why isnt there talk of the war here

 

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

 

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.

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.

Almost everyone in the game does this. No one is going to let you settle 3 squares from them without asking even though the game allows it. All the land claiming alliances except for two say if you ask you can settle. It is exactly the same as the 10 square convention just larger.