the nature of the crows
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=5268
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 04:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: the nature of the crows
Posted By: Angrim
Subject: the nature of the crows
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 13:31
|
after the unfortunate gc events of 6-OCT, i am moved to explain a few things about the crow confederation, to which i have belonged for two years. these are my own observations and conclusions. mock, argue, criticise, doubt, as you wish. they are posted here because it is the best way to disseminate this information across the illy public. i am happy to respond by igm to honest questions about them, but the forum has not demonstrated itself as a welcoming place for reasoned discussion, so i will not feel the need to respond to posts here. this may be long. it happens. if you're not that interested, don't read it. for those who were not there, the crows specifically and large confederations in general were accused of stifling the diplomatic atmosphere in illyriad by their existence and very nature. i expect to explain here why i don’t believe that announced, branded confederations (like the crows) have any effect on diplomacy that transcends the more usual arrangements between less obviously affiliated alliances, and to offer some basic information about the inner workings of the confederation that ought to allay some of the more fantastic fears i’ve heard. i made an assertion in gc that the crows are different from other confederations in that "the crows" as an entity is not a military confederation. each crow alliance, branding notwithstanding, has full autonomy. participation in the crows is fundamentally not about military support. we (the rooks) all understand that, as a practical matter, if we want the support of the entire confederation in a confrontation we will need to demonstrate that we have behaved responsibly; specifically, that we are in the right. this has a very calming effect on traditional crow diplomacy: one can be quite sure that an unprovoked attack on a crow alliance will be met with stiff resistance and confederation support, but aggressive actions by crow wings may not command the same response. a crow alliance leader who wishes to take the crows to war must be both persuasive and competent, and have the best of causes. instead, "the crows" is what i would call a cultural alliance. we have some shared values. i will try to capture a few:
thus the crows for two years and prior has been a haven for the casual and the quirky, crafters, traders, tournament players, etc., but not generally for those with an interest in PvP. the crow philosophy simply does not offer those players the opportunities they crave in the game. outside of the basic cultural tenets of the crows are the many differences that make crow alliances unique and different from one another, and which sometimes cause friction within the confederation. for example, nCrow's Ursor Directive stated that they were prepared to defend beleaguered small alliances in the north from unwonted aggression. this was an nCrow initiative, and not related to the confederation at large. had the policy caused them trouble they couldn't handle, they might've requested assistance from the alliances of the confederation, but they would have received it at the discretion of those other alliances...just as they might have received it from any other local alliance. eCrow was not consulted on the Ursor Directive, and did not comment; we did not need to be consulted, because nCrow was acting independently, as was their right. that said, the policy was fundamentally contrary to eCrow's position that crow resources be used to defend only crows, so as to prevent the crows from stifling conflict between unaffiliated parties. just as we (eCrow) value the ability to offer casual players a place to build in safety, there must always be a place for PvP players to find what they seek in the game. nCrow knew our position, and would likely not have looked to eCrow for aid. so, then, each crow alliance is an individual alliance, and we do not check our differences at the rookery door, but rather agree on some broad principles and work out the details as they become problematic. someone will say, "yes, but Consone said the same thing." indeed, and whether or not you believed it probably depends on what side you took in the war that caused its demise. but consider that the crows do not create maps of their relative strength when compared to other power blocs, and we do not measure ourselves against them as Consone did. we do not need to be larger or stronger than other confederations; our goals are defensive, so we only need be large enough to deter aggression, so that we might be left alone. but since the predominance of crows are not military players, we must often be *significantly* larger to deter determined, militant alliances looking for a challenge than if we were composed of experienced PvPers. the crows' detractors know how misleading population can be in assessing military effectiveness, particularly when a large number of casual players are in the mix. there have been several attempts within the crows to specify, as Harmless? does regarding their confeds, what the confederation relationship means between crow alliances, and what exactly is being pledged. all of these efforts have failed because above all the crow alliances prize two rights: freedom of association and freedom of conscience. there is no authority in the confederation that inducts a new member; a crow alliance becomes a crow alliance by acclamation and acceptance of each existing crow alliance, so alliances whose leaders who do not inspire confidence across the increasingly wide range of opinions and personalities are not accepted as crow wings. it is not a centralised process, nor is it a process that occurs in a chatroom with two or three rooks making a decision binding upon us all. this would seem to be fundamentally different from what i have heard of Consone. there is also no authority that can command a wing to war outside of its own leadership. each alliance makes that decision for itself, in response to a request from another alliance within the confederation. what is *not* being pledged is unconditional support in time of war--or, as H? puts it, "B shall not include or involve A when B are being jackasses". the commitment between crow wings is considerably looser, in fact, than the agreement H? publishes as their confederation agreement, as any military assistance is always considered on a case-by-case basis. the presumption is that assistance will be rendered, but that is based on the presumption of responsibility by the requesting alliance. there is a third right that helps to explain one last aspect of the crows: the right to fail. this is why crow wings sometimes appear, languish, and disappear, and why we're not fussed about how many there are. for many good players, founding or leading an alliance is a goal of their time in illyriad, and common to all of the crow tenets is that the game should be fun for each player. as a result, crow wings are fairly regularly expanding, collapsing, merging, and recombining in various ways, to suit the number of leaders available and the current goals and understanding of the players represented. there is normally much wailing about this process in gc (by one of three or four players, the same ones every time), but since the crow players involved are generally the same players before and after any split or merger (the recent creation of vCrow being an exception), i can't imagine why it would be important to anyone to restrict it, or why one configuration should seem to anyone more threatening than another. there has been much loose and careless talk of late between the crows and our detractors--or, possibly, much carefully orchestrated talk that is the product of long-simmering resentments and rivalries. whichever, i don't think the idea that the crows ("large confeds") stifle diplomacy in illyriad by their structure has any merit, but if it ever did the information above ought to put it to rest. if that charge is to be laid to the crows' account, it ought to be based on crow conduct, not merely on the crows' size and existence. (edited to add a bit of whitespace to an otherwise very dense post.) |
Replies:
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 16:13
