why isnt there talk of the war here

I think it's the "just larger" part that is at issue.  Whatever the faults of the 10 square convention, at least it requires a physical presence.  One can look at the map and tell if a site is clear to settle or is going to require negotiation.  There is a presumption  by those making land claims that players are even going to be aware of their claims.

 

Of course phoenixfire is correct that most of the alliances making claims are nice people.  Even I think that.  Even I think that most of the alliances making claims are making them with honorable intentions.  And that they are NOT bad people or players.  But, of course, the word "most" is important because some may not be so nice.

 

And once you establish the right to the land do you not also establish the right to remove anybody you wish under whatever your terms might be?  How about, "you will pay tribute!" or "you will support our war with troops!" or whatever.  And can you promise that ALL the alliances making such claims in the future will be nice players like the current crop?  Once you establish a right to dominate you have little ability to keep the domination from becoming tyrannical.

 

More to the point though is this: Do you want this to be a strictly "war game?" or a "sandbox?"  With land claims you are giving the nod to a war game where players can be compelled to make war even if they do not wish to play that way.  Do you see how land claims move in the direction of a strictly war game?  And if so, is that what you wish?  In the past the players of Illy have stood for an open ended sandbox experience where players were protected from being intimidated, threatened and coerced except where they engaged in behaviors which were aggressive.  The new rule would make it an act of aggression to do what we have freely done in the past (for the most part), settle where we wish.

 

And can you even promise that a significant portion of Illy will remain free for all to settle as they wish?  Can you?  I thought not.

 

You see, the objection to land claims is not about here and now only, but about the future.  If you wish to continue the friendly competition as vs "aggressive gameplay" you stand against land claims.  If you wish to allow all players, even those who you think should go play "Farmville" to play where and however they wish within the game mechanics, you stand against land claims.  If you wish for players to be treated fairly and allowed to settle where they wish without intimidation, threats and coercion, you stand against land claims.  AND if you want the game to grow with a wider range of players than 'warriors' and, in fact to encourage even those "warriors" to play, you stand against land claims.  Both from an ethical and from a practical viewpoint, land claims are bad for Illy.

 

But to your real point: "It's just a game!"  We aren't speaking of the game are we?  We are speaking of the people playing the game.  It's them we are trying to treat with respect by HOW we play the game.  I sincerely hope that now that we understand the core of my disagreement we can address how players ought to treat each other as the basis of how we play the game.

 

And I appreciate the hyperbole.  It is funny, as hyperbole should be.

 

AJ

as for your point on ensuring all alliances that make claims in the future dont trample on an individual player's rights:  no i cant ensure that and no one can but if someone is inside of a land claim where the claiming alliance is doing that to them all they have to do is forward the demands to other major alliances in the area and ask for help(exactly what has been done in the past).  as for elgea that is going to take some time and research to figure out what alliances to send to, as for BL under the current system all the minor player has to do is refer to Jejune's map and see who else has land claims nearby and forward the demands to them with a request for help.  this actually works because most land claiming alliances are military based so they do tend to have a larger then average standing military force per city.  remember any alliance making a land claim still has to enforce their claims/demands with troops.

as to your point on being able to settle where you want:  everyone still has the right to settle where they want, all the land claiming alliances have done is tell the newer players where their planned growth areas are.  this actually helps new players because if they want to go to a spot they can easily look at Jejune's map and see who the big alliances in the area are rather then spending forever going through all the alliances on the strategic map to see who their potential neighbors may be.  every guide i have read about city placement has stressed to different degrees the importance of having good neighbors so by having a single place with all alliances on it we are making it easier for the newer players to research their potential new neighbors.  even if the new player doesnt plan on settling inside a current land claim i suggest they contact the closest land claiming alliance to find out who is actually settling near where they plan to, the officers of the land claiming alliances will usually know this without much trouble since they are keeping an eye on their neighbors anyway for other reasons.

as to your point on land claims forcing players into war even if they dont want to:  during the last server wide war(h? and friends vs the GA) i am pretty sure H? and several other alliances did not want to be in the war but had the options of either trying to defend themselves or losing cities.  and the only way to prevent players from being compelled into war is by requiring the diplomatic stance "war" to be approved by both alliances like confed and NAP and not just one as well as preventing all pvp combat between players in alliances that are not at "war."

as to your point about this being about the future and not the present:  we never know what new players are actually going to do so are you wanting us to just siege them out of the game before they can become a menace to the game itself?

and finally my own question:  what is the material difference between what the BL claiming alliances are doing and what STOMPs is doing?  i am seeing STOMPs refer to themselves as "freedom fighters" but what they are actually doing is declaring war on other alliances because of what those alliances have posted on their profiles and in the forums.  the only peace agreement that i can see STOMP accepting at the moment if they decide they won the war is to tell other players what they can have posted on their alliance profiles or post in the forum.  that sounds like censorship to me which infringes on my right of "free speech."  so to steal a term from twilights, STOMP attempted to smorgasboard T-SC and T-SC called for help from its allies and other alliances with similar interests to itself.  that is the entire purpose behind this war as i see it.

And did you realize that most of us, humans beings, are really bad trying to guess how future would be?

But you evaded my question.

In your words, most f the claiming alliances are nice people.

So it's O.K. declaring war to present nice people, and support it, for the danger that in some hipotethical future some not nice people could do somethin nasty with it?

Then, why not declaring wars on land claims when they come a real problem?