some big alliances made statements neither related to firm claims nor fixed counter/anti-claims or rigid no claim zones.

So far those statements had been moved to the discussion thread, where they are lost between all the talk about general pros and cons.

This thread is planed to collect the statements of ignoration and denial. Please keep it as free of discussion as the other official thread...

Dear fellow Illyrians,

The recent weeks have seen some land claims in the BL, and VIC was asked, whether they'd like to do one, too.

In short: We won't.

Invictus is a big and widespread alliance, defining a heartland would be difficult. 

Further, why should we restrict other players?

On the other hand, why should they restrict us? 

We Consuls of VIC are suspiciously watching the new territories and their future development. 

We won't intervene right now, as we don't have a reason to do so, but we won't recognize any claims in or widely around High Hills for now.

Don't be afraid, we plan no counter claim, or anything... 

That means business as usual: Settling/harvesting accidents will be solved diplomatically. Intentional actions against our units (be it by claim or not) won't be tolerated. We stay true to the widely accepted 10-square-please-ask-before-settling radius.

Claiming alliances concerned about this statement will recieve a more detailed IGM and are encouraged to ask any questions appearing also directly via IGM to keep this thread clean. Thank you.

Dark Shade does not recognize these claims and, like Invictus, will ignore them.

We do not settle inside a land claim with an intention to force a conflict, but we settle where our strategy indicates even if this means settling inside a land claim. Militray or diplomatic actions against our cities will be answered with disproportionate military action.

Don't start none, won't be none!

If you are settling within a land claim, it is with the intention to force a conflict. You not recognizing a land claim is well within your 'right', and certainly refusal to recognize claims is to be expected, but you can't hide behind 'but we're not forcing conflict'. 

I also wonder how many players in Illyriad are comfortable, or have been comfortable with the peacenik atmosphere. It could very well be that the majority have been uncomfortable, but have been subjugated by the minority that possesses the military prowess. 

You're directly challenging and threatening with vast destruction. How could anyone look at it and say 'yep, they're just interested in settlement as well'. 

Peacenik... ok, planned PvP going on down in BL (short of the opposition to Land Claims) isn't peacenik type? With negotiations on who is participating, which cities cannot be attacked 

...There isn't any kind of legitimate PvP going that you think BL should have going on.

BL is just an extension for ROOM, and we know when that happened. And we also know the devs planned it another way that didn't develop.. so now you are forcing conflict ALL over BL your way, with land claims... 

And please, mention who runs Elgea, that can't in BL, which is why this is headed the way it is due to them?

Thank you for posting your land claim policy, Diva! This is a great policy and should really further enrich the land claim experiment in the Broken Lands. 

For the point above, can you clarify the area that constitutes "where WoT resides and harvests?" The way you've currently described this is unclear, and players in land claiming alliances need to have exact boundaries so as to avoid conflict by settling in an area too close to your no-land-claimers-allowed claim.

LC's have marked their territory. We don't feel they should have both when near WOT players/or WOT clusters.

(1) HYPOTHETICALLY, SIN claims Fellandire, and despite WoT having cities on the border / a few squares within, states we don't have the right to harvest or expand around those cities.

(2) HYPOTHETICALLY, WoT has a large cluster of cities (say 45) spread around Farshards outside of the SIN claim. However SIN has 5 cities mixed into this area, which they plan of leaving there and using to harvest aggressively.  

We would be AGAINST this arrangement.  We are against LC in general, but especially if you are going to kick us out of an area and tell us not to harvest there, but then leave cities of your own outside of your claim and harvest amongst us.  Certainly we don't mind random people settling within our loose clusters, and harvesting as they see fit as friendly neighbors.  But if you are going to restrict our livelihood, crafting, hunting and trade, we will feel free to do the same in return.

