What makes an alliance?

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1351365351' post='3045831']
It may be an anarchy but it is certainly not an unorganized band of nations.
[/quote]

What a cold day in hell it is!


[OOC] As far as the RP aspect of the game goes, what constitutes an alliance is merely a social construct that varies from one alliance to another. If we're going by objective ingame functions, however, technically any nation sitting on an alliance affiliation is indeed an alliance. [/OCC]

Edited October 28, 2012 by Ayatollah Bromeini

[Ch33kY]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1351366003' post='3045833']
How great would this thread have been if Admin had never endowed rulers with the "Alliance Affiliation" field?
[/quote]

Remember the good ol' days before the Alliance Affiliation field. When anarchy reigned and chaos triumphed. Thank god we are so civilised now and can classify ourselves.

[Walshington]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1351375621' post='3045849']
Glad you asked. As someone who started my own alliance upon first joining the community years ago as an average jane with a couple friends, I kow the dangers well

1. If anyone could start an alliance unhindered by constantly being raided, they would start spreading new ideas and not know how things are supposed to be done . Not knowing any better, they might decide to do something like start tech trading at lower rates or start wars because they are unfamiliar with how the treaty web works. They may also get to know other alliances on their own and make their own judgments about who they want as allies as opposed to being put in the position of taking the first offer that comes along if they want to be safe from raiders. That sort of competition would be bad.

2. People would leave their already established alliances in droves and break up into groups of 5 nations, because we all know the only reason we all stay in our larger alliances is so we don't get tech raided. It has nothing to do with established friendships or working with others toward a common goal or that we're simply having fun in larger groups.

3. Raiders would miss out on all the opportunites to raid the vast number of unprotected alliances who are under 17 but over 4 currently out there.

(I did an informal check, looking for alliances between 5 and 17 that were unprotected. The largest unprotected alliance I found was 12 members. The largest percentage of unprotected alliances that I found of 2 or more were under 5. ALL of the one's over 12 that I found were protected, and the lowest number I found that had protection was 4.)

4. More people might post on OWF because there would be less fear of being found as a small group. Who wants to hear from anyone new?

5. Might end up with more "invasion" alliances because a few people from other communities come over to see what we're like (not to hard to get 5 from a group established elsewhere) and be able gain enough experience about this community to go back to their community and recruit others. Really, this could be a huge threat as it could mean a large number of new nations being established in a relatively short period of time. If nothing else, they would be hungry for tech and flood the market with sellers. Might end up making a political challenge to already established hegemony - whoever that is at the time.

6. More nations would be able to grow, thus creating larger nations who could be a military threat to those of us at mid and above ranges. I, for one, love the fact that in every alliance war I've been involved in thus far, I hardly have to fight because no one is available who is in range. We all just love going into peace mode to be banks and help rebuild later, just ask any larger nation. But if we had more nations from smaller alliances sticking around long enough to reach mid to higer nation strengths, some of us might end up actually having to fight.

That's just a few of the bad things that could result off the top of my head. No doubt I'm missing a lot.
[/quote]

I see what you did there.











And I like it.

[Don Chele]

The real question isn't what constitutes a legitimate alliance. Any individual or group of people can determine that they are an alliance, and determine that they are legitimately so on their own terms. The pertinent questions are 1) what such an alliance must do in order to earn universal (more importantly universal among raiders) respect of their legitimacy (usually sign a treaty or include some number of members) and 2) to what degree the global community will tolerate the conduct of the raiders in their disregard for the legitimacy of alliances.

If the community tolerated attacks on 50 person alliances with political ties, raiders would conduct such raids if they thought they could withstand the retaliation of that alliance. If the community decides that 5 person alliances may no longer be raided without global consequences, raiding alliances will change their policies. My preference is not a mystery, I think a one-man AA is perfectly legitimate with or without ties and that raiding such an alliance is unacceptable, but so long as my opinion remains in the minority then raiding alliances have no obligation or incentive to change their position.

If people generally agree that raiders are doing something wrong, then they should "do something about it" by collectively voicing their changed opinion or forcibly making it known. Perhaps some people may decide that there has been such a significant reduction in global population so a standard that made since when the population was 5x higher should be reduced proportionally. Others may feel that there are 5x too many alliances for the population level and people should consolidate. Neither I nor anyone else gets to determine the standards of the community. They will arise on their own and if people want to influence how that occurs they must be actively involved in the process.

