A Basic Guide to Roleplay Alliances

[Solm]

Very nice, Carta. And glad to be linked in it!

[The Master M]

Ye best be believing in win threads, you're in one!

[-The West Coast-]

What if you were going to do an alliance that wasn't an alliance but followed the same sort of rule set as an alliance?

[Milograd]

What if you were going to do an alliance that wasn't an alliance but followed the same sort of rule set as an alliance?

Mind = Blown?

Nah, I see what you did there. I guess if you mean an alliance that on paper is not an alliance, but functions as an alliance, then you'd generally have a hybrid set up, if that answers your question somehow. I think I may have missed your point though. :P

[-The West Coast-]

What if you were going to do an alliance that wasn't an alliance but followed the same sort of rule set as an alliance?

Mind = Blown?

Nah, I see what you did there. I guess if you mean an alliance that on paper is not an alliance, but functions as an alliance, then you'd generally have a hybrid set up, if that answers your question somehow. I think I may have missed your point though.

>:D

[Trescott]

I was told to voice my approval, and so, my approval has been voiced. This voicing of approval was sponsered in part by the approval of the voicing.

Good day.

(Happy, Milo?)

[Milograd]

I was told to voice my approval, and so, my approval has been voiced. This voicing of approval was sponsered in part by the approval of the voicing.

Good day.

(Happy, Milo?)

Lol...I just wanted mah best bud Tres to read it. ;_;

[-Deus-]

See you like postin' the links around. Anyway, some words after a second read through [damn thing keeps popping into my "view your posts", so I couldn't just delete and ignore it.]

---

---

Now, as I’ve read this for the second time, I present an actual statement. You see, in this “basic” guide to alliances you’re assuming the “one-size-fits-all” type of deal from type of alliance to type of alliance. True, the setup and structure underlying it all, more or less will be the same, but this guide only tells how to make it and the format.

What I’m basically saying, is that format is all well and good, but I believe you should go into a bit more concerning how to actually use said alliance. It can look as pretty as the Cong thread, but be as useless as melted plastic. I believe fitting in an extra paragraph or [three], giving a bit more in-depth into do with the actual alliance instead of just giving them the basics of formatting it.

I recognize all alliances differ from this alliance to that alliance, and that the way one functions is different than the other, but your guide simply shows the structure and formatting an alliance should give, then dropping the reader off wondering “What do I do after I get it all pretty?”

However, this is simply my two cents. Why formatting is placed above and over actual alliance activities, even with the variedness of alliances [or in recent times, the more and more cloned and photoshopped groups of black wolf eagle bears] is beyond me, at best.

Just a thought, yes? Yes.

---

---

[Milograd]

Why formatting is placed above and over actual alliance activities, even with the variedness of alliances [or in recent times, the more and more cloned and photoshopped groups of black wolf eagle bears] is beyond me, at best.

---

---

Actually, it doesn't.

This was merely meant to explain how to go about developing an alliance, in reality. However, it was more so meant to be a general run-through that could provide a basic map of what you want to keep in mind when making an alliance. I don't know what got you to the conclusion that this was saying "formatting is most important". If anything, that seems fished out of the air at best.

As for your earlier point, it is impossible to make, just as you said, a 'one size fits all' guide to doing alliances, given the varying forms that alliances can take on. With that in mind, this guide pretty much works on the whole "give you enough supplies to hike" basis, and pretty much gives an alliance founder just enough to get going on their own, and from that point on allows them to establish their own unique set-up, and to hopefully do so properly by applying what is mentioned in this guide.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts Deus, thanks for the feedback. :D

[-Deus-]

Meh, okay. All my words on the subject for now.

[Mimic]

This thread seems rather superfluous. There's already a much better template out there for new alliances to model themselves off.

[Milograd]

This thread seems rather superfluous. There's already a much better template out there for new alliances to model themselves off. ;)

Lmao, I love that thread.

Heh, seal generator. xD

[Tiami]

The flying Lawn Mower in the sky is very proud of you.

[The Master M]

Thread should be stickied imo, this would be a great help in ensuring that less cookie-cutter, not thought-out alliances spring up.

[Milograd]

Thread should be stickied imo, this would be a great help in ensuring that less cookie-cutter, not thought-out alliances spring up.

Much appreciated, thanks again TMM. Its been somewhat annoying so far, since this thread has had trouble getting views. If it were stickied, then that might change. Obviously, the more people it helps, the better. But yeah, I'd love to see this get stickied for a bit, for the sake of such.

[Ustio North]

Funny you should mention it actually, I wrote this and tried to keep WERTA in mind as much as possible when I did, since...it was pretty darn awful.

Understatment much? It was fun though. Doing nothing and going nowhere!

