United Alliance as Illyriad's United Nation

Special One wrote: Of course we should put requirement for an alliance to be invited to United Alliance, maybe minimum amount of alliance member or minimum alliance population.

I take great offense to this.

And I'll just say... meh to this, as it is.


Edited by Zangi - 02 Oct 2010 at 06:24

But you realise this may turn out to be as ineffective as the 'league of nations' (the predecesor to the UN), a toothless tiger.

Edited by Fateful Ending - 02 Oct 2010 at 10:05

This Unites alliance would be unable to enforce anything without the blessing of H?, well, like the real UN is powerless without the US (not starting a political thread, just for comparison).
Perhaps it helps bringing in some moral ideas (always a good thing), but most "bad" guys just won't listen (again, like in real life  ).

So great idea, but hard to implement.

It's a very grand idea. Maybe too early in the game's evolution, but I would be happy to see this work.

Been there, done that.  Partisan allegiances, grudges, and bias consistently drive even the most obvious and straightforward proposals into stalemate.  Either the UN has no power, or the alliances become vassals and slaves to public opinion and anti-minority causes, or worse, both.

Back in IK, alliances would find consecutive ranges of account IDs (by the heap) all being developed in exactly the same way, online at the exact same time, and with irrefutable proof that they're all being played from the same IP...sometimes with reports of attacks from all accounts on a single target proven to have all been launched within 20 minutes of each other or all at once (definite scripting/account automating).  And would the AMC (anti-multi coalition) destroy these obviously cheating accounts?  For a while...

The AMC was a simple union with one clear goal and clearly marked jurisdiction.  It really existed just so the public could satisfy itself that attacks on small accounts were genuine attacks on cheaters and multis, by means of peer review.  But it was very unfair that most of the coalition members were friends or at least neutral with DiggIK (Harmless here).  So the neutrals started pushing to accept more high-ranking alliances.  It only took a couple, and suddenly every case was a "bloodthirsty power grab."  When evidence linked the cheater accounts to older players with friends and alliance ties, it was all a conspiracy to weaken DiggIK's enemies.  Enemies would oppose anything DiggIK wanted, and neutrals would side against us because it felt morally superior to find fault with the leading alliance and spew some pseudo-intellectualism--oddly they never felt the need without a push from the new members (kind of like some of the new voices participating in recent conversations where they know little to nothing of the background or full story).

So we left the coalition to their own devices and abstained from influence.  The AMC never pursued a case again, and the game is still rampant with cheaters and multis.  Illyriad is an actively-developed game with vigilant watchdogs stopping cheaters before they become such a player-facing problem.  You will never be so lucky to have a single case so free of moral subjectivity, inaccurate and biased reporting, and influences by allegiances both public and hidden.

I can tell you now Harmless would never join...and we'd never fear any threat such a UN might throw in our faces.  We shall conduct all our relationships on a one-on-one basis, knowing that each of our partners as well as ourselves have the freedom to act upon our own conscience and judgment isolated from the differing opinions of 3rd parties.

By the way, you can see the standard confederation agreement Harmless makes at: http://illyriad.honoredsoft.com/wiki/UK1:Harmless/Treaties

(Note also that to us a pledge of confederation is one-directional...by this document we can, for example, present clearly-documented obligation by ourselves to Toothless, without any implication that Toothless reciprocates those obligations.)