[Lurunin]

I can understand the argument for a 2-man AA being considered a legitimate alliance, especially if they are politically active. (i know this can include some..unsavory people we've seen on 2-man AA's but there are some out there who know what they're doing.) I mean an alliance is, in the loosest way possible, an agreement between 2+ parties.

What I can't imagine, still, is how a 1-man AA can be considered an alliance in anyones eyes? This isn't from a raiding mindset either, but rather one who hears this all the time and is trying to figure out...how?

[Comrade Craig]

I think an alliance is defined by the presence of a unique culture and a shared history.

-Craig

[Walshington]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1354293502' post='3058568']
I can understand the argument for a 2-man AA being considered a legitimate alliance, especially if they are politically active. (i know this can include some..unsavory people we've seen on 2-man AA's but there are some out there who know what they're doing.) I mean an alliance is, in the loosest way possible, an agreement between 2+ parties.

What I can't imagine, still, is how a 1-man AA can be considered an alliance in anyones eyes? This isn't from a raiding mindset either, but rather one who hears this all the time and is trying to figure out...how?
[/quote]

I see what you did THERE too.

And on the very day I lost 50% of my membership. :/

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I've been consistent for years on this, whether in a large alliance or small. I take a functional view. I dont raid and I dont allow raiding, so I only worry about incoming. If I see incoming and they have an AA I will try to find someone responsible. If I find someone responsible who can be dealt with we deal with them as an alliance whether it's 1 member or 1000. If it's impossible to get someone responsible to deal with it properly, it is not an alliance, it is a rogue AA to be dealt with as such - again whether 1 members or 1000. This is why I always considered Kaskus an alliance and never considered LSF an alliance.

If I raided or allowed raiding I suspect I would still take a functional approach although political ties would become a more important consideration rather than just responsiveness/existence of a responsible party. I honestly cant imagine how number of members would be directly important in either case. A definition that says an AA with many members but no effective head is an alliance, but not a smaller group which functions as a group, just seems utterly backwards.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Comrade Craig]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1354947750' post='3061684']
I've been consistent for years on this, whether in a large alliance or small. I take a functional view. I dont raid and I dont allow raiding, so I only worry about incoming. If I see incoming and they have an AA I will try to find someone responsible. If I find someone responsible who can be dealt with we deal with them as an alliance whether it's 1 member or 1000. If it's impossible to get someone responsible to deal with it properly, it is not an alliance, it is a rogue AA to be dealt with as such - again whether 1 members or 1000. This is why I always considered Kaskus an alliance and never considered LSF an alliance.[/quote]

I highly doubt that you spent much time dealing with LSF raiders. I fully appreciate your jab at their form of non-hierarchical organization, but seriously, the subtext of your comment is that you often found yourself needing to communicate with LSF government but were simply unable to find someone, and that is laughable. Your criticism is purely academic. No one ever has business with the LSF.

-Craig

[Rayvon]

A declaration is all that is required to make an alliance.

1 or 1000 people is irrelevant. I saw somewhere above someone mentioning that this size equates to how much pull they have - I agree, but it doesn't change the fact they 'exist' as an 'alliance' ..

"We are an alliance". Done deal.



[quote name='Comrade Craig' timestamp='1354991874' post='3061832']
No one ever has business with the LSF.[/quote]

No one in their right mind, anyways

/me waves to Shangri-La

Edited December 8, 2012 by Rayvon

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Comrade Craig' timestamp='1354991874' post='3061832']
I highly doubt that you spent much time dealing with LSF raiders. [/quote]

It's been a few years but I have, actually.

Perhaps they have finally changed and if I dealt with them today I would see that - or perhaps not. That was never the point. I regret mentioning them specifically because of your response and because identifying them wasnt the point - they are just the best example of it I could think of, at least while limiting myself to CN.

But as of the time I last needed to deal with them, there was no point. It was a total waste of time talking to any of them, no one could make any sort of binding agreement, one would propose x and argue for it and then if you agreed another one would show up instead and say the first one didnt have any authority. On further questioning it became apparent no one had that authority. No one could even authoritatively answer simple questions like whether or not a particular nation was a member. Every minute of time spent negotiated with them was wasted. That is what I mean by not an alliance. If they arent like that anymore, great, again my point was about what is an alliance, not whether or not LSF today is LSF I knew.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Comrade Craig]

Your point is valid enough. I was just filling space to get to punchline: "no one ever has business with them."

-Craig

[iamthey]

I generally just concede that every affiliation is an alliance, but that no affiliation has an intrinsic claim against interference. I do not raid nor do I support it, but this is a factual statement. Why is this even being debated?