FoM Feeder Alliance

[digital]

graysea said:

Good day,
Can there be an abstain choice as well. So that my vote could be counted, even if as a new member and inexperienced I really don't know which option I want to choose.

Thanks. So that is my vote - abstain - cause I don't know enough yet!

I think however new you are your still a member of FoM therefore these actions will still effect you however small that will be. Every vote really does count.

[eproxy]

Larger alliances (and firms for that matter) suffer from problems in communication (delays, errors etc). Personally I think the Triumvirates form of communication is much more efficient to others allowing us to survive effectively with a larger alliance size. I do however feel that we have now met that optimum size.

There are bigger alliances out there with less effective communication (I believe Valor to be one of them and perhaps Empire another) but when push comes to shove that'll show and they won't be as cohesive. If they fragment, which I find most likely, they will lose any conflict, even against a smaller more organised foe (look at us against Tyrant in [Elite]).

Another issue to that accepting more members we'd become stronger as a whole but taking into account positioning we would possibly become, on average at least, weaker. At the moment, for the most part, we are arranged in groups. These are primarily ocean 1 with lots of us getting isles in o33/34 and there are several other areas, new members are likely not to be in these areas making it harder for us to support them and visa-versa. Just some things for you all to think about anyway.

[Gornall]

Empire has quite a core group, I know that from my time there but for the most part alot of them don't check the forum at all.

[Haymaker]

I vote no. A feeder is unneccesary and a waste of time when there is a (seemingly) infinite alliance capacity, and we're at the lower end of infinity, with just 36. Sure, don't go overboard like DIGG, but I'm sure an alliance could be effectively run with 70-100 members. And on the note of our low numbers, a feeder would require at least one of our members to leave and administrate the feeder, which would eat further into our membership.

Moreover, if we don't have a feeder, we'll be more compelled to keep the standard of accepted applicants high, instead of saying "Well I suppose he could join the feeder. . .".

[kae]

No. In my experience, it is better to stay with a smaller group, and focus in on the quality of that group, while turning away others. If the time comes that there are inactives, or someone leaves, they can be replaced, with someone who is active. This will in turn only help to shave off the rot and encourage growth.

In my opinion, we've reached critical mass.

[Warliter]

If we decide that FoM has got big enough then it raises the following questions

Are we going to agree on a maximum number of members?
Are we closing the recruitment?
Are we setting criteria for inactive players and therefore timescales to kick them?
Do we really want to turn down a player because we don't have space even though they may, by their questionnaire, be a really good asset to us?

Alternatively if we do have a feeder I prefer ‘Sister’ alliance we would have another small contained group with its own internal communications. This would allow us to have 4 small well controlled alliances rather than allowing FoM to become to large and possibly less efficient.

I don't agree that it would take away from our core if one or 2 members went to administrate(perhaps members from any of the Triumvirate) as they would still use this as the main discussion/decision board. Unless I have misunderstood there would be a forum section that both Morkin/FoM could see for the new alliance to use.

This would also allow us to control info to the feeder alliance which in turn would assist us in keeping our secret info, well secret.

In terms of progressing from sister to another(FoM/Corleth/Morkin), if we were to set a minimum of say 1 month before they would be considered, but rather than them applying(manually or automatically), I suggest that perhaps they could be nominated by one of the Triumvirate, they would then need to be seconded by another member, then the nominater / seconder can post the reasons for them nominating/seconding that member, if the comments from other members are generally in favour we could then vote?

I voted yes, but these are my thoughts generally

[SkulkrinBait]

The voting is too close for us to have a "feeder" alliance unless we can persuade those who voted "no" to change their minds.

Would a "sister" alliance be an option instead? If you voted "no" to a feeder I'd be interested to hear peoples comments.

The thinking is that FoM is getting close to being too big to manage in the way we like, perhaps 40 members should be the limit. If we don't have a feeder/sister alliance then that means we could potentially turn away good players and we might become somewhat stagnant.

[digital]

The votes are too close to call really. I suggest a pole for Sister alliance be made.

[blazed]

I voted no - I think the current ~90 or so members Morkin, Corleth and FoM quite enough

[Pose]

too true blazed, i feel the fact that we have only had a responce of 23 players in 5 days proves this.

[Cesium]

You know, I was thinking about this, and it came to me that if we just start expanding and scooping in members, what separates us from the other big, unwieldy and unloyal alliances? We'd just be another Angel or Empire. Not that those alliances are bad or anything, but Morkin is sort of special, it's a tight group of people fighting together.

[Arminius]

cesium said:

Morkin is sort of special, it's a tight group of people fighting together.

Well, you wouldn't be here if we had not decided that a sister alliance would be the way to go, back when we set up FoM...

We actually had similar discussions, there were a lot of worthy players around, but Morkin was meant to be small and special. I don't see much of a problem with yet another sibling alliance. There will be some active players, some passive ones, but hopefully we can provide a home for people who are in the same situation as you were in all those months ago.

It doesn't mean we'll become another DIGG, and the alliances themselves should be limited to around 30; that way you still have a distinct group identity.

[intchanter]

I've voted 'no' on this to indicate I would rather favor (an) additional sister alliance(s).

My reasons:

1. There is probably an upper limit somewhere in the number of players that can be effectively led in a single alliance, and some form of sub-structure is necessary.

2. Smaller groups have the ability to react more quickly to diplomatic, political, and risky situations.

3. For larger issues, the siblings can be brought in for assistance.

4. In the case that a sister alliance goes bad, it's not too big a deal to divorce it from the collective, offering the good members that would otherwise be victims of such a divorcement a place in a new sister alliance or one of the remaining alliances.

So instead of the players being on probation, I think each new alliance would be an experiment, just as [FoM] was.