I feel for the Crow Fed.  If the Crow Fed feels they will be attacked then past history shows that posts like this (however persuasive) will sway few potential attackers. The only thing that will stop this attack and deter future attacks is a vigorous (and successful) defense.If a serious attack comes, it will be an attack on the confederation system. Just like the [attack on/defense from] Consone. Nobody goes into a conflict of that magnitude for any other reason (despite the GC and Forum chatter). The fact is, despite their differences both Consone and Crows were/are large confederations of alliances that did/do deter attacks (for legitimate or illegitimate reasons) from all but the largest, most well coordinated sources. From the perspective of a small or moderate size alliance considering conflict, both the Crows and Consone were equally daunting and thus equally stifling. The Crow's larger size would appear to make it more stifling (difficult to defeat), but it's less organized structure and more casual player base probably means it is less of a threat than Consone. That is likely the reason Consone was [attacked/defended] first. The more active Consone may have assisted the Crow Fed if the Crow Fed had been attacked earlier. There are strategic reasons for this ordering. Unless the Crow Fed coordination is much higher than I guess it to be (and this post indicated it is) I would advise Crow Fed members who believe an attack is coming and do not want to be attacked to leave the Crow Fed and join other alliances. That is especially true for large players without large armies near the anticipated attacker (NC, H?, whoever else they are aligned with today) cities. I do not encourage the weakening of the Crow Fed, but as the OP states, not all Crow Fed players are interested in war and those players poorly positioned will clearly feel the brunt of the Crow losses with little commensurate benefit for the group. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 17:09
From which side did you "heard of Consone?"  Setting aside that point, I wonder what the philosophy of that statement is. Were you saying that consone alliances deserved to be destroyed because their leadership structure was different from that of crows?  Man if you fall, some people will treat you like doormat Just kidding |
Angrim wrote:Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 17:14
| puke puke puke and more puke...winks at the cute guys in kcrows |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 17:25
|
by way of clarification, i am not attempting to dissuade anyone from attacking the crows (though i will not be opposed if the post has that effect). i am attempting to answer a charge against the confederation system using the crows as an example, both because it was used as an example in gc and because i have some familiarity with it. i do sometimes read the forums. if i were to attempt to dissuade someone from an attack on the crows, i would certainly not do it by posting here. |
Posted By: WeeAshley
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 17:54
------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/226073" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: st aug
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 19:23
| Group #1 is different from group#5. Group #3 or player can do are say what ever they want and the hole alliance is free . The truth is there all the same . You cant have your cake and eat it to . It's doesn't work like that. Anybody or group under them same name or flag is all one and the same . No such thing as separate. That's b.s. and dead wrong . Same with your confeds that's your ally and what ever they do it's on you too. [autonomy] sorry no such thing as a free pass in either case . |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 20:32
|
Lots of interesting info here - thanks for posting. I"m gonna start by saying that I have a lot of respect for the crowfed and many of it's wings. It's an interesting model and one that seems to work well. However I do disagree with some of the statements made above Firstly, to claim that being large is not intimidating is blinkered at best and disingenious PR at worst. In reality there is no way an individual alliance can fail to consider that if things go south over an incident with someone it might involve their entire set of confeds. So whether you like it or not there is intimidation which colors diplomacy with large confeds. Secondly, even if being large in itself did not cause intimidation there are always specific instances of more direct intimidation - hence the disagreement on Oct 6th you mentioned. Thirdly, it matters not whether a group of confeds consider things on a case-by-case basis if the information provided in a specific case is biased/twisted to begin with. Most folk in this game have the ability to describe situations in the most favorable of terms (an some in outright fantasy terms) which means confeds can find themselves in a war they think is just when it really isn't and there's nothing the victim can do about it. FYI - I'm not saying that H? doesn't have the same "large" problem by being #1 and having a reputation for military competancy (although I bet there are better alliances out there pound for pound). But it's something that we explicitly acknowledge and try to mitigate. ------------- "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: Angrim
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 23:45
|
obliged, and acknowledged. if being large were not itself intimidating, crows would not bother to confed at all, so if i've overstressed that aspect of the argument allow me to acknowledge it. the argument was made that the structure of a large confed is bad for the game; i am not arguing that a large confed could not be bad, or chilling to Elgean diplomacy, but rather that it need not be; that the crow structure, philosophy, and composition have some specific features that ought to deter that effect; and that the actual threat achieved by a large confed is no more or less than that achieved by a single competent alliance with many good relationships. regarding specific instances, i hope the OP is clear that they are well worth discussing in their contexts and not at all addressed here. i am not in receipt of anything that i know to have provoked the 6-OCT discussion, so i can only assume they do not involve eCrow. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 00:15
|
I see the point Angrim is attempting to get across in this thread and assuming everything disclosed about the way the Crow Confederation is organized is accurate, I accept it. A group of alliances tied together in name because they have a few common ideals is fairly innocuous. I do believe there is a "chilling" effect, as some have stated but that seems to me to be the actual point of a confederation anyway. I have no reason to doubt what Angrim says about how the separate Crow alliances are governed. I've spoken to more than a few Crow members in the 2 years I have been here, from all levels of power and from multiple alliances. None of them have even eluded to any sort of dictatorial presence in any of the alliances much less in Crowfed as a whole. I suppose this post will give the impression of me being a Crow apologist. I do have some friends who happen to be Crows. I also know some other Crows who are just nasty people and I know some who fall in between these two extremes. Crows are indeed "everywhere". It's hard not to know a few Crows. Hell, my second account WAS a Crow for a little while. I think that may be the issue many have with Crows. That is that they are so numerous. They could, indeed completely control the game should they want to. That type of power in the hands of a few malevolent players has previously wreaked havoc in Illy. In the case of the massive Crowfed, it could literally destroy the game, however I don't believe that can happen. The Crow Confederation is just nowhere near centralized enough. One of the examples Angrim mentioned to illustrate the differences within the confederation was nCrow's Ursor Directive. To me, it seems like it would be right up Crowfed's alley. Small, unaffiliated players getting harassed by bully alliances will be protected by nCrow. Pretty straight forward on the face of it but apparently some Crows disagreed. Of course, nCrow never presented it as a Crow directive and Angrim explained why his own alliance disagreed with the policy. Certainly, if there were a central power in Crowfed, such a policy would have been unnecessary for nCrow to articulate. It would have been Crow policy long before TRIVIUM was formed. If it were not Crow policy, nCrow would have been unable to create their own, independent policy being a member of a centralized Crowfed. I know that is a rather simplistic way to look at it but I believe it is pretty accurate. For a member alliance to feel it can freely implement such policies at will, the control the confederation has over its members must be fairly relaxed. Well, there you have it. I'm a Crow lackey. wonka's gonna overthrow me. Anyone looking for a rhetoric spewing warmonger to add to their alliance roles? ------------- |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date 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..." |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date 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 |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date 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. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Hora
Date 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...
