Best Form of Government for a Nu Alliance

[DeletedUser]

lol Aicy..

I've been in alliance as both leader and soldier.. my leader here is good and has the right balance.. I'm helping with diplo as talking is clearly my strong point haha! my leader in lambda is good too... I must have a knack of finding good leaders lol

 

[DeletedUser]

The key to gaining trust with your members is to actively talk to them in a skype chat or something. The is to get to know them.

Polls tend to just slow down decisions and waste time imo.

I think that's best - Talking frequently with members gives you an idea of what they like, however a group of 3 or 4 deciders and then a group of 6-9 of advisers works well, size varies to alliance size

 

[DeletedUser]

I recommend a representative democracy,have ocean leaders,then 2 or 3 main leaders from any ocean,Players can go to the ocean leaders or main leaders for help so that you as the founder doesn't have a message from every player in your alliance. As far as elections they work sometimes,but i would leave it to experienced players to vote only.

 

[DeletedUser]

I recommend a representative democracy,have ocean leaders,then 2 or 3 main leaders from any ocean,Players can go to the ocean leaders or main leaders for help so that you as the founder doesn't have a message from every player in your alliance. As far as elections they work sometimes,but i would leave it to experienced players to vote only.

I have combined all of these ideas and I have created an elected council of 4 members that will convene to decide on the main issues. A founder will remain on as a figurehead in the decision-making field, but will be charged with implementing decisions and be in charge of day-to-day operations of the alliance. This founder will also serve as the "face" of the alliance. For this transition from a rather disorganized government to a formal system, there is an interim government of 4 appointed council members who will allow for a more stable transition to a formal government. Members will be polled on their opinion on the largest issues, like declaring war on an alliance.

Thanks everyone for helping me on the government of my alliance. But there is one question that remains unaswered: Should I create a written constitution and system of laws to run the alliance?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd have some alliance rules which must be adhered to.

also are you going to be founder?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd have some alliance rules which must be adhered to.

also are you going to be founder?

Thank you for your suggestion about the alliance rules.

You had asked me about whether I was a founder. No, not a founder, but I am an interim council member.

 

[DeletedUser]

i'd prolly say you should be founder, tho i don't know who is.. but if you issuing how the alliance should run, that a good start..

 

[DeletedUser]

Rules are nessary,in alliances i've been in i've even set up a infraction system,in which a certain number of infractions get you kicked.
Ex.Minor Infraction:Sending threats to Pacted alliances
4-6 Minor Infractions would then get you on trail in which leaders would choose to kick or
not.
Ex.Major Infraction:Attacking alliance members
1-3 then would get you recommended to kick

Ex.1-Major and 3 Minor=kick

This works well for a democracy...

 

[DeletedUser]

Rules are nessary,in alliances i've been in i've even set up a infraction system,in which a certain number of infractions get you kicked.
Ex.Minor Infraction:Sending threats to Pacted alliances
4-6 Minor Infractions would then get you on trail in which leaders would choose to kick or
not.
Ex.Major Infraction:Attacking alliance members
1-3 then would get you recommended to kick

Ex.1-Major and 3 Minor=kick

This works well for a democracy...

I don't think that this would work just immediately, we need to become more established with our own members before that. This would be a great idea later once we gain more respect inside and out of the alliance. Remember, this is an undeveloped world.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you have any other questions about running an alliance you should look here

http://forum.grepolis.net/showthread.php?t=8511.

My brother practically memorized this guide before starting a small alliance with his friends in Kappa. I may not be an expert but it sounds pretty good to me.

 

[DeletedUser]

I like:
1 Founder
2 Leaders
5 Council Members

Always let your members have a say, then let your council members give you wsome feedback on the decision, then you and your leaders make the final say.

 

[DeletedUser]

My exp in leadership say's you should definitely go with dictatorship.

A dictatorship along with a few council members works best imo. Council members should have other roles inside the alliance such as diplomacy, recruitment, operations ect. This allows everyone to spread the weight around so to avoid "over working" one leader ensuring everything works like a Swiss watch.

Also never forget to listen to your members... always respect their opinions no matter how much you may disagree with them. A member should feel that he can come to leadership whenever he/she has a problem and that his/hers concerns will be heard.

 

[DeletedUser]

My exp in leadership say's you should definitely go with dictatorship.

