I personally love medals and it's a shame that it's come to this.. but I have to say I'd like the option removed to prevent abuse. 

indeed. the real problem are that there are things like medals in the first place.

I have gotten medals from alliances other than mine, and I have been very honored by it.  At the same time, I would rather it not be an option given how it has recently been used.

I would rather it not be an option, but I'm not sure it shouldn't be -- in general I am supportive of more choices rather than fewer.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if medals went away entirely.

If Rill voted no, I'm not sure but I'd suspect you voted yes. If Rill voted yes, you've voted no. Please just state opinion here and I apologise for not double checking my link. If you can still vote on the poll, you've simply not voted. 

An alliance is perfectly entitled to say "buy me a medal, or else!" But by doing so they could risk becoming a huge target for white knights. It all comes down to diplomacy, and game play persona. Two aspects that Illyriad shines at. 

Not making an example out of the current strife I'll stick to plain speculation.

If a leader had lost a war/conflict, and his/her members were under the threat of annihilation, there is no determinable length as to how far said leader could be pushed into paying "protection money" for his alliance. In fact the consequences can end up turning this game into something it was never intended.

I find the new usage of the medals rather provocative and offensive, tho to be fair I don't think it should have consequences for the involved parties this time around. 

But in the future, making such demands should imo have quite tangible consequences.

Thats all.

Ob on topic:  I'm no big fan of the medals, but some folks like it.  Giving medals to folks outside of my own alliance is the only feature I like.  But not for a lost war, any P including the daily free P is real money.

It seems very likely that an alliance with a large alliance pool would offer a medal as compensation to end a war. Medals, after all, aren't something people just throw around like cattle. 

Medals provide flexibility to the game. You can flex them however you want. 

Basically, if someone attempted to "force" another player to do something they don't want to do, and there is no game mechanic that actually allows for them to force the action, the option is always there to say "no." Then if someone says "no, I won't do this thing you are trying to force me to do" then if players continue to attack one another (or whatever else the condition was) is that not a legitimate use of game mechanics? And then wouldn't the community, rather than the dev team, be able to determine what the norm would be as a response to this action. Much like how the community tends to disfavor a larger player attacking a new player. There's no game mechanic saying you shouldn't do this, but the community constructs and enforces what it considers to be the norm or the "right" way of acting. 

Whether or not this is a very nice thing to do another player, is a matter of opinion in which the dev team would remain neutral. With the exception being that if one player could show that another was harassing them in a manner that was against the code of conduct. 

This is an interesting discussion for sure and something for us all to think about. I do appreciate hearing from people their opinions on the matter. Certainly not a way in which I'd predicted the medals would be used, to say the least.

Luna

This could be seen as the prelude to a bigger problem. The community frowns quite a bit but you would be surprised how many people wouldn't actually do anything. Everyone has an opinion but that's as far as it goes. The GM's are the rule makers of Illyriad and I think should make said rules in the players interests as new problems arise.

Imagine you've spent a year or so building up your own characters cities, and working on an alliance, now imagine all that work is being undone before your eyes, it's very demoralizing. I care for my own account, but care for the people in my alliance much more then that, and when the ToS came through I rushed through the 'acceptance' of them to stop my players being slammed.

This is just one incident, there will be more, you can count on it, and if you're expecting the community to step up and police the game for you, I'm afraid it wont happen, there are too many ingame things to worry about including political backlashes that the higher ups of the bigger alliances might not think are worth it.

If you want people to buy prestige, then you need some kind of 'official' safe guard in place.

If medals/prestige were attainable by sending 30,000 thieves, that would be something to complain about. 

As is, it is a choice an alliance member with the appropriate authority has to make. And these choices can all be partially influenced by in-game actions and meta-game coercion, but the choice is still up to the user on what to do with their prestige. 

I do think this is the equivalent of asking the devs implement players with population > 100,000 not be able to send attacks against players with <100,000. 

These sort of decisions are community opinions. If the bulk of the community agrees on common practices, it is up to the community to encourage those practices. The Dev team is not responsible for representing and carrying out the communities opinions. They are the builders of the world. (Hopefully they will track their approval rating and build really cool things.) 

I am not predicting that this will occur, I am simply pointing out that the developers might have a very real interest in protecting the idea of medals as something that are good and honorable rather than a mark of shame.

With that enters the ability for another alliance to force a "submission fee", from the defeated party, in order to spare his also defeated allies. The fee would be very compelling for the loser, if not to spare his own account, then out of a guilty conciousness to his friends who likewise loose their accounts.

Right now the event of it happening may seem implausible, but in 12-15 months+ this discussion will be long forgotten, and alliances will have actively searched out ways to use the medalsystem as a means of "creative extortion" simply because prestige IS such a desired commodity and the "transaction" is possible.

Thordor, I understand your blight, If you think you or your alliance were wronged and others would back you up, I strongly suggest you create a separate post on the Elgea forums saying why you did what you did, and what you wish the outcome could of been. 

This is a sandbox. Threats of in-game action should be expected. I consider asking for a medal for peace a creative bargaining chip, just like i think offering a medal for agreeing to peace to be creative. 

Medals certainly add a new layer to Illyriad, and I like the, even tho I don't have one yet 

that and ITS UP TO THE LOSER TO ACCEPT OR DECLINE, SHUT THE F UP AND GO BACK TO YOUR CAVE!

now you see, this is what real life is, and this game is played as "real" life, just in a different world with some different functions, and its always up to the people what to do. 

Demanding that the world change to fit you seems extremely childish to me.

Bullying is not forbidden by the code of conduct; the code is silent on the issue.  Abuse, harassment and name-calling are forbidden.  Although it is not specifically stated, this seems to refer to verbal (chat, forum or mail) interactions rather than use of game mechanics.

Burning someone's cities to the ground, constantly blighting them, sending multiple waves of thieves and diplos are all types of "harassment" that seem to be allowable under game rules.  The only limitations on this sort of activity are community norms, as Kumomoto referenced.

Everything* is permissible. Not all things are beneficial.  Hopefully the collective wisdom of the community will navigate the best course in this situation.

*As limited by game mechanics and the code of conduct.

Luna's whole point was that this kindof "enforcement" is no different than any other form of conflict in the game. 

Before medals were introduced, the terms of a ceasefire could include requiring you to make me a sitter on your account. This is far more intrusive than a medal, and no one has complained about that. 

If you are concerned that you are being harassed or that you see someone else being harassed but are not sure whether it is harassment, you could file a petition.  The devs will make their decision.  Not really for us to debate.

this kind of rule have no effect on gameplay, as gameplay is not regulated. like rill said, no written rules can or should, for all what matters, stop a player from acting as he likes in game, even if he stomps your towns to dust, he is not bullying you if in PMs and on forums he is polite to you and doesn't lack respect/ doesn't insult. 

you can feel abused by such a in-game behavior but it's not against the technical rules. ( thanks gosh to that)

lol i could see it now... DEVS! I submitted a petition because sugarfree sent thieves to rob me! He's harassing me! make it so no one can harass me with diplomats or armies!!!!

...soon...

DEVS!!!!! your game sucks, it has became farmville

Luna

Medals are being used purely to divide players between Medals and Non-Medals: Money players and Non-money players.  Medals are the single most obnoxious element of Illy.

Introduction of Medals indicates that the Dev team is trying to permanently alter to community of Illy towards the typical play-to-win MMO.  That's a shame.

medals where really uncalled for. 

Luna

Maybe so, but I nevertheless find myself disagreeing with you on what level of psychological pressure can constitute a "forced"action. The problem would simply be solved if you kept it within alliances.

The option should remain to give a medal as a gift to others, Absaroke has been pondering giving medals to players that join us to play in tournaments or assist with a siege. 

If someone "forces" you to give a medal, and you don't want to, send a giant army to their doorstep. I think that sometimes we forget what our armies are for, besides drinking beer and spending our gold.

This topic is out of control, send an army or diplo, it's only a game!

Kumomoto, it's a choice, and a risk, you take when purchasing prestige. Lacking the choice (thus- forced) to spend it, is a different thing.

Drawing examples from other MMOs- correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it forbidden to trade 'game items' for real money, in WoW for example?

Isn't it the same as walking down a street and mugging someone?

Sure, they have a choice, but in a case where it's a losing alliance vs. a winning alliance, they don't really have a choice other than the community [which in turn has lots of other motives rather than just fair play, nothing wrong with that].

In other games bullying is forbidden by the GMs {"give me xyz or I'll raid you" etc. }, to which I disagree.  I like the option to be able to bully someone's gold out of them, but when this becomes real money, that's just wrong. 

Not to offend you, but I believe the divide between medal and non-medal players is being pushed mostly by you. I know you claim to block anyone who has a medal in global chat as a form a protest. You are creating the very divide you are opposed to. And I don't have a problem with that, just getting it out there. 

Medals are cool, just like elvish archers are cool. If you don't think elvish archers are cool, ignore them. 

actually wow sells "vanity items" for real money. They just don't want anyone else getting in on the action, so they put it in their terms of service for others not to sell goods for real money. 

Anyone can use prestige to purchase a medal for someone else.  Sometimes newbies will be visited by thieves because they are a typically easier target.  Therefore newbies will be forced to buy medals for other people.

I'm not against gifts of inter-Alliance medals, but participation (in the giving of, and receipt of) medals should be on an 'opt-in, case-by-case basis', because it costs Prestige, which carries real-world monetary value (or cost). Players must never be coerced into to parting with their Prestige.

You cannot use the "free prestige" argument here.

If someone told you they had embarrassing photos of you in real life and said they'd spread them around your workplace if you didn't give them money, would that be acceptable? You could say no, they couldn't force you to give them money right? You would just have have extremely negative consequences that might result in you losing or quitting your job. 

Same thing here. They can wipe out all your cities, even siege and attack you non-stop until you either quit the game altogether or pay up. And the reason this is different then changing your city name or sending gold or advanced resources is because saddles don't pay the bills or buy you food. I shouldn't have to lose all by cities or be forced to quit a game because I can't afford to pay someone off using real money. The problem with this is that it's not just a gameplay mechanic, it's something that starts to get mixed into my real life money situation. 

Luna