Now all of this is quite hypothetical, we don't have clusters of cities next to SIN and SIN doesn't have cities amongst our cluster stealing our earth salts ;)

The reason I am asking is that I think that because the WoT policy restricts settlement of one very specific type of player (in this case, a player in a land claim alliance) from settling in one of WoT's large cluster of cities, that your large clusters could be demarcated on the land claim map. It wouldn't be marked as a "land claim" but rather as a "zone," similar to TVM's no-claim zone. This needs to be done so that the 300+ players in land claim alliances are able to access the map and see where they are ill-advised to settle. Does this make sense?

I shall post on the MAP page, that WoT is in direct OPPOSITION to the demarcation of ANYTHING posted by ANYONE other than WOT on the map. Our issue is with LAND CLAIMERS ONLY.

There is no need for a public service announcement from WoT, our policy is on our alliance page -- as is any land claiming alliance.

I'm not trying to irritate you or WoT, Diva, and like I said, I sincerely like and respect your claim policy. At the same time, me putting your policy on the map makes complete sense, given the restrictive nature of your policy. If it didn't have that one point, then it would not be on the map. Players are accessing the map to get a general idea of where to settle in the BL, so it is a valuable resource in that regard, and as the map administrator, I think it's an important feature to include.

If you look, I tried to include two factors to account for WoT's position: 1) it is not marked as a "land claim" 2) it clearly states your policy. I'm not going to include a long disclaimer on WoT's position on land claims as an ideology, but your alliance zone title is directly hyperlinked to the post above with your policy.

I don't know why would you be against of being included in the map as long as your policies are clear enough.

We didn't ask for a place on the map, require one and oppose one being added. This map is JeJune's baby, and WoT wants no part or inference that is not already posted on it's alliance page.

The fact that I cannot post WHERE I want and it not be moved -- I'm so done.

You cannot post an anti-land claim post in the land claim thread. 

I will also begin deleting posts that are attempting to goad or troll the conversation or topic. (Not you, Diva, I am referring to someone else.)

When a thread is made as a legitimate attempt at discussion or information-gathering, I will police it. We already have too many good threads destroyed by off-topic banter. 

If a poster continues to post off-topic posts, let me know. Eventually I will have to ban the person from the forums.

Thanks! Continue on!

GM Rikoo

Then how can JeJune post/place a anti-land claim on a map in Alliance Land Claims that WoT has not claimed.. we are not only located in Aindara.. this is FALSE and his doing only. 

I have NOT posted an Alliance Land Claim, therefore should NOT be on his map.

I cannot control his map. I can control the forums, though.

Rikoo

LOUD and clear JeJune?

Let me expand on this Say Alliance A has claimed a region next to WoT we have no cities in that region. BUT they have a few cities in Ainoara, where we have cities. What would stop Alliance A claiming a second region as their alliance expands and needs more harvest able location so then WoT would either have to go bow to this alliance demands to settle in a region we've been, be kicked out or go to war. 

Seeing as how WoT as a whole is against land claims and won't avoid region's where there are some, and will defend members right's to settle anywhere (out side of 10sq radius of course), and will use ALL  means to defend our right to do so. How this makes use grey i don't know as we not saying we're against land claims but will just stay in our location's we are actively settling where members want to and informed alliance's close to use that if they stick to their land claims it will bring them in to conflict with us.

Also we don't believe alliance's should be able to have their cake and eat it as the saying goes if you want a region to your self you should

Can I toss another hypothetical out there?  

Assume I am an alliance with a land claim.  I play nicely and keep my business to my claimed area.  Perhaps I send a few traders out of the claimed area to get my goods to market which does benefit all in the game.

What if I am associated with another alliance, perhaps a training, feeder, or sister alliance, without a claim that sets up pockets of cities (all over the world) for harvesting those resources not found in the claimed area?  Are these other alliances free to do as they will?  Even if they have known alts from the claiming alliance leading them up?

Now... this is a tremendous tribute the organization power of a group of players in the game... but isn't this also "having the cake and eating it too"?  Or do we fundamentally disassociate the actions of a player and that player's alt?  Or two alliances with close ties?

