Membership Think Tank

Welcome to the AIN! Come along and introduce yourself, meet our members and learn the ropes. Then when you are ready, post your application!
kendallhart808
Speaker of the Alliance
Speaker of the Alliance
Posts: 936
Joined: August 15th 2015, 1:22 pm
Nation: Carolina & The Cape
Location: NC

Membership Think Tank

Post by kendallhart808 » February 4th 2018, 10:37 pm

Membership Think Tank I truly think that the biggest threat to this alliance is the low number of applications that we see each year. Last year we approved nine countries and it was something really exciting because it showed we had improved from a slump we had been in. However, if you really think about it, nine countries are not all that many in the grand scheme of things. I think what we need to collective do as an alliance is really to think of ideas just to get people to the website. If we can figure that out, then I think we can get a lot more people to apply. That being said, anyone who has ideas should post them below so we can all look at them.

Also my bad if this is in the wrong section :)
User avatar
Nanami
Posts: 1062
Joined: December 28th 2011, 1:32 pm
Nation: Nakama & Karasem
Location: Miyauchi, Nakama
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Nanami » February 5th 2018, 2:04 pm

I don't think declining number of application is a bad thing. Remember we may don't really have new members but we aren't really losing much members (well maybe except several) I think that still a good point of this.

We should prioritize quality over quantity although I don't mind if we have a lot of members but we should keep our standards and we should be fine.
Meriah 2019 - Spirit of AIN Serika 2020 - Discover the Future
Image
User avatar
stanisolt
Posts: 361
Joined: August 6th 2012, 11:23 pm
Nation: Amuria
Location: Russian Federative Empire

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by stanisolt » February 5th 2018, 2:32 pm

Yeah, we’re certainly in need of a few new ideas to bring in members. While Nanami is right about quality>quantity, it doesn’t negate the need for more members to make the union fun...
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy
User avatar
ulisse
Director of Infrastructure
Director of Infrastructure
Posts: 811
Joined: April 23rd 2015, 5:26 pm
Nation: Siculia
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by ulisse » February 5th 2018, 6:03 pm

I think the standards we require must be maintained. We should invest more on advertising if we want to have more members
Member State Since 10th December 2015 Director of Public Services From March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018 - Director of Culture Since March 1, 2018 - Director of Infrastructure Since 1, 2018
User avatar
Michael
President of the Alliance
President of the Alliance
Posts: 987
Joined: January 26th 2016, 5:39 pm
Nation: Mikenstein & Sint Cunera
Location: London, UK, EU
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Michael » February 5th 2018, 6:50 pm

I certainly don't think standards should be reduced just to get more members in. How we advertise ourselves is important, but equally, we shouldn't stray totally away from a City-builder union.

What are people's thoughts on like an exemption, whereby, if approved by members, city pictures can be left out of an application? i.e. if an application is a very high quality, but there are no pictures for it (take SimEmirate's recent application for an example), then the requirement can be ignored. What are thoughts on this?
Image---------------Image WikiForum-----------------------------WikiForum----

Member State since 5th March 2016
Global Moderator since 4th March 2017
President since 1st March 2018

Send me a message!
User avatar
Gregor
Posts: 1410
Joined: December 25th 2011, 2:30 pm
Nation: Oka & Malerno
Location: Lausanne
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Gregor » February 5th 2018, 7:03 pm

I truly think that the biggest threat to this alliance is the low number of applications that we see each year. Last year we approved nine countries and it was something really exciting because it showed we had improved from a slump we had been in. However, if you really think about it, nine countries are not all that many in the grand scheme of things. I think what we need to collective do as an alliance is really to think of ideas just to get people to the website. If we can figure that out, then I think we can get a lot more people to apply. That being said, anyone who has ideas should post them below so we can all look at them.

Also my bad if this is in the wrong section
-I agree on "investing" into new members, especially as there are many new CS players around

- I also agree on quality over quantity.

