| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
geofrey 
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
 Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 22:53 |
 Aurordan wrote:
It seems like a huge limitation of an alliance's soverienty, and not something most would agree to.
|
How do you think it will limit an alliance's sovereignty?
I think the opposite. The whole purpose of this is to protect the rights of alliances. That includes their sovereignty squares outside their city. It is already an unspoken rule that you don't settle on someone's doorstep. This just puts it in writing.
|
 |
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 23:35 |
geofrey wrote:
How do you think it will limit an alliance's sovereignty?
I think the opposite. The whole purpose of this is to protect the rights of alliances. That includes their sovereignty squares outside their city. It is already an unspoken rule that you don't settle on someone's doorstep. This just puts it in writing.
|
Yes but that's something that I think should be decided within the alliances themselves. Fact is, if someone wants to try to bully someone out of an area or "steal" their sov, it's going to happen regardless of whether or not it's written about on the forums. That's a situation where the players/alliances involved need to work it out. I don't think a bunch of alliances agreeing with this forum post would really change anything. Though I admire the effort you put into the post. =)
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 01:01 |
Brids17 wrote:
geofrey wrote:
How do you think it will limit an alliance's sovereignty?
I think the opposite. The whole purpose of this is to protect the rights of alliances. That includes their sovereignty squares outside their city. It is already an unspoken rule that you don't settle on someone's doorstep. This just puts it in writing.
|
Yes but that's something that I think should be decided within the alliances themselves. Fact is, if someone wants to try to bully someone out of an area or "steal" their sov, it's going to happen regardless of whether or not it's written about on the forums. That's a situation where the players/alliances involved need to work it out. I don't think a bunch of alliances agreeing with this forum post would really change anything. Though I admire the effort you put into the post. =)
|
It was worth a shot. I appreciate your appreciation!
I do think that Illyriad has a need for a multi-alliance pact. The key is to leave as much governance as possible to the individual alliance. I think the real benefit is in a mutual respect for other alliances and their sovereignty, land claims, and siege protocol.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 23 Apr 2012 at 21:20 |
In my opinion, the benefits for an alliance to join such an organization, in these early, formative days are dubious. Much of what has been mentioned is already taking place without this structure, however there is one avenue that promises potential.
The land claims of small and mid sized alliances are scoffed at by larger alliances. I believe there may be some hope for such an organization should it be able to guarantee the security of the land claims of its members, small or otherwise. It seems to me however, that to get started there would need to be quite a few alliances in on the ground floor.
The regional dynamics of these potential member alliances will be of the utmost import. Sending armies on a 4 day journey to help defend a fellow member only to have the entire episode cleared up and forgotten before the armies arrive will be a disincentive to say the least.
Perhaps a simple land claims organization, The Land Confederation could be the foundation of a future full on Confederation of Alliances. Start with a dozen or so alliances, strategically scattered about the map and limit the power of the Confederation to reviewing and approving specific claims of land by its member alliances. I know I would be willing to give that a go.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 00:44 |
abstractdream wrote:
In my opinion, the benefits for an alliance to join such an organization, in these early, formative days are dubious. Much of what has been mentioned is already taking place without this structure, however there is one avenue that promises potential.
The land claims of small and mid sized alliances are scoffed at by larger alliances. I believe there may be some hope for such an organization should it be able to guarantee the security of the land claims of its members, small or otherwise. It seems to me however, that to get started there would need to be quite a few alliances in on the ground floor.
The regional dynamics of these potential member alliances will be of the utmost import. Sending armies on a 4 day journey to help defend a fellow member only to have the entire episode cleared up and forgotten before the armies arrive will be a disincentive to say the least.
Perhaps a simple land claims organization, The Land Confederation could be the foundation of a future full on Confederation of Alliances. Start with a dozen or so alliances, strategically scattered about the map and limit the power of the Confederation to reviewing and approving specific claims of land by its member alliances. I know I would be willing to give that a go. |
I agree. Your idea seems like a logical way to do it. The real benefit is having a master list of legitimate land claims that are commonly recognized... that was tried many times on the forums, but quickly derailed.
I think that all would be needed is a system for approval (a small counsel making a unanimous decision?) and a way to publicize the list.
I know my alliance, Affirmative Action, would back up that kind of thinking.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 05:28 |
|
Maybe each member alliance could send a representative (elected, appointed, the alliance leader, whatever) to sit on the Land Council. Unanimous votes could get clunky with a large number of members. Perhaps a two thirds majority? This could lead to conflicts as well but what doesn't in Illy?
There won't be any problems with publicizing the "list" I think, except for newer, less informed players but thats an issue now anyway.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 13:21 |
abstractdream wrote:
Maybe each member alliance could send a representative (elected, appointed, the alliance leader, whatever) to sit on the Land Council. Unanimous votes could get clunky with a large number of members. Perhaps a two thirds majority? This could lead to conflicts as well but what doesn't in Illy?
There won't be any problems with publicizing the "list" I think, except for newer, less informed players but thats an issue now anyway. |
2/3 vote sounds good. Also if a land council member doesn't put in a vote within the required time (7 days?) then his vote doesn't count.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 16:52 |
|
So the 2/3 majority rule would only apply to the total number of members who cast a vote?
If the rule applied to the total number of members, not just the ones voting, this could paralyze the process. For instance, out of 12 members 5 miss the deadline, the claim has no way of passing. On the other hand if the rule applies to only the number of members who cast a vote, a potential small number of alliances could control the Land Confederation. Granted this is probably unlikely, given the passion most of us have for land rights but it could be a problem if there is no alternative written into the charter.
Also, if a particularly contentious claim comes up and passes, will this cause undue friction in the membership? There may need to be an appeal process written in. It could be used by either side.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 18:23 |
abstractdream wrote:
So the 2/3 majority rule would only apply to the total number of members who cast a vote?
If the rule applied to the total number of members, not just the ones voting, this could paralyze the process. For instance, out of 12 members 5 miss the deadline, the claim has no way of passing. On the other hand if the rule applies to only the number of members who cast a vote, a potential small number of alliances could control the Land Confederation. Granted this is probably unlikely, given the passion most of us have for land rights but it could be a problem if there is no alternative written into the charter.
Also, if a particularly contentious claim comes up and passes, will this cause undue friction in the membership? There may need to be an appeal process written in. It could be used by either side. |
2/3 majority rule should apply to the total number of members who cast a vote. This encourages each alliance to participate in every application, and prevents lack of attendance/participation/boycotting from ruining a claim.
Each claim that doesn't pass would require some feedback to the alliance requesting it, to clarify why it didn't pass so they can make changes to their claim for a re-submission.
I think any claim could be challenged on the following grounds:
- alliance has shrunk since initial claim - alliance disrespecting other land claims - land claim violates existing real estate of other players - expansion of a faster growing alliance on a slower growing alliance claim.
We would also need to establish that when we say "land claim" we mean any business done in that land area should be cleared by the alliance who has already had their claim to the land recognized.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 18:56 |
It seems like one issue this proposed confederation will have is gaining recognition for and defining the idea of land claims.
The proposal that a land claim include "any business done" in the area of a claim, which would seem to include NPC hunting, trade, travel across the region, etc., is a pretty significant limitation on other players' ability to participate in the game in that region. Historically land claims have reflected where people do not want other people to place cities.
As new features are introduced, a broader definition of land claims may be adopted, but I think that if the intention is to make claims as broad as the one I've described above, any such attempt is premature, since it currently is unenforceable under any reasonable application of game mechanics.
|
|
Tweet
Articles of the Confederation of Illyriad