Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
this bible of rules that allies like vgn/denial have/had may be complicated and get mocked by people who play in a different system (asc members generally) but ultimately in a lot of alliances rules ARE essential. an example of this from personal experience is audentes.
|
This is goinging to go off on a bit of a tangent, but let's accept for a moment that rules and the strong enforcement of them is necessary. If this is the case, then there are still some things other alliances can learn from Ascendancy.
When we set up Ascendancy, one of the (many) things it was borne of was the frustration with how regular members and even officers are treated in alliances we'd been in. The HC are always privvy to a bunch of information and power that would be very useful for others to have. And this, as much as all the idealistic babble about open structure and less hierarchy, is something other alliances can learn from.
Why shouldn't members be able to look at hostile planet intel? If they use it to avoid hitting hostile planets, you
already have rules in place to deal with that. If they instead use it to solo target hostile planets, your alliance has benefited. DCs are in a similar situation, they need to prioritize (not to the point of exclusion, but you know what I mean) hostile cover in a war. But if they can't see who's attacking, they can't do that efficiently.
I also think other alliances can benefit from lowering recruitment standards if they could increase the accountability of the person recruiting the new player. Without the accountability, the alliance has no quality control. In Ascendancy this isn't formalized beyond a nick in a command output, but since everyone can see who sponsored a person to join, they have someone they can talk to that should be able to communicate to the new recruit.
I realize that the Ascendancy structure isn't for everyone, but some things have gotten lost in the midst of ideological arguments about anarchy and fascism.
My argument for the general flat structure is that people are terrible predictors of who will do well in a leadership role, so it's better to let these people make their own mark. A lot of people disagree with this for different reasons. Some people simply want to be the one in charge, that's why they created the alliance. Other people want to work together with certain command teams. Other people believe that I'm wrong when I say that they're terrible predictors, and try to predict who will do well as HC/BC/DC.
You don't have to adopt this, or even agree with me on this. EXilition definitely didn't play this way, and they were very successful. But surely alliances that claim to be playing for fun can stop treating their members like children?