the nature of the crows

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:

1. that new players are good for the game, regardless of the alliance they join
2. that the game is made more interesting and more fun by the inclusion of casual players
3. that inoffensive players ought to be able to operate in an atmosphere of relative safety rather than in constant fear of unprovoked attack, even after they are well-established
4. that where force is necessary, it ought to be used commensurately and with discretion

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.)