 |
Posted By: Redfist
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 11:18
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.
|
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 14:21
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.
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?.
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? |
Posted By: Prares
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 14:35
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.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 14:52
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 |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 14:55
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 |
Posted By: Wolfgangvondi
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 17:05
|
Come on... every one Knows the crows are evil. And every one know's there's only thing to do. crush them to oblivion! Just stop to think for an minute: 1. Ther banner is a crow. Crows are as every one knows, in nature, littel pesky thiefs ... In symbolism signs of death or evil. 2. They attacked me when i was an littel Orc, just cuz i was attaking repeatably an crow member to "farm" him. Yes they did ask me first to stop it. But they still attaked me when i refuse to stop. And after they clean my troops out, and after i surrender(agree to stop attaking.. oky i was out of troops by them) they send an gift (of more tham i stole and lose in the fights all together). The gift was ofc to humiliate me. The bastards. 3. Normally when ther is an incident somewhere, somehow, and alliances start to jump in to start a mutch mutch larger conflict, crows stays out. (The nerve of them thinking that they can simply go on ther business and ignore the "world". ) 4. They are many, and like it was already said, The human condition (even if they think that they are birds) demands that for that alone they are evil, OR theres like two or three elements among them that are evil and so, we must squatch them! Preaty much what happens when you are the top alliance whit the bigger armys... same thing. Lot of number = evil. Lot of Armys = evil, Number one = evil. I just love this logic, makes things simple for us Orcs. 5. They are keeping me here against my will. Please come save me! It may be others, so be prepared. 6.Don't say to any of them that i said this. note: This are my opinions and my opinions alone, others in crows or otherwise might already have been brainwash and really think that we can still manege to have the crow family in illy and not totally ruin the entire game for each and every one that does not goes in the sunset cawing... the fools. lets crush them too.
------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/21645" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 17:06
There's indeed a perception that this is true. When a belligerent player from the Crows, Harmless, Consone starts stomping around in GC, people just assume that they are speaking with the full force of several million troops. Fortunately (or unfortunately) that's an Illyriad urban myth. In 90% of the conflicts I have seen, a courteous e-mail to that player's alliance leadership has resolved the problem quickly and fairly. Where people have failed to get problems resolved, it's usually one of two things. Many send rude or confrontational IGMs to alliance leaders. Taking the dispute to GC or the forums will just cause a confusing pile-on that aggravates everyone, making the situation extra hard to resolve. That's painting your cause in the worst possible light. The other common mistake is demanding an immediate response. Even if the alliance leader reads your IGM (and their inboxes are quite full), a good leader will still take the time to get the full story from their own team. Illyriad is a slow game. Conflict resolution can take several days. Being impatient just frustrates everyone. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 17:34
Dwarven Lords is your only declared confederation. They are certainly not the only ally of Harmless. I have no objection to secret alliances--indeed, in many cases I find them more sensible than public declarations of allegiance--but this claim of "only one confed" is spurious and getting rather stale. Regarding size, several wars have demonstrated that total alliance population is a poor proxy for fighting ability. I'd argue that even total troop count is a poor predictor of victory. Among its friends, Harmless numbers several of the most battle-hardened alliances from the Trove War. That's a valuable asset to oppose the potential tsunami of snuggling.
Illyriad is a sandbox game. Benevolent smothering is one of the many possible outcomes. Illy is likely biased in that direction by its large population of Australian, Canadian, American and British players. It is further propelled towards peace by requiring the patience and time investment of a city-building game. That said, uCrow just declared war on NC. It seems safe to assume that the Benevolent Smothering outcome is off the table, at least for a while longer. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 17:56
|
to abstract's point, what cannot be established is not the number of incidents dealt with, but the number of incidents not brought to the alliance leaders. part of my effort to demystify here is to encourage players who have experienced issues with the crows to bring them to the alliances involved. not all will be satisfied with the results, but that is the nature of disagreements. i have encountered one concerning situation that fits the profile. eCrow encouraged a player to go to another alliance because we felt, after several weeks, that he was a poor fit for the organisation. upon his transfer, i received igm from an unaffiliated player inquiring if he had been dismissed because he'd been repeatedly attacking him. of course we made that right and passed the word to the other crow wings, but there is no way to know how many other such incidents there may have been. the argument from silence is a weak one. so, acknowledged, but i don't see the problem as being confined to a large confed. rogue players happen even in small alliances, and while one's chances of going undetected may be better in a larger organisation, the resources and mechanisms to deal with the problem are also greater, and the rogue runs a corresponding risk of running afoul of his former allies--which, if they are intimidating to outsiders, ought to be intimidating also to him. the real issue, it seems, is not the size or military competency of the organisation, but its reputation for and willingness to take and consider evidence from aggrieved parties, and to deal with them fairly. |
Posted By: Janosch
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 18:00
I think this question is fair and not answered now.
