Alliances: one whole or many parts?

This is a moral and diplomatic dilemma I've seen appear many times when alliances get into conflicts. While a majority of these conversations have been sparked by the ongoing War, even before then there seems to be no real consensus on the following question:

Is an alliance a collective whole, whose members have bound their own fates to that of their alliance-mates and are expected to share--at the least--a single code of conduct? Or, is it a collection of individuals with various ideas about acceptable in-game conduct, united by a common interest?

I'd argue that it can be both, depending on the alliance. The problem is, trouble can arise when two alliances, each of which shares one the two philosophies I've just stated, come into conflict. Is it reasonable for one alliance to impose their belief about what alliance membership entails onto the other, or should both sides acknowledge the different philosophies when dealing with conflict resolution?

The case I'm most interested in is this one:

A player from Alliance X harms a player from Alliance Y, more than once. Alliance X believes each individual in the alliance is responsible for their own actions, and does not defend their player, but does not stop him either. Alliance Y, which believes alliances operate a single unit, retaliates against multiple members of Alliance X. Is it Alliance X's responsibility to recognize the other side's belief and stop/kick their player? Or is it Alliance Y's responsibility to understand Alliance X's policy and resolve the conflict with the offending player by themselves? Or is there a third explanation?

Note that this question extends to confederacies and allied Alliances as well.


Edited by Hadus - 04 Jan 2013 at 19:47