Articles of the Confederation of Illyriad
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance on Elgea, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=3459
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 05:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Articles of the Confederation of Illyriad
Posted By: geofrey
Subject: Articles of the Confederation of Illyriad
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2012 at 16:53
|
Below is an idea for a multi-alliance pact that originated from http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/confederation-of-illyria_topic3453.html#42998" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/confederation-of-illyria_topic3453.html#42998 The concept is that alliances would agree to a form of these terms by declaring a confederation with the alliance: Confederation of Illyriad. Each alliance would still maintain it's own government and political structure along with it's own agenda and goals. Members of the Confederation (alliances) would still be capable of having independent diplomatic relations with each other. The only requirement is that they maintain a confederation status with the Confederation of Illyriad and that they follow these rules. I have no idea how these rules could be enforced.. maybe through fines with the ultimatum being getting kicked out of the Confederation. I refer to the "ruling body of the Confederation." This could pertain to the alliance: Confederation of Illyriad, or it could be a prime minister that is appointed/voted and the structure that he apoints. All depends if this idea becomes a reality. I. Real Estate A) Soverignty 1) An attack against a Lord’s Sovereignty claims shall be treated as a hostile attack against the Lord’s castles. 2) Sovereignty is a first come first serve basis with regards to towns that are within each other’s 20 sov. square range. 3) Sov. is the preferred method of establish land claims by marking territory on the world map. Preferably in a checkered pattern. 4) If a Sovereignty dispute arises, it is recommended, but not required, that a mediator be brought in. B) Relocating/Settling new settlements 1) It is considered hostile to settle/relocate a city within another cities 20 sov. square range without establishing explicit permission from that Lord first. 2) It is considered hostile to settle/relocate a city within 10 squares of another city without establishing explicit permission from that Lord first. 3) In the event of two settlers/relocators moving cities at the sametime to the same area, a mediator will be brought in to determine who is to move their city again. Generally it is the Lord who stands to lose the least that will be required to move. C) Land Claims (Reserved Territory) 1) Land claims reserve every square within the claimed land for that specific alliance. Anyone wishing to settle, relocate, harvest resources, or claim sovereignty within the claimed land must contact the alliance first. 2) Land Claims are legitimate so long as the ruling body of the Confederation of Illyriad approve them. a) Approval process requires that the ruling body of the Confederation of Illyriad receive in-game mail detailing the area of the claim, and the purpose b) The ruling body has up to 7 days to approve the Land Claim. If the ruling body is unable to make a decision by that time, the land claim is approved by default. 3) Land Claims must be public knowledge in 3 of the following ways: a) A post on the official forums declaring the land claim b) a public post on claimer’s alliance forums/alliance page declaring the land claim c) Using sovereignty to mark the map in a checkered or checker like pattern. d) mailing every alliance in that region of your land claim 4) All Land Claims must be posted in the Confederation’s public Alliance Forum. 5) Any member of the Confederation not respecting other member’s land claim will have their actions considered hostile. 6) Any non-member of the Confederation not respecting a member’s land claim will have a mediator brought in to make peace II. Rules of Engagement A) Diplomats 1) All diplomatic units sent against another lord are considered hostile actions, unless permission is granted from the target lord. 2) At times of war diplomatic units are acceptable 3) All members (alliances) of the Confederation of Illyriad must declare a confederation with the Confederation of Illyriad. B) Blights 1) Any blight cast against another lord is considered a hostile action, unless permission is granted from the target lord. 2) At times of war blights are acceptable forms of engagement. C) Military troop movement 1) A Raid, attack, blockade, and feint are considered a hostile action, unless permission is granted from the target lord. 2) At times of war, raids, attacks, blockades, and feints are acceptable forms of engagement. 3) A siege is only allowed when all of the following events have occurred: a) War has been declared b) A mediator has delivered the terms of surrender to the soon-to-be-sieged lord. c) soon-to-be-sieged lord has had a minimum of 3 days to accept/negotiate the terms of surrender. 4) Reinforcing a city is not considered hostile. 5) Reinforcing a siege or blockade is considered hostile.D) Declaring war 1) If 2 or more alliance members are working together to attack another lord, the alliance must declare war against the opposing alliance. 2) When declaring war a mediator must be brought in to mediate the conflict. 3) When declaring war each alliance must nominate a member to represent the alliance when mediating the conflict. This member must be able to get the proper authority to agree to terms of surrender, negotiate terms of surrender, and declare peace. 4) Any hostile action against an alliance is grounds for a declaration of war. e) Non-war conflicts 1) Any conflict involving 1 on 1 lord warfare need not have declared war. 2) If any ally to either player wishes to engage in hostile action against their ally’s enemy, war must be declared. 