Despite numerous "discussions" concerning the validity of certain land claims, the Illy community does not seem to have an authority or even an common understanding on what is and what is not a valid claim to land.

The purpose of this post is not to merely ruminate on my personal views on land claims, but rather to start a discussion of whether, as a community, we can come to SOME common understanding of what is and what is not appropriate (civil) means to claim land.  I believe this issue is ripe to be re-visited given the obvious implications of rare resources.  

After speaking to many players, there seems to be TWO in-game mechanisms for claiming land: 1) claiming sovereignty on a particular square, OR 2) occupying land with military troops.  As I'm sure we have all experienced at one point or another, players and alliances claim ownership or right to land beyond these two methods....  

Example 1: "You may not settle/exodus a city to any land within X squares of my cities." 

This seems to be a fairly reasonable request (especially in less densely populated regions of Elgea) and widely accepted by the Illy community.  There seems to be no doubt that it is considered poor form (and probably seen as hostile) to settle a city adjacent to or one, two, three, four, and in most instances five squares from another city.  Some alliances have suggested more than 5 squares (8 and 10 square radii come to mind) but often these are alliances/players who have intentionally situated themselves in the vastness of Elgea to avoid such issues.  I'd prefer not to bicker over whether 8 squares is valid or not - I believe it depends on just how remote the region is - but it's hard to think anyone would contest that intentionally settling a city within 4 squares of an existing city (in ANY region) is not acceptable.

Example 2: "I claim all land within X squares of my cities - do not settle do not claim sov., and any stationing of troops will be seen as hostile."

This is where, in my eyes, we begin down the slippery slope.  Settling a city within an area is one thing (it inherently limits the in-game mechanisms for claiming land via sov.), but does occupying a particular square really constitute hostile action?  One can only launch a hostile military action from that army's home city - so occupying a location, despite its proximity to another city, does not pose any direct military threat to that city (unless it is a siege or blockade obviously).  So the only hostility from a player occupying a square near another city would be, 1) usurping an already validly laid sov. claim, OR 2) denial of resources on that square.  1) is clearly hostile... but 2) raises the question: does a player have an automatic right to resources simply by virtue of it being NEAR their city?

which leads to . . . .

Example 3: "I own anything and everything within X squares of my cities, regardless of whether I have claimed sov. on the squares - any troops or harvesters are trespassers on MY land is hostile and any resources near my cities are mine and no one else's."

I think this is a blatant over over-reach.  Let's go back to probably the most widely-accepted principle: there are two in-game mechanisms for claiming land (sov. and military occupation).  The reason these are almost ubiquitously accepted as valid is because it puts other players on NOTICE that the land is spoken for - its a matter of practicality of enforcement and respect.  But what is also important about these methods being seen as valid is the player must proactively DO something to lay claim to land - they must expend resources and time to gain the benefit of owning the land.  It seems unreasonable to proclaim that any and all land within whatever area you decree is automatically yours.  You have DONE nothing to claim this land, you have expended no resources, time or energy... you've simply waived your wand and said it's so.  This seems equally unfair as it does impractical (especially in densely populated regions like Norweld, Lucerna and other regions of the "newbie ring").

This fact is even MORE true now, with the release of advanced resources that are meant to cause territorial friction and often require protection to ensure enough time to harvest and to prevent over-harvesting and extinction.  To expect the entire community to only harvest from resources that are not within 5 squares of ANY city but their own or no city at all is silly.  If you'd like to claim a rare resource as your own you're going to have to DO something to reap the rewards of exclusively owning it - namely, the two in-game mechanisms discussed (sov. and military occupation).

Recap:

- X square radius settlement prohibition - REASONABLE, generally accepted.

- X square radius military occupation prohibition - UNreasonable, unless the occupation is a siege, blockade, or is on your sov. square.

- X square radius harvesting prohibition - UNreasonable, unless you have sov. on that square.

Does anyone disagree with these principles?  Let's get a discussion and perhaps even a debate going so we at least know where the rest of the community stands on this issue... cuz it's not going away.

That depends; if someone settles a city next to a square that is already occupied, they can hardly complain about the occupying army's presence. However, if an army is placed next to a city that is already there, I'd consider it extremely impolite at the very least

 

I disagree with the last two principles. I am a proponent of "You have what you can hold." If you have the ability to prevent anyone else from claiming or using a piece of land at ANY distance, it is within your right to do so. It is also, however, within everyone else's right to do so. If you claim a space with a rare herb spot 2 squares from a smaller player, it's your right. They, in turn, have the right to ask you to move, and if you don't, they have the right to get help and forcibly remove you.

