Anarchy

HadesHeadies

Guest
Ladies and gents I present you with a new kind of alliance. Anarchy! True to it's name has no leaders and no rules. Are you ready for an alliance without authority? See our alliance profile for more information.

Open for business in ocean 53
 

Sic0tiC

Guest
If it has no leaders or no rules, why join it? Your members are allowed to rim each other? :p
 

Dimspace

Guest
Hope they arent jinxed by the recent epic failure of their namesake in en65 :D

(Anarchy merged into FC to become the biggest MRA in en65 at 250 members, and lost wonders to a 60 man alliance)
 

HadesHeadies

Guest
If it has no leaders or no rules, why join it? Your members are allowed to rim each other? :p
Leaders and rules are only there because we don't know any other way to play the game, how many worlds have been ruined because of power struggles and delusional people on power trips? I've analyzed everything that leaders and rules do and have replaced them with individualism and trial and error based evolution, I have high hopes for the results.

Yes actually, "my members" are "allowed" to rim each other, riming each other is actually the alliance policy for removing simmers, spies and annoying people because we have no standards for recruitment and don't kick out people.

I can understand your skepticism the idea is very different from what has existed in grepolis up to this point, I don't know if it will be any more successful then real world "anarchist governments" but I do know it's gonna be fun and isn't that what playing video games is all about?

Hope they arent jinxed by the recent epic failure of their namesake in en65 :D

(Anarchy merged into FC to become the biggest MRA in en65 at 250 members, and lost wonders to a 60 man alliance)
We have no connection to the guys you're talking about, I bet they were a normal alliance that just called themselves anarchy, true anarchists couldnt agree to a merge because you need leaders or at least a vote to approve the merge and those concepts are not applicable with anarchy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dimspace

Guest
Leaders and rules are only there because we don't know any other way to play the game, how many worlds have been ruined because of power struggles and delusional people on power trips? I've analyzed everything that leaders and rules do and have replaced them with individualism and trial and error based evolution, I have high hopes for the results.

Yes actually, "my members" are "allowed" to rim each other, riming each other is actually the alliance policy for removing simmers, spies and annoying people because we have no standards for recruitment and don't kick out people.

I can understand your skepticism the idea is very different from what has existed in grepolis up to this point, I don't know if it will be any more successful then real world "anarchist governments" but I do know it's gonna be fun and isn't that what playing video games is all about?
How can you have an alliance policy if you are anarchists. You say you have no rules, then you go an present one of your "policy's"..

In fact, if your alliance policy is to rim simmers, spies and annoying people, then by your very nature as anarchists you should refuse to do so and let the simmers, spies and annoying people remain in your alliance.

And what your saying isnt original anyway, Anarchy is basically defined basically as self government, which by its very essence denotes organisation of some form, and structure and rules. There are many alliances with self governement, my alliance, in its previous world in EN, virtually everyone was a leader, decisions were made "by the people". In this world, there are no internal forums and never will be.

but even in anarchy, there will be people guiding and leading the way, these people are leaders, and even anarchy has rules.

Proudhon defined anarchy as an environment where everyone does "what he wishes and only what he wishes"

By setting rule that simmers, spies and annoying people are internalised, you have immediately broken the very premise of Anarchy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HadesHeadies

Guest
How can you have an alliance policy if you are anarchists. You say you have no rules, then you go an present one of your "policy's"..
I can make as many policies as I want, no one has to follow them. :) I guess policy is the wrong word, it'd be more accurate to say that Anarchy members can not be told not to attack anyone and I hope that will end up solving many of the membership problems conventional alliances have and we no doubt will have.

In fact, if your alliance policy is to rim simmers, spies and annoying people, then by your very nature as anarchists you should refuse to do so and let the simmers, spies and annoying people remain in your alliance.
Again policy is the wrong word I'm sorry I used it, old thinking dies hard. Also you seem to be confusing anarchy with being an obstructionist or a contrary child, we can still idk follow plans our alliancemates make it's just that ideas should be judged on their merits instead of the title of the person presenting the plan. Yes some people will have louder voices then others, you are saying they are leaders tho I would disagree, unlike a leader in a conventional alliance who's role is fixed and commands are unquestionable if someone pitches an idea that is bad in anarchy they will prob be ignored. How much influence a person has will change based on how effective their ideas have been.

"Proudhon defined anarchy as an environment where everyone does 'what he wishes and only what he wishes'"
That is the idea yes, even if you are going along with someone else's idea if you have the option to do something else without any consequences than you have done what you want to do.
 

Dimspace

Guest
unlike a leader in a conventional alliance who's role is fixed and commands are unquestionable if someone pitches an idea that is bad in anarchy they will prob be ignored. How much influence a person has will change based on how effective their ideas have been.
But you claim to be unique and original as far as grepo alliances go. There are loads of alliances work like that.

My guys spent the whole of En70 with "leadership" where basically everyone had internal access, everyone made joint decisions, and while as founder my ideas were generally taken on board, i had no fixed role (nobody had a fixed role), and my commands were certainly not unquestionable.

At no point did we have a diplomat, forum moderator, leaders of certain oceans, commanders, or any other leadership role at all. Even on this world, our communication with other alliances is not by dedicated diplomat, or leadership. One guy gets talking to other alliances on his island, so anything with those alliances goes through him, hes not a founder, a leader, or a diplomat. We have two dedicated points of contact, two "founders" who have their hand on the rudder and "guide", but i wouldnt say we are anarchists.

I think you are getting anarchy confused with democracy :D

So in your anarchic alliance, if one of your members decides to pick a fight with Warlords, or Antimatter that results in you all getting rimmed, is that ok @:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HadesHeadies

Guest
My guys spent the whole of En70 with "leadership" where basically everyone had internal access, everyone made joint decisions, and while as founder my ideas were generally taken on board, i had no fixed role (nobody had a fixed role), and my commands were certainly not unquestionable.

At no point did we have a diplomat, forum moderator, leaders of certain oceans, commanders, or any other leadership role at all. Even on this world, our communication with other alliances is not by dedicated diplomat, or leadership. One guy gets talking to other alliances on his island, so anything with those alliances goes through him, hes not a founder, a leader, or a diplomat. We have two dedicated points of contact, two "founders" who have their hand on the rudder and "guide",
Sounds like a good system, much better than most, I'd say my idea goes a step further but yeah sounds pretty similar. The idea of anarchy certainly isn't new I'm not surprised its not the first time its been tried in grepolis to some extent, I think this Anarchy goes farther then anything I've heard of.

but i wouldnt say we are anarchists.... I think you are getting anarchy confused with democracy
Let's not get too bogged down with semantics, if you don't think what I'm doing is "real" anarchy then fine call us what you want the idea is still awesome.

So in your anarchic alliance, if one of your members decides to pick a fight with Warlords, or Antimatter that results in you all getting rimmed, is that ok @:D
Yeah I guess it is ok. I mean we'd communicate that our member acted alone and how this alliance works but if someone much more powerful really had it out for us we'd have no choice but to fight and probably die and crap I mean that's grepolis for you right. Currently I like the way ocean 53 looks for us and if one of those alliances thought it was worth it to take our cities it'd probably mean we took most of the ocean 53, starting from nothing and taking an ocean before dying out would qualify as a success overall in my book.
 
Last edited by a moderator: