Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ulphus]

I am of the opinion any alliance should be formed with the intent to take and hold null-sec space, preferably of a profitable nature[snip]

Interesting. Can you explain why you think this?

Electus Matari is, by its nature, unlikely to ever explore holding sov in nullsec. I still think that as an alliance it is a useful framework for the Republic loyalist corporations within it. What argument would you make that we should instead attempt to hold sov somewhere?

Or, if your alternative is that we shouldn't be an alliance, could you explain why not?

[orange]

I am of the opinion any alliance should be formed with the intent to take and hold null-sec space, preferably of a profitable nature[snip]

Interesting. Can you explain why you think this?

Electus Matari is, by its nature, unlikely to ever explore holding sov in nullsec. I still think that as an alliance it is a useful framework for the Republic loyalist corporations within it. What argument would you make that we should instead attempt to hold sov somewhere?

Or, if your alternative is that we shouldn't be an alliance, could you explain why not?

By mechanics an alliance allows for a preciseness or corporations to pursue claiming null-sec.  Outside of that mechanic, I am unaware of anything mechanical that an alliance allows that a corporation does not allow.  I understand it does allow common standings between member corporations (which trickles down to members), but so can discussing standings list routinely.

I understand the non-mechanical perceived benefit of maintaining corporate identity, however to outsiders I think said identity is lost.  Those outside of EM, U'K, I-RED, CVA, or 4TH do not interact or see the corporations in those alliances as individuals, they see the alliance as an individual entity not a collection of entities.   I can name maybe 1 or 2 corporations in each of those alliances off the top of my head and are sometimes the executor/founding corporation.  If LDIS joins 4TH or I-RED, it will lose part of its corporate identity.  Maybe not inside the corporation, but to those outside.

[Victoria Stecker]

Given the number of alliances which exist without ever going near nullsec, I'd suggest that there's more. Or, that the advantages an alliance offers outside of nullsec are worth more than you given them credit for. For example, my carebear main/alt started out in an hisec alliance that only really existed for mutual protection - it looked like a run of the mill industrial alliance, but the exec was friends with some mercs who would join up any time we were wardecked, romp and stomp for a bit, and then leave after the dec. Greifer decs were usually withdrawn after a few days.

Anyhow, I think there's plenty of value to wardecs outside of trying to claim SOV.

[Arkady Sadik]

Outside of that mechanic, I am unaware of anything mechanical that an alliance allows that a corporation does not allow. I understand it does allow common standings between member corporations (which trickles down to members), but so can discussing standings list routinely.

Electus Matari currently has 788 standings set. There is rarely a day where we do not add or remove some standing. We have 2-3 people regularly set standings based on requests from about half a dozen diplomats, because just 1 person doing it tends to burn that person out pretty fast.

Of those standings, 170 are positive. Arranging for blue standings for a number of corps instead of just an alliance gets diplomatically much more complicated (BTDT, don't want to go back). And we already have trouble with diplomat burnout.

So, no, I don't believe the shared standings are some kind of irrelevant detail that we could do just as well on corp basis. (We tried in the past, it's a nightmare.)

Another mechanical benefit are shared war decs. War dec cost from multiple corporations on a single alliance quickly become simply prohibitive.

I understand the non-mechanical perceived benefit of maintaining corporate identity, however to outsiders I think said identity is lost.

Yes, it is.

An alliance is a middle thing between a group of separate corporations and a single corporation.

Compared to the group of separate corporations, it gains much closer cooperation. As I mentioned elsewhere, when we dropped out of the alliance to join the militia for a bit over a month, we already noticed how we were "drifting apart" - we lost cohesion and a feeling of "belonging together", even though we shared standings and had an "alliance channel" for all corporations. The alliance really adds the feeling of "belonging together", and we do want that feeling. We are proud of flying "as EM", and we like others seeing us as "Electus Matari". That is, we like the shared identity.

Compared to a single corporation, though, alliances retain much more corporate identity. This is mostly important for our pilots. For example, BIONE and LUTI are totally different corporations (and both awesome) - the pilots there are different, the "corporate culture" is different, and what they do outside of alliance ops is different. Different people enjoy different cultures and "climates", so with different corps, there is much more variety on where to go and what to pick. We have had people move between corps in the alliance in the past, and that is fine - there is no "one size fits all", and people can join the corps they are comfortable the most, while still keeping in touch easily with others. For all of this, it's mostly irrelevant whether outsiders know what those differences are.

