Actually, CORP wants to avoid drama... but drama does not avoid us. It's how it is.

Lol, I know how you feel.

@Ox: I'm not sure what went down this time, but the coups I've been through could've easily been avoided through sanity and common sense.

June coup: Angry Panda not giving everyone Manager Rights

July coup: Kazuki not giving Manager Rights to Achilles, someone he personally knew to be manipulative and someone who was inactive on Warlight and did not use Manager Rights at all

I don't think that CORP's "core" leadership (Panda, Kazuki, Death, Andres, etc.) really has the right to claim it does everything it can to prevent drama. As can be evidenced by looking at the clan page- which still has the Most Honorable Dojo for June- they don't really seem to do much and instead just hang around and take credit when things go well.

Well, Semice. I hate to say this, but it's true. Our "leader" has nominal value only. It has to be an oligarchy, because shit doesn't get done if we lead it to the "leader". We have never tried a "democratic" phase because we knew it'd never work. We once tried a "dictatorship" phase, and that didn't work out either. Oligarchy is best for CORP, although it leads the clan susceptible to hijacks.


Also, many in the clan are really beginning to doubt Kazuki's competence. I'm happy with him staying as the nominal leader, as long as the 4 Gunjikomon get stuff done, which it looks like they will, from this point forth.


Regarding that "Most honorouble dojo" thing, I am going to abolish it. It doesn't work out when there will always be two dojos. It will be replaced by a much more interactive, exciting dojo league, where the sub-dojos will all compete in a strategic league.

No we just have a rather inactive leader, not a selfish one.

We have two dojos for a reason. We need to separate strategic and diplomatic players to develop them separately. Managing a clan on its own this size proved to be very hard, so it's simplified using dojos.

yeah actually we were discussing about a kind of prime minister leading the gunjikomon oligarchy, but for now we havent found any decent leader, and the oligarchy of 4 people seems to work by far.

Edited 9/20/2015 21:52:38

"Also, many in the clan are really beginning to doubt Kazuki's competence."

If you need five other people with manager rights to run your clan for you, your competence as a leader should be questioned. Sure it is the owners 15 bucks spent and their choice but that kind of instability isn't appealing to people. If I were an average player looking for a clan I'd be looking for the clan that can provide the best community and game experience, constitutions etc take un-needed effort and offer little that actually is needed to function. Personally I take care of everything manager related within my clan, however if someone has a suggestion it is brought up for vote. Has worked rather well so far. Anyway if you guys need help with anything feel free to mail me.

Haha. Kazuki didn't spend any money. He hijacked it off of Lawlz.

Hint: Never try a clan democracy.

Democracy: only works when the people within are trustworthy enough and intelligent enough to each run a country together(case and point: Apex).

Oligarchy: Never works, as eventually the oligarchy members turn on each other for power

Dictatorship: Only works when the dictator has popular support, otherwise the country will fall apart.

I think the big misstep here is treating a clan as analogous to a government when a better analogy would be a corporation. Both clans and corporations are formed on the premise of delivering value to a flexible and transient set of members- while governments are instead formed on the premise of maintaining law/order/basic structure and function among a group of people that are generally immobile (i.e., not capable of switching countries often).

If you take that as your ground truth, you start building the structure that's most helpful when you want to deliver value to your members ("value" being defined as whatever your target member "market" wants).

Insofar as that's the case, there's no compelling reason for democracy- people who don't feel represented are free to leave at any time, after all, and democracies are rather inefficient in that they require people to do a lot of work (vote, stay informed, etc.) to ensure that they're represented. If you eliminate those constraints, suddenly you can make your system a whole lot more efficient without being that much less representative/appealing for your members.

A "dictatorship" is a great way to acknowledge the horrible way Fizzer's set up Manager Rights- it's the best way to guarantee stability, so if stability is what matters the most for your clan when delivering value (for example, if you're AWF and you want to guarantee that your belts will be operational all the time), then it's a great solution. However, a single-leader structure has the flaw that the single leader can't have a full understanding of what's going on or what needs to be done.

Multiple leader structures (hopefully with someone with slightly more power, to break split votes) are more capable of being creative and guaranteeing growth, but they also risk falling apart, especially if all leaders have Manager Rights.

It ultimately depends on what sort of "value" your clan's trying to deliver and how good your clan is at delivering said value.

For a clan AWF's size, a council of 7 or 9 and 2 people with MR works really well.

Right two people with semi-absolute authority + a council with broader perspectives to make sure they don't miss most of the important stuff.

Yeah, I see my error now, thought the schematic was more government type rather than corporation. So the people with MR would effectively be the in game equivalent of the CEO and the President, while the council under it would effectively be the in-game equivalent of the council of investors. While the remaining clan members are effectively workers.

Not quite workers. They're more like "customers" since they join the clan to benefit from the value it delivers.

How about mmo-like clan ? I played some mmos and everyone had a sort of political job. You have a ministey of war, intelligence, economy, defense, diplomat, officers and else. Trainees did nothing except waiting to get a job. Officers took responsibiltity over 3 other and trained them.

Quite complex system but the only that could work in a super competitive environment. Everyone always had something to do.

Edited 9/21/2015 01:46:00

Falcons and Wolves seem to have something like that, where their clan is an extensive political simulator.

Is there anyone who was part of a multi-game guild ? I was addicted to mmos for some time but it is not enjoyable and a waste of time.

I rather like small strategy games or roleplay. The most important is that there is a way for proper games/matches instead of a perpetual state of war/all versus the word that uses money-time currency and is very luck based. Depends if stronger player attacks or if you have the winning composition in rock/paper/scissors style combat.

Proper strategy games like chess or risk is more enjoyable. Commercial games are hundred times better than free to play.

Edited 9/21/2015 02:29:33

All this forum theorizing over who did it and yet we can spend eternity trying to find out and the likely answer is that we won't ever get sufficient proof to blame anyone unless the evil person admits to it publicly. What COPR and other clans should be doing is discussing how to increase clan security, remove racists from leadership and positions of power, and trying to publicly pressure people into changing their behavior by bans, blacklists, and outright refusal to play with people who tolerate this type of behavior.

Just figured a way to prove it wasn't me, lol.
If i had hijacked your clan, i never would've given it back ^_^

Did Onion hijack the clan ?