[MoFA] Alliances: thoughts and poll
Foreign Office
Alliances, whether in personal relationships, business endeavors, or geopolitical strategies, often serve as the cornerstone of success. They represent a collaborative effort, pooling resources, expertise, and influence to achieve common goals. However, the dynamics within alliances can vary significantly, shaping the experiences and outcomes for those involved.
Another key aspect of the alliances is the ability to pool resources within alliances. Whether it's financial, intellectual, or military, partnerships provide access to a broader range of assets than would be available individually. This pooling of resources not only enhances capabilities but also promotes efficiency and innovation, as diverse perspectives and skills come together to tackle complex problems.
However, being part of an alliance is not without its challenges. Participants can be worried about maintaining cohesion and managing conflicts within the partnership. Differences in objectives, priorities, or approaches can sometimes lead to friction, requiring effective communication, negotiation, and compromise. Additionally, there may be tensions arising from unequal contributions or disparities in power dynamics, which can strain the relationship if left unaddressed.
Preserving autonomy while participating in an alliance could emerge as a significant consideration for many. While collaboration offers numerous benefits, individuals and nations value their independence and may be wary of relinquishing control or autonomy to the collective. Striking a balance between collective action and individual autonomy is essential for sustaining long-term partnerships, ensuring that the interests and identities of all parties are respected and upheld.
Participants may emphasize the importance of trust, transparency, and mutual respect in fostering positive relationships. Clear communication and alignment of goals and values are crucial for building trust and managing expectations effectively. Moreover, participants stressed the significance of accountability and fairness in ensuring equitable outcomes and maintaining the integrity of the alliance.
In conclusion, alliances play a pivotal role in various domains, offering opportunities for collaboration, resource sharing, and community upgrading. While they can enhance capabilities and amplify impact, alliances also present challenges related to cohesion, autonomy, and managing conflicts. By prioritizing trust, communication, and accountability, participants can cultivate strong and sustainable partnerships that maximize the benefits of collective action while respecting the autonomy and interests of all involved. As we navigate an increasingly interconnected world, understanding and navigating the dynamics of alliances will continue to be essential for achieving shared goals and fostering positive change.
For this reason, the whole UK is called to express its position in this poll:
eUK Alliance Poll
Criteria for alliance consideration,
-shared values
-common goals
-mutual benefits
-will to create more involvement as a community
An alliance will be explored collectively as a country. Please answer to the following questions.
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the UK current proven neutral and considerate strategy?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea of the UK joining an alliance?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea that this alliance is based on neutrality and keeping an equal distance from the two biggest sides (Asteria and Code)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea of joining an already existing neutral alliance (such as Pacifica or Orion)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how do you feel about creating from the beginning a neutral alliance around the values that until here have inspired our nation (and having the control on the process)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how do you feel about the potential of joining a non-neutral alliance?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)
-Being it an issue linked to national security, do you think that the discussion about the alliance should be brought on forward by congress only (with the final approval by all the citizens via referendum) or by the whole nation at every stage?
(1: By the Congress - 2: by the nation)
-Tell us the values, goals and mutual benefits that an Alliance has to share to be considered as such:
[Describe them]
Answers must be send to this ORG or written in the comments by anyone with eUK citizenship.
The poll will be active for a week: before answering take all the time you need and, if you have any question or doubt, don’t hesitate to contact someone of the Government.
In order to stimulate debate and keep our press flourishing, any constructive article about this issue will be considered welcome.
Thank you for your attention and enjoy your Sunday!
Comments
On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the UK current proven neutral and considerate strategy?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 10
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea of the UK joining an alliance?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 1
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea that this alliance is based on neutrality and keeping an equal distance from the two biggest sides (Asteria and Code)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 1
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea of joining an already existing neutral alliance (such as Pacifica or Orion)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 1
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how do you feel about creating from the beginning a neutral alliance around the values that until here have inspired our nation (and having the control on the process)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)1
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how do you feel about the potential of joining a non-neutral alliance?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)1
-Being it an issue linked to national security, do you think that the discussion about the alliance should be brought on forward by congress only (with the final approval by all the citizens via referendum) or by the whole nation at every stage?
(1: By the Congress - 2: by the nation)1 through a proper in game vote not a poorly attended meta one
Vote Registered.
Thank you
On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the UK current proven neutral and considerate strategy?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 10
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea of the UK joining an alliance?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 5
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea that this alliance is based on neutrality and keeping an equal distance from the two biggest sides (Asteria and Code)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 10
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea of joining an already existing neutral alliance (such as Pacifica or Orion)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 5
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how do you feel about creating from the beginning a neutral alliance around the values that until here have inspired our nation (and having the control on the process)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)5
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how do you feel about the potential of joining a non-neutral alliance?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive)1
-Being it an issue linked to national security, do you think that the discussion about the alliance should be brought on forward by congress only (with the final approval by all the citizens via referendum) or by the whole nation at every stage?
(1: By the Congress - 2: by the nation)1 Then to get all citizen approval.