The borders on your map signifying where WOT DID NOT SAY it was EVER claiming (assumed by JeJune if you look on THE LAND CLAIMER'S map) As the old saying goes --- I won't post it so Rikoo has a reason to ban me or close the thread. 

Definitely has the TWISTING of intent to your benefit though. I see no other Anti-land claim on your map, and what TVM does is what TVM said, don't compare what has not been said. Tell me where I posted a anti - land claim to any area of Broken Lands that should be on that map, PLEASE.

I thought so. No where.

Here.

Show me where WoT claimed an area PLEASE, here does not exist.
 

You said you won't allow Land claimers near WoT cities, so jejune labeled the area where you said land claimers can't go based upon WoT cities. Technically it is a land claim strictly reserved for those who don't have land claims(so no one because of ten square standard)

Nothing brings up training alliance morale like a public scolding. 

So those in a land claiming alliance can't settle anywhere outside of our claims? Sounds a bit like segregation.

Really? and what is LC? 

• There is no anti-land claim WoT has expressed to be put on the map.

 ah, ah, ah. If you read the land claims most actually say if you ask you can settle. What you are saying is "You are not allowed here at all. No discussion needed, but we aren't making a land claim we are just telling you where you can't ever settle"

Making a homeland is possible and not too hard using the 10 square convention: make sure that your towns are settled in 1 central location and close to each other. Even spaced 5 squares from each other, you can get all the sov you need. There are at least 2 alliances in BL that are doing this: the first, SIN, who added a land claim to an already well settled and established homeland; the second, Sojourn.

 

Twi, as I remember it there was never a Land Claim by the Dark Empire and I would like to see evidence to the contrary. I do remember you always wanting something similar to a land claim and me always saying no.

In my view, an alliance can achieve the effect of a land claim by placing cities in one location in a concentrated, coordinated effort by all members. There is no need for a proclamation of Land Claim. The alliances who proclaimed their land claims have simply chosen the easy method, saying: Hey that's mine, you keep your hands off it. Some of them have done so even if the designated geographical space is actually quite empty. The result is a wide part of the map in Broken Lands which is in theory inaccessible to most players.

To this date there is ONE land claimer alliance who successfully protected their claim and in essence managed to turn theory into reality. All other claimers are far from being SIN's equals. It will be interesting to see them enforce their land claims in the future.

Actually, DARK did have a land claim, and posted in the forums. It's not easy to read because the text is in white on white, but if you highlight it you can see it:  http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/writ-of-notice-dark-empire_topic3214_page1.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/writ-of-notice-dark-empire_topic3214_page1.html

I find their claim model interesting in how it centers around the capital. Sisren I think was very ahead of his time.

I stand corrected. I was probably a member of Dark at the time, but not leadership.

My friend at the time, Sisren, sure had a way with words .

I'll hazard again and say that to my knowledge (again) this land claim was never enforced or challenged outside of the forums.

I suggest you check up with EE, especially with Bomshanka.

DARK made a more ferocious land claim than SIN.

I find this quite funny, since WoT has been claiming part of the Western Realms for years, without needing to say it out loud, because DARK did the military stuff.

That proves my point.

1. Twi always says her mind outright.

2. this does not mean that she is always right.

3. During the Coalition-Consone war I already was the military leader of Dark so I can tell you outright that land claims had nothing to do with Dark's motives to take part in the war, or directed our strategy during this war. We did push Vic and EE out of Western Realms, but that was becuase they were the closest and easiest targets and we did not want enemies in our midst.

personally, I was always against land claims and the current conflict did not change my mind. There are certain strategic locations on the map on which I want to see only my own alliance or at least our allies in other alliances. I will do my utmost to place our towns in these locations, but I will not deny it to others by a proclamation, nor will I prey on those not my own if they are quick or smart enough to get there before me.

