Alliances: one whole or many parts?
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=4648
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 05:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Alliances: one whole or many parts?
Posted By: Hadus
Subject: Alliances: one whole or many parts?
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 19:45
|
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. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/157483" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Loud Whispers
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 19:51
+1
If the only options are between getting rid of player X and avoiding conflict or keeping player X and and having player X get attacked, I'd probably compromise to Alliance Y's philosophies. Player X gets to start anew in a different alliance, alliance Y get their retribution, alliance X and alliance Y stay in good faith and the least amount of damage is caused.
|
Hadus wrote:Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 20:43
| lol, this is the type of conversation i have my gfs do the cellphone call trick when on dates...play as u want, there are consequences to every action, but i enjoy playing this as a game of thrones type game. personal relationships seem the most important in this game.......wink wink |
Posted By: Loud Whispers
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 21:07
In game of thrones nearly everyone is manipulative to achieve their own individual gains and as a result the entire realm suffers terrible war, nearly every influential figure is murdered and starvation in the successive winter blunts any attempts for recovery... A good precedent to set or no?
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 21:33
|
Hadus, Each alliance is different. My view is that each RES reflects on all RES. I do not tolerate inappropriate personal conduct by RES members on GC or the forums. I also run a "clean" AC. So no "sexy time" in RES AC. RES members also prohibited from unauthorized attacks. There have been times that a RES member has strayed. I have made a point of making amends, both through appropriate, sincere apologies and restitution to the aggrieved. I am fortunate that RES has only had a few members unable to abide. Most players drawn to RES seek a mature alliance that is interested in high level play with minimum drama. That said, I hold an alliance responsible for the conduct of its members. I hold Super-Confeds responsible for the conduct of all its members from all its constituent alliances. Retaining a member is endorsing that member's conduct. 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. Once the inmates run the prison, the prison is doomed. When I see an alliance or Super-Confed take the "I'm not repsonsible" tact for member conduct, I know I am dealing with a bully group trying to slip one by me.
|
Posted By: Thes Hunter
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 21:51
|
Hadus, my opinion on the best way to handle that conflict is everyone from Alliance Y only attack the member of Alliance X who had been attacking Y's member. That way, both philosophies can be honored. Thank you for bringing this up, social mores are very interesting to me, and I think we should discuss more on this forum. ------------- The image in my avatar is a chalk pastel drawing I did as part of the Imagine Yellowstone Art competition. 
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 21:59
|
Oh my Hadus - a well chosen topic albeit it has very deep roots by now. Let me start out by saying that what I write here is my personal perspective on the issue and only that. If you want to discuss how to interpret ingame relations, you first have to establish what the game is. By that I mean the only thing that really connects you to me is a screenfull of pixels and fleeting words that carry little real life consequence or gravity. Yet we pour countless hours and money into this game. How can we convince ourselves that we are not crazy to do so unless we form some kind of meaningful - and to the extent possible - binding relation to other players. You establish this meaningful relation over time, by continually holding one another responsible for our actions, aid eachother when in need, and over time establish that which really makes any game with many disconnected individuals meaningful - trust. Trust is a vital part of Illyriad and any well run alliance. However the lack of mutual "code of conduct" or "fixed ruleset" between the confederated forces, opens a new... "self awareness" for the game. An awareness where "detached" individuals can team up to intimidate or remove players with no one to answer to - no pre-established code of conduct - no contact, and on alliance level little or no trust. When no one takes "the final responsability" how am I to believe Illyriad is heading in the right direction, and when I pour so much time and money into it why would I accept that Consone are doing what they do? The part I wish to emphasize is, that it is not a problem that the members of Consone wish to contest H?, but its a problem they are cutting some very important corners to become competitive. Alliances takes time to properly build, nurture, structure and develope, but instead to "detach" the players essentially reducing them to...troops/fodder/whathaveyou and eliminating a vital part of ingame relations is not the future for this game. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 22:41
