| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
BellusRex 
Wordsmith
Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Location: Mountains
Status: Offline
Points: 156
|
 Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 01:41 |
Personally, I find the various Crow alliances to be no more threatening, indeed far less, than those alliances with "hidden confederations"
I also find it a bit hard to accept the statements of those players who argue this is stifling or a threat to the game. Especially when you consider the source of those very same statements appear with their concerns any time they perceive their own power and game control to possibly be threatened.
If so many members of our game community felt threatened by Crows or their structure, then I wonder what it means that they all voted with their feet and joined that structure. If so many players feel the need to join Crows, I wonder what the threat is in the game that draws them to the Crow aegis?
|
|
"War is the father of all things..."
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 04:10 |
|
So uCrow are now supporting the actions of an alliance who by their own admission are trying to "eliminate" RE. Would that be a Rook sanctioned declaration or an independent action?
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 05:26 |
|
Bellusrex-- I presume you are referring to my posts in GC.
I'm particularly interested in your statement that : "Especially when you consider the source of those very same statements appear with their concerns any time they perceive their own power and game control to possibly be threatened."
Are you implying that I am voicing my concerns because H? Feels threatened? I hate to break it to you, but the Crowalition has outnumbered H? and our only confed, Dlords, now for about two years. We have had superb relations with many, if not most of the Crow alliances and you obviously didn't read my comments on GC. My entire point is that any confed, Crows or otherwise, that grows above a certain size risks smothering the game. It could be the most benevolent confed in history, but human nature being what it is, when you get that large with that many disparate polities, the size will directly or indirectly affect all diplomatic engagements with its members. As such, you are going to get some members engaging in bullying with no fear of consequences. In my opinion, if a mid sized alliance wants to be aggressive with another mid sized alliance, then that is their prerogative and very healthy for the game. If it results in war, so be it. We don't have enough conflict in Illy. But that will never happen if one of the parties is part of a mega-coalition. Anyone who denies this isn't already happening is obviously doing his best trying to lose a billion gold... ;)
Regardless of how hard you try, you cannot ignore human nature and presume any degree of behavioral control in a confed this size. And... I said that my concern was about it growing larger than it currently is (continuing on its path). It is a concern now (as we see it happening), but the major concern is that The Crowalition decides to continue expanding. Then Illy will see itself being benevolently smothered.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: TEXAS Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1865
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 05:55 |
|
Interesting point, Kumomoto. I think I did not understand your reservations before. The problem, as you see it (if I read your post right) is that some players will perpetrate unsavory actions under cover of the confederation, basically abusing the relationship. The "victims" of said actions will be unable to get justice. The reason they won't receive justice is that the confederation's size makes it resemble a massive bureaucracy in which "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing".
This is happening right now. It isn't even a Crow alliance that kicked it off but rather an alliance confederated to a Crow alliance. In this case, there seems to be a blatant lack of the diplomacy Crows so often tout. We will see just how far the Crowfed is willing and able to go to uphold the ideology expressed in the original post.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
Hora
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 09:59 |
Best luck to all Crows! Being defensive always is great, but some people take offense in it...
...suddenly everyone feels threatend, small incidents get blown up and deescalating actions as percieved from your own perspective might turn out to escalate even more...
And always prepare against possible faults from your confeds, and that you never will find unbiased information, when you need it 
But seeing Crows in operation since a long time, I guess they know about all this problems, and Angrims post indicates many precautions against. Crow leaders have great experiance; Crow grew organically since the beginning, whereas Consone was set up all at once, maybe our biggest error to start with... Just stating, that Consone wanted to be (and for big parts was) peaceful, too, and NEVER set out to be number one! But such ideas might blow up right in your face, if you're not really, really careful... 
AND Why does everyone think a big confed breaks the server?! Since I started 3 years ago, actually shortly after H? vs White, the diplomatic landscape was sorted by the alliances nearness to H? with noone able to challenge their role. All this talk about ruining the game is crap, it just switches round to calculating in nearness to Crow in a "worst" case szenario (I don't even see this happen in near future...).
Thus to everyone of you: Just show respect to each other, whether in peace or in war, then both can be fun... 
|
|
Redfist
Greenhorn
Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Location: Duraz Karag
Status: Offline
Points: 91
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 11:18 |
 abstractdream wrote:
Interesting point, Kumomoto. I think I did not understand your reservations before. The problem, as you see it (if I read your post right) is that some players will perpetrate unsavory actions under cover of the confederation, basically abusing the relationship. The "victims" of said actions will be unable to get justice. The reason they won't receive justice is that the confederation's size makes it resemble a massive bureaucracy in which "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing".
This is happening right now. It isn't even a Crow alliance that kicked it off but rather an alliance confederated to a Crow alliance. In this case, there seems to be a blatant lack of the diplomacy Crows so often tout. We will see just how far the Crowfed is willing and able to go to uphold the ideology expressed in the original post. |
Hey Kumo I think Bonfyr likes you a lot. C'mon when are you guys give him an invite and a directorship. After all he has been trying so hard for ever so long 
He needs to brush up on his propaganda theoreticals though. This one is a bit second rate. I am even tempted to say that Deranzin could do better and that is no yardstick to be measured by - believe you me. 
Seriously though H? ( and BV to for that matter) . Who are you guys fooling? Yourselves? The problem - is that community has seen this all before. Not once but 3 or 4 times. They know what's coming next. Each time seems to end in the same result. H? wins but less and less people play Illy. Give it a rest.
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 14:21 |
Kumomoto wrote:
Are you implying that I am voicing my concerns because H? Feels threatened? I hate to break it to you, but the Crowalition has outnumbered H? and our only confed, Dlords, now for about two years. |
Is this statement saying that Kumo (speaking for H?) has felt threatened for 2 years now (and thus his current actions are not connected to any feelings of threat) or is this statement pointing out that pop numbers are not deterministic to determining relative strengths in Illy and thus there is no perceived threat? IMO, only the second point is valid.
Kumomoto wrote:
As such, you are going to get some members engaging in bullying with no fear of consequences. |
Is this a bad thing? Is it bad because the "bully" is a member of the Crow Fed (or Consone) and not a member of H?. H? has had it's fair share of bullies. The most egregious bullying I've read about in this game has been from an H? member who was razing a relative newbies cities because of something "insufficiently deferential" the newbie said in GC. Someone will always be "biggest" and reading the H? alliance page it's pretty clear H? stands for little more than H?.
Kumomoto wrote:
In my opinion, if a mid sized alliance wants to be aggressive with another mid sized alliance, then that is their prerogative and very healthy for the game. If it results in war, so be it. We don't have enough conflict in Illy. But that will never happen if one of the parties is part of a mega-coalition. |
The funny things is, very recent Illy history shows this statement is false. RHY (a very mid sized alliance) had no trouble engaging militarily with Absa in the most aggressive and offensive manner possible. This happened despite Absa being a solid sized member (not a minor part) of Consone (a mega-confederation). Is this the manner that H? is acknowledging they willfully sought out the last great war and RHY was just a pawn shoved forward into a conflict they didn't want and then crushed so H? could fight Consone? Perhaps this whole theory is clearly false and mega alliances do not stifle conflict and this whole to-do about "conflict stifling" is a red herring?
|
|
Prares
New Poster
Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, AU
Status: Offline
Points: 39
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 14:35 |
KillerPoodle wrote:
So uCrow are now supporting the actions of an alliance who by their own admission are trying to "eliminate" RE. Would that be a Rook sanctioned declaration or an independent action?
|
I'm glad you put in the apostrophes as that's a gross distortion of the situation. Celtic Knights have declared war on Roman Empire as a short punitive action against a bunch of multi-accounts. These accounts are run by a long term troublemaker in Norweld posing as the leadership of that alliance. Anyone thinking that's a terrible response is free to join RE and we can all have some fun.
Meanwhile NC, obviously with your support, have decided they should self appoint as sherriffs across the whole map from 600 squares away. Given you've posted this in a thread about Crowfed gives an indication of the motivations at play here.
We do have friends in some Crow alliances, and in many others, but there is certainly no overarching conspiracy happening that we're involved with on our side.
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 14:52 |
Redfist wrote:
blah blah blah
|
Hi Ossian - nice new name you have there.
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 14:55 |
Prares wrote:
I'm glad you put in the apostrophes as that's a gross distortion of the situation.
|
No - the quote was there to indicate that that exact word was used by the leader of CK.
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
Tweet
the nature of the crows