Quality of alliance leaders

[MrMuz]

Poor theory, IMO. There are some who lead by being generals and marching into battle with their men. Then there are others who focus only on recruiting, building a strong culture, FA.

Besides, I'm sure everyone has a few ultra high tier guys who make horrible leaders. Imagine what would happen if those guys were the leaders of your alliance. It's not hard at all to build a large nation. All you have to do is keep selling, then buying tech, and build your nation up without being reckless. And maybe even donate a bit and dodge a few wars. Leaders who are poor nation builders will never be able to work with the economics of an alliance, but that doesn't mean that they can't hire and keep good economists.

I'd put Sethb out as an example of someone with a horrible nation, but is a good leader. The best leaders are often those who are willing to go to ZI for their alliance.. and it's often the leaders who are hit the hardest and rogued the most.


However, this theory applies very well to TE. In TE, a good nation builder needs a lot of activity, full knowledge of the game mechanics, and quite a bit of experience.

Anyone who I'd call a good TE leader has a well above average nation. Again, there's the exceptions in that the best leaders are the ones who personally kill rogues and hit the hardest targets, but they'll recover even after a bad war. At best (or worst), they'll often get the highest casualties.

Edited January 16, 2011 by MrMuz

[Horatio Longworth]

I would measure alliance leadership based on the amount they get rogued on.

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1295142819' post='2576502']
Fair enough, it seems to be working for you at least[/quote]

See I think thats the thing, it doesnt work for us. I dont think it means anything at all. Too the best of my knowledge my members dont look at my nation. If they want a role model nation they look at one of the top nations and if they want questions answered they pm or post on the forums. I like to think that people follow a leader because of his or her personality, rather than the size of their nation. I cant say that is true everywhere, but I know some people ferciously defend their leaders and I'm sure its not because they have a big nation, but rather they see the leader as a friend.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1295104321' post='2576033']Nobody likes a guy doing what you are now, on although English speaking, internationally populated board. The term wasn't abused overly harshly and you got the point.[/quote]
I had to read your post several times to (maybe) get what you were meaning: your two sentences looked quite complicated to me as I'm not English native, which by the way may sound quite funny, assuming that I eventually got you correctly.

Continuing by that hypothesis, anyway, I wish to point out that the OP tries to identify a phenomenon which would regard the majority of the alliance leaders, which are a "significant" population (not two or four, but tens or even hundreds of people), hence IMO it musts be about numbers at a certain extent - probably not just them but not completely without them either - otherwise the entire theory is just a personal impression, which will find sympathy in those which personal impressions echo the OP's ones, and which will be rejected/ignored by others. What matters most (admittedly: to me) is that it will be difficult to have an "actual" discussion over a personal impression by its own.

In the end, anyway, a personal impression about the "state of something" is absolutely worth respect (not to mention: often correct) and we [i]can[/i] talk about it; it will IMHO be difficult to constructively discuss its merit without some "data" (in the broad sense of the term, at least).

Anyway, I didn't wish to just point out something/anything about the OP's choice of words: my intervention wasn't about semantics.

[erikz]

MikeTheFirst is the best leader I've ever personally experienced, close behind him would be Nelcheal/Raasaa and TheNeverenderererererererererer.

[Hime Themis]

Gentle Persons

I have met many alliance leaders in my time here on Digiterra and I have not found NS to equate to either good or bad leadership. Very often NS is a result of the alliance nature that one has chosen, good luck in trades and limited losses in war not brilliance. This does not suggest that one who ignores nation building is doing it right or wrong.
I find it sad that we fail to appreciate that great alliance leaders provide the leadership of their alliance is a fashion that matches the styles and desires of its membership. Those leaders who have taken a warlike aggressive stance and led an alliance into numerous conflicts with the result being an enhanced stature and political improvement like Ragnarok are to be applauded, those that have kept their alliances out of war and strife and led their charges in peace and growth like GPA as they desired are to be equally congratulated. Those who have built monument alliance such as NPO or those who have provided steadfast leadership through conflict and pain such as MK and FAN are to be equally praised. Those who have established a broad community with large numbers such as MHA or a small tight knit community such as Creole have equal merit.
May perhaps we spend too much time trying to assigned heroic stature without recognizing the marvelous diversity of leadership Digiterra has benefited from in alliances large and small, nations huge and tiny.
Please ask yourself instead what am I offering to my alliances to help it achieve its goals? NS like any other statistic is but one small measure of what one offers Digiterra and is no more nor less important than the ability to provide leadership in other ways that complement the desires and needs of your alliance.

Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Hime Themis' timestamp='1295194846' post='2577199']
Gentle Persons

I have met many alliance leaders in my time here on Digiterra and I have not found NS to equate to either good or bad leadership. Very often NS is a result of the alliance nature that one has chosen, good luck in trades and limited losses in war not brilliance. This does not suggest that one who ignores nation building is doing it right or wrong.
I find it sad that we fail to appreciate that great alliance leaders provide the leadership of their alliance is a fashion that matches the styles and desires of its membership. Those leaders who have taken a warlike aggressive stance and led an alliance into numerous conflicts with the result being an enhanced stature and political improvement like Ragnarok are to be applauded, those that have kept their alliances out of war and strife and led their charges in peace and growth like GPA as they desired are to be equally congratulated. Those who have built monument alliance such as NPO or those who have provided steadfast leadership through conflict and pain such as MK and FAN are to be equally praised. Those who have established a broad community with large numbers such as MHA or a small tight knit community such as Creole have equal merit.
May perhaps we spend too much time trying to assigned heroic stature without recognizing the marvelous diversity of leadership Digiterra has benefited from in alliances large and small, nations huge and tiny.
Please ask yourself instead what am I offering to my alliances to help it achieve its goals? NS like any other statistic is but one small measure of what one offers Digiterra and is no more nor less important than the ability to provide leadership in other ways that complement the desires and needs of your alliance.

Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis
[/quote]Truly the words of the greatest alliance leader.

[Sardonic]

My nation sucks, argument destroyed.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1295195078' post='2577206']
My nation sucks, argument destroyed.
[/quote]

Or confirmed


I jest, I jest, though you might find a different answer from UPN and co.

[Krack]

[quote name='Bordiga' timestamp='1295061144' post='2575661']
EDIT: Ivan Moldavi's nation has 0 NS. How on earth does that reflect his leadership abilities?
[/quote]

He let his alliance take a beating over the semantics of the word "surrender" and then proceeded to surrender (and resign*) anyway. Not the most impressive feat in CN history.

[size="1"]*and review milk[/size]

[Duncan King]

I'd say that the quality of an alliance leader has nothing to do with the size of his or her nation. It doesn't even really say anything about the quality of his or her alliance. All that a big nation really says is 1) its ruler hasn't accidentally deleted for inactivity since it was created and 2) its ruler hasn't gotten into any damaging wars since it was created.

When I look at the top nations, I have to lol because I have more casualties than many of them. I have 2.1 million casualties and I admit that that's not that much in the grand scheme of things. But that lower number is not because I don't go to war that much, in fact I've been ZIed 4 times and fought in [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=70&showentry=2276"]a lot of conflicts[/url], it's because I never had the time between the ZIs to grow to a point where the casualties really stack up, above 9000 infra or so. When my alliance goes to war, I make it a point to get as heavily involved as I can so I can lead by example. I find that people tend to take damage to their nations better if they're leader has taken worse hits. This has meant that even in pretty once sided wars like GPA and NoR, I've gotten nuked numerous times and was even nuke rogued on during those wars. And after being knocked down from 8999 infra twice, I can't say I'm eager to build up to that level again because it takes so long to recover. It may annoy the MoD of my alliance having me not be promoted to the next battalion, but I can live with that.

I'd also argue that casualties and warchests go hand in hand. I've always had trouble raising one of those blockbuster above 1 billion warchests because I've never gotten big enough to have a humongous income. I've never collected more than 10 million a day before bills and for the last year, my collection has never been above 5 million before bills. For me to really start raking in the dough, I'd need a huge amount of infra, but as I said above, I've never been above 9000 and have kept getting ZIed.

[potato]

[quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1295527543' post='2586174']
I'd say that the quality of an alliance leader has nothing to do with the size of his or her nation. It doesn't even really say anything about the quality of his or her alliance. All that a big nation really says is 1) its ruler hasn't accidentally deleted for inactivity since it was created and 2) its ruler hasn't gotten into any damaging wars since it was created.