------------- You like Democracy? Join the http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic3448_post42792.html#42792" rel="nofollow - Old Republic ! |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 18:29
|
Seems to me that the Crows(of any feather) want their old role back as the in-between guys while others went gungho on eachother. They have so far done good job steering clear of the worst of the trouble. They would be able to continue doing so indefinitely if not for that single little difference that now they are in some aspects of the Illyriad world "the man". If not by vitue of military strength then by any other measure of magnitude and influence as the CrowFed has grown quite comprehensive with more social interaction and conflicts to follow. Whichever frustration, injustice or the like, directed at a crowfed alliance will cast the same reflection on the Crowfed Entity as a whole. Grievances are unavoidable on this scale. Bottom line I think, the Crows should find a better way of administering their federal policies so that they avoid entangling themselves in trivial conflicts, or/and simply be more restrictive about the Crow Federation - i.e. reduce the maximum number of alliances within. This would facilitate communication with other alliances. Id like to hear from ScottFitz on the matter. ------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 19:43
I find people that feel the need to project their own pettiness to others, very funny ...  ... especially when they use fake accounts to hide their accusations.To the point now, I have no idea what happened in Oct 06, but I find Angrim's post very eloquent and very interesting too. Imho it states more or less the unconscious idea that most people have about Crows and that is quite nice. Thank being said, indeed I will agree with people that claim that Crows and Consone are totally different in many aspects. Besides, in the Consone war I actually used the CrowFed as a positive example of how such things should have been done. The way I see it, every large or small collection of people have their occasional "bad fruits" and all these years the Crows have proven that they have good enough caretakers and leaders to locate and eventually either straighten or weed out the people that did not fit to their ideals and the way the CrowFed thinks and works, as Angrim explained. So, if something is wrong or something is out of the ordinary I expect it to be reported to the CrowFed leaders and eventually worked out calmly and fairly. Just like every other time (or at least that is my impression of their efficiency on such matters :) ).
Well, I am fine with "Benevolent smothering", but no hugs for me please  |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 19:44
| Torden, you seem to have missed Angrim's original point. The Crow family is a true confederation. It is not a hierarchy. There are not any "federal policies" to administer to the whole, beyond some broadly shared guiding principles. |
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2013 at 04:38
|
Just to further highlight Angrim's point about the lack of rigid structure or monolithic unity within the Crowfed, at the time Harry declared the "Ursor Directive" , I was a rook of both Crow and nCrow, I was totally unaware Harry was going to post what he did, and despite the fact I believe he did so in order to support a very minor tussle I was involved in, neither I nor Rill, or Cookieman ever discussed it beforehand. It was a very organic (and intended to be benevolent, even if its message was likely, and understandably misunderstood) spur of the moment act by the master rook of nCrow, there was certainly no input from other wings... there wasn't even any from within nCrow ... but it goes to highlight that what perceptions there may be on the outside, sometimes the reality is quite different ... and very much less evil or maniacal .... .. in the end, there was no horrific oppression of the masses, no stiffling of the expansion of other alliances within Ursor or elsewhere... and even those who railed against the original post , have to look back at it now and realize it was part of no master grand evil plan to either ruin Illy or rule the world ... .. just the 2 cents of wisdom from someone who really is very much trying to be a disinterested 3rd party ... if only Ditto would stop dragging me back in.... (reminds me of a scene from Godfather...)... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Miradamian
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2013 at 14:45
|
On confederations in general and with no concern or relevance to Crows. I do believe confederation is a political power bloc tool. I agree with the above notions that the offset effects of power blocs is only at the discretion of those few in high influence over such a power bloc. But as we have seen in RL coalition and power bloc building it does arise i.e personality cults where feedback to powerful elite influencors deminish over time in fear of the cost from fallout with these/ this person(s). This one of the most serious negative developments a confederation can have. Stalin is one example and his cult turned so acidy for feedback that there is a Hotel in Moscow built in two architectural styles because Stalin approved plans containing two seperate ideas without reading them...nobody deared to tell him of his mistake (Please do check this story and come back to me with confirmation or falsification. It is still a good story that I have heard and I find it worth sharing until I know better). Clearly, Illyriad is not yet so acid in terms of influencive players and feedback/ social dynamics between layers of players throughout hierarchies. But this is no guarantee this same political dynamics can occur. There is a romour that a political scientist is writing an article about Illyriad politics, so attention may be given to this and other effects. Both informal and formal confederations share the same dynamics. So I cannot in this strict theoretical framework see any difference between Illyriad domination by informal confederational structures or the declared formal ones. They are potentially equally dangerous, but it is also naive to think they should not arise at all. However, the mere fact they exist (informal or formal) is not a cause in itself to go to war or hostile actions against it. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2013 at 18:29
|
if the crowfed goes to war the the harm group i will help them out...take that as u want but we really need some major action in this game and we have to quit waiting and depending on the devs for playing interest....pvp should give the most fun and biggest challege.....shakes her behind at harm and nc
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2013 at 19:28
|
Are you Miley Cyrus in real life?
------------- "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: ES2
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2013 at 20:37
When Miley Cyrus is naked and licks a hammer, it is "art" and "music". when I do it, I am "drunk" and have to "leave Home Depot". ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2013 at 20:56
At least credit Reddit for that ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/26125" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2013 at 21:02
Another Redditor!
 ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 00:31
| no i am more like taylor swifts evil twin, declare on the crows poodle, lets get this game rockin! |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 04:06
taylor swift with a 44" wide bottom... as my grandpa would say - 2 axe handles wide :P Back on topic... Confed Power Blocks...are they harmful to Illy, and should there be less of it? More during the 5pm news broadcast! ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Sir A
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 04:31
|
Thank you Angrim for demystifying The Crows a little for those who think we are evil plotters planning on taking over Illyriad. The truth is we owe no one an explanation for our mere existence. But since that is what this topic is about let me briefly explain something. If you feel threatened by the Crowfed in some way that is your own perception. We really are just peaceful players and wish the best for everyone in Illyriad. If you don't believe me then please give an example where a Crowfed alliance has bullied you/someone and what the outcome was. We have done and continue to do our best to stay out of wars. That is not because we are all cowards, but because we wish to endorse peace in Illyriad. That is just how we roll. We could have easily joined either side in the Consone/Coalition war and probably changed the outcome of the war, but we chose to stay out because it did not concern us and we did not want to make it any messier than it already was. I have personally kicked multiple players from KCrow because their play style did not match that of the Crowfed (they attacked without cause/trolling in GC etc.,). If you want to fight war after war you are more than welcome to and we will not hold that against anyone as that is one way to play this awesome game. Just do not try to drag us in. We will defend what we stand for vigorously if it comes to that but we always try our best to deal with things diplomatically (and I'm not talking about thieves/sabs )Believe it or not, that is the truth. ~Sir Angus
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 05:25
|
Actually Sir A - some crows were ready to get into the Consone war on the side of H? but we asked them to stay out to try to keep things fair numbers wise... ------------- "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: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 05:27
| Lol |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 07:49
Whilst that is true there where more who wanted to join the other side (at least amongst Crow [now vCrow]), however the leadership ensured no-one was involved in either side. Due to the construct of the Crow alliance and our open attitude toward membership and game play, we have members with a very broad spectrum of friends across many alliances and confederations. This is most probably the main factor which has always motivated us to stay out of any major warfare. |
Posted By: Redfist
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 11:18
 btw ... The name's Braggie. James Braggie.... I was the one who caught the Starry account researching "Crowfed" on the forum the day before Angrim wrote his opening post ....( cue   |
Posted By: Wolfgangvondi
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 13:04
|
You humans and elfs (and some times dwarfs too) are so complicated. We orcs when we fell threated by some neighbor we just attack and get over whit it. Or when we don't like some one, we also attack. When we don't like what someone or group does, or the way they think.. attack. If we dont like the way they look at us.. you guess it... attack! Even if we do like some we sometimes still attack them... just for fun and after battle friendship. (How i wish i was still young...) Humans and elfs are always complicating the simplest things in life. Don't tell me you (humans and so own..) also go the argument/talk way when you are interested in an lady instead of just bashing her in the head and carrier her in shoulders to your "Hut".. ? Loved the poodle.. got one myself.. i mean.. for lunch.. ofc. Yes i know my post din't actually add nothing to the topic, but i guess nor must of the others posts.. since like someone already told, theres something not quite right when an alliance has to explain is mere existence. (why can't be and let be?) My point of view like always is my own only. Also, even if i do advocated aggression some times, please don't attack me. I need an extra year or two to make some bunny's... I meant, army's. Also, I'm just an SCH Spy, so not really a Crow (i don't even know how to fly, yes i tried already din't go well). But don't say them that i said that. My best fri.. hum..lunch...  ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/21645" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Grego
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 13:26
|
Posted By: Sir A
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2013 at 04:21
"We have done and continue to do our best to stay out of wars." As I said we do our best to stay uninvolved just as H? does from what I have seen. There was talk of the Crowfed joining in near the end when it seemed like it would never end but that was mostly hearsay as far as I know. I can tell you that when the conflict first began we had a leadership meeting and agreed unanimously that we would stay out of it and we encouraged our members not to say anything about either side in GC but if they simply could not resist we told them to make it clear that their statements were their own and not the official stance of the Crowfed. Either way we did not get involved so there is that. That being said, do you think the Crowfed is a threat to H? or any other alliance in Illyriad and if so, why? Examples of Crows bullying would be great.
|
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2013 at 05:58
|
To be fair, there were people within Crow, much like the rest of Illy, some who favored Consone and some who favored H?, I do not think there was a consensus either way, especially given the greatly divergent views within the various wings. both KP's perspective and Sir A's are correct likely based on those with whom they had the most connection . . . it is nearly impossible to paint the crowfed with a single brush . . . -------------
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2013 at 05:59
| He didn't say anyone was bullying. He implied that Crowfed's size and play style are stifling PvP warfare in Illyriad. I think the time investment and community sentiment have more to do with the absence of constant war than any organized snuggle brigade. Even though the community might frown upon wars, that hasn't stopped a bunch of alliances from punching each other senseless this year. |
Posted By: Sir A
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2013 at 14:01
How is the Crowfed stifling PvP warfare in Illyriad? As I've said before we do not interfere in other alliances' wars so any alliance can fight any non-Crow alliance and we will not interfere or judge them. The best example is probably the recent Consone war. Could we have joined either side? Yes. But we stayed out. There have been countless wars since Illyriad started and not once has the Crowfed jumped in. So I don't see why people think we are the Illy Police (we are more like the U.N. ) or how the Crowfed is preventing PvP from happening. The only thing the existence of the Crowfed might be discouraging is PvP warfare vs Crow alliances. But we are a loose confederation so that does not necessarily mean that if an alliance attacks a Crow alliance the entire Confed would declare on that alliance. We really do deal farily with diplomatic issues. Which by definition makes us a defensive Confederation. I think large Confederations actually add more complexity to the political environment in Elgea. And of course there are more Confederations out there than just the Crowfed. Unfortunately most of them choose to remain 'secret' until something happens.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2013 at 15:23
Um, no again. There is no hearsay about it, it is a fact.