Vote Registered. Thank you
-Sur une échelle de 1 à 10, dans quelle mesure pensez-vous généralement que la stratégie neutre et prévenante actuelle du Royaume-Uni a fait ses preuves ? => 7
(1 très négatif à 10 très positif)
- Sur une échelle de 1 à 10, dans quelle mesure pensez-vous généralement de l’idée que le Royaume-Uni rejoigne une alliance ? => 8
(1 très négatif à 10 très positif)
-Sur une échelle de 1 à 10, dans quelle mesure pensez-vous que cette alliance est basée sur la neutralité et le maintien d’une distance égale avec les deux plus grands camps (Asteria et Code) ? => 5
(1 très négatif à 10 très positif)
-Sur une échelle de 1 à 10, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous généralement positif à l’idée de rejoindre une alliance neutre déjà existante (comme Pacifica ou Orion) ? => 9
(1 très négatif à 10 très positif)
-Sur une échelle de 1 à 10, que pensez-vous de la création dès le départ d’une alliance neutre autour des valeurs qui jusqu’à présent ont inspiré notre nation (et d’avoir le contrôle sur le processus) ? => 5
(1 très négatif à 10 très positif)
-Sur une échelle de 1 à 10, que pensez-vous du potentiel de rejoindre une alliance non neutre ? => 3
(1 très négatif à 10 très positif)
-S’agissant d’une question liée à la sécurité nationale, pensez-vous que la discussion sur l’alliance devrait être menée par le Congrès uniquement (avec l’approbation finale de tous les citoyens par référendum) ou par l’ensemble de la nation à chaque étape ? => 2
(1 : Par le Congrès - 2 : par la nation)
Es-tu prêt à devenir citoyen d'UK?😜
Answers dismissed.
10
1
-
1
1
Votes registered.
10
1
1
1
1
1
2
Votes registered
[removed]
10
1
1
1
1
1
2
Votes registered.
10
5
5
5
5
5
1
Votes registered.
There is only one viable alliance this nation could approach to join and that would require some next level diplomacy. Having people publicly copy/paste Keith's opinion due to our bizarre party political situation is not going to help you.
Which one is viable in your opinion?
Err no one has voted the same way I have So I think you should withdraw your bizarre post!
10
3
5
1
3
1
2
Votes registered.
Not going to offer any substantial thoughts in the interests of impartiality, but would say that on the last point that the game gives votes on joining alliances to congress, so any referendum should only happen with congress' approval in my view
Turnout in an in game Congress vote would likely have a greater turnout than a public 'referendum'
1 - 2, I don't see that the neutrality strategy adds anything to our approach to TW's etc, other than add layers of complexity to choosing appropriate partners and occasionally getting thrown out of warzones or DoW'd
2 - 10, I don't think distancing ourselves from everything erep has to offer gives a great play experience
3 - 8, I don't have big opinions about the nature of the alliance, whether neutral or not either can cater for our dedication to gaining medals and building strength whilst engaging a wider base of players
4 - 6, they're maybe not totally fresh but they do the neutrality stuff in a more interesting way
5 - 6, I have done it before and it is a lot of work!!!! Unsure on the activity levels across cabinet and if that would work right now
6 - 7, I don't have big opinions about the nature of the alliance, whether neutral or not either can cater for our dedication to gaining medals and building strength whilst engaging a wider base of players
7 - 1, similar to Addaway an alliance vote already needs 66% approval from congress and a CP can launch a proposal to leave at any time. Unsure how some sort of referendum is meant to work or be enforced, especially as alliances have to agree to send invites in the first instance, not the eUK public 😛
Votes registered.
Thank you.
1 - 3 (Has its pros and cons I feel but often feel other countries feel we'll just roll over and not stop them if they mess us around)
2 - 10 (Sounds like something worthy to explore. It's part of the game and something the eUK has done before. Could be a fun even if nothing comes of it)
3 - 5 (Put 5 as I'm not fussed on this. Open to any option)
4 - 6 (This could be an option I'd be slightly more inclined to follow up. They have everything already set in place and would help us ease back into the fun and games)
5 - 7 (This would be cool but it's a LOT of effort. It depends on the trust and activity levels of the government at the time for me)
6 - 5 (Again if non-neutral looks like the best option after assessing everything I'd be up for it but not majority fussed by this)
7 - 1 (The people should 100% have their say and I think this is a great start but ultimately the game is designed so that Congress votes on joining an alliance so regardless they would have to vote on it).
Seconded all of the above
Votes registered. Thank you (x2)
1) 4. Standalone neutrality brings little to the eUK other than TWs, and 'stability', with a significant lack of *excitement* which is able to bring in and retain players.
2) 10. Being a smaller nation, an alliance allows us to engage with the wider erep community better.
3) 5 - I really don't care either way 🙂
4) 5 - Likewise, if this is something to be explored I have no issue with looking at existing neutral alliances.
5) 5 - No issues if we feel we have the capabilities, people, knowledge and willing to kick something like this off.
