why isnt there talk of the war here

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   mjc2, you are correct in a lot of things, but the  "all they have to do is forward the demands to other major alliances in the area and ask for help" is great if you know that, understand that, know to whom you can ask for help, etc...etc...etc.... But of course they can.  Though it does seem to me that if it can become a potential problem, as you seem to think it can, and the whole desire to secure a large space for your alliance can be handled with the prevailing rules and customs, why make more trouble for ourselves?  Why make the person who is being attacked go begging for support?  Why not support that potential person now and stop the intimidation, threats and coercions (when they eventually happen).  And of course, this also tells the person they cannot play off in a corner by themselves but must be active enough to read the forums, be in GC, etc...etc....etc.  My experience is that there are quite a few players who just wish to be left alone to build their cities.  And why not?  It's a sandbox, isn't it?

"everyone still has the right to settle where they want?"  Not if there are land claims.  If I want to settle in Fellendire I have to ask permission.  If I ask permission and you say, "no" then I don't have the right to settle there....unless I'm willing to fight for the right.  Now that's exactly what we are doing.  We are fighting (I'm doing so with words and arguments) to keep our right to settle where we wish within game mechanics without risking receiving a "no" from somebody who has decided they have the right to tell me where I may NOT settle and by implication therefore, where I MAY.  Do you really think dictating to other players upon pain of "removal" where they can and cannot settle is the same as them having the "right to settle where they want?"  Plain syntax and grammar deny that to be true, and so should you!

"the options of either trying to defend themselves or losing cities"  Hmmmm....so if I come to your house and take your valuables at gunpoint you have the "option" being shot or giving you the objects?  Did you read what you wrote?  It's not an option if you are intimidated, threatened and coerced!  Word have meaning and you have to use them with consistency as much as possible.  In my opinion you are grasping at straws if you think, once I settle in your claim without your permission, I will not be threatened and even coerced into leaving.  The "options of either trying to defend themselves or loosing cities" is not exactly how many players would view a "right to settle where they want."  Again, if it's done in response to intimidation, it's not freedom.  If it, done to avoid threatened consequences, it's not freedom.  And if it's done to you without your agreement, it's not freedom.  

What is the material difference between 
what the BL claiming alliances are doing and what STOMPs is doing?  I suspect, technically, not much...except STOMP obviously is doing it to ALL of Illy on behalf of ALL players here and all players in the future.  For whom are the current land claimers fighting?  Themselves.  I haven't seen one single sustained argument yet that land claims benefit ALL the players of Illy....because they don't.  I have seen people claim that it's good for attracting new players, a point that has some feasibility, but which, I think is vastly out weighed by the players who will be driven away or, having arrived and found vast area already claimed, conclude they have no real chance at success.  Other than that I keep hearing how land claims are a good strategy for the alliances making them, a point to which I have repeatedly agreed.  But STOMP isn't making it's claim for STOMP, but for the vast majority of players and alliances who are NOT making land claims.  That's the difference and that's why they call themselves "freedom fighters." 

You are, of course, free to conjecture as to what peace agreement STOMP may or may not accept.  I might suggest that the only peace agreement I would accept if I were in STOMP (which I am NOT and thus am not speaking for them) would be to make the same pledge that is in my profile and to renounce their current land claims and any future ones.  But, again, I don't speak for STOMP.

I am not privy to the history of how STOMP vs T-SC came about.  I would suggest that smorgasbording is pretty prevalent in Illy, sadly, and that is a shame.  I do think of Abraham Lincoln in this context when he said of an unconstitutional action he had done, "it may be it was unconstitutional, but it may be necessary to occasionally sacrifice a part to save the whole so that the part can be reinstated" which is exactly what happened.  Some politicians are philosophical and high minded.  Others are pragmatic.  We tend to see both at times like this.

And so I'll ask you a question: If the players of Illy are real people, how should they be treated?  

AJ