So yes, if your corporation does not want to give up some of its identity, an alliance will be bad for it. But an alliance offers different ways of cooperating than just merging corporations would (or trying for a "coalition of corporations"), and those ways can be useful for some people. So I wouldn't restrict alliance usefulness to sov-holding only.

[orange]

Then ignore my opinion, I am not going to try  to and change how you play.  I am just presenting my viewpoint.  I also think that lots of null sec alliances claim worthless systems and spend 6n/a day to have their name on the map.

[Bastian Valoron]

A related question is, what are the currently active Federally aligned roleplaying corporations, excluding those in the militia?

[Seriphyn]

So, the alliance has to give the Activists, Soldiers, and Businessmen something they are all interested in.

The Activist become the "soul" of the alliance.  They provide its guiding frameworks and principles.   For example a pure Federal alliance might have "protections" for its member pilots to ensure they have a say in the alliances policies, not just the corporation CEOs/Boards of Directors.  (In contrast to the corporate alliance structure I linked.)  The alliance becomes an exercise in practicing democratic, egalitarian ideas with New Eden as a backdrop for it.

The soldiers become the alliances defenders.  Yes, ever pilot must rise to defend the alliance, the rank&file acting more as militia/citizen soldiers than professional soldiers.  The professional soldiers are those who display skill and leadership.  When the alliance finds itself under attack, they become the Officers and NCOs for the alliances military.  They must know how to fly & fit a multitude of ships, how to build synergistic squadrons, wings, & fleets, and how to quickly instruct and train the guy who spends his time ratting/exploring/mining/building/etc in what he needs to do.  Their challenge is to not become the alliances raison d'etre.

The businessmen make the alliance powerful.  They look at the worthless space, they have managed to move into and turn it into a profitable system for all the individuals interested in using it.  In other alliances, these are logistics specialist, but here they are create opportunities for others (the citizens) to make ISK.  They might be Starbase parts builders or Capital Ship manufacturers, but at the end of the day, they are interested in not having to build, find, buy, move, etc all the parts that go into their products.  This creates opportunities for even the most junior member to feed into the larger projects.

At its core, it is becomes about creating opportunities in-game and maybe even learning something about actually creating a democratic, egalitarian society.

Nice.

Hm...if Amarr RP minor houses...if Caldari RP corporate subsidiaries...if Minmatar RP clans...then Gallente RP could be a sub-state? Perhaps a capsuleer corporation contracted as the spacegoing arm of a planetside province? Capsuleer representatives of a lowsec world that hasn't, and probably never will be, mentioned in PF?

An "alliance" could thus follow a national model, truly, as alliances were intended.

[Merdaneth]

I still think most alliances are Gallente loyalists, if not in name then in principle. The individualist hedonistic principle most strongly brought forth by the Gallente culture/Federation seems to be the default way most players play their characters.

[Bastian Valoron]

It's not unusual that people just decide to support a particular a brand name or ideology, or start doing unpaid work for some company or interest group. In the same way, nothing prevents people from reading about tribal traditions and starting to follow them. From real world examples one can assume that such activities can go on as long as they are not of great interest for the owner of the trademark.

However, when people create nations within nations, having their own government, military and rules, the authorities usually don't view such efforts as loyalism and in most places it's strictly against the law. So if a loyalist alliance would follow such model, some kind of explanation for their relationship with the Federation itself would be desirable. A nomadic tax haven would face the same problem.

Another challenge in creating a group representing the interests of a nation would be to know what actually are those interests? Even if the nation was something in the uncharted losec space, one might need to break the unidirectional relationship between the game world and the players, and make up a lot of things to make it work. It would present additional challenges because many players are active in opposing that kind of gameplay.

What if the purpose of the alliance nation was to be a genetic reserve? Since it would basically be a privately funded but serve a public interest, the authorities might leave it alone. While some kind of Gallentean flavour would be involved, the theme wouldn't heavily constrain the actions of the members. Because anyone could set up such a group in real life, no missing pieces of PF would be needed. It would also be natural for it to be self-governing and represent as many interests as possible.

[orange]

I still think most alliances are Gallente loyalists, if not in name then in principle. The individualist hedonistic principle most strongly brought forth by the Gallente culture/Federation seems to be the default way most players play their characters.