-We need to agree on what we are, it seems to me that the border between RP union and nation building union is getting blurred - the homepage says "The AIN is an innovative community of people from around the world, all with a common interest: Creating their own unique countries, using city building simulators." - But some nations distance themselves from that point and focus more or alternative history and possibilities making City Building only appear in the application and subtantially poor

-Therefor I would personally like to see more emphasis on ingame skills and rp possibilities rather than extreme realism that sometimes strangles us

Here are some ideas I think we should discuss,

-Nation size, if we are to accept new members we should consider that our globe is already packed up, with almost no available space in East Asia and the atlantic rift being full .. for example.. It is my opinion that some nations are far too big

-This point could seem elitist, but I still want to raise it. Should a player with little city building skills or RP skills be allowed to apply a massive nation ?

-Side nations should be substantially smaller than main nations, or limited to Special territories or city states (these could be similar too existing places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Vatican, San Marino, Gaza etc.. )

-A second planet hypothesis ? Could we explore the world of parallel universes, with different nations on different planets or mirrors of earths with different nations and combinations, or scenarios (a planet where colonisation didn't happen - Christiannity never existed) etc..


----
if an application is a very high quality, but there are no pictures for it (take SimEmirate's recent application for an example), then the requirement can be ignored. What are thoughts on this?
This goes to the question of further defining ourselves, but if we call ourselves a unuon in which we create "unique countries, using city building simulators" then this isn't possible

Looking forward for your opinion :)
_____________ Image Oka City AIN Cultural Capital 2018
User avatar
Nanami
Posts: 1062
Joined: December 28th 2011, 1:32 pm
Nation: Nakama & Karasem
Location: Miyauchi, Nakama
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Nanami » February 5th 2018, 7:11 pm

Gregor wrote:
-A second planet hypothesis ? Could we explore the world of parallel universes, with different nations on different planets or mirrors of earths with different nations and combinations, or scenarios (a planet where colonisation didn't happen - Christiannity never existed) etc..
I think I'll just reply on this directly as this one is pretty intriguing to be discussed.

Lets say that there was other union available (USNW, Addonia) which basically not using earth instead they used another planet as their base. The main problem about this is about forming the planet itselft while making its possible what is it now. tbh independent planet would be an interesting option (as I got several in my mind) but prepare for a lot of stuff to do then.

In the other hand, AIN was the last union that stays in earth which what make us right now.
Meriah 2019 - Spirit of AIN Serika 2020 - Discover the Future
Image
User avatar
stanisolt
Posts: 361
Joined: August 6th 2012, 11:23 pm
Nation: Amuria
Location: Russian Federative Empire

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by stanisolt » February 5th 2018, 11:04 pm

Nanami wrote:
Gregor wrote:
-A second planet hypothesis ? Could we explore the world of parallel universes, with different nations on different planets or mirrors of earths with different nations and combinations, or scenarios (a planet where colonisation didn't happen - Christiannity never existed) etc..
I think I'll just reply on this directly as this one is pretty intriguing to be discussed.

Lets say that there was other union available (USNW, Addonia) which basically not using earth instead they used another planet as their base. The main problem about this is about forming the planet itselft while making its possible what is it now. tbh independent planet would be an interesting option (as I got several in my mind) but prepare for a lot of stuff to do then.

In the other hand, AIN was the last union that stays in earth which what make us right now.
I can confirm this. USNW and Adonia both have issues revolving the different planet aspect. Many people are simply more comfortable with staying on Earth and it's important that we recognize that. AIN has built a reputation from its insistence on being an Earth-based union, and I don't think now is the time to diverge from that.
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy
kendallhart808
Speaker of the Alliance
Speaker of the Alliance
Posts: 936
Joined: August 15th 2015, 1:22 pm
Nation: Carolina & The Cape
Location: NC

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by kendallhart808 » February 6th 2018, 1:05 am

Just sort of dropping this here, if you were not in the chat earlier today, we had a discussion and this is generally what came out of it.