DARK threats had been hanging all along. The Consone war was just an excuse for DARK to clean up.

Your 2nd sentence is false. There were no threats before the war and during the war there was nothing but war actions. You can call them a "clean up", but you have no access to the motivation of our leadership at that time.

true and true

3. During the Coalition-Consone war I already was the military leader of Dark so I can tell you outright that land claims had nothing to do with Dark's motives to take part in the war, or directed our strategy during this war. We did push Vic and EE out of Western Realms, but that was becuase they were the closest and easiest targets and we did not want enemies in our midst. personally, I was always against land claims and the current conflict did not change my mind. There are certain strategic locations on the map on which I want to see only my own alliance or at least our allies in other alliances. I will do my utmost to place our towns in these locations, but I will not deny it to others by a proclamation, nor will I prey on those not my own if they are quick or smart enough to get there before me.

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/260239" rel="nofollow">

For those not following along...

1) I never supported any land claim and until Jejune yesterday posted the link to that old thread was not even aware of Dark's past land claim. It was a long time ago and most if not all of the players who made that land claim do not play anymore. They certainly are not part of Dark Shade leadership.

2) What we did in the Coalition-Consone war, in which I was part of Dark's leadership, was not related to land claims. It was war and KP knows much more than me why that war started. I was just the military leader in that war and when Dark's political leader at the time and my friend (Sisren) told me to go to war, I went.

We can continue this dance until we tire oursleves, but you won't find anything in my past that supports land claims.

Cheers.

Halcyon wrote: nor will I prey on those not my own

is in direct opposition to 

Halcyon wrote: we did not want enemies in our midst.

The choice of words is important. It is clear that removing enemy cities during war is a good strategy. When you say you will not prey on those not your own, you were simply wrong; you did prey on those not your own. 

As I see them, land claims are, in part an attempt to avoid the situation wherein cities have to removed from hub territory during war. Alliances that provoke by landing cities within claims seem to be more interested in control than the freedom they purport.

I look at the map and say: I like this place, I'll let my friends know that it is good and that we should start placing our cities there. It's even quite empty so we can place cities there and still respect the space of our neighbors.

One of my friends reads the forums and says: I like this place, but it is claimed. Someone wrote a message in the forums.

I say: I don't care what someone wrote in the forums. We are hurting no one by placing our cities there. Why should we let others restrict us because they wrote a message in the forums?

What runs WoT today doesn't run on the old history of others that ran WoT. King Korr was JUST as new as me. King Korr and Dunedane ran WoT for a while, then RL for Dundane has taken precedence. Leadership was basically his for his time in WoT. No longer there often, then King has taken the lead role, asking me to back him.

So those that know the history of WoT relationship with Dark at that time, I believe only Manannan and vets of Dark probably know. Or it is posted around these forums.

Gosh Twi...

You seem to confuse land claim in time of peace with war. Two different things.

Dark under my leadership never had a land claim. You told me on several occasions: let's say that The Western Realms is ours and anyone who does not wish to join us must leave. I always told you no.

Both the Coalition-Consone war and the Great War were not about land claims. During these wars enemies - not neutral players inside our nonexistent land claim, enemies - who refused to surrender were sieged and either captured or razed. They were not our enemies because of any land claim and they were not sieged because they were in our nonexistent land claim. They were sieged because they were enemy combatants who refused to surrender.

Dark Shade's policy is unchanged from Dark's under my leadership: We settle anywhere we wish as long as the location is not inside the 10 squares convention. If it is, we ask for permission.

Dark Shade has a Broken Lands strategy which is not currently in conflict with SIN (to my knowledge, We did not discuss strategy with SIN's leadership). Land claims seems to be all the rage these days so that even fledgling alliances make them. these alliances can defend their claims only against similar fledgling alliances or unallied small players. Land claims by such alliances are more dangerous to themselves than to any established, strong alliance, but that does not mean that they have my support.