the nature of the crows

abstractdream wrote: 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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.