One thing that was offered as a suggestion was the idea of an alternate history world. Take an event such as World War 1 and then altering that and building the world in some sort of alternate history. This was accepted by some but others including myself see this as possibly to much work.

The idea of a second world where countries would overlap also seems to be something that was somewhat unlikely to occur in the long run as a lot of people showed opposition to that idea.

The third idea that was proposed was building an entirely new world as Nanami hinted at. However, this is likely to much work and a lot of people have shown opposition to that idea.

Sorry if I have mischaracterized the nature of the idea.

Okay so my thoughts:
So one idea that I found interesting was the idea that we sort of have an alternate history world but we use the points of diversions we already have, our own countries. This could go different ways depending on how people want to do it. One way would be allowing people to build like Austria or Switzerland in the aftermath of the Mikenstein separatist movements or Spain now without Arriola. I think that could really be an interesting idea. At the least these might need to become NPC's to really work with the new history around them and we could develop them. For instance, Marquette's secession from the US would likely mean that Carolina/the CSA is able to leave without a war (ie. no compromise that leads to modern Carolina). So that may be an idea regarding a new way to look at member countries.

A couple of other things:
I definitely believe in quality over quantity, this shouldn't be like nationstates or whatever where people have these weird nations.

Secondly, I think that naturally this union is drifting more toward a RP union than a city building union. People who play CS present some real opportunity but honestly I think that the city building thing is sort of dying and therefore to survive we might need to adapt.

Third, I'm not sure with the idea of making side nations super small. This is only because my hopeful side nation was going to be something like a South African Commonwealth (ie. the everything south of the Zambezi River South Africa). I really have a passion for South Africa and I have been working really hard to get the country up and going, however if we are limiting side nations to be small then that presents a serious challenge for me. I think it would be a great addition and I have proven to be really active and this could really help a region where we have little to no activity but again, it becomes problematic. Look at other side nations such as Zambezi or more or less Balaton and I you'll see I'm not really alone in this.
User avatar
InvaderNat
Posts: 1916
Joined: December 12th 2012, 4:59 am
Nation: Neu Westfalen
Location: New Zealand

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by InvaderNat » February 6th 2018, 1:40 am

I think we have a pretty good number of members as it is, especially given the limited available land on the map. I'm more in favour of encouraging more of the non-active members to become active again.
kendallhart808
Speaker of the Alliance
Speaker of the Alliance
Posts: 936
Joined: August 15th 2015, 1:22 pm
Nation: Carolina & The Cape
Location: NC

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by kendallhart808 » February 6th 2018, 2:03 am

InvaderNat wrote:I think we have a pretty good number of members as it is, especially given the limited available land on the map. I'm more in favour of encouraging more of the non-active members to become active again.
Honestly this is just as good of an idea.
User avatar
jmsepe
Director of Economics
Director of Economics
Posts: 1777
Joined: April 16th 2014, 5:32 am
Nation: Teiko
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by jmsepe » February 6th 2018, 9:14 am

InvaderNat wrote:I think we have a pretty good number of members as it is, especially given the limited available land on the map. I'm more in favour of encouraging more of the non-active members to become active again.
Certainly on point but the more important question is "how"? :)
Image What good would it bring if a man gains the whole world but loses his soul the one he loves?

EXPERIENCE AND DEDICATION
User avatar
JellyStar285
Posts: 125
Joined: August 6th 2016, 3:02 pm
Nation: Deimenovinas
Location: The Slums of San Favero
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by JellyStar285 » February 6th 2018, 2:53 pm

jmsepe wrote:
InvaderNat wrote:I think we have a pretty good number of members as it is, especially given the limited available land on the map. I'm more in favour of encouraging more of the non-active members to become active again.
Certainly on point but the more important question is "how"? :)
Very true. Most inactive members are inactive for a reason. Trying to draw people back in like Leandro, simsamerica, spy, and Hiigar. I also think that these honorary nations are also kind of a creative damper. Sure it might be to honor their contributions to the Union, but when they leave, they forget about AIN and most likely won’t return once they leave. Look at Cattala. It doesn’t do anything but take up space. The same for Ascadylea, Corraile, and Marquette. They simply have no use being around anymore. I do think that encouraging inactive members to become active might be hard, but possible in some way.
"Some days I wonder whether life is worth living, then I remember what’s out there in the world. It brings me comfort.”
User avatar
stanisolt
Posts: 361
Joined: August 6th 2012, 11:23 pm
Nation: Amuria
Location: Russian Federative Empire