 

I support this because sovereignty and occupation are both costly to upkeep. These limitations create a natural safeguard against unreasonable claims, as sov and occupation become more costly and inconvenient at greater distances. Both are also able to be countered. Applying a further ruling whereby players are not allowed to informally claim land is redundant and cause for conflict.

While much of what we do is based on community acceptance, it is a sand box and of necessity people make up their own rules. The difference comes in 

1. if the community in general is allowing though this does not necessarily mean they accept it for  themselves; 

2. if the person or alliance has what they need to back up their desired claims. Again, it doesn't matter if what others do (in a general sense) fits your ideal game play, it matters if they can maintain what they propose;

If above 2 do not exist, neither will your claims or you, potentially, for much longer.

One thing that needs to be remembered about the community. It is not the a government running Illy, it is a group of people within the sandbox scheme who are at best - working together (even with contrasting views) to make the game fun, challenging, and even (god-forbid) militarily engaging . 

It is good to get a general consensus of what the community (alliances and individuals) would desire regarding courtesy, and how they see the lands their cities on are.

Dlords, it is simple. 10 squares are ours, period. We have modification to it as it is necessary. Sov simply allows us greater use of our lands to influence that town in question. We maintain such and will do so till every last member of Dlord is removed from the game. We love peace, battles, and war and not afraid to loose towns and such - it's a game.. and thus we have no problem removing other peoples town quite quickly as well. We don't go looking for fights, though issues do arise but as an alliance War is not our purpose but we wont back down either. However in relation to lands and our claims - by the same token, we extend our view toward others unless they have specified another view.. and then we abide by those - if we deem they are fair.

All things in this game depend entirely on if you have the might to keep what you have, period. Again, it is a sandbox game. It why alliances are formed, to ensure you keep what you have and not treated unfairly, if at all possible.

I think we are pulling to far away from this concept and looking to socialize the game for everyone, when in fact that by the very nature of game, is contrary to it's formation. It's a SANDBOX

at least that is MY personal assumptions and opinions (with the exception of Dlord statement above regarding what we terms ours).

Lemme think....

Yes, i do disagree. For one an occupying army within 10 squares of my city could be claiming sov (up to Sov 5) which would circumvent the exodus 10 square limitation, and he could park what was a HUGE city right on my doorstep.

So no, i do not like troops camped that close to my city if they're not alliance or confed troops.

followed by your personal views.

I do not understand why people say sov. is the real method to claim.  

Sov is a flag, you can place flags on the moon that does not make it yours, and if you have no flag in a populated territory is this no-one land?

Sovreignity is just a number in a sandbox, and not a cheap one, when sov will cost lot lot lot lot lot less i will agree on what you say.

Claim:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim" rel="nofollow - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim

 

And we have many situations were we cooabitate more than happy under 5 square range with others.

Most of the time the issue you speak about are created by people who harvast 50-100 square from their  cities near yours, or place armies near your cities.

Here is my question: why should i allow a land claim becouse someone placed 2-3 troops on it?

Some counterexamples:

-  X square radius military occupation prohibition :

Historically I don't believe anyone has ever liked seeing a foreign army march through their own lands without permission, be it barren wasteland or lush golden fields.

- X square radius harvesting prohibition:

If there are 2 rare mines with 5 alliance cities within 7 squares of both, and these in turn are surrounded by a large alliance cluster with the closest non-alliance player being more than 60 squares away, why should we claim sov or even keep armies on it just to show that it is ours?

Doing either would just create unnecessary upkeep cost.

Regarding it as not being owned simply because there is not sov on it would be unwise.

In opposition to this, coming as an outsider from 60 squares away and claiming sovereignty on these two mines would in no way be regarded as any form of acknowledged ownership from the surrounding alliance.

Any real declaration of ownership is only valid as long as you are capable of enforcing it, be it militarily, diplomatically or just by mutual agreement on terms of cultural norms.

 

Posting my reply to a previous post because it answers this:

 

Hadus wrote: SugarFree wrote: sov does not make it yours either Harvesting on someone else's sov spot is like taking flowers from their front yard: sure, it isn't well protected like the valuables locked in their house, and maybe you'll get away with it once in a while, but the community consensus is that it's their property, and trespassing will by frowned upon/punished.

 

It's is the real method to claim it. You are making a visible icon showing it's yours, and are paying by the hour to maintain that. It's the equivalent of a property deed in real life. Are you gonna tell the cops that you had a right to steal the flowers because owning the deed still doesn't mean he owns the property?

You paying who for the property deed now? Certainly not me or any authority that governs me.

Your property deed would only be legally significant to me if it was enforced by the King's men. That is if we even have the same king.

Drejan, earlier in global chat folks from Dlords were saying they would automatically kill any army occupying within 10 squares of a DLords city.  Personally, I think the DLords' city policy is quite reasonable.  The policy on people who have encampments, for example after killing an animal, seems a bit silly to me.

i just told one person who i really am on PM, and it looks like he didn't talk either XD

why you so focused on this kilotov? 

Because defending with a lot of troops on random terrain is a good way to loose a lot of troops.  Logically, those troops may be the tripwire for a much larger force.  If I see 2-3 troops, I assume that person wants that location and may (size dependent) respond with a more troops than I want to fight if I kill those 2-3.  So, if it were me, the reasons I would "allow" (not contest) the land claim are:

It seems simple.

 

But the same applies to sovereignty, and sovereignty is considered a real claim by a very strong consensus among a great number of players and alliances--who are willing to enforce this when one of their friends or members has their sovereignty challenged by an antagonist proclaiming it is nothing but a "flag."

 

Is that a big enough King's army?

 

@TomBombadil: Considering sov a real claim and saying it cannot be challenged/counter-claimed are two different things. I was stating the former, not the latter.

 

Rill wrote: Sugarfree, everyone knows you are Kilotov.

 

Relevance to the topic? Just wondering.

Yes, we have a Kill policy for all Armies sent to our homeland and upon our lands. I have people ALL THE TIME why we killed their armies or miners 2 and 3 squares from our towns. DUH!!!

If we place our armies in such proximity to other towns, we would be at war and in fact about headed there over one of our members who did it.

We began this temporary policy because Others were doing it to us. Now that we are doing it back you have various alliances whining about unfair. How.. you can do it to us but we can't do it back.. BULL! 

People can claim whatever amount they like even 20 squares (hey, why not!) , but they need to be ready to back up their claim and lay down their lives and their towns if they will make such claims. Dlord make 10 square claim, and we will protect what is ours from intruders and invaders. If people would just ask, be courteous, and speak with us prior to muscling their way in thing would run much smoother, but instead they muscle in and then go whining they got hurt in the act. I'm not talking about 20 squares out... MOST I'm referring to are within 5 squares of our towns.

While I agree and admit, we have had some of us do this.. I challenge ANYONE to say we have not compensated them fairly for misconduct on our behalf. Which is more than I can say for the vast majority who have done this to us.

Some things are just silly.. whining over being bumped off a square... GET OVER IT! We get bumped all the time. Do we write you all, pouting over it.. NO. We just send again... to our OWN mines we were bumped from most often.

Truthfully, I don't think we have a strong enough stance and maybe it needs to be stronger (doubt it but we shall see how things progress)... funny how everyone wants theirs at your expense and then get all up on arms because you say - No More!  We will not bow down and we will fight over what is ours. We don't have to, but if YOU wish to take us there.. we will happily walk with you and give you everything your asking for... over our dead bodies.

This is our sandbox to and we have a right to play our way as much as you do yours. We try to keep to ourselves and try to work things out. What we do is fair toward others and we give to others the same as we ask for.. if they have a different set of rules.. we abide by them, unless we feel we are being unfairly treated.. even then there is a process in which we endeavor to keep the faith as far as it can be kept.

Bela, you know that when we had issues with your member placing armies too close to our towns, we did not kill them.  We sent mail about it.  Instead of adopting the policies of the worst actors, why not adopt the practices of people who have shown some concern?

At least consider the history and intentions of people -- I think this is probably what you all will actually do, so the result is that your statement that you intend to kill all armies within 10 squares just ends up giving you a bad name.

Having been raked over the coals in gc myself after giving "only" 24 hours notice before we removed an army 5 squares from one of my player's cities, I certainly have empathy for what you are trying to accomplish.  But at the same time I don't think ultimatums are really all that helpful.

That's all I'm saying.

Second - I don't understand why you state 'We' should send a message first to them, when any form of basic courtesy is them writing us before place military on our (or your) lands. Them placing an army on our lands INTENDS to destroy our caravans and keep us from our stuff. That is an act of aggression no matter how one wishes to make it sweet. I'm not talking about squares and squares away but on OUR lands and in our HomeLand.

This is about aggression via military on our lands, not harvesting. 

Harvesting while another issue is less of an issue, except in a few cases.

Illy is a shared world.  I personally think it's more enjoyable when we make an effort to share in a spirit of generosity and kindness.  Would it be best for people to mail you before they park an army? Perhaps.  Does their failure to do so (for what is likely an innocent reason, like not noticing a city or having it out of their window view) mean that you then should ignore courtesy?  Personally, I don't think so.

To me this is not so much a question of "what can I justify doing" as it is of "what will make the game better for everyone."

As for Killing something on Dlord lands.. who says that is not yours to take.. YOU killed it and an Army over it is fine.. but send a message to the person, that is what you are doing. Simple Courteous and responsible.

And why does one person have to be right and the other conform?  Why can't we strive to respect and understand each other?

But I agree with your last post completely other than that. and that was exactly my point

 

 

 

 

1. Assume the player considers any square that is within 10 squares of their--and only their city--as their land.

 

2. Assume the player considers any square on which they have claimed sovereignty as their land.

 

3. Assume the player considers any non-sovereign square occupied by that player's army their square so long as the army is in place.

 

 

1. If a square is within 10 squares of two or more players, assume all players consider the square their land.

 

 

1. Assume that a player expects others to contact them before taking any action on a square they consider their land.

 

2. Assume a player expects at least 48 hours' time to reply to a contact regarding actions on a square they consider their land.

 

3. Assume a player expects the intentions of your actions to be made clear when contacting them.

 

 

I'm confused by this.

An Army is by it's DEFINITION a tool of aggression. You kill people with it. You use it to siege and destroy/take over cities with it. You blockade peoples cities with it. How could placing it close to someone elses' city NOT be considered in any way aggressive?

A flag popping up in a territory dominated by others is even more meaningless unless they already consider your claim fully valid. If the claim goes unsupported the flag is more of an passive aggressive gesture than anything.

Granted, there are some accepted norms regarding which claims are supported, but a server-wide rule would be unfeasible.

For example, in Northern Wolgast, claims of ownership on rare resources are mutually supported by a large number of alliances if that resource is closest to your city. A stable and quite fair norm. No sovereignty is needed to confirm your claim.

On some of the Southern islands all the rare resources are claimed by a single alliance with only a small number of harvesting rights being granted to non-alliance members who happen to live directly next to these squares. That might seem unfair but that's what you can expect if you live in the middle of another alliance's cluster. Placing a sovereignty flag there is meaningless since everything is already regarded as owned.

If you live in the newb ring you can pretty much expect the strongest to hold whatever they want.

If you live far off in the huggy wilderness you can likely expect neighbours to be much more friendly about these things.

The best you can really hope for is a stable regional norm.

One day I ride out to enjoy my land as well as check on my animals and see if the apples are right for the picking. Suddenly I come upon a campsite with tents and a large camp-fire. There are men sitting around it. A pig is roasting on a spit and a basket of apple can be seen outside one of the tents. A string of fish is drying in the sun.

Now... I can do a number of things in this situation.

1. Take out my shotgun, and kill them all, disposing of the people. After all, it is MY land and MY pig, MY apples and MY fish. In some countries, this would be completely fine by the law.

2. Talk to them, ask them what they are doing, who they are, and then politely inform them that they are trespassing.

In no 2, I can get several responses, and my action will follow according to what they say.

I can then let them stay if they pay for the pig, fish and apples. I can run them off my land. I can call in the police and have them arrested. 

Or I could just kill them because I didn't like their snot-nosed replies and bury their bodies. Who will know? It's MY land and it's huge, and they had no right to be there.

I personally follow no 2, but I guess some people follow no 1. If it's THEIR land, it's in THEIR right to do what they like, as long as the law accepts it.

BTW... you don't hunt the king's deer on the king's land... unless you're Robin Hood.

I'm talking for me, not for Dlords.

That's where all the post fail.

You all say the map is full of cities and 10 square is too much, than say you have the right to harvast from places far from your cities.

Sorry but this is greedy, not what we did, Dlords is harvasting only near their cities, you should not see any 30-60-200 range sov. or troops by us, like i see every day from many alliances that cry when killed.

We had many times found pact with neighbours, and usually the nearest city has the greater right, but we do not like people claiming resource in our land from far (placing 2 troops is a claim, they will not allow anyone else to harvast).

Hewman wrote:   You have DONE nothing to claim this land, you have expended no resources, time or energy... you've simply waived your wand and said it's so.

We settled in our homeland the first day of exodus, in a place without a single square with more than 5 food, and i can assure we all know what a 7food square mean. We clustered cities one near the others:  http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/399/-409/9" rel="nofollow - http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/399/-409/9  without space for appropriate sov. just to call this place our.

Now a few non-so-rare resource spawn in our homeland and you say we did nothing to own that squares? I disagree, placing an army there look greedy to me.

Fact is that we are claiming lot less resource than most of you,

 most of us (like me) does not care at all about them but want to defende their homeland from jackals.

I am going to directly quote Berylla, but this is really a response to several posts...

I am totally onboard with everything I've quoted and the things you lay out afterwards.  But I think this post and others are missing a crucial logical step.  What is YOURS?  What is YOUR farm?  We all understand the need to respect property rights and land claims... the question we must first answer tho, is how are those property lines drawn?  Is your "farm" found on the square on which your city rests?  Does your "farm" extend to a 5 square radius around your city?  a 10 square radius?  What is YOURS and what is public or unclaimed land?  We must define this first and foremost before we discuss solutions and etiquete for those who trespass.

I think this thread has gotten a little off track, and thats fine, but to clarify the purpose... do we as a community (a sandbox community, but a community nonetheless), want to lay out social NORMS for how to define what our farms are, where they begin, where they end, etc.  From this discussion so far, there seems to be two schools of thought:

1. The DLords definition of their "farm" - Our "farm" is anything within 10 squares of any of our cities (oh and by the way, if you stumble upon our farm, we're going with option 1 and using the shotgun).

and

2. The CLAIMED land definition of one's "farm" - Our "farm" is our city, any land we've claimed sov. on, and any land where our troops occupy (assuming they are not roasting a pig on a spit on YOUR farm).

There are other slight variations that have been discussed (3 or 5 squares rather than the DLord 10) but it seems to me the definition of our "farms" - our land that we can expect solitude and dominion over - boils down to these two views.  

I personally think that view 1. is unrealistic, impractical, and leads to hostility rather than peace.  Allow me to explain why:  

First, it is unrealistic because there is no NOTICE.  Sure, if you have read this thread you are on notice of DLords position, but for the thousands of players who dont follow the forum closely, how are they ever supposed to know that you consider that your land?  Bela, you say, "if they come onto my land they should have the courtesy of at least telling me before," well how will they know to message you if they dont know you consider that YOURS rather than public?  

Second, it's impractical (especially in dense regions like Norweld, Lucerna, newb ring, etc).  It's impractical because there are hundreds, maybe thousands of instances where cities 10 square radii overlap.  Sure, if it's just two players they can work it out cordially.  But I live in Norweld where it is not rare (and actually quite common) for 5, 6, sometimes 7 or 8 cities to have 10 square radii that overlap.  It's simply insane to think that the 10 square, or 5 square rule that DLords propose could ever work in such a region.  *I know what you're going to say Bela, "if you don't like it then move out of Norweld" -- well that's not the point.  We can't ALL retreat to Kumala or Ursor to avoid being close to other players.*

Third, this position leads to hostility.  I recognize and support that ULTIMATELY you CAN do whatever your military might allows you to.  If DLords (and sorry for continuing to use DLords, I'm not picking on them, I'm just using it to refer to their position which I'm sure is not theirs alone), if DLords or any other player/alliance wants to claim 30 squares then I suppose they CAN as long as they have the military might to police that policy... but that forces people into hostility.  The point of this thread is to find common ground to AVOID hostility.  I'm not anti-war, I'm not anti-agression; we have armies in Illy for a reason... that said, we should still be able to have generally accepted principals to harvest, settle, and occupy land without it starting a needless or unwanted war.

So for those three reasons, I think the stance that Bela (and others) put forth does not make sense for how we define what and where our "farms" are.  View 2 answers all the problems with view 1... It is realistic because even if a player has never set eyes on this forum, they can see in-game whether there is sov. or military on a square and have fair notice that land is OWNED by someone else.  It is practical because no matter how close your city is to another city, you can never overlap sovereignty or occupation (that still leaves room for neighbors to bicker, dispute, and resolve their desire to own land, as neighbors will always do).  And it is peaceful rather than hostile because of the fair notice given to the world that this is my land... players can avoid that square... or they can choose not to, but at least they choose not to KNOWING military hostility is likely to follow.

That is my two cents.  Maybe I am biased because I am in Norweld - maybe others are biased because they are in the remote corners of Elgea - maybe we need two sets of principles; one for dense areas and one for remote ones.  But no matter which way you slice it, I can't see DLords view 1 working as a social norm that everyone can follow peacefully.

 

But if you kill a first-time offender's trespassing army, or attack the player who sov'd, without first giving them a chance to remove it first, that is also, in my eyes, an act of aggression. There is no reason why you can't scout and message them a request to vacate, unless they've padded their army with scouts, in which case they can immediately be assumed hostile.

 

Seems to me like some players who take this kill-first ask-later route are as hungry for conflict as the trespassers, and seek out the above situation since they can defend their actions by claiming "He started it!"

 

TomBombadil wrote: I have no problem with seeing sovereignty directly connected to a city as sacred owned territory as it very much forms part of your city, but claiming sovereignty on a square far away is no more than a flag to me. A flag popping up in a territory dominated by others is even more meaningless unless they already consider your claim fully valid. If the claim goes unsupported the flag is more of an passive aggressive gesture than anything. Granted, there are some accepted norms regarding which claims are supported, but a server-wide rule would be unfeasible. For example, in Northern Wolgast, claims of ownership on rare resources are mutually supported by a large number of alliances if that resource is closest to your city. A stable and quite fair norm. No sovereignty is needed to confirm your claim. On some of the Southern islands all the rare resources are claimed by a single alliance with only a small number of harvesting rights being granted to non-alliance members who happen to live directly next to these squares. That might seem unfair but that's what you can expect if you live in the middle of another alliance's cluster. Placing a sovereignty flag there is meaningless since everything is already regarded as owned. If you live in the newb ring you can pretty much expect the strongest to hold whatever they want. If you live far off in the huggy wilderness you can likely expect neighbours to be much more friendly about these things. The best you can really hope for is a stable regional norm.

 

I think we're actually agreeing, not disagreeing. I would not recognize a sov spot near me claimed by a far off town as legitimate either.

 

The important thing for conflict resolution is to assume the player claiming it considers it their land. Assume they claim a 10 square radius around their city. Assume all players are only going to consider the 2-3 squares near your city as your land and everything else as public. Assume all these things--until you find out from the player, directly via IGM, forum message, or otherwise.

 

Let me repeat myself yet again: there's no reason to act against a player without contacting them first. If you don't use your words first, you're as much of an aggresor as they are.

But the fact is that you have no right to place that army there and when you send the army you should expect to loose it, someone can argue i can ask you the resource lost attacking your troops too.

 In a real world wars have started just becouse of troops placed near someone territory.

You are focused on the right to claim a land but what is your right to send troops far away or to claim sov?

Anyway again you say you do not want to ruminate on your personal view and keep enforcing your view to anyone else.

Edit: sorry maybe you are not the same person

What we say is what is near our lands is our or of our nightbours, not free for all.

Actually, there is a reason although you may not agree with it.  There's a pretty good chance that the entire existence of a camp and removal of resources will only take 2-3 hours.  It takes 2 hours to harvest animal parts and some herbs/minerals are as quick.  In 2 hours 4 human cotters can take 84 hides IIRC (over 300K gold in value).  If I pop in here (Illy) and see a transgressing army there's a possibility that in the 10-15 minutes for my scouts to get there (5-7 squares) the offender will simply leave.  Let's say that doesn't happen (there's probably only a 10% chance of missing them entirely) I still have to wait 10-15 minutes to learn anything and if I wait until later to read the scout report the offender will likely have already left (with "my" resources).  I put the odds at 90%+ that if you return in only 90 minutes that the offender will be gone.  Maybe I don't have 10-15 minutes to play Illy, in which case my only options are to send troops, do nothing or beg for the return of what (if my scouts got their names before they left)?  The offender can always claim they were bumped or even killed by someone else.  Who's to say at that point? What if they simply don't respond?  Do you attack their city?  That's a pretty poor option when you could have got them red-handed, in the act and exacted a minimal punishment (the loss of whatever troops they chose to risk).

Right or wrong (and I usually scout and talk but I'm here a lot) I feel there is a reason to "shoot first" as they say.

I think the example with the pig was silly.  A player is either doing something in terms of the game or not.  There are no fields and farms, etc... to trespass on, only cities.  There are no pigs to steal but there are cows and we aren't talking about someone stealing those.  We are talking about things that in game terms there is no way to "own" other than with force.  It's like your farm example and someone drinks from a stream that runs near your property but doesn't actually go on it but it is close and you do use it a lot and it is important to you.  Do you own that?  Maybe you take care of the stream and make sure it's clean, do you own it then?  etc...

It would be nice if you simply couldn't harvest/gather/mine resources if they are on a square soved by another player without planting an army there first.  That way, it would be clear that the offender was using force to gain something he could not otherwise gain.  The way it is now, it's pretty unclear what is going on when you see someone "stealing" your stuff and any response (either talking or fighting) could be the wrong one and there is no way to know before you pick one.  That would also encourage people to sov land and might itself lead to interesting ramifications.

They're not yours until their in your city. Besides, if you wanted them that badly and they were so close to you, what's your excuse for not being able to plop an army there? Especially if it took the "offending" army several hours to get there. 

I have received multiple complaints of DLords armies killing gatherers and other armies far from DLords cities.  Not necessarily more so than other alliances, but not necessarily less so either.

  That's what I tried to convey with the italics and quotes.  "My" in the context of this discussion means different things to different people.  I didn't do it for emphasis but to accentuate the vagueness of the term.  If a player feels he/she "owns" something and that others should recognize that ownership (as many people here clearly do) then from that players perspective it is "theirs".

Your logic is infallible, from your perspective, but sadly not universal.  That's the trouble here, too many different "infallible" logic(s).

But, how about if I want them so badly (and you try to take them) then I just kill your armies?  or how about if I want them so badly (and you take them) I just raze your city?  I see your point, the question is, do you see the other points presented here?  The underlying point is that might makes right but community standards carry with them their own sort of "might" and are quite effective.  I think some players here feel that if they can set a "community" standard it will give them more might.

BTW, I share your view.  I have 1 man armies on all "my" plots.  I established clear divisions with all my neighbors before placing those armies.  That's how I let people know something is "mine".  It would be pretty simple to kill those armies but I hope the killer doesn't think that would be the end of it.

>> That is simple, whatever you or your alliance can maintain, and that by force if necessary.

Thus it is the individual or individual alliance that determines this - Not YOU nor the Community.

The Community can give favor toward or not and idea or issue, but nothing more. While it is true the Community can rise up based only on agreed upon IDEALS in the event harm is being cause to the detriment of the GAME. This has only happened once that I recall, because the entire community was in agreement that Killing off Newbies and/or forcing them to join a particular alliance or die.. was not good for the game.. and we rose up like a tidal wave and washed the land clean of those perpetrators.

However, the community does not decide for others what they desire to call their own and this is where you keep missing the mark. The community approves or disapproves of things but not dictate (except in rare instances by global unity - ex. wanton harming/killing of newbies) what individuals and alliances can call their own. 

You have contacted me on a couple.. and we worked them out -  what stopped you from telling me of the others?

I will qualify something however - If an army is on a mine (or whatever) that is not near any city.. there is nothing wrong with fighting for the mine. I disapprove of killing off caravans unnecessarily, but in this kind of an event.. it is fair game just as our armies are.

You know I don't put up with Dlords infringing others lands if we have no rights there, so I'm perplexed that you never brought it up. 

Quite simply, it is not my job to solve everyone's problems.  A lot of people come to me with issues, and I choose not to involve myself in most of them.  Dealing with this sort of thing for two decent-sized alliances is quite enough of a headache.

Not sure why you (or anyone) thinks that I should have some sort of obligation to mediate or solve every dispute in Illy.

However, we are getting away from the topic at hand.  Let's try to keep personalities out of this discussion, shall we?

While yes it is off topic (but I'm a bit off anyway too :) ), I'm not bringing personalities into it I'm commenting on what YOU stated. You set forth a declaration on the public forum that you have "..received multiple complaints of DLords armies killing gatherers and other armies far from DLords cities."

My statement is directly related to YOUR comment in asking why you never brought such to my attention, when you on a couple had done so previously. NOW if these complaints are not FROM your alliance, then the issue could have easily been stated.. Not my alliance Bel but others..

If people are whining to you who are not in your alliance, tell them to go speak with their leadership or better yet.. speak with ours!

My point was simple.. if there was a problem, where was the communication. Every point I hear about I take care of personally and many can attest to it. Who said you need to resolve all the problems in Illy (I don't remember making any such statement).. just tell them to contact me if they had armies or caravans destroyed on their lands. I have replaced much and more so, anything we did that was not what we deem a correct action. And have only had 1 (that I know of) issue that turned out ok for both but both were not happy (us nor them). The rest have been taken care of and on good terms. If people have issues.. they need to stop being babies and come speak to the one or group that has caused issue and see if it can be worked out.

The issue here is that Dlord is being used as the example, which is no problem (though a bit touchy), yet due to this we and most definitely "I" am under obligation to correct misconceptions and false ideas when dealing with our policies, ideology, and gameplay.

 

No no no, I'm miscommunicating my message to you still. My only point in posting the principles, and read the next sentence carefully, is this: Players need to differentiate between "Player X is deliberately trespassing on my land and needs to be punished" and "Player X does not realize I consider that square my land, I need to let them know."

 

Here's a scenario that will illustrate how many ways conflict can be avoided in a situation if people are simply more aware and cautious:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you get my point now Drejan? It is folly to go around assuming everyone is going to know what your policy on land claims. Stating "If they come in our land we will kill them, no questions asked" only applies in the situation Salarius brought up below, or when dealing with repeat offenders. Take the time, make your intentions on land as clear and obvious as possible, and if they refuse to comply, then you bring out the troops.

 

Now let's look at Salarius' case.

 

A great point Salarius. In this case, yes, killing the units is the only way to go. It should be noted though, that there are many ways to soften the blow of this action while saving your resources:

1. Send a message at the same time you send the attack, explaining your personal policies on land claims.

2. Explain that you only killed the units on the square to make sure the spot didn't go extinct.

3. If you really want to show benevolence, offer to give the the res needed to rebuild the units.

Above is an area in Norweld centered on a city.  Around "your" city is a 10 square radius.  Within the 10 square radius are 9 other cities.  Explain which land is YOURS and which land belongs to the other 9 players.

I really don't understand what you don't get.

I said this:

I have received multiple complaints of DLords armies killing gatherers and other armies far from DLords cities.  Not necessarily more so than other alliances, but not necessarily less so either.

This statement is completely accurate, so far as I know.  Your attempts to cloud the issue by commenting on issues which I do or don't bring up directly with you rather than (as you admonished me to do) recommend that people raise with you directly, are entirely beside the point.  The point being that I see DLords as being neither a paradigm of virtue nor as some sort of villain but as essentially typical, although I think that certain of your members made some early missteps vis a vis mines that tended to create a bad impression.

I am not sure why my comment that DLords is essentially typical in this regard should be cause for concern.

Rill wrote: I have received multiple complaints of DLords armies killing gatherers and other armies far from DLords cities.  Not necessarily more so than other alliances, but not necessarily less so either. This statement is completely accurate, so far as I know.

How can this be accurate elude me :) "not necessarily" here "not necessarily" there.

If we talk of ranged claims i know of one issue with Dlords(where we asked our member to stop), while i've tons of non Dlords every day (often more than 50 range) .

The fact that someone complaints does not make it right.

You were not looking for a common agreement? People should learn not to send troops far away from their cities near non-allied cities. Isn't it simpler?

If you are greedy with your troops you risk them, as simple as that.

belargyle wrote: Hewman wrote: Sorry for my ignorance, what does "pre-Land claim" mean? I thought it was self evident.. but no biggy... A time in which we had not made a land claim, nor for the most part, anyone else.

This goes to the heart of what I am hoping to achieve with this post.  I do not wish to DICTATE my views.  I do not wish for the community to legislate hard and fast RULES.  All I was hoping for was to come to some AGREED upon norms that make sense and are easy for people to follow IF they wish to settle/harvest/hunt peacefully.  I'm not, as I think you mentioned previously, looking for a way for us all to sit around a campfire... I'm just trying to see if we can find a FAIR way for people to avoid the wrath of alliances and players like you who are willing to go to war over a mineral deposit that happens to be 8 squares away from your city (but also 4 squares from my NAP city, and 9 squares from one of my alliance cities).  IT'S COMPLICATED to navigate that and I think you are over simplifying it by only looking at it from your own perspective.  Sure, its easy to just say "EVERYTHING within 10 squares is mine and if thats violated I will kill you, grrrrrr."  But going back to my example before, and I will provide the visual again below, there's no way such a rigid policy can work effectively.

So tell me, Belargyle, which city OWNS square [-13|257] under your policy?

Who has exclusive right to square [-4|249]? What about [-11|248]? 

(I've marked them on the above image).

I like to think of myself as a somewhat intelligent individual, but I truly can't figure out who has a right to those squares under your policy.  These are REAL questions that are presented by the policy you advocate.  If your policy is so simple, effective, and fair please enlighten us as to the ownership rights to those squares so we may understand.

edit/disclaimer - I do not mean to single out or villanize DLords.  I have used their name, but purely for the sake of example in order to further this discussion after their members have volunteered their official alliance policy.  I may not understand the choices and policies of DLords, but I do respect them as an alliance and I apologize if any mention is construed as criticism. 

 we also don't pretend to tell others how they should enforce their very own alliance or borders, or how to deal whit resource administration. i may advise the people that have problems whit the DwarvenLords to read His Highness's posts at once, for they have all answers to the questions they may be looking for. 

Kilotov v2.0 hehe , you are funny.

I've read the wall of text and I agree with his highness's views. 

 

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.

This pretty much absolves all future issues.