[Gerbie2]

First of all: I am not a lemon. This is not a lemon market.

History has shown that we need alliance limits to increase the amount of alliances competing for the top ranks and prevent the creation of ever larger blocks. It was a choice to go for quality over quantity and I am convinced that still is the right choice.

History also has shown that new alliances continue to be created and old ones die. Higher alliance limits will kill some of the smaller alliances, while reducing limits allows more alliances to be created. This does not mean we should continuously reduce alliance limits to chase people away from the top alliances to the smaller ones. Your alliance needs to find its own reason to exist.
I personally feel that 100 members is too much, but the current system where not every member counts to a certain extent allows alliances to go for quality, have fewer than 100 members and still be competitive. I think that is a positive thing.

I think that what killed the smaller alliances this round was not alliance sizes, but private galaxies. This led to politics where all the larger alliances avoided each other. The smaller alliances were unable to protect their members in private galaxies.

If you cannot compete for the top you have to set yourself different goals. This round Conspiracy was a second tier alliance, even though we were the best of them. We knew we could not compete for #1 alliance. So we went for #1 galaxy. We only got over the 50 member limit because (1) the other 2nd tier alliances got raped even harder than we and lost members (2) we had members in random galaxies where we recruited everybody who 'even vaguely resembled a lemon'. There are no downsides to filling your basket with as many lemons as you can fit in it. These lemons are free. We wanted the people in the top galaxies and recruited them. We couldn't even find 100 lemons.