Alliances: one whole or many parts?

I suggest that leading through building consensus is also a possibility.  In Illy, alliance membership is voluntary (with rare exceptions of bully leaders forcing "join or die" on players).  As such, the leadership by rank is not feasible in Illy (unlike an actual military).

Thanks for all the well thought out replies. I realize my example in't the most realistic, but I'vepicked up quite a lot of insight form this thread already.

Angrim wrote: The_Dude wrote: I have seen many alliances take the "hands off" approach and I have seen those alliances produce member after member repeating the same abhorrent acts of insults and/or attacks.  Letting members dictate the tone of the alliance is guaranteed to bring down an alliance.    to modify Hadus's question, then, what if, instead of one player repeatedly offending, two players from alliance X have offended two different players from alliance Y?  at what point does the individual, uncoordinated behaviour of alliance X's members merit retribution against the whole of alliance X?  the alliance is not instructing the behaviour as a matter of policy, but is enabling, even promoting it, it as a matter of culture.

At the point where the leadership of X refuses to deal with the behavior of their members in a way that satisfies Y you have casus belli for Y to attack those specific players.

When the rest of X joins the conflict to protect their members (who they refused to censure and therefore condoned their actions) then you have casus belli for a war dec against the entire alliance X.

Such is what happened with Consone - the organization failed to censure it's wayward members and got a bad rep on the entire confed.  Then when those wayward alliances ended up in conflict the entire confed dragged itself in.

Here's my thinking reduced to simple Idioms:

It sounds like group X in the op example is trying to implement a free play policy for their members but the policy is not developed very well imho. Relic has a similar policy but we have clear rules of engagement and clear expectations on how our players should conduct themselves. Note that even with this policy we're a small peaceful group not given to any kind of bullying; this kind of policy does not mean the group condones irresponsible action (this includes unilateral action against other alliances).

This kind of free play policy also is not a 'throw your members to the wolves' policy. If player X had a genuine local dispute with player Y over sov, resources or whatever then we expect player X to resolve that dispute in a reasonable manner. Even if it comes to force of arms between those two local players it is still a local matter regarding his own city and his neighbors. Why should it be turned into a larger conflict or something more than it is? He should build relations with his neighbors and handle his own affairs. However, if during the course of their resolution player Y summons his alliancemates and draws his alliance into that local affair, then of course we as an alliance will step in and help player X, with diplomacy first and then whatever means necessary.

In my view, the example given does not adequately convey a good free play style. It is not, an 'each member left to his own devices' policy (at least in any successful group i've been in). It is more play responsibly and honorably, handle your affairs and most importantly, do not be stupid and bite off more than you can chew policy. - M.

EDIT: im afraid i drifted from the point of the question...

Hadus wrote: 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?

The third option... Really, Alliance X isn't an organized alliance.. without providing any direction or protection to membership it's at most a disorganized mob all under one flag. Alliance Y leadership should have contacted Alliance X leadership to resolve through diplomacy first (including restoration of lost goods). Failing that then Alliance Y (since you can't really deal with a disorganized mob effectively) they need to protect their member against the mob and are right to do so.


Edited by Meagh - 05 Jan 2013 at 00:25