If you define Gallente as individualistic & hedonistic and believe most alliances support capsuleer/player individualism, sure.  I am skeptical of the idea that most alliances support actual individualism and are much more dictatorial in what their members do.

I think of most alliances, especially null-sec alliances, as being warrior-kingdoms led by warrior-kings, who keep their warriors loyal through providing treasure & hunting grounds for the warriors to pillage.  Infrastructure, citizens, etc is an afterthought.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

In my eyes, a pro-Gallentean alliance would be
♦ egalitarian in nature (as in: not racist, sexist, etc.)
♥ making sure all of its members had the same opportunities to prosper in a manner they desire (I have a small mining team, but Bill likes to nuke the local rats in belts.)
♥ unified in the defense of its territory. (militia style, as opposed to a warrior caste system)
♥ democratic with its members in the large and long term goals of the organization. ("we're in this together, everyone should have a voice.")

Now, does it mean there can't be a corporate style alliance that behaves differently? Of course not, but a Gallentean, in my eyes, would certainly object to aspects of the decision process that they are suddenly cut from. Capsuleers corporations are NOT the same as megacorporations or any corporate outfit you see around you. Treating fellow capsuleers as underlings is a sure-fire way to lose all your employees, 'cause cyborgs with near unlimited capability' aren't going to put up with it being treated like underlings for long.

[Nmaro Makari]

Pretty much, I think a Gallentean Alliance would really have to set the standard in terms of internal democracy, perhaps even going so far as to directly elect the executor.

However, Therein lies the problem, figuring out how to balance alliance stability against internal democracy, and keeping a framework that is flexible but also no too flexible.

[Alain Colcer]

Pretty much, I think a Gallentean Alliance would really have to set the standard in terms of internal democracy, perhaps even going so far as to directly elect the executor.

However, Therein lies the problem, figuring out how to balance alliance stability against internal democracy, and keeping a framework that is flexible but also no too flexible.

Thats the crux of the issue, a true federation loyalist organization must operate in a democracy-like mechanic, which means ANY and all major decisions must reach consensus, be negotiated and reviewed by a group of leaders. Few people would be willing to do that on a constant basis just for the sake of functioning as an alliance.

After all, this is supposed to be a game to have fun....(it doesn't quite fulfills that goal entirely though).

[Ulphus]

<snip>, a true federation loyalist organization must operate in a democracy-like mechanic, which means ANY and all major decisions must reach consensus, be negotiated and reviewed by a group of leaders. Few people would be willing to do that on a constant basis just for the sake of functioning as an alliance.

I'm not sure I understand why you think this should be. Just because a Federation is governed by a democracy doesn't imply to me that every organisation in the Fed must be likewise a democracy. I'm willing to bet their military isn't a consensus building democratic organisation, for instance.

The Fed have some very competitive and successful corporations, I'd expect that those corporations are run by a CEO and Board who either own the company, or are appointed by the shareholders, rather than elected by the workers. I wouldn't be surprised to see some successful ones being essentially charismatic dictatorships run by one person with a vision that everyone else who works there buys into.

So for a Gallente corp, a strong leader could easily work. For an alliance, there are weaker ties to the charismatic leader, so a little more persuasion than orders are necessary, but I don't think that full-on democracy is necessary or even desirable.

[orange]

It depends largely on the purpose of the alliance.

If it is an alliance meant to promote Federation values through example, then it should strive to provide a voice to all its members.

If it is an alliance of profit-focused corporations then it certainly could be modeled on the megacorporate or State model.  Then it is a Federation alliance in its actions and politics and not its organization.  It could run on the same model a State, Republic, Empire, or Freelance alliance might.  It is a Federal EM or I-RED, but other than its operating area and claimed politics it is not uniquely Federal.

It becomes a question of what kind of decisions are made at an alliance level.  A democratic alliance very likely will need to include a constitution outlining what activities truly are democratic decisions.  For example, a decision to go to war (war dec) might be a democratic decision, but whether to conduct a patrol of local space might not be.  There could be representative elections that cut across the corporations and important positions, like senior diplomats and a long-term planning committee might be elected.   The options the planning committee comes up with might also be put to an alliance wide vote.

Democracy is hard in the real world and it would be easier for many to simply be led by a charismatic leader, but that also leads to dangerous places.