That may be true, however many folk in this thread seem to be speaking on behalf of the entire crowalition ("The crowfed does this" , "the crowfed did that") and in that context they are painting themselves with a single brush. ------------- "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: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2013 at 15:46
You'd have to ask the people proposing that idea.
Sir A, this entire thread exists because a crow alliance has declared war on a non-crow alliance. uCrow was allied with the Celtic Knights, and has voluntarily entered their war with the Night Crusaders. uCrow declared war after a very heated verbal exchange between Tamaeon and Sir Bradly several days ago. I fully support the right of every alliance to fight on behalf of their friends. I don't know why any alliance, including Crow alliances, would apologize for that. |
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2013 at 16:07
Well, fortunately or unfortunately, I no longer speak as leadership of anything other than the "Bloc Quebecois" faction within vCrow, so take nothing I say as gospel of anything more than my own perspective. . . -------------
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2013 at 16:16
Is that a kind of cheese? ------------- "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: Sir A
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2013 at 16:58
That may be true, however many folk in this thread seem to be speaking on behalf of the entire crowalition ("The crowfed does this" , "the crowfed did that") and in that context they are painting themselves with a single brush. I wonder what color brush that is  . I am not a spokesperson for the entire Crowfed by any means but I know the principles we stand for and was merely making it public since some people seem to be so interested.
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2013 at 21:43
i think the discussion has run its course, but as a point of information, this thread precedes uCrow's declaration and was made in response to theoretical statements made in gc. events afterward cannot really be said to be a reason for the OP; at best, my post and uCrow's declaration were spawned by a common cause (6-OCT). |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2013 at 11:13
|
Loves reading someone else's thread get hijacked! Consistancy is important!
------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2013 at 06:30
|
Speaking for the Crowalition ... good luck finding anyone who can speak for the Crowalition. Crows are defined more by common caws than common cause ...
|
Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 00:23
Well, as a
long time member of The Crows I’m a bit shaked and frustrated ti read this
tread and this last quote in particular.
Maybe as an
old fashinned Crow I didn’t saw my world evolve but I always thought that all
the new crow alliance was created to expand the number of our friends by
breaking the regular limit of a single alliance membership and so, in the
end... let’s dare it: expend our power. Be the best. Rule the wold, say it as
you wish that part is just a point of view...
So I really
believed that we had a common cause. Basicaly, protect each other no matter
what and help each other grow and prosper. I believed that the name we share,
that I’m so proud of wearing, bound us to each other.
If a Crow
alliance do not believe in a common cause that bind us in the crowfed, then
just let your crow name away. Cause you just don’t deserve it. A starting Crow
alliance certainly is happy to be sure to not being bullyed by any other just
because they are Crow labelled. And they are certainly happy too to use the
Crows notoriety to recruit new players easily. So you have an easy start thanks
to the name that all the prior Crow alliances have allow you to use and you
think that it is not a must to be at one with the rest of your familly? Really,
I’m so sad to read it...
So ok,
maybe I’m just an elder in the Crowfed who have not seen his world changing. Maybe
I just have to adapt myself...
But it
isn’t what I’ve signed for at first... Do you?
Respectfully, Capricorne. |
Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 00:30
| @ Rill: I know you were just picturing a situation there so keep cool, I didn't want to throw it at you but just express some of my feelings here ;) |
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 03:18
| I too, Capricorne, yearn for an older vision of what it meant to be a Crow |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 09:44
|
I think the point to the original post made here; is not that we do not stand united, more that the Crows operate in a manner through which we are united when there is just cause. In my opinion this pattern has helped Crows grow to a strong size, whilst preventing our confederation from harboring and defending bully-gamers. This stands in stark contrast to other power blocks within Illy, as they generally attract and recruit members who merely wish to take advantage of an alliances / confederations size, strength and aggression; therefore allowing them to take advantage of other, unaligned players. This thread was started because a certain faction within Illy was trying to paint a picture through GC propaganda that the Crows were a threat to smaller players or alliances, however I would say that overall it is clear that this was nothing but a poor attempt with no background as there has been nothing presented here to back up that argument, or counter the claim published here that the Crow family is overall a peaceful block within Illyria. However, with this in mind people should take care in regards to our confederation, as has been made clear; we do have a policy to stand united when faced with aggression or threats. Disclaimer: this is merely from personal opinion I am not even a mouthpiece for vCrow and as has been clarified there is no central spokesperson for our entire federation. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 13:20
|
Crowfed is a coalition for mutual defense, with an emphasis on casual gamer membership. Voluntarily entering a war is not defense. If all wings are expected to fight, then all wings must be consulted prior to entering battle, and a consensus must be reached. Otherwise one wing could commit all the others to war without their prior consultation or consent, and that doesn't make any sense. If uCrow had been attacked, I think every wing would have declared war without hesitation and rallied to their defense. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 15:17
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 15:19
You mean aside from the fact that a certain crow wing is currently pursuing an unjustified personal vendetta at 5:1 odds in their favour, trying their hardest to escalate it and until recently was expecting a bunch of other crow wings to back them up? ------------- "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: Capricorne
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 15:42
|
? Er... The rest aside, do you mean that one needs to be backed when fighting at 5:1 odds? Well, if one need it, one just deserve what he'll get don't you think?
|
Posted By: AZADICAN
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 16:26
|
Is it just me or has someone else also this feeling that some people are looking for reasons to drag all Crows into a war for a new World War? (Haven't we seen this scenario before?)