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by stanisolt » February 6th 2018, 3:01 pm

JellyStar285 wrote:
jmsepe wrote:
InvaderNat wrote:I think we have a pretty good number of members as it is, especially given the limited available land on the map. I'm more in favour of encouraging more of the non-active members to become active again.
Certainly on point but the more important question is "how"? :)
Very true. Most inactive members are inactive for a reason. Trying to draw people back in like Leandro, simsamerica, spy, and Hiigar. I also think that these honorary nations are also kind of a creative damper. Sure it might be to honor their contributions to the Union, but when they leave, they forget about AIN and most likely won’t return once they leave. Look at Cattala. It doesn’t do anything but take up space. The same for Ascadylea, Corraile, and Marquette. They simply have no use being around anymore. I do think that encouraging inactive members to become active might be hard, but possible in some way.
Fixing the Honorary Member system is an issue, definitely. It is, however, guaranteed by the Charter so we would need to amend the Charter to change it. I already attempted to see a reform of the HM system to open up these countries for future members, but unfortunately it didn’t end up getting passed. If we find a system that could work, we could get it passed. Until then, there’s not much we can do about it. :/
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy
User avatar
Billy
Posts: 376
Joined: March 29th 2016, 7:41 am
Nation: Jarraban

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Billy » February 8th 2018, 12:32 pm

kendallhart808 wrote:Secondly, I think that naturally this union is drifting more toward a RP union than a city building union. People who play CS present some real opportunity but honestly I think that the city building thing is sort of dying and therefore to survive we might need to adapt.

Third, I'm not sure with the idea of making side nations super small. This is only because my hopeful side nation was going to be something like a South African Commonwealth (ie. the everything south of the Zambezi River South Africa). I really have a passion for South Africa and I have been working really hard to get the country up and going, however if we are limiting side nations to be small then that presents a serious challenge for me. I think it would be a great addition and I have proven to be really active and this could really help a region where we have little to no activity but again, it becomes problematic. Look at other side nations such as Zambezi or more or less Balaton and I you'll see I'm not really alone in this.
The issue with focussing on one aspect of the union more than others (RP, nation-building, CJ'ing) is alienating members. Everyone has different opinions on what the site should and shouldn't be. Moving exclusively in one direction would disregard the feelings/beliefs of many, leading to division and disengagement. We'll never reach a site-wide consensus on this, and so it's important for everyone to creatively express themselves in whichever way they feel most comfortable (provided everything is realistic, original, respectful towards other members).

Personally, I enjoy CJ'ing as much as I enjoy the roleplay side of things. That's the great thing about this union - it's dynamic and interesting. Plenty of older members still enjoy the city-building side of things, and TBH I get the feeling our move towards a more RP-oriented union has kinda p*ssed off a few. Can't go turning the place upside down just to attract (potentially) a handful of newbies.

As for small nations, no reason they can't be interesting if enough work is put into them. Neu Westfalen and Teiko are good examples. They also don't mess with real-world history, politics, geography and climatic/oceanic systems in the same way larger countries do.

I hope this response doesn't seem abrasive - certainly don't intend for it to be. We just really need to consider all opinions in discussions surrounding the site's future and not simply move with the RP tide you described. City-building is still very much alive and a key part of why many join/remain on the site.
Jarrabanian Commonwealth
Wiki | Forums | Media
Post Reply

Return to “Membership Office”