| Over time Hadus you will see how it all works, all you will be able to form opinion and gatherenough knowlage best way it can be done.By your own experience.You will also see in time that like you said there is third explanation which is most important of all.And that is that same rules are aplied diferently depending on which alliance you are in.So gameplayer was closest to Illy reality with explanation that most important things are personal relations.For exmpl you can if needed siege town of leader of independent alliance without any sanctions with excuse that you dont like him if you are in right team, and if you are in wrong team you can kill few troops in order to defend confeds mine from agresion and find your self in huge war.Remember nothing is black and white.Knowing the rules is not the same as predicting how will they be used or abused. |
Posted By: Grego
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 22:56
|
If X player is constantly collecting hides which belong to Y hunters, and X leaders don't care or don't find time to deal with it, Y alliance have right to send raids and thieves to that X player, taking compensation with force. If they start retaliate against random X members, they probably believe in their superiority, and want to use poor excuse for escalation of violence. I am surprised that skirmish is so rare in Illy. Players and alliances are too eager to use artillery, even for smallest quarrel. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 23:07
| I love the games of thrones! |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 23:24
Some weird things in these questions: 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. I don't see why an alliance would invite disaster by having a loose gun walking around like that, and having the general rule that members can do as they damn please tend to give alliances a bad rep. It just strikes me as being too implausible, and besides (from the players perspective) - if you're doing something your alliance friends won't backup and will not lend you support in case of a war - why be in an alliance at all then? Alliance Y, which believes alliances operate a single unit, retaliates against multiple members of Alliance X. Now isn't it fair to assume the alliance leaders would have been in contact prior to these attacks? Would Alliance X have the opportunity to inform alliance Y of Alliance politics before it would result in attacks? I think your example slightly pre-concieved. Cheers |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 23:45
|
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2013 at 00:05
|
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...
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2013 at 00:15
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.
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2013 at 01:20
|
Here's my thinking reduced to simple Idioms: Birds of a feather flock together (hehe, Crows love that!) You know a fella by looking at who he runs with. If you lay with dogs, expect fleas.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2013 at 05:11
|
In my experience (which is limited to PvP oriented alliances) autonomy is necessary. Without it, members do not stick around for very long. Having said that I must also state that given the fact we are trying to band together for the common good, autonomy must be limited. These limits are somewhat arbitrary but in general, I believe one cannot act in a way that would bring negative consequences upon the alliance as a whole. This approach presupposes some amount of intelligence in the membership. For example, one would assume an intelligent player would not harass others just for fun. When such things happen, leadership must take action. To ignore it is to invite trouble. In the OP's example, the alliance whose member damaged another player and does nothing but restate the autonomy of their member has dropped the ball. To say "we do not interfere because our members are autonomous" is an attempt to dodge the responsibility of leadership. As soon as the problem is brought to their attention leadership must try to decipher the situation and take action. One way or another, the alliance will be involved. Why wait until it gets out of control? Alliances need not worry about other alliances "rules of engagement" they simply need to act with integrity and intelligence. Once a member steps across a line and the leadership does not act, that alliance paints a target on its members. As tensions escalate the aggrieved alliance may indeed retaliate against members not previously involved whether it is a "good idea" or not. ------------- |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2013 at 06:06
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. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Loud Whispers
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2013 at 09:59
The moment a large organization can afford to reduce its constituents to just workers is the moment things go downhill.
|
Posted By: Hadus
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2013 at 06:06
|
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.
