How about a "friendly" relations with another alliance without assimilation or a merge? Is that politically possible?

ADDITION:
I need coal.
Ok, I've just come up a with a quick list of things which I think would benefit the alliance:
- A website where we can put together useful information and other things, like scripts which would project the growth of your nation if you made certain choices.
- A dedicated forum or somewhere else to discuss things without too much clutter.
- An aid request/donation system so that our stronger members can help out weaker members financially and militarily. This would include direct military help in wars (i.e. attacking whoever's attacking our ally).
- A trading network focused around bonus resources where we determine which nation needs what and give it to them if possible.
- A co-ordinated 'international' strategy. A set of rules governing how member nations are permitted to interact with nations outside of the alliance. This would be common-sense stuff like being forbidden from attacking another alliance without good reason and prior agreement. We could also arrange non-agression pacts with other alliances, or even alliances with them.
- A green team monopoly. All member nations would be required to change their colour to green for trading benefits and so we can attain better relations with other 'green' alliances such as the powerful Viridian Entente. It would be in our interests to be friends with them.
I think a very important thing is having a powerful "friend" so we don't get smashed by a more powerful alliance than we are.
W00t! This is the greatest internet game ever! Anyway, here's my army.
The Legacy Army QUOTE(CaptainWill @ Nov 6 2006, 12:33 PM)
Ok, I've just come up a with a quick list of things which I think would benefit the alliance:
- A website where we can put together useful information and other things, like scripts which would project the growth of your nation if you made certain choices.
- A dedicated forum or somewhere else to discuss things without too much clutter.
[right][snapback]584505[/snapback][/right]
I have a small forum that I admin, It hasn't been used for a few weeks, and I wouldn't mind deleting all of the old items and making it a CYber Nations forum. It's getting annoying to push everything into one thread.
Or we could just make a whole new forum. One that has a name that matches the use.
Who'd be willing to admin it though?
QUOTE(dumbducky @ Nov 6 2006, 07:28 PM)
Or we could just make a whole new forum. One that has a name that matches the use.
Who'd be willing to admin it though?
[right][snapback]584642[/snapback][/right]
Ooh! Ohh! Pick me! I'm on the internet every day! I can! Good idea
I wouldn't mind being one of the Global Mods or Admins

I don't think we need a forum for it, just my opinion.
I don't think we need a stand-alone forum either.
If there is one I'll be a forum moderator im on the computer everyday and I can set up money trading posts and tips!
Well this has kind of degraded. Note to everyone clam-oring for power, we had elections for a reason.
Guys, settle down. Tomorrow I'll start setting up charts for trading and the such. I'll also confer with the other leaders as to what to do about rules.
May I suggest that any decision concerning treaties/wars needs a unanimous vote from the three leaders while any decision concerning trading needs a two or three vote from the leaders?
So is green team a mandatory requirement yet?
When you guys can help me can you guys please send some money because I'm broke, I'm in Anarchy.

This looks interesting. I'll probably sign up tomorrow, somebody want to help me get started?
I would try to help, but as you see in the post above yours I'm in deep trouble

QUOTE(Felagund @ Nov 6 2006, 10:32 PM)
Guys, settle down. Tomorrow I'll start setting up charts for trading and the such. I'll also confer with the other leaders as to what to do about rules.
May I suggest that any decision concerning treaties/wars needs a unanimous vote from the three leaders while any decision concerning trading needs a two or three vote from the leaders?
[right][snapback]584858[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, I agree... decisions like war should require complete agreement, but trading is of lesser consequence, so 2 votes should be fine.
QUOTE(Felagund @ Nov 7 2006, 03:32 AM)
Guys, settle down. Tomorrow I'll start setting up charts for trading and the such. I'll also confer with the other leaders as to what to do about rules.
May I suggest that any decision concerning treaties/wars needs a unanimous vote from the three leaders while any decision concerning trading needs a two or three vote from the leaders?
[right][snapback]584858[/snapback][/right]
I would suggest that a poll should be held in the case of war or any very major 'thing,' so that everyone can vote on it and have a say. I'm sure we want to keep things democratic.
Minor decisions can be left up to the leaders, I agree, with a 2/3 vote.
But they elected us leaders for a reason. It's a representative democracy, not a direct one. However, I still think that if they want to do something on their own, such as attack another player, it is their choice to do so.
I'm still in Anarchy

What do you need? I can send anything except for cash.
Need troops? I got 'em.
no im too overpowered and they don't want overpowered.
Send some troops to me! I'll relieve you of them! Also, I'll send you some money.
*Edit* You do know that you have to manually change your government type, right? Once you're thrown into anarchy, you have to "Edit my Nation" and change the government type to something the people want.
QUOTE(DEAD)
Please post this link in the cyber nations topic. It's a little forum I made for our alliance. I'll make CaptainWill, Voyager7456, and Felagund admins as soon as they join. I myself will just learn to work with phpBB and skin it up a little for practise. Everything else is up to them if not asked otherwise.
http://gigins.forumup.us/index.php?mforum=gigins