why isnt there talk of the war here

Wowza.

ajqtrz wrote: Though it does seem to me that if it can become a potential problem, as you seem to think it can

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

ajqtrz wrote: Raco, did you ever realize that a whole bunch of things people do is about the future?  We are temporal creatures who, by habit, look ahead. And that's a good thing.  So, yes, we envision what may happen if we take one road versus another and we choose what we think to be the best road ahead.  And since Illyriad is a game being played by real people it's very likely they too look ahead.  I'm really surprised you hadn't thought of that, but maybe I'm just too much a philosopher at heart and think about things too much. AJ

ajqtrz wrote: 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.