Someone had a problem with my pig in my farm allegory... sorry you didn't understand that I was trying an RL example, not an Illy one.
Continuing on the allegory...
I could be enjoying a nice cup of tea on my porch, when the mailman gives me a letter from some hunters who wish to hunt on my land. Reading through what the ask of me and my land, I can either send a letter telling them I will let them hunt, or that I won't let them hunt. They can of course do as I say, or, in the latter, come and hunt anyway... at which point I'm back at the first example.
Everything can be made clearer when people talk... I wonder how many times I have to say that... just talk! Ask questions. Answer messages.
Now... to the matter att hand.
Example 1: Player C has a town in the newbie ring. To protect it, he has placed sov all around his town to protect it from new settlements. Player D has a city 10 squares away. One day player C finds troops on land about halfway between the cities. It's a good food-spot. Being worried, he sends a message to player D, asking what is going on. Player D, replies in a friendly manner, and after a few messages back and forth, the spot is considered the boundary between the two cities and their land.
Example 2: Player E and G are not in either alliance, NAP or confed, but share land. They are on speaking terms. A mine pops up closer to player G, but he doesn't harvest. Player E sends troops to the mine to occupy while his miners gather the minerals. In his eagerness he forgets to send a message to player G. Player G doesn't do anything, for a while, then sends a message asking player E to remove his troops so he can sov the spot. An agreement is made for player E to mine when player G is done sovving. Player E, feeling a bit foolish, makes sure to follow the agreement.
Example 3: Player H has a nice patch of herbs, and sends troops to occupy the spot. While his troops are there, he sovs the spot since it is very close to his city. Thinking that sov will be enough for others to stay away, he lets his troops come back home. A while later, he finds NAP troops on his spot and harvesters at work. Scouts tell him him who it is, and so he sends a message to player J, asking what is going on. Reply is short, just stating there is no threat to the city, the troops are to protect the harvesters. Player H kindly ask player J to remove his troops and not send any more harvesters. Player J refuses and after a few bumped harvesters, and additional sov-levels by player H, the matter is brought to the head of both alliances. In the end, player J backed off.
All three examples show that talk is more useful that fighting.
As far as killing harvesters... well, if you send to a spot with neutral troops, your harvesters will be killed, and the person with the troops will be told that they have gleefully killed so-and-so's harvesters from city so-and-so. That is the way that works.
And for picking and defending spots far, far away... well, as long as it isn't too close to someone's town, it's fair game to be contested. We will try and follow the 10 square rule, but sometimes we get to eager as well, and make mistakes. We will however, honour our mistakes and do right by those who's toes we've stepped on... if it is possible.
And before anyone chews my head off... I am but one person in an alliance... I try to do right, but sometimes I fail too. I am however always open for communication, and will follow the guidance of my HighKing.