------------- 
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 16:45
The only propaganda here is your blatant attempt to spin a perfectly logical argument into some sort of justification for hostilities. I very clearly laid out my point in GC. Namely that I was concerned about more and more and more wings being added as it could have a stifling effect upon Illy. Small players and alliances don't necessarily know that the Crows don't attack and understandably have the impression that they need to give in in any sort disagreement with any Crowalition member. Larger alliances and players, myself included, know that the Crows never attack others (unless that is perhaps changing now if one were to believe recent rumours) and have nothing to fear. Quite the opposite. As I mentioned SEVERAL times in GC, I count many Crowalition members as close friends. So please leave the coolaid at home and don't try to drag this honorable Crow institution into what would become, in your case, your fourth lesson in how to lose a war. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 17:16
|
imo, this has been a largely productive discussion amid a very tense time in the game itself. i respectfully suggest that we not try to guess one another's motives and restrict the conversation to what has actually been said and done. the assumption of motive has been the cause of many misunderstandings already, and will tend to take us down the road of personal invective with which forum regulars are all too familiar. |
Posted By: Aristeas
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 17:24
|
I think it is common sense that someone with wrong perceptions and assumptions (in this case assming the crows are a thread, wait, threat^^) arrives at wrong conclusions (in this case giving in where you are right). But the conclusion can´t be anticipatory obedience to the ones that err and don´t know (otherwise you could claim that there shouldn´t be troops allowed because some people may not know how to build them or other strange conclusions. In the same vein it could be claimed that by winning almost every single tourney H? discourages taking part in those because you could think that you have no chance against them... Wrong perception, wrong conclusion, so no one could reasonably say you shouldn´t win tourneys anymore) but education, what was done or at least tried by Angrim and others in their statements...
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 17:31
Good point. I apologize for being strident. It's not easy sometimes to not become fired up when one is wrongfully accused but that isn't an excuse. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 18:14
| actually the crowfed might be a threat to active game playing and definitely limits individual play style, it represents the reason why many players want a limit of the number of nap and confeds allowed in the game...but as it is, i am now a secret crow...good luck seeing any changes to limit the numbers of crowfed members! accept it as part of our game! |
Posted By: Wolfgangvondi
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 19:58
|
Woot? Theres "secret Crows"? I want to be one of them! Sounds too cool! (but, I still can't fly) ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/21645" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 07:02
Have all parties involved publicly acknowledged their participation or is their still a secret society out there much like the Soup/Coal war? My reason for asking is some noted curious attack/defence stats recently in herald and perhaps some strategic alliance membership changes. In light of this, perhaps the odds are a little more clouded than we may perceive KP.
|
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 15:02
This is a war game. Of course there are things going on that grunts like me and most of the players are totally unaware of, and thus all that remains is being true to your character and living the role. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 16:03
Well, if you believe Hath then there is a long list of large alliances just champing at the bit to get into a major server-wide war including your alliance :) FYI - 5:1 is now an underestimate... ------------- "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: Hora
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 16:50
|
Server wide war? ... sounds exciting! Didn't see one in a long time... /me gets comfy chair and start making popcorn... ... do Crows eat popcorn, too? Can have some, if they want
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 17:36
|
Maybe this just a question of the senior Crows joining together in 1 new main and 1 new wing and drop all the other wings. Would do wonders for the Crow brand itself to have a clear direction and sense of belonging, - it would rekindle the brand. My guess would be that the "Crow hangarounds" would be forced to rethink/restructure/shut down, their alliances - and this is good - would be helpful to the game, ensuring that as many active players as possible are gathered in a limited number of alliances making stuff happen and competing better. SF I always assumed you had the copyright to the whole Crow idea, - hence any restructuring would naturally have to start with you. If you're unhappy with the situation as it is I encourage you to speak out. Cheers *Edited due to poor use of the english language in general. ------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 18:40
/me nibbles on popcorn ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 21:10
Giieef!!! Caw!! |
Posted By: Lyken
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 22:36
With all due respect, Tordenkaffen, I do hope that no leader would agree to abandon all non-'senior' members of their alliance because someone thinks 'it's for the better'. The 100 player limit would result in many players being left out. Don't know about you, but I for one enjoy the company of all players in my alliances, and would not consider a merger if it meant leaving even one of them hanging. -------------  |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 23:34
Torden... are you actually asking from Crow to do voluntarilly, what you tried to force on Consone by a half year war?! Who are all those people in H? to tell other alliances how to organize their alliances?! You're talking to nearly a quarter of the server here... Due respect to H? all for being some of the most seniour players around, but HEY, so are many Crow players (and me, come to think of it...). Thus just being in the top alliance for a while doesn't show you all are any wiser than other players, just older Yes, shutting down the confed would be good... for H?... as they would be number 1 without a fight... Are you serious? ... OK... more calm: Yes, restructuring is a good thing, but I'm sure SF has a efficient brain himself. But shutting down all but 2 alliances? Really?
|
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 23:36
| /me hands over popcorn to ES2 and Tyrande |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 04:25
Cough... Rill Cough... 18 months of "You're evil and chould change" cough cough.... ------------- "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: Vanerin
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 05:08
|
H? emulating Rill?! /me finds a sturdy dwarf to hold onto while the world shakes Or is this tu quoque? /me lets go of sturdy dwarf...
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 05:11
No argument with that Grag.
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 05:14
Haven't heard that one KP but you guys have been number one long enough to be used to dealing with the challenges so doubt there's any concern. Odds are a bit like averages really, meaningless. Time will tell.
|
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 09:21
Are you seriously claiming that helping out their allies who were out-numbered in a war is in some way an "unjustified personal vendetta"??? If so have you even put an ounce of thought into the previous actions of your alliance? I feel an alliance name change coming along... Hypocritical? |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 09:23
You do realize that this was his opinion and he wanted to discuss an idea he has, right .?. Just because he is in H? does anything Tordenkaffen (or any other member) says make him "all those people in H?".?. Come on ... ok, I understand that you didn't like his idea (hey, I didn't either. Fancy that ), but that is no reason to throw a tantrum like that. 