A dictatorship along with a few council members works best imo. Council members should have other roles inside the alliance such as diplomacy, recruitment, operations ect. This allows everyone to spread the weight around so to avoid "over working" one leader ensuring everything works like a Swiss watch.

Also never forget to listen to your members... always respect their opinions no matter how much you may disagree with them. A member should feel that he can come to leadership whenever he/she has a problem and that his/hers concerns will be heard.

This is basically what i said, but I'm not sure i would class it as a dictatorship. If you have other council members who help out in the running, decisions and work-load, then I do not see how it is a dictatorship as the leader will listed to these peoples opinions and ideas.

However I may be completely wrong, don't know much about the whole government dictatorship malarkey, but this is the kind of thing that I ment, as a leader is only as good as his team.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is basically what i said, but I'm not sure i would class it as a dictatorship. If you have other council members who help out in the running, decisions and work-load, then I do not see how it is a dictatorship as the leader will listed to these peoples opinions and ideas.

However I may be completely wrong, don't know much about the whole government dictatorship malarkey, but this is the kind of thing that I ment, as a leader is only as good as his team.

A permanent, non-elected founder charged with implementing the decisions of an elected Council. This founder will also be in charge of day-to-day operation of the alliance and will settle minor disputes. The council will consist of diplomat, recruiter, etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

The style of leadership greatly depends on what kind of alliance you lead. For example, a small, active, elite alliance might be better off with a single leader and a couple of other council members, or maybe even a democracy. Democracy works in this instance as you know all members are experienced, or even if new not stupid. They also are active, so you would have quick results.

In larger alliances which are more heading down the route of an MRA it may be a good idea to have a chain of command, with a leader, a second in command, and quite a few council members to do specific jobs. This means that no-one will have too much pressure building up on themselves and have others who they can rely on to get things done.

For alliances mid-way between these two extremes, I reckon having one leader and a few council members below to help with the day to day running with the alliances.

However, all alliances should always have only one leader who is above everyone else. This will stop potential disputes and enable the alliance to run smoother.

Just my opinion, some things you may disagree on, but that's alright.

 

[DeletedUser]

I like the Anarchy99 approach (I notice because they are near me) they have no government... and seemingly are unable to open a letter hahaha.

Depends on your members really and what you are trying to accomplish. Read all the forums and do what you like, however too many of the alliances put in a lot more work then they have to. Basic simple expectations, and knowing your members is all it really takes, and if you can get a few laughs in your forums or some quality entertainment you dont have to set up all these leadership votes or track every player above 1000 points or have squads.

I think most of us have so much junk in our internal forums that all the people we try to please with it get overwhelmed and dont read it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Whilst the illusion of a degree of democracy can make people feel empowered and involved, democracies tend to be fickle and unfocused.
Giving people, often with limited clue what they're doing, power, just because they want it is a recipe for disaster.
A benevolent dictatorship, with subordinates appointed based on merit tends to be the most efficient form of governance.
An alliance establishes a core set of values and from then on its about implementing them, people joining the alliance sign up to those values and the associated objectives; if you don't like it, find another alliance; if the leadership is incompetent and suffers from too much megalomania to step aside for the good of the alliance, find another alliance.

Its an interesting debate but something of a no brainer, sure leaders should be accessible and open to debate and discussing things, especially with their more capable advisers (and good ones will generally seek such advice) but in high pressure situations, people need to know who's in charge and do what they're told.

(Suggestions of specific numbers of each post are quite frankly laughable, its good to be able to delegate and spread the burden, especially if this provides 24/7 leadership coverage, but a lot depends on the size of the alliance, the time leaders are prepared to put in [and how much of their own playing time they're prepared to sacrifice as a result] and how many capable and trustworthy people are available in an alliance, after all there's no point in appointing fools as anything but a court jester [I believe that would be 5Gods in NU]).

Interesting discussion, but in the end its a no brainer, you need clear leadership, beyond that its a case of whatever works and how good people are at their jobs.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think the best way for a small-medium sized alliance is to have a leader who gives general direction to the alliance, makes pacts works out rough plans for the future of the alliance etc, and below that anarchy. The cream will rise to the top naturally and help out with the command, specific operations, etc. The don't need to be elected formally but people will respect and listen to them.