Alliances: one whole or many parts?

This is a moral and diplomatic dilemma I've seen appear many times when alliances get into conflicts. While a majority of these conversations have been sparked by the ongoing War, even before then there seems to be no real consensus on the following question:

Is an alliance a collective whole, whose members have bound their own fates to that of their alliance-mates and are expected to share--at the least--a single code of conduct? Or, is it a collection of individuals with various ideas about acceptable in-game conduct, united by a common interest?

I'd argue that it can be both, depending on the alliance. The problem is, trouble can arise when two alliances, each of which shares one the two philosophies I've just stated, come into conflict. Is it reasonable for one alliance to impose their belief about what alliance membership entails onto the other, or should both sides acknowledge the different philosophies when dealing with conflict resolution?

The case I'm most interested in is this one:

A player from Alliance X harms a player from Alliance Y, more than once. Alliance X believes each individual in the alliance is responsible for their own actions, and does not defend their player, but does not stop him either. Alliance Y, which believes alliances operate a single unit, retaliates against multiple members of Alliance X. Is it Alliance X's responsibility to recognize the other side's belief and stop/kick their player? Or is it Alliance Y's responsibility to understand Alliance X's policy and resolve the conflict with the offending player by themselves? Or is there a third explanation?

Note that this question extends to confederacies and allied Alliances as well.


Edited by Hadus - 04 Jan 2013 at 19:47

lol, this is the type of conversation i have my gfs do the cellphone call trick when on dates...play as u want, there are consequences to every action, but i enjoy playing this as a game of thrones type game. personal relationships seem the most important in this game.......wink wink

Hadus,

Oh my Hadus - a well chosen topic albeit it has very deep roots by now. Let me start out by saying that what I write here is my personal perspective on the issue and only that.

If you want to discuss how to interpret ingame relations, you first have to establish what the game is. By that I mean the only thing that really connects you to me is a screenfull of pixels and fleeting words that carry little real life consequence or gravity. Yet we pour countless hours and money into this game. How can we convince ourselves that we are not crazy to do so unless we form some kind of meaningful - and to the extent possible - binding relation to other players.
You establish this meaningful relation over time, by continually holding one another responsible for our actions, aid eachother when in need, and over time establish that which really makes any game with many disconnected individuals meaningful - trust. Trust is a vital part of Illyriad and any well run alliance.
However the lack of mutual "code of conduct" or "fixed ruleset" between the confederated forces, opens a new... "self awareness" for the game. An awareness where "detached" individuals can team up to intimidate or remove players with no one to answer to - no pre-established code of conduct - no contact, and on alliance level little or no trust. When no one takes "the final responsability" how am I to believe Illyriad is heading in the right direction, and when I pour so much time and money into it why would I accept that Consone are doing what they do?

The part I wish to emphasize is, that it is not a problem that the members of Consone wish to contest H?, but its a problem they are cutting some very important corners to become competitive. Alliances takes time to properly build, nurture, structure and develope, but instead to  "detach" the players essentially reducing them to...troops/fodder/whathaveyou and eliminating a vital part of ingame relations is not the future for this game.

If X player is constantly collecting hides which belong to Y hunters, and X leaders don't care or don't find time to deal with it, Y alliance have right to send raids and thieves to that X player, taking compensation with force. If they start retaliate against random X members, they probably believe in their superiority, and want to use poor excuse for escalation of violence.

I am surprised that skirmish is so rare in Illy. Players and alliances are too eager to use artillery, even for smallest quarrel.