Number one in what .?. And more importantly "why ?" That assumption that all H? cares about is being "number 1" is just this ... an assumption (and a false one at that ) ... ~~~~~~\\//~~~~~ Oh, and in case anyone gets confused I may have to write the disclaimer that all the above are just my opinion as a simple member of H? and therefore they OBVIOUSLY do not reflect upon the alliance as a whole. Have a nice day :) |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 10:26
I was having a nice day, but now I am a bit disturbed. You mean H? does not want to be the no 1 farming alliance in illy? And here I thought all my efforts at keeping my lands clean and ploughed had meaning. What am I going to do now? Oh wait, this thread is about Crows. How the hell did it evolve into a thread about H? again. Is everyone out to try and confuse me again? Lets keep it on the topic. Simple folks like me are easily confused and quick to act before thinking. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Redfist
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 10:49
|
Yes indeed Gragnog - threads to tend become more confusing with each post added to it by a member of that poor misunderstood and abused bunch of farmers - Harmless? and this thread seems to contain more than a few of those. What we need is clarification at the point where things started to go wrong, which was:
No Tord. You got it wrong. He wasn't talking about Crowfed. When Scotty said he was yearning for Old Crow he meant this :  After all - he ain't called Ol' Sour Mash for nothing
|
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 13:51
Deranzin, yes I know that not all people in an alliance think the same way... ...but remembering this thread being a response to exactly those (imo ridiculous) accusations about stiffling gameplay and such by some seniour members of H?, with Torden again talking along similar lines, I talked about "all those players", not "all players". Thus not off-topic at all! If Crow is stable enough to keep all those alliances => good to me If Crow becomes unstable because of many alliances => fine, should be interesting So why tell them what to do (or suggest, in this case)? Did anyone tell H? to desintegrate at times of their greatest power? I don't think so... And about being/staying/having been number 1... fighting and winning 3 world wars does this to ones reputation Hope this clarifies a bit... nice day to you, too =)
|
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 17:21
|
To just weigh in briefly... It has been my privilege to watch the Crowfed since a bit after the federation began. Over that time, they have grown until they are the juggernauts that can be seen today. Many changes have occurred to their organisation- some that are in my eyes good and some that are in my eyes bad- but throughout their history, they have stuck to one key principle that has bound them together- a common cause, one might say. And that is this: To stay neutral in all wars, except wars of self-defence. However, things appear to have taken a turn for the worse recently. Now, members of the Crowfed are getting involved in wars of aggression, defying the wishes of a significant proportion of their federation, and changing the very nature of why they were founded. The changes that are happening in the Crowfed are a matter of concern. I am not a critic of war, as many will know, but it is a major concern when a large group of alliances- larger than any other power block that has existed in this game- start fighting wars of their own. If this practice becomes commonplace, it will stifle the game. Alliances will become frightened to do anything for fear of Crow retaliation, and people will start to leave the game. I myself might do that, if the game becomes similar to the one which I described above. I have never wanted to play a game where I am subject to the whims of a higher authority of players. The domination of the Crow Federation cannot be linked with aggressive military action, or the game will suffer.
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 17:32
If you'd been watching a bit more closely, you would have seen that Crows have certainly been involved in conflicts, even military ones, pretty much since it's creation. Neutrality was never a characteristic of the confederation. I also find this "stifling the game" argument a tad ironic, coming from a ranking member of Darkstar, a group much less restrained about throwing it's weight around.
|
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 18:09
|
I expected the predictable argument about the Dominion. Let me just blow away a few cobwebs for you on that: The Dominion is a confederation for mutual DEFENCE. If you attack one of us, you attack all of us. Helping each other in wars of aggression is rare and has only ever happened once in our history, and can only happen if this will not make the opponent vastly outnumbered. As for the Crows, you state conflicts but no names. Show me a war of aggression from the Crows before 2013, and I will eat my words.
|
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 18:24
I may be mistaken, did the Crows not unify and wipe out portions of Old Valar? ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 18:30
|
MCrow (I think. It could have been one of the other ones) fought in the Valar war. Getting back to before my time, I believe they fought the Mal Moshans and Dark Blight. And they've had a few proxy war type things and interventions like the Ursor whatsit. Your "history" is like a year and a half, and in that time, you've done lots of threatening, ganging up, and taken the first opportunity to join en mass in an offensive war.
|
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 18:48
|
The war against DB was a war of defense. I don't think that any Crows joined in on the TMM war, but if they did my point on the Valar War applies to TMM too: the wars that I was referring to were wars in which alliances of the Crowfed STARTED a war due to a personal reason or vendetta. My apologies if I did not make that clear. |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 19:00
To my understanding of Crowfed(my personal interpretation) Though the confederation of Crow as a whole does not have to unify to support another wing who initiated war(or helped to begin it). So, we can see Ucrow and Vcrow engaging in conflict, but Crowfederation does not have to support, they can choose not to support the other wings. The only time I believe you will see the entire federation acting together is if a wing is a victim of unwarranted aggression. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 19:15
Lol - no. ------------- "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: Aurordan
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 19:22
| I never said Crows was a horde of bloodthirsty berserkers, I was correcting your statement that the where neutral, which is clearly not true. Your whole offensive/defensive distinction is kind of silly, honestly. Anyone can always call a war "defensive" if they make half an effort. I could say they still haven't started an offensive war yet, as clearly, uCrow is engaged in a war to support their allies against unjust NC aggression. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 20:47
Yep, defending a 240K pop alliance against a threat of elimination is hugely unjust. I know how everyone here loves sieging 3K pop players. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |