While in general the Illyriad Times appears to be a reasonably neutral presentation of the current conflicts, here are a few corrections/suggestions.

Editorializing in place of journalism

You said, of me,

"his epic posts in the Illy forums have sought to link the imposition of land claims as an affront on the very idea of Illyriad, all while frustrating his rhetorical opponents at times with his tautological approach to debate."

The definition of tautological is:

"In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or .."

Thus, you summarize my debate style as "obscuring the lack of evidence."  The correction is that when you use a word to describe something, the authoritative definition of the word (from a competent and authoritative dictionary) IS the evidence.  Thus, my "tautological" style does, in fact, often present it's evidence, while my opponents seldom quote any authorities or lay out the logical premises upon which they base their arguments, but instead, pretty much respond to things in a impulsive manner.

Not to be too critical of them though, I too sometimes forget to stop, take a breath, and be more systematic in my approach.  At the end of the long forum thread titled "Are land claims good for Illy"  you will find the logical steps taken by both the land claimers and the anti land claiming sides to justify their position.  I put the steps for the pro land claim side up and waited for any corrections to them from the pro.  Then I refuted each and laid out the logic against land claims.  At which Rikoo closed the thread .....because he said, it was off topic.  One has to wonder how examining the premisses upon which an argument is based is off the topic, but he has control and so be it.

In addition, the following sentence is unclear.  It can be interpreted as "HIGH declared war on B!B" or "HIGH's declaration was upon B!B alone and that restricted declaration has "kept it out of conflict with the other land claimer alliances."  

"Neither HIGH nor B!B have made many headlines in the war thus far, perhaps because HIGH’s war declaration on B!B alone has kept it out of conflict with the other land claimer alliances."

In either case you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that HIGH declared war on B!B.  This is a factual error.  HIGH never declared war on anyone and did nothing to B!B to justify their declaration of war on HIGH.  That you did not fact check this shows poor journalistic judgement, in this case anyway. (I really do think from the tone and approach you are taking that you ARE trying to be as fair as you can, however, often a reporters biases make them start with 'information' they assume and go from there.)

You also say:

"AJ has led the fierce criticism of land claims — bar none — and B!B’s Shogun has answered him in debate more than once."

but fail to discuss the quality of the responses given.  Saying that somebody has "answered him in debate more than once" assumes that the answer was relevant and to the point, AND systematic and logical....all qualities of thought.  More to the point, the fact that Shogun has posted responses to my forum posts does not justify a declaration of war.  Perhaps the Illyriad Times ought to publish an editorial about where they stand on "smorgasbording" (read the thread). 

Finally,

"Given ajqtrz’s role as thought leader in land claim opposition, it remains to be seen what the implications of his alt’s city being targeted in the war will be."

Any good journalist lives by his or her sources.  That no writer from the Illyriad Times has asked me, the "thought leader" of the anti land claim movement what I thought about anything seems rather odd and a mistake.  I've been available AND I've been willing.  But of course, this may just be a way of keeping the influence of my words out of a journalistic endeavor that may not wish those words to have influence.  Or it may just be an over-site.

And a correction.  Unbeliever joined HIGH after leaving WOT.  His reasons for leaving WOT are his own.  I noticed that he had left (my main account was in WOT at the time) and issued an invite because I like the guy.  It would have been nice and a reasonable thing to ASK before printing a conjecture.

Overall, you are doing your best.  These things are only meant as suggestions on how to keep the editorial comments from masquerading as reporting (which I am convinced is what you desire to do).

AJ

Agalloch wrote: I would like to protest the omitting of my name from the war hero poll  neither Agalloch or Elfs Bane(my alt) was given as an option ...  What gives ?  Where you guys afraid I may win?

EDITORIAL: The Necessity of Respect

NEW FEATURE: Alliance Posts & Pages

I do think Rill has a point, but I also think that the Times is at least trying to be less slanted than they could be.  I've posted here some mild criticisms regarding some things they could do to improve, and found that they are reasonably responsive.  That they were published, I believe, in response to the more slanted anti-claim Post, means that they certainly will appear slanted to some.  To me they appear only mildly so and as one who might easily be a "chief target" in the anti-pro claims debate, I find their effort admirable.  Are they slanted?  Probably.  But if you read them with that in mind the slant is easily corrected in most cases.  So do read them and do enter your comments.

As for the comment section being edited to be slanted, I'm not certain but only because I haven't seen the scope of comments made.  Perhaps anti-claimers just don't read the Times and thus, the comments ARE heavily slanted.  Hard to tell without any information about the number of posts.l

Finally, at least they asked me to submit an editorial and are willing to publish it.  Without restrictions on content or length, I might add.  That is a nice step  toward balance.

AJ