When I look at the top nations, I have to lol because I have more casualties than many of them. I have 2.1 million casualties and I admit that that's not that much in the grand scheme of things. But that lower number is not because I don't go to war that much, in fact I've been ZIed 4 times and fought in [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=70&showentry=2276"]a lot of conflicts[/url], it's because I never had the time between the ZIs to grow to a point where the casualties really stack up, above 9000 infra or so. When my alliance goes to war, I make it a point to get as heavily involved as I can so I can lead by example. I find that people tend to take damage to their nations better if they're leader has taken worse hits. This has meant that even in pretty once sided wars like GPA and NoR, I've gotten nuked numerous times and was even nuke rogued on during those wars. And after being knocked down from 8999 infra twice, I can't say I'm eager to build up to that level again because it takes so long to recover. It may annoy the MoD of my alliance having me not be promoted to the next battalion, but I can live with that.

I'd also argue that casualties and warchests go hand in hand. I've always had trouble raising one of those blockbuster above 1 billion warchests because I've never gotten big enough to have a humongous income. I've never collected more than 10 million a day before bills and for the last year, my collection has never been above 5 million before bills. For me to really start raking in the dough, I'd need a huge amount of infra, but as I said above, I've never been above 9000 and have kept getting ZIed.
[/quote]

But... you're not a good leader.

Just kidding as I agree with you and have had the same problem as you.

[Duncan King]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1295535402' post='2586341']
[i]But... you're not a good leader.[/i]

Just kidding as I agree with you and have had the same problem as you.
[/quote]
I knew someone would say that!

My point is that whether I'm a good leader or not isn't reflected in my nation.

And yes, periodic beatdowns do stunt nation growth.

Edit: just noticed I came off a bit strong. I'd never claim to be a good leader as it's only my alliance members' opinions that count, but I strive to be at least competent.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Duncan King

[The Plump Bump]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1295513792' post='2585995']
He let his alliance take a beating over the semantics of the word "surrender" and then proceeded to surrender (and resign*) anyway. Not the most impressive feat in CN history.

[size="1"]*and review milk[/size]
[/quote]

Yes, but he did it with [i]valour.[/i]

[mhawk]

[quote name='TheNeverender' timestamp='1295128809' post='2576348']
However, sometimes that works out well, in that alliance leaders often duel. I count both Electron Sponge and mhawk among my friends, and those friendships really started from the wars we fought, not just as alliance but as individual nations (I'd say I won my individual against Sponge, but mhawk wiped the floor with me with his x2 tech advantage )

[/quote]
Oh the memories. I don't have anything from our first war, however round two looked something like this

[IMG]http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r288/mhawkcmaster/dual.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r288/mhawkcmaster/lastdayarchon.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r288/mhawkcmaster/cw-080.jpg[/IMG]

Edited January 21, 2011 by mhawk

[ckmanero]

EgoFreaky- Nation up at vote for the "most impressive in the alliance"

Point proven.

[Roi Loup]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1295063637' post='2575704']
A correlation is a statististical significance, not a 1:1 map. Ivan was rogued so much he quit trying to build IIRC. Mpol's current nation isnt that old, and isnt too horrible for its age. WC was in \M/ what do you expect there? And I know Walford only rerolled a few days ago.

I think there probably is a correlation though. Smart people who spend enough time on the game to actually figure out all aspects build stronger nations, and are more likely to have the activity level required to make it into alliance government in the first place. So how could there not be a correlation?

[i]edited to remove kitty's contribution. [/i]
[/quote]


activity level? you do know it takes less time to do your daily building on cn than leading an alliance right?

[Opethian]

Though I'm not really active anymore, I'd like to think I did OK for myself despite having a lousy nation most of the time. I mean, look at my nation now. It's pretty bad.

Don't care though; she's a mess, but she's my mess.

It all depends on how you define (as a leader and an alliance) success, as this cannot always be quantified. I'm more concerned with qualitative measures of success.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1295168086' post='2577001']
Poor theory, IMO. There are some who lead by being generals and marching into battle with their men. Then there are others who focus only on recruiting, building a strong culture, FA.

Besides, I'm sure everyone has a few ultra high tier guys who make horrible leaders. Imagine what would happen if those guys were the leaders of your alliance. It's not hard at all to build a large nation. All you have to do is keep selling, then buying tech, and build your nation up without being reckless. And maybe even donate a bit and dodge a few wars. Leaders who are poor nation builders will never be able to work with the economics of an alliance, but that doesn't mean that they can't hire and keep good economists.

...
[/quote]
Tell me about it. Nothing like seeing one of your top nations, two days into the war, show up in a list begging for mercy and claiming to have been a ghost.

And yeah, leaders--especially ones that get news--do tend to get special attention. And if someone's been following a leader into lots of wars, well..