Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - United Alliance as Illyriad's United Nation
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedUnited Alliance as Illyriad's United Nation

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Direct Link To This Post Topic: United Alliance as Illyriad's United Nation
    Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 15:32
Coalition, people working together for a preferred outcome to an objective.  Doesn't mean they need to butt in on the little tiffs that coalition members get into outside of that objective.

Confederation though, generally should mean that both sides will militarily back each other and stuff. 

Though I believe a few alliances are just using it as a 'trade pact' and/or 'bloatware' to make it look like they have more backing then they really do have.
Back to Top
Borg View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2010
Location: oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 12:52
yes, but you can still attack a coalition member if he pisses you off
Back to Top
HonoredMule View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 20:35
Suddenly "coalition" sounds more like the confederation concept already built into the game.
Back to Top
Borg View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2010
Location: oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 18:36
i would think a counter coalition would be created almost immediatly. those that have agrudge with the original members of the first coalition would see a need to have thier own. an "opec" type of group would evolve. the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Back to Top
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 14:17
If the UA forms, someone needs to form a counter coalition.

And then a 3rd coalition.  And a 4th.
Back to Top
KarL Aegis View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2010
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 287
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 12:58
Morals mean nothing when money is involved. Just refuse to trade witht them. A boycott/embargo if you will.
I am not amused.
Back to Top
Ivorich Von Forge View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Location: Shreveport, La
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 03:52
Larry the incentive/disincentive is in the moral stance. If the UA becomes powerful and immoral, the "powers that actually matter" would do themselves a huge PR favor by abstaining. Likewise, if the UA proves to be powerful and moral, abstaining could give one of those powers an image or being "evil", which could be sufficient incentive for them to join. Or, their incentive to join could be a desire to turn the UA to their own will, whichever moral stance they have chosen.

As I said, I would hope it would become a force for "good", not "evil" but it's an experiment and since no one, not even I, will have any superiority in the organization, it would be interesting to see how it evolves.
Back to Top
Larry View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 10 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 114
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 03:44
The problem, among other things, is that there's exactly 0 incentive for the powers that actually matter to join.
Back to Top
Ivorich Von Forge View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Location: Shreveport, La
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 02:24
I would be interested in participating in such an experiment, but not exactly as presented. If it has any chance of working at all it has to:
    Allow any alliance of any age and/or size to apply.
    Give an equal vote to each alliance.
    Have admission, rejection, and ejection all decided by a simple majority vote.
    To avoid accusations or actual instances of favoritism and/or powerbrokering, no individual or alliance will have any office or control over any other individual or alliance but all matters may be presented for a vote by any representative and will be voted on by every representative.
    A activity requirement for representatives, which if not kept, the alliance is asked to send a new rep, rather than being kicked from the UA. If on any vote, an alliance rep is not active, the alliance's vote is counted as "Abstained/Absent".
    The votes are given a reasonable amount of time for reps to vote, regardless of in which time-zone they reside. (I would say no more than 48 hours on a single vote, but most likely 24 hours would be more efficacious.)
    Voting would be done via a poll forum post in the (to be created) "UA" thread, in the politics category on this forum.
    Representative must use their in-game character name when voting so that all UA actions are public and there is both transparency and responsibility for the decisions made.


 I may add more suggested policies as I think of them; But, in the meantime, feel free to comment on the above or the over-all package I propose.

Edited by Ivorich Von Forge - 05 Oct 2010 at 02:25
Back to Top
CranK View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Location: Holland
Status: Offline
Points: 286
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 01:23
you really like how HM writes don't ya? :) I agree, he should write a book or something.. I'm sure people will read it.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.