3) Without a declaration of war, the conflict stays between the two opposing lords. F) Requesting military aid 1) It is up to each alliance to defend their lands and call upon aid if needed. 2) If an alliance does not wish to declare war against an opponent who has performed hostile actions against them, they can present their case to the ruling body of the Confederation, who can act in the name of justice. 3) No member of the Confederation will be forced into conflict by the ruling body of theConfederation. 4) If alliance A, and Alliance B are at war with each other, and alliance A request thatalliance C help them, alliance C must declare war against alliance B if they want to aid alliance A. 5) Confederation members (alliances) may contact each other requesting aid. There isno requirement for confederation members to participate in a confederation war. G) Non-Confederation war 1) Any initial conflict involving 1 or more lords/alliances not affiliated with the Confederation have no restrictions or guidelines and can participate in the battle however they like; may the gods have mercy on their peasants. H) Total War 1) The ruling body of the Confederation of Illyriad has the unique authority to declare total war against a common enemy that poses a threat to the existence of the Confederation. 2) During Total War, all confederation members (alliances) are requested by the rulingbody to participate in the defense of the Confederation, and forcing the enemy to surrender. 3) Total war can only be ended when the enemy is wiped out or they agree to the termsof surrender. III. Mediators A) A Mediator can be any lord who is not participating in the conflict B) A Mediator’s role is to facilitate communication between the two or more conflicting parties to specifically negotiate terms of peace. C) Any Confederation member (alliance) may request the ruling body of the Confederation toassign a mediator to their conflict. |
Replies:
Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2012 at 21:26
|
Hello, here is my feedback for the moment. 1. What is counted as the 20 sov range? 2. B) Relocating/Settling new settlements 1) It is considered hostile to settle/relocate a city within another cities 20 sov. square range without establishing explicit permission from that Lord first. -Since I'm not sure what this range is, I can't comment. 2) It is considered hostile to settle/relocate a city within 10 squares of another city without establishing explicit permission from that Lord first. - Completely disagree here. Reason being that for one thing, it shouldn't be considered hostile. Another reason is that in some areas, such as Tor Carrock, you'd be hard pressed to meet the 10 square range. My suggestion is a 5 square range, as this should provide enough room for players. 3. C) Land Claims (Reserved Territory) 1) Land claims reserve every square within the claimed land for that specific alliance. Anyone wishing to settle, relocate, harvest resources, or claim sovereignty within the claimed land must contact the alliance first. - I didn't copy the whole section, but I'm in large disagreement here. Claiming a whole area in this manner to me is very unpractical. Even if someone makes said claim, I doubt you could get every player to agree to it. Just seems like a problematic idea here. 4. A) Diplomats 1) All diplomatic units sent against another lord are considered hostile actions, unless permission is granted from the target lord. - So even a scouting/spying action? I disagree that a spy/scout is hostile outright. It would set up a so called "yellow alert" as I'd be wondering if they'd be sending something else. But perhaps someone who's been playing longer than I have could comment on this. 5. C) Militar troop movement - Just pointing out a typo here. "Military". 6. 1) Any conflict involving 1 on 1 lord warfar need not have declared war. - Typo again. "warfare". |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2012 at 21:52
20 Square sov. range refers to the fact that you can only build 20 sov. structures, and generally those are the 20 closest squares to a city. In a perfect world this means 2 squares surrounding the city. Settling/relocating within 10 squares refers to the already in place 10 square rule when relocating your city. This just extends the 10 square rule to settling as well. If this is too large, then it should be shrunk down some. But I think we can all agree a neighbor popping up too close is not cool. The Land Claim business is a hot topic, and always will be. That said they are already being used and recorded in different ways with different rules. Keep in mind that Confederation land claims have to get approved by a neutral group. Meaning unreasonable claims go out the window. Also the Land Claim rules work in your favor since if you wish to claim a piece of land, the whole confederation will honor that claim so long as it gets approved. It Sunday night, your sitting at home watching the new episode of Game of Thrones. It's just getting to a good part when a man with a notebook opens your house door and comes in. He begins walking around your house and making notes of all the things you have. He doesn't say a word to you. Is that a hostile action? |
CerexFlikex wrote:Posted By: John Marston
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2012 at 21:56
|
How about the rules of the federation would be enforced by a Council.The council will have one member from each alliance involved and they would ensure that the rules would be enforced and they would have the power to remove/add new votes? ------------- Veni, vidi, vici |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2012 at 23:14
Hey Geof, this is bad form. Your joke from GC transported over here loses all humor and appears to be sincere. Please edit your post and remove the quoted line. Thank you.
