287272']
$%&@ you LJ. You know what I'm talking about.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote name='James I' date='05 May 2010 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1273012595' post='2286856']
[b]2. In forum interviews[/b]
Passing these tests is a decent indication that the applicant will be active.
[/quote]

Not really. Anyone who knows anything about nation building can finish them very quickly.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Ryuzaki

[James I]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='05 May 2010 - 11:38 AM' timestamp='1273055908' post='2287537']
Not really. Anyone who knows anything about nation building can finish them very quickly.
[/quote]

Completing all three tests quickly is a decent indication they'll be somewhat active, I reckon. You wouldn't bother if it was your intention to join up and never visit the forums again. As we don't mass recruit, it's not as though we'll get many applicants that don't know what sort of commitment they're signing up for. And even someone who comes here to retire is more than likely going to display at least a passable amount of activity.

But they won't [i]always[/i] be active. It's a decent indication though.