|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
   |
Posted - 2007.01.03 07:22:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 03/01/2007 07:24:40
Well thats a very thoughtful and honest OP rebellion. There is a lot of wisdom in what you have written. I thank you for taking the time to write it. I would hope budding alliance leaders would take some time out and read it through.
However, I can't help feeling that the title is perhaps a little misleading. I mean, whilst in agreement with most of what you have penned down, it would seem that the tone of the essay is aimed at the medium to long term. A failing alliance with its back to the wall maybe has a matter of weeks to turn things around.
I believe that if an alliance is finding that participation is low and they are in a life or death situation (like ASCN was).. there is nothing to do.... it is game over. You prep an alliance for war before war, not when its all going belly up.. if you see what I mean.
The things you speak of would have to be things done over an extended period of time in preparation for the life or death situations. I.e drilling for war. And yes there are noticeable signs of an alliance dieing even in peace time, war is not necessary to display them.
Anyways.. onto the one point that I would like to query with you...
You spoke of persons within an alliance that perhaps think that leadership is doing something wrong. What happens if the ideas such a person has are in complete contrast with the modus operandi that the leadership has, and that it would be quite impossible to incorporate such ideas into alliance policy. Simply because such ideas would undermine the direction in which leadership believes things should be going in. What does the leadership do then? Understand their concerns but let them know in no uncertain terms that its never going to happen... or pretend to give them some say in affairs but only as a calculated political move.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2007.01.03 07:33:00 -
[2]
Actually there is something else I would like to hear your opinion on also.. something which I believe you have omitted in your esssay.
Dead Weight
Lets work on the assumption that an alliance can be turned around at short notice when facing a life or death situation but cannot motivate its members to turn up to fleets.
Sometimes part of the problem with lacking numbers is dead weight corporations, corporations that simply are not participating. They are easily identifyable by looking at the killboards. What does one do then in time of war. Have them kicked out immediately? or what?.....
Their mere presence has a demoralising effect as pilots that do turn up take a look at gang numbers, then take a look at alliance numbers ... and go WTF. E.g 30 in gang 150 in alliance.
"Why the hell shold I fight when the rest of the alliance is somewhere lining its pockets?"
What to do then? Surely the answer is to kick the dead weight corporations out, like immediately no?
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2007.01.03 08:31:00 -
[3]
Thankyou for your responses rebellion, on the matter of timing and fundamental disagreements I am in agreement with you based on your responses. However on the matter of dead weight I would like to query you further....
 Originally by: Rebellion
On dead weight:
Determine why participation is low. Most people say low participation is the cause of poor alliance performance, I think most of the time it's the other way around. This is what I referred to as blaming your membership for leadership faults, as non participation may be a nonconfrontational sign of protest. One of the things I mentioned was reestablishing good communication with membership. That alone could already solve a lot of participation issues. Cutting off dead weight without identifying or addressing the causes just postpones the inevitable doom.
What happens if communication has been established, and it has been assessed that the nonconfrontational sign of protest is not the reason for lack of participation? What happens if suspicions of a corp's willingness to participate were present before the war.. and the advent of war has simply confirmed these suspicions. Bluntly speaking they are a bunch of bears and they are not gonna fight for love nor money.
What then? Do you kick?
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2007.01.03 09:21:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Rebellion
Originally by: Nez Perces
What happens if communication has been established, and it has been assessed that non-confrontational protest is not the reason for lack of participation? What happens if suspicions of a corp's willingness to participate were present before the war.. and the advent of war has simply confirmed these suspicions. Bluntly speaking they are a bunch of bears and they are not gonna fight for love nor money.
That's when you revoke all of their access and tell them to shape up or ship out, but only after you've confirmed that. One wonders why they joined an "Alliance" anyway.
Agreed.
Some of the things I mentioned are really stating the obvious.. but my god you would be surpised at how often it is the obvious, which is the downfall of an alliance.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2007.01.03 10:25:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 03/01/2007 10:25:42
Originally by: Al Haquis
If a ceo¦s of the alliance start going inactive Find new ones , keep the blood flowing people or you will get fat and then you die.
This is actually an extremely important point too. An inactive leader that won't step down can do more damage than a thousand enemies.
|
|
|
| |
|