| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 05:55 |
|
Interesting point, Kumomoto. I think I did not understand your reservations before. The problem, as you see it (if I read your post right) is that some players will perpetrate unsavory actions under cover of the confederation, basically abusing the relationship. The "victims" of said actions will be unable to get justice. The reason they won't receive justice is that the confederation's size makes it resemble a massive bureaucracy in which "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing".
This is happening right now. It isn't even a Crow alliance that kicked it off but rather an alliance confederated to a Crow alliance. In this case, there seems to be a blatant lack of the diplomacy Crows so often tout. We will see just how far the Crowfed is willing and able to go to uphold the ideology expressed in the original post.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
 |
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 05:26 |
|
Bellusrex-- I presume you are referring to my posts in GC.
I'm particularly interested in your statement that : "Especially when you consider the source of those very same statements appear with their concerns any time they perceive their own power and game control to possibly be threatened."
Are you implying that I am voicing my concerns because H? Feels threatened? I hate to break it to you, but the Crowalition has outnumbered H? and our only confed, Dlords, now for about two years. We have had superb relations with many, if not most of the Crow alliances and you obviously didn't read my comments on GC. My entire point is that any confed, Crows or otherwise, that grows above a certain size risks smothering the game. It could be the most benevolent confed in history, but human nature being what it is, when you get that large with that many disparate polities, the size will directly or indirectly affect all diplomatic engagements with its members. As such, you are going to get some members engaging in bullying with no fear of consequences. In my opinion, if a mid sized alliance wants to be aggressive with another mid sized alliance, then that is their prerogative and very healthy for the game. If it results in war, so be it. We don't have enough conflict in Illy. But that will never happen if one of the parties is part of a mega-coalition. Anyone who denies this isn't already happening is obviously doing his best trying to lose a billion gold... ;)
Regardless of how hard you try, you cannot ignore human nature and presume any degree of behavioral control in a confed this size. And... I said that my concern was about it growing larger than it currently is (continuing on its path). It is a concern now (as we see it happening), but the major concern is that The Crowalition decides to continue expanding. Then Illy will see itself being benevolently smothered.
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 04:10 |
|
So uCrow are now supporting the actions of an alliance who by their own admission are trying to "eliminate" RE. Would that be a Rook sanctioned declaration or an independent action?
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
 |
BellusRex
Wordsmith
Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Location: Mountains
Status: Offline
Points: 156
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 01:41 |
Personally, I find the various Crow alliances to be no more threatening, indeed far less, than those alliances with "hidden confederations"
I also find it a bit hard to accept the statements of those players who argue this is stifling or a threat to the game. Especially when you consider the source of those very same statements appear with their concerns any time they perceive their own power and game control to possibly be threatened.
If so many members of our game community felt threatened by Crows or their structure, then I wonder what it means that they all voted with their feet and joined that structure. If so many players feel the need to join Crows, I wonder what the threat is in the game that draws them to the Crow aegis?
|
|
"War is the father of all things..."
|
 |
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
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?
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
 |
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
|
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.
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
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.
Edited by KillerPoodle - 07 Oct 2013 at 20:33
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
 |
st aug
Wordsmith
Joined: 15 May 2013
Location: unkown
Status: Offline
Points: 106
|
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 .
Edited by st aug - 07 Oct 2013 at 19:57
|
 |
WeeAshley
Wordsmith
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 173
|
Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 17:54 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
|
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.
|
 |