Everyone starts somewhere Tecknoko

Anyway, excellent work on this guide. Kudos and brownie points to Milo

Ye best be believing in win threads, you're in one!

Hurhur

[Belkan Provinces]

Tbh I wish this was around when I made the Vladivostok Alliance, could of saved us the months of inactivity prior to it's dissolve

[Yohannes]

WERTA!

Number one alliance.

Xoxo

[The State of Monavia]

Tbh I wish this was around when I made the Vladivostok Alliance, could of saved us the months of inactivity prior to it's dissolve

Dissolution, my friend, dissolution.

This thread seems rather superfluous.

Please share those thoughts with the moderators who stickied this thread. If they thought it was as you said, then they would not have stickied it.

I have seen alliances dissolve purely over OOC infighting and failure to properly vet new applicants. Many noobs have applied to join alliances, been accepted, and then left everyone upset after fighting with other alliance members over how the alliance should operate.

[Tehraan]

bumb for great justice

[Yohannes]

Bump for great justice.

[The State of Monavia]

I have noticed that many of the strongest, most stable, and longest-lasting alliances are not these multilateral teaty organizations where members sign up as if they were joining school clubs, but ones formed by two or more nations holding a summit to hammer out some sort of agreement that can be RPed. Perhaps this point is worth addressing in greater detail.

[Milograd]

I have noticed that many of the strongest, most stable, and longest-lasting alliances are not these multilateral teaty organizations where members sign up as if they were joining school clubs, but ones formed by two or more nations holding a summit to hammer out some sort of agreement that can be RPed. Perhaps this point is worth addressing in greater detail.

To be honest this guide is actually more aimed at how to make "those multilateral treaty organizations", although I suppose I could take a shot at getting into greater detail on the smaller alliances between two or more nations.

Thanks for mentioning that.

[The State of Monavia]

Part of problem with multilateral treaty organizations is that they will always have a few members that sign up and then go inactive, leaving the organization with considerable dead weight. I hate (truly hate) it when somebody joins an aliance and then doies not participate. Nobody wants to work with a "wet noodle" player who does not comprehend the meaning of commitment or signs up just to have a list of people to call on when they get into an unfavorable position. I for one would not vote somebody into any alliance I am a member of if the person's reason for joining is to use the alliance as muscle with which to fight off somebody who he or she is about to upset.

Another issue is having charter provisions and bylaws which do not get used. If a charter requires that members hold a vote on a proposal, and said vote requires a valid quorum consisting of a majority of its members, then at least a bare majority of it members better be active in order to participate. To illustrate this problem and the one I mentioned earlier, I will provide the example of CASTLE.

CASTLE has (or had) several problems. First, they did not keep track of their membership rolls and had to do a head count. See this post: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=6847955#p6847955.

Second, they had a number of defunct members which served as dead weight, as of two weeks ago (they may have finally been removed from the rolls). See this post: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=6851691#p6851691.

Third, CASTLE has unused charter provisions. Under CASTLE rules, the alliance's official sanction can only be granted by means of a vote by the General Assembly. Please read the second-to-last paragraph of this post: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=6847638#p6847638. Since the General Assembly has never voted on anything and CASTLE's members have repeatedly taken matters into their own hands (unilaterally I may add), the alliance has an organ (the General Assembly) which exists on paper but does nothing.

These examples should not be construed so as to state that CASTLE is an ineffective, defunct, or fragile alliance. Its IC record indicates the opposite of this, but these examples show that even a dynamic, active alliance can have some problems which need to be ironed out. Continuing along this line of discussion, I will propose the following ground rules for alliance management:

1. Bookkeeping
Keep track of your members and purge the membership roster of nations that cease to exist at regular intervals. Appoint a member who isconsistently active over time to do this.

2. Organizational simplicity
Do not make the alliance's administration too complicated to function. If the alliance has only a few members, keep administrative institutions to a minimum.

3. Activity
Institutions governing an alliance should be active. If they are not, find out why and make changes when needed.

4. IC activity
Try to RP alliance summits and meetings or at least have some formal alliance meetings of some sort and IC coordination. Even if members have an OOC meeting and simply cobble together a storyline and then have one member write it out and post it, there should be some semblance of the alliance's in character relevance.

5. Membership qualifications
Simply filling out a form is not enough, and the same can be said for cursory vetting. It is generally unwise to admit members who have not played NS for at least three months because there are many people who probably create a nation, play NS for a week, and see an alliance thread and think, I see a big bad treaty organization I can join to become more powerul and take over more of the world... A large fraction of noobs who make their membership more troublesome than it is worth cease to exist after some time and quit NS to move on to something that has fewer rules.

I can come up with additional rules but these should serve as a start.

[Imperial Yamea]

Very good