Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Valid Land Claims in the New Era
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedValid Land Claims in the New Era

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 19:25

WARNING - GREAT WALL OF TEXT

Originally posted by Hewman Hewman wrote:

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.
>> 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. 

Quote 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.
>> The truth is, we are not off track but firmly fixed on it. The community are individuals who state their case. You don't like what they are saying, so are trying to again call out others to argue for YOUR desired response. Some will, many wont. 

The social norms have been established long ago, even before T2. 
1. Courtesy - Ask first
2. Respect - You might or might not be right, but still have a care in what you say
3. Integrity - if you messed up.. oh well, please refer back to #1

With the T2, now people are looking to revamp the social norms to:
1. Non-courtesy - I'm on your land - you message me first
2. Disrespect - you might or might not be right, but who cares.. I'm here now and so It's mine
3. ---------  .. yes, we made it much more simple (from 3 to 2)


Quote 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.  
>> You are a funny guy LOL
Our Land claim is not something new or that came into play after T2. This has been in effect for months, prior to T2. It was not necessarily accepted as the greatest policy, but the COMMUNITY accepted land claims as such even if some disagreed with them in general or specific. We played on.

I'm sorry that what we established some time ago (and others as well), interferes with your harvesting desires but it will not go away. People always say they want cooperation.. but THEY never want to cooperate with others by trying to find a middle ground, they want others to cooperate with them on their terms and by their rules. Funny, doesn't sound like cooperation to me.

Quote 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?  
First off, it is MY opinion that you personal views on this subject are unrealistic, illusionary , and silly.

With respect to DLORD claims - regarding the person who seemingly didn't know, here is a thought.. ask the community in GC. Shocked  In fact, I'm betting that person knew ALREADY what they were doing was not advisable if they watch the GC at all, or has any friends, or communicates in any way.

Dlords has many things out there that tells people our Land Claim Policy.
1. is now here in this thread as well
2. is in a thread we made when we first did this months back
3. it is on our alliance home page.
4. Most all of the leadership in the alliances know of our claim
5. most of the people in GC know of our claims

If the person has no knowledge of what DLords has stated, it is not because the information is not out there.. it is because they are living under a rock and have no friends nor do they have any interaction with people. Thus you point above is unrealistic, at least in relation to Dlord claims. 

Quote 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.*
>> You speak about what you do not know nor that you apparently understand. I don't know anyone in any alliance who makes a 10 square rule (and there are quite a few), whereby 10 squares is designed in the way you set forth above. It is a straw man argument designed by you to knock down, when in fact it does not represent at all the issue being discussed regarding how people utilize the 10 square policy. 

There are set rules for how they (each alliance or individual) work stuff out and have been doing so for.. Gosh, as long as they had the rule up!  Our rule does work and has been working well as others are as well. There are modifications to them regarding pre-existing cities once they do the 10 square, cities moving in, or them moving near other cities.  It is rarely our neighbors we have issues with.. but others from good to great distances away. Those towns there previously already has defined parameters, and what is now allows us to have a set understanding of how we operate and can work with others. If someone is dense enough to willfully move into an area (especially one that is congested) without contacting the people nearby.. well, I believe it is lesson they apparently need to learn and the actions taken, will help ensure the lesson is indeed learned.

Therefore what you give is illusionary, as it does not reflect the actual usage of the claim in question (irregardless of 3,5, 10, or 30) but is something contrived based off of misunderstanding or a false perception. 

Quote 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.
Now this one is just silly as it can get!
The position does not lead to hostility unless someone what's what another has. Granted people will take more care in who they allow near them now, and will be careful to map out or come to an agreement upon who's is what.

We have a common ground to avoid hostility, and has been such since game began. 
1. Courtesy
2. Respect
3. Integrity

Anything more is pandering to a socialistic system that turns everyone into a cookie-cutter cut of another person's views and ideas, whereby their views and only theirs is right. In other words, it is just silly.

Quote 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.
No, what it shows is that you don't understand one of the larger aspects of the game - Diplomacy, and therefore do not seem to grasp the very nature of the sandbox style of game. The community can give approval for something but that in and of itself doesn't necessitate all approve. It simply shows what the community leans more favorably towards - not dictates. Alliances should note this behavior but not necessarily be dictated by it.

All of your above is based upon fallacy and thus you end up at a wrong conclusion. While it is your conclusion and one you are entitled to, it does not mean I must embrace what you give and make it my own.. if not - I must be intolerant :)

Quote 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.
Funny.. it has been working and ONLY recently isn't making some happy because now they don't get whatever they want just because they want it. They presume we are all to share everything and sit around camp fires singing Cumbaya.


Edited by belargyle - 07 Sep 2012 at 21:27
Back to Top
Salararius View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 19:20
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

Originally posted by Salararius Salararius wrote:

(with "my" resources)

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. 

Ouch  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.

Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 18:37
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

I'm talking for me, not for Dlords.

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.


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.
Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 18:06
just fight over them, winner takes, oh i forgot, this is a chat war game...sorry, back to gathering erbs and mushrooms, gotta make some more cows too!
Back to Top
Brids17 View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 18:04
Originally posted by Salararius Salararius wrote:

(with "my" resources)

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. 
Back to Top
Bonaparta View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2011
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 541
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 16:04
I agree with Dlords view on the subject. If someone places an army in land predominantly held by another alliance, he/she should expect to loose that army. Placing units on rare mineral/herb plots by people far away (more then 100 squares) has become to often, especially if those plots are in someones territory. This is aggression. Perhaps not direct-siege kind of aggression, but economic kind of one. 

Back to Top
Salararius View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 16:02
Originally posted by Hadus Hadus wrote:

 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.

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.

Back to Top
Rorgash View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 15:39
Claim it officially here http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/politics-diplomacy_forum13.html then you can officially say you own it
Back to Top
Drejan View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 15:28
What you say is everything more than 3 square is free for all becouse you want to harvast all the possible territory in the map.
What we say is what is near our lands is our or of our nightbours, not free for all.
Back to Top
Drejan View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 15:04
Hadus, people can be gentle and spend real time to scout message and answer to the average of 10 message the player will send you becouse he think to be right. 
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


Edited by Drejan - 07 Sep 2012 at 15:09
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.