There are too many alliances and some of you should disband.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1280461630' post='2394741']
Ah ha! I knew I forgot someone! How could I, since GOD would be the perfect candidate.
[/quote]

Annexing was brought up before, years and years ago, internally. As fun as it'd be to try, it'd probably wreck you from the disunity it'd breed inside.

Also, I'd say 'merge' and not disband. Mega alliances ftw.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Xiphosis

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1280447471' post='2394518']
It may not be an undeniable fact, but it's certainly not unreasonable. It's a well justified opinion given our beliefs.

And you can't assume otherwise either. What are you going to do? PM every nation on CN and poll them about what they like best? Stop treating this like you can prove it or something. It's like I said; it's a belief. You can't shatter our beliefs.
[/quote]

Well I did present some form of evidence in my first post but I'll add more to that here. I compared the number of active forum participants to the number of nations and found that there are more nations than forum members. I estimated the number of active forum participants to be 4000 at the absolute extreme high end. I used the fact that the record number of people online (not just members) was 1800 and that there aren't more than 200-400 people viewing the forums on normal days to come up with my estimate.

We can reasonably assume that people interested in war, politics, and conflicts visit the forums (where else can they get access to that information so conveniently?). On that assumption, we can see that the 4000 active forum members are a minority compared to the 24000 nations that exist on planet bob. This clearly indicates that most nations are not interested in such things. Now, my estimations are not based on math, just educated guessing. However, I do have a basis for my views. Upon what do you base your views?

[Delta1212]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1280465187' post='2394785']
Well I did present some form of evidence in my first post but I'll add more to that here. I compared the number of active forum participants to the number of nations and found that there are more nations than forum members. I estimated the number of active forum participants to be 4000 at the absolute extreme high end. I used the fact that the record number of people online (not just members) was 1800 and that there aren't more than 200-400 people viewing the forums on normal days to come up with my estimate.

We can reasonably assume that people interested in war, politics, and conflicts visit the forums (where else can they get access to that information so conveniently?). On that assumption, we can see that the 4000 active forum members are a minority compared to the 24000 nations that exist on planet bob. This clearly indicates that most nations are not interested in such things. Now, my estimations are not based on math, just educated guessing. However, I do have a basis for my views. Upon what do you base your views?
[/quote]
Based on the couple alliances I have the requisite access level to actually observe, there are a lot of people who discuss and follow politics on their respective alliance forums but never bother signing on to the main CN forums.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1280462619' post='2394755']
That's the kind of talk that could get you expelled.
[/quote]

I did it better

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1280465506' post='2394790']
Based on the couple alliances I have the requisite access level to actually observe, there are a lot of people who discuss and follow politics on their respective alliance forums but never bother signing on to the main CN forums.
[/quote]
I can vouch for that, from the two alliances I've been in. In fact, if I didn't have to come here I'd just hide away in a dusty corner of the alliance boards. Hell, that was my original plan for the world. How did it go so horribly wrong? What do I have to do to be an obscure cog in the machine?

Seriously, though, the idea's still untenable, and for another fun reason I just thought of: proxies. Meatshields, torpedoes, hired guns, thugs, et cetera. (I can't call them goons, for obvious reasons.) Not every war needs to be a Great Huge Oh My God What A Wars, you know. And don't forget that recovery takes a while. You might get more wars if not as much was at risk. And let's not forget reward, as someone pointed out--what would Phoenix Rising gain by, say, stirring up trouble with..well..anyone?

Basically, what would the winners get that's worth it, and how do the losers compare that with what can be lost? All war involves risk management--how much to risk for what reward. And considering how random war can be, no-one wants to put themselves at risk for utter boredom for several months without a really, really good reason. Especially those who've already had the crap kicked out of them in earlier wars--remember, those casual members are the ones doing the bleeding for the merriment of the forum hawks. How long will they put up with it?