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 00:38
|
Who all has agreed to abide by these terms? It seems like a huge limitation of an alliance's soverienty, and not something most would agree to. (Also, if The Dude doesn't want to, I will gladly volunteer to tell anyone who will listen to me what land they can and cannot claim. I'm helpful like that.)
|
Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 02:47
Alright let me go over this. 1. Obviously a 2 square range is very small, and in that case I agree it would be hostile to move that close to someone. 2. I believe you were already informed about the level 5 SOV claim, and using that to move closer than 10 squares. As I previously stated it is my contention that 5 squares is a good distance to base a minimum on. You want to try for more if possible, but in some cases it's difficult to do. 3. Indeed, I don't agree with land claims other than using sov or an army as a placeholder. 4. The_Dude explained to me about the spies/scouts and I concede it to be hostile.
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 20:28
|
Posted By: (EOM) Harry
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 20:51
|
Has anyone joined the confederation yet then? ------------- Fool's watch the land when the problem is in the heart. |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 22:42
The Confederation doesn't exist. There are no members. I threw these rules up on the forums hoping to get some community feedback. This is just a concept post. Any feedback on it's usefulness or a specific section would be great. I really think there is a place for alliances to recognize and respect each other regardless of alliance size.
|
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 22:53
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. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 23:35
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. =) |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 01:01
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. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 00:44
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.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 13:21
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.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 18:23
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.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 19:18
|
It is only enforcable under siege because often the party that violates the claim and refuses to move, via exodus will refuse to do so. If the violator is too stubborn to clear out under an allocated time frame, then drastic measures should be considered, less you risk having the rest the of your system^ challenged.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 19:56
|
Yes, the claims should be limited to city placement. Moving beyond that would invite trouble, imnsho. As for enforcement, siege is the only way to do it once all other avenues have been exhausted. The issue of recognition by the community would have to come with time. Certainly the member alliances could and would recognize legitimate claims of fellow members and the larger the organization becomes the more likely it is that the community at large would recognize it as well. ------------- |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 20:14
I see your point about "any business done" being to broad. Limiting it to new settlements makes more sense. It need not be enforced as much as recognized by the community. Part of being recognized by the Land Confederation is that you recognize all the other land claims of the confederation. Through mutual respect and cooperation we could reduce the amount of turf wars. This whole concept is centered around the idea that you "enforce" your land claim by agreeing to respect other alliance's land claim. No siege necessary. Now if someone where to ignore the land claim of an alliance. I think it would be up to that alliance to rally forces behind its cause to defend it's territory. They would have a whole confederation of alliances who have something to loose by letting an alliance's land claim be ignored.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 20:29
|
Well we have at least two interested alliances (AA & TLR) 10 more could get it off the ground I think. I'm ready to give it try. I would like to open up in game communication with you, geofrey so we can piece together a proposal document and begin networking our individual contacts to find more interested alliances. I'm at work right now so if I haven't heard from you by the time I get home I will message you. ------------- |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 22:07
Certainly, contact me in-game. Anyone else interested in being a part of this is welcome to send me in-game mail.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 22:10
This is the optimal function of the Land Confederation.
I agree. This whole concept is centered around mutual agreement and any enforcement must be as well.
This seems to me to be the best way to enforce the claims. Should there be a conflict, the plaintiff alliance would proceed with business as usual and the only time there would ever need to be any diplomatic or military action taken by the Land Confederation (resource aid not withstanding) would be in the event the defendant alliance was too strong for the plaintiff to remove on their own. There would need to be simple and limited guidelines agreed to in advance as far as when and how the Land Confederation would act to enforce any legitimate claim. Inter-Confed disputes should be reduced to next to nothing with the right charter. Any alliance agreeing to join would also be agreeing to the legitimate claims of the other members. ------------- |
Posted By: LordBliss
Date Posted: 25 Apr 2012 at 00:23
I have happily found the opposite to be the case. I suppose one's view on the accuracy of this depends on one's experience, but i have appreciated the efforts and time of others, and so just wanted to put this out there. as to the OP, i think its an interesting idea, but the appealing part is a set of standards to which alliances agree to abide by, as opposed to a confederation. By way of example, many professions have trade associations/organizations that when the person joins them, they agree to certain standards and in return they get a stamp of approval of the organization. I think it would be hard to establish anything with any real "teeth" to it, but a general statement of of principles/standards/procedures that alliances could then say, "yes, we will sign off on that." see also: the United Nations
|
Posted By: Naxos
Date Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 18:48
| This is has a similar concept to the Illyriad Trade Union, but of course it is for a different purpose. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 27 Apr 2012 at 07:31
|
Yes, the basic concept, representative organization is a well tested one in RL but has thus far had limited success in Illyriad. Perhaps a simple, useful organization like a land claim confed could get some measure of support? ------------- |