6) 8 - I'd be supportive of seeing multiple ideas explored in this area so as to ensure, as mentioned, the introduction and retention of players.
7) 1. Little additional to add on this point, really.
Votes registered. Thank you
10
3
5
1
3
1
2
Registered. Thank you!
1 - 2, I think our neutrality is starting to hurt the country making it a boring place to be when other countries will be a more exciting place to play the game. I feel this will get worse over time. The battle for countries in erep in 2024 has turned into a battle for attrition and excitement. I feel the euk is losing this battle
2 - 9, I feel we are cutting ourselves off from a major fun part of the game but i still feel we shouldnt just rush into things
3 - 8, The eworld is changing and we are watching it go by. If we dont engage with the eworld we will be left even more behind,
4 - 7, I feel we need to look at allainces closely and ensure they are a right fight. I would go for ideals over Neutrality but if an allaince has more simlar goals and ideals i dont feel we should just ignore that.
5 - 6, It takes a large commitment to come in at the base level but it means you have more control and input early on. But if feel its a undertaking that is a big risk but can give big rewards.
6 - 8, I don't feel alliance stance should be the biggest thing i still believe its more important for our goals and ideals to align. I believe that our neutrality is hurting the country but i dont think alot of players are ready for full on actual wars. Even our biggest hitters seem alot more content just farming medals. So i feel our move out of Neutrality should be done with baby steps.
7 - 1, This is a massive decision that effects every player and could possibly change the way they play the game. I would welcome all views on this subject. It would be down to the CP and congress to acknowledge and put through the will of the public. But for such an important change the public need to be asked what kind of game they want to play.
Votes registered. Thank you.
10
2
2
2
3
2
1
Registered. Thank you.
5 - I understand some of the pro's in our current situation, but I also feel at times we sit on our hands for the sake of it.
5 - I would like to actively see us in some form of neutral alliance, but it needs to be the right circumstances for the UK.
7 - This is in line with our values, and as such would be a positive.
6 - Existing neutral alliances are a great case study for us to look into alliances, my only concern with joining existing neutral alliances are any underlying issues that are being dealt with. Building from the ground up would give us a better understanding of what we are dealing with.
8 - As stated above really, forming a new neutral alliances gives us a better understanding and control of the alliance mechanics, as well as taking our position and values into account.
1 - We are not ready for a non-neutral alliance in my opinion.
1/2 - I'm not entirely sure which way to go on this. while congress are elected to deal with these issues (and rightly so, what's the point in running otherwise you can just grab a BH medal for gold and be done with it), at some stage other citizens need their say on this as well.
Generally, I feel working as a neutral alliance opens up the platform for more than just organising where nations go for training wars. We have been comfortably doing nothing for a fair amount of time now (since I returned to the game last year anyway) and at some point negative complacency will inevitably kick in with players. That being said, I agree that the values and interests of the eUK must be taken into account before proceeding with any form of alliance.
Votes registered.
Thank you.
On a scale of 1 to 10 how complicated is this poll
1 - I’m not positive about it at all. If someone invades us, like Macedonia nearly did, we have zero protection. We’re not neutral out of choice. We’re neutral because we’re forced to be.
7. Not necessarily saying it’s the right option but we need to talk about it and explore our options.
8. An alliance of neutral nations who help protect each other in times of war is exactly what I’ve been pushing for.
5. Definitely an option worth looking at.
6. I’d have more confidence starting something from the ground up and having a say in shaping its rules.
7. Depends how strong our allies turn out to be.
1. Discussed by Congress but voted on in a referendum by the public.
-Tell us the values, goals and mutual benefits that an Alliance has to share to be considered as such:
Cooperation and mutual protection in the event of an attack.
A message to everybody. Being in a neutral alliance does not stop us having TWs. At all.
It’s a precaution. Our tanks are not enough alone. If they were we wouldn’t be at threat of a constant wipe without neutrality.
With 10 as "easy" and 0 as "too complicate", I would vote 8.
Thank you, votes registered.
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the UK current proven neutral and considerate strategy?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 7
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea of the UK joining an alliance?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 4
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea that this alliance is based on neutrality and keeping an equal distance from the two biggest sides (Asteria and Code)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 4
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how positive do you feel generally about the idea of joining an already existing neutral alliance (such as Pacifica or Orion)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 5
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how do you feel about creating from the beginning a neutral alliance around the values that until here have inspired our nation (and having the control on the process)?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 7
-On a scale of 1 - 10, how do you feel about the potential of joining a non-neutral alliance?
(1 very negative to 10 very positive) 3
-Being it an issue linked to national security, do you think that the discussion about the alliance should be brought on forward by congress only (with the final approval by all the citizens via referendum) or by the whole nation at every stage?
(1: By the Congress - 2: by the nation) Congress. Via any vote. Not our problem if some people don't bother to vote.
-Tell us the values, goals and mutual benefits that an Alliance has to share to be considered as such:
Cooperation, transparency and loyalty
Thank you, votes registered.