------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/157483" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2013 at 11:25
In the game, yes, in other aspects of leadership no. (but this impersonal detached nature of leadership in most RL regards is not a matter for discussion atm) I agree with most of the things Tordenkaffen said and I just want to add a slightly different thing which is that people should wonder from whence a leader comes and how/why his leadership continues .?. In plain words : "Why should we follow that person and not someone else" .?. There are many kinds of leaderships in this regard : - The leadership stemming from rank ( the easiest way ... the army, civil services, politics etc etc are run that way ) - The leadership stemming from wealth (politics and society usually ) - The leadership stemming from sheer charisma (can be aplied almost everywhere, but it is very rare) - The leadership stemming from knowledge ( companies and coalitions of some jobs can be run that way ) - The leadership stemming from friendship (the hardest kind to establish, the easiest one to lose) - The leadership stemming from strength (needs no further commnet :p ) In case someone wonders what's that got to do with the topic, the answer is "everything" ... depending on what kind of leader you are and from whence your leadership comes, you have a different style of leading and you are using different technics and applying different values. For instance : - A leader through rank, fears no reprimand or disobedience from his underlings so many leaders of that type are usually absurd in their notions of what they should ask from the people they lead. - A leader through strength will always fear the rise of his most prominent underlings and will always strive to be above them or might send them away or have them "fall from grace" - A charismatic leader, after a time, knows that if even if he is wrong people will follow so he might get a bit sloppy and careless which is dangerous in the long run. - A leader of weath will just pay other for fixing all his problems instead of thinking how to avoid creating problems. - A leader through friendship will always have a Damoclean Sword over his head and will constantly worry if he displeased his friends and if they are really better off following him and that it why I said that it is the hardest kind to espablish and easiest to lose. Also, it is the longest one to establish, because friendships take time. Also there is the matter of what kind of leadership is DEMANDED from you due to the situation. Imagine being in the army (which demands leading by rank) and trying to lead with friendship !? ("hey guys, let us dig up this trench - naaah later dude we are bored now" ) Or being a captain in a ship and trying to lead with wealth (you'd better know how to swim ! :p ) Or how about being a civil servant and trying to lead through strength .?. ( hello lawsuits ! ) In this regard, leaders or would be leaders of an alliance or a coalition of them, MUST have in mind what kind of leaders they are and what kind of leadership it is demanded of them. If you want me to go into particulars, Consone imho not only forgot that making the jump from one alliance to many, NEEDS at least an extra layer in the command chain ( http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/rhyagelle-responds-to-absaroke-aggression_topic4306_post55952.html?KW=platoon#55952" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/rhyagelle-responds-to-absaroke-aggression_topic4306_post55952.html?KW=platoon#55952 ) which is totally absent, but also that the key in leading a large number of people is the way you divide them in smaller groups ( in case you doubt this is not my idea, but a Sun Tzu teaching ). I 've read posts saying that they "suggested" to a player to do this or that, or stop attacking this and that player or stop pestering their harvesting fields .?. "Suggested" ... leadership by friendship .?. In a vast coalition of alliances or different people who are "friends" only in specific groups .?. Molding all those heterogenous groups together takes VAST AMOUNTS OF TIME, time which they didn't spend and instead, as Tordenkaffen aptly put they "cut corners" in haste to reach their goals. After all I said isn't it obvious that the idea is bound to fail and, to return to the topic, it would fail because there wouldn't REALLY be a central policy within the alliance or specific leaders that would take a decision that would then be executed accurately. ( recent example : http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/peace_topic4633_post60901.html?KW=#60901" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/peace_topic4633_post60901.html?KW=#60901 ) So, imho, leadership is not a matter of analysing specific situations or scenarios (because another aspect of leading is "crisis management" and such things rarely follow the "norm" and need improvisation and a cool head), but of deciding who, how, where and why someone leads and for what end.
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2013 at 17:51
|
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). |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2013 at 09:13
True.  I don't think that I fully covered all the categories (and said nothing about subcategories) and I welcome any addition.
Also true. As I said some types of leadership are not suitable for some particular endeavor where other types might thrive. Leadership by rank, by definition, never works on places were your subordinates can simply "pack up" and leave to a better place ( armies would have been quite funny in that case
 ), so yes, it doesn't really work in Illy. |