Non-Aligned Alliance Movement

Janosch wrote: Internal and external conflicts should be solved peaceful (if possible).

Rill wrote: To save armies for the conflicts that are not possible to solve peacefully.

Brids17 wrote: Janosch wrote: Internal and external conflicts should be solved peaceful (if possible). Why?

It's nice to know my words did not go unheard! Sounds like a good plan you have proposed, however, I caution you to take care how you go about this.

If i may suggest, you need to consider a few things:
- I would recommend you advertise this system as a "Network," rather than an Alliance. An alliance usually assumes or implies a sense of unity between the members; thus, the member alliances might presume that joining entails submitting to the unified values of the parent organization. A network, on the other hand, merely provides each member alliance with a list of contacts who have indicated a willingness to defend other small alliances if the need arises.

- What defines a "small" alliance? Will there be a maximum number of members, population, land claimed, or alliance rank? Will setting a maximum dissuade alliances from continuing to grow? Will the absence of a maximum allow bigger alliances to control the network to meet their own goals?

- Are the member alliances bound by any agreements? Are members required to take part in any aspect of the network? Will they be forced to aid other alliances or forced to end a conflict with another member? Will the network become so large that small alliances feel forced to join, or else have no allies to protect them?

- How will the network be run? A hierarchy based on size? A democratic approach based on group votes? An election-based system? Does the network even need leadership, or simply administration/organization?

All these things must be answered before beginning such an ambitious project. I wish you the best of luck!

Thank you for the interest. I try to comment on some of the posts. There is multiple negotiation running atm and it is not really possible to answer all the questions because this is supposed to be a movement of many alliances and I do not want to speak for them. But I am happy to present my perspective:

 

Brids17 wrote: Janosch wrote: Internal and external conflicts should be solved peaceful (if possible).   Why?

Strange comment from a Crowalition member, I thought this would be also the aim of Crow policy, not to let conflicts escalate to something seriously violen, if possible.

 

However, I wanted to imply three things with this sentence:

First, if multiple members within NAAM have a quarrel and they decide to fight about it that might be fine with me (and other NAAM members), depending on the precise circumstances. It is not the aim that NAAM members fight against each other, though. So we will try to solve things peacefully.

Second, if there is a conflict with any third party, the idea is not to blindly escalate, but mediate between the involved parties and get to a fair solution. Every alliance is eventually forced to defend the freedom of its members together with friends. But we aim to solve things peacefully.

Thirdly, NAAM is not about joining together to attack third parties. Sometimes it is hard to clearly see and interpret what is an attack and what is a defence though, so each situation must be judged individually and together with the other NAAM members. Also words like bully or troll are open to interpretation, as it has been discussed in this forum before. But I believe there is a solution for most, if not all, situations and we will try to get things solved peacefully.

 

The members that have joined so far (I might publish a list here soon), are in principal peaceful alliances. And we want to stay peaceful alliances. That is why we want to solve things peacefully.I intend not to get involved unasked but only consider to get involved, if another movement member is going to ask for assistance.

Hadus wrote: If i may suggest, you need to consider a few things: - I would recommend you advertise this system as a "Network," rather than an Alliance. An alliance usually assumes or implies a sense of unity between the members; thus, the member alliances might presume that joining entails submitting to the unified values of the parent organization. A network, on the other hand, merely provides each member alliance with a list of contacts who have indicated a willingness to defend other small alliances if the need arises.

 Indeed that was more or less what we were thinking about. The Non-Aligned Alliance Movement is supposed to be a movement of alliances, so in fact some sort of Network, not a Confederation System/Network like Consone or Crow(?). If participating alliance make in-game confeds, that is perfectly fine with the idea.

Hadus wrote: - What defines a "small" alliance? Will there be a maximum number of members, population, land claimed, or alliance rank? Will setting a maximum dissuade alliances from continuing to grow? Will the absence of a maximum allow bigger alliances to control the network to meet their own goals?

This depends on what the alliances decide that will join in the Network. We will need to decide together who we like to join and who we do not accept as a member. It might be an advantage if a larger alliance is going to join. I do not think we will kick alliances that grow (so I do not demand the right to kick an alliance for myself (or any other special rights) but there will be the possibility to exclude alliances from the movement if they show certain behaviour or try to drag NAAM in unprovoked wars). It will not be possible for anyone to control the network and all involved alliances have one vote in the movement, no matter what size they do have. I do not want to make this decisions for the Network participants.

Hadus wrote: - Are the member alliances bound by any agreements? Are members required to take part in any aspect of the network? Will they be forced to aid other alliances or forced to end a conflict with another member? Will the network become so large that small alliances feel forced to join, or else have no allies to protect them?

We did prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to clarify some aims and organisational aspects. Members are not forced to take part in any actions of the movement, they do not support (I cannot see how else this should work anyway). So if a (large) alliance wants to use the network for anything tresures, it will only be possible, if there is sufficient support from participating smaller alliances (and I do not expect this to be the case). In fact, I hope rather many smaller alliances will dominate the Network. It is possible for any participating alliance to have additional relations with other alliances. We will see how many alliances will join, but I do not think there will be no protection left for alliances that decide not to join. If alliances decide to leave the movement, they are free to do so.

 

Hadus wrote: - How will the network be run? A hierarchy based on size? A democratic approach based on group votes? An election-based system? Does the network even need leadership, or simply administration/organization?

There is not supposed to be any leadership. We might elect some mediators to assist in larger negotiations and organisational efforts. Each alliance will have one vote and things are supposed to work democratically. I incresingly have the feeling that Illy is based on quite a few very active players. So this players could eventually excersise more influence then others, I do not know how to change that fact. However, I expect the rest (or parts) of NAAM only to support actions they really want to support, no matter what kind of

 BlindScribe, I was thinking about local solutions. But first of all TOR is not very well concentrated. Secondly, I believe the organisational effort of multiple smaller alliance networks/movements will be much harder to handle. And in the end also forum support might be valuable. Also the idea to found a large alliance with only large players from small alliances, for excample for tournament participation, will not work with many local solutions (which would have multiple overlaps).

Thanks for wishing us luck. I think we will need it.