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1280464395' post='2394776']
As fun as it'd be to try, it'd probably wreck you from the disunity it'd breed inside.
[/quote]


True that. Such a venture would abound in chaos, with mutinies to crush, coups to prevent, splinters to reabsorb, rogues going wild and tech deals constantly falling though, ect. but on the other hand, three points: a crack team of internal affairs members (or an IA team on crack, either way) that could successfully coordinate the constant influx of nations. Much like rl POW processing systems. Some alliances have perfected the system, you just need the right people to do it. Two: Empires are best run by, what else, Emperors. None of that clumsy democratic committee type steering of the alliance and petty interpolitic bickering; not for a fast paced alliance on the rise that would be in nearly constant war. Only the infallible voice of a strong leader that could unite, terrify, and inspire would do. The third point ties the first two together, the message must be embraced, and nothing motivates people like ideology. People will fight for bread, but once they've eaten they'll lose their heart, but give a man a destiny and he'll die for it. Unite the cybersphere under one banner and crush all those who oppose you. Fielding and inspiring the new nations bitter about being absorbed would require both strong points one and two.

Even if such a go as that spiraled out of control, half of the smallish alliances would preemptively merge into their stronger allies out of fear and then you'd have giant mega-alliance vs. mega-alliance wars of catastrophic proportions harkening back to the days of old when the proverbial Goliaths grappled with each other at thousands of members strong and the whole world rocked upon its hinges!

Ah, such talk...

and if you all will excuse me, I have to change my pants.

Have a great weekend.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Feanor Noldorin]

I'm with Yev on this one. We don't necessarily need less alliances in this game. We need the alliances we have to stop being afraid of having ambitions.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1280377329' post='2393526']
Well everyone is capable of making mistakes, some apparently more capable than others, we're all human.

For your benefit, I've provided you with the correct version of the disbandment list. My gift to you. Best wishes from Sparta.

Edit: Corrections have been highlighted.

<snip>

31) Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism: Useless. Leave.

<snip>

[/quote]
Your opinion has been duly noted, good sir. GOONS are definitely useless and should leave. Again. And they should stay away for good.

GOONS

[LegendoftheSkies]

Objectively speaking, I'm pretty much in agreement with the OP's list.

Only thing I think I would personally change would be for FAN to stay and for NATO to go. FAN has been quiet yes, but I think if they can get back to the upper ranks they could start providing some entertainment.

I'd also maybe reconsider NEW since they caused a bit of a stir with that recent raid on that NAAC guy and I do see some stuff from them now and again.

[Mustakrakish II]

So The Templar Knights, one of the games oldest alliances, should disband?

I get a feeling that you are thick and seeking attention.

Congrats, I gave you some because I am sOOOOooooo rageing right now.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1280377329' post='2393526']
Well everyone is capable of making mistakes, some apparently more capable than others, we're all human.

For your benefit, I've provided you with the correct version of the disbandment list. My gift to you. Best wishes from Sparta.

Edit: Corrections have been highlighted.
[/quote]

Taking this a bit personally aren't we?

For the record though Sparta does kind of tag along...

[Mayzie]

I'm just here to !@#$%* and moan because my previous alliance and more than one of my former allies are on there as a disband, plus my new alliance is too irrelevant, so should also disband.

Ok maybe I'm not really here for that. All I've got to say on the matter of alliances and who should disband is that some people believe that alliances are more than just numbers, OWF whores, people that go declaring war or try and stir !@#$ up over absolutely nothing. Communities and friendships are what I personally value and I think if you're sticking around here for anything else then you'll often find yourself bored.

[Uberstein]

Everyone should merge into one super alliance, and whoever has the highest NS should be the leader. The wars would never stop.

[Yuenny]

The only alliance which doesn't deserve to live is TSO. Please, disband already.

[Tequila Mockingbird]

@OP:

/s/

Tequila Mockingbird

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1280471094' post='2394848']
I'm with Yev on this one. We don't necessarily need less alliances in this game. We need the alliances we have to stop being afraid of having ambitions.
[/quote]


That would automatically lead to more bigger alliances and fewer little ones.

Also i lol'ed pretty hard when you said NATO should stay. I mean i can give TPF credit for being terrible but managing to stand out with something, even if it was extremely stupid and brought OOC even closer to IC where it really shouldn't have. And that's just the main thing i can remember right now.

[WalkerNinja]

While comrades Yevgeni and Feanor's admonissions regarding the absence of ambition is well taken, I cannot help but think that the sheer weight of untold numbers of alliances and treaties are the causal factors in crushing the ambition out of the top 75. The entire system is so convoluted that it begins to look like a game of pick-up-sticks where timidity is rewarded more regularly than bravery. Select the wrong stick, and the entire pile collapses on you.

It is for this reason that I once sought to change the ODN's policy from "seeking protectorates" to "seeking to annex micro alliances at the point of a sword if need be." Too many alliances with too many treaties.

Edited July 30, 2010 by WalkerNinja

[Kalasin]

How do you "annex alliances at the point of a sword"? Tell them that they have to sign a treaty or else?

[WalkerNinja]

Never quite worked that out. One suggestion was that we propose a duel that was weighted in their favor with specific win conditions. If they won, we pay them a ton of money to help them not be so "micro," but if they lose they recognize our superiority and roll into our alliance. So "point of a sword" was always a bit metaphorical.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1280465187' post='2394785']
Well I did present some form of evidence in my first post but I'll add more to that here. I compared the number of active forum participants to the number of nations and found that there are more nations than forum members. I estimated the number of active forum participants to be 4000 at the absolute extreme high end. I used the fact that the record number of people online (not just members) was 1800 and that there aren't more than 200-400 people viewing the forums on normal days to come up with my estimate.

We can reasonably assume that people interested in war, politics, and conflicts visit the forums (where else can they get access to that information so conveniently?). On that assumption, we can see that the 4000 active forum members are a minority compared to the 24000 nations that exist on planet bob. This clearly indicates that most nations are not interested in such things. Now, my estimations are not based on math, just educated guessing. However, I do have a basis for my views. Upon what do you base your views?
[/quote]

That's an educated guess that also relies on assumptions. I think Delta just said that there could be many people that talk about politics on their own forums, but not participate in them here. For example, I know that NSO has a lot more people discussing about politics in our IRC channels, or in our private forums than they do on the OWF. Now I'm not going to sit here and throw around a couple of generalized statistics because this is still just an opinion on my part and others. I still don't see why you keep trying to argue this when it's clear that logic and statistics barely hold the bridge up.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Jrenster

[SpoiL]

Well isn't this fun



[quote name='Tequila Mockingbird' timestamp='1280484575' post='2394908']
@OP:

/s/

Tequila Mockingbird
[/quote]

Great avatar, had a laugh

Melancholy Kingdom stays.

[the damned]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1280435293' post='2394306']
I don't seem to understand why Sparta has the most vocal butthurtedness out of all the alliances represented in this thread.
[/quote]

I must apologize. I was merely stating an opinion of mine about your alliance. Its my view that the NSO is just the yapping little purse dog offspring of the aging !@#$%* NPO whose sole purpose is to annoy the rest of the cyberverse until it is calmly kicked out of a third story window. Eventually you guys will fold back into the alliances that forged you or you will be the ones making the most noise while your guard dogs do the fighting for you. You think because you have a couple names from CN's history in the fold that you automatically have the clout that they once possessed. Im afraid that it isnt so.

[hawk11]

[quote name='the damned' timestamp='1280501019' post='2395003']
I must apologize. I was merely stating an opinion of mine about your alliance. Its my view that the NSO is just the yapping little purse dog offspring of the aging !@#$%* NPO whose sole purpose is to annoy the rest of the cyberverse until it is calmly kicked out of a third story window. Eventually you guys will fold back into the alliances that forged you or you will be the ones making the most noise while your guard dogs do the fighting for you. You think because you have a couple names from CN's history in the fold that you automatically have the clout that they once possessed. Im afraid that it isnt so.
[/quote]
Next time we'll get you a purse to yap out of when we're allied. It must have been so cold on our lap.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='the damned' timestamp='1280501019' post='2395003']
I must apologize. I was merely stating an opinion of mine about your alliance. Its my view that the NSO is just the yapping little purse dog offspring of the aging !@#$%* NPO whose sole purpose is to annoy the rest of the cyberverse until it is calmly kicked out of a third story window. Eventually you guys will fold back into the alliances that forged you or you will be the ones making the most noise while your guard dogs do the fighting for you. You think because you have a couple names from CN's history in the fold that you automatically have the clout that they once possessed. Im afraid that it isnt so.
[/quote]

I think the fact that there's so much anti-Spartan sentiment in here is causing people like you to try to deflect them towards us.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='the damned' timestamp='1280501019' post='2395003']
You think because you have a couple names from CN's history in the fold that you automatically have the clout that they once possessed. Im afraid that it isnt so.
[/quote]

Old clout and new clout, that's a lot of clout. Do you have clout?