Are Land Claims Bad for Illy?

Land claims should be handled much like sovereignty, but as an alliance function rather than a player function.  The alliance can "claim" land and "fence: it by taking an initial action like having it "claim-occupied"  for 24 days by someone from the alliance and then paying an initial fee and a maintenance fee.  There could be other logical stipulations, like the land must be adjoining current alliance claims, or an alliance player's settlement or sov.  The claim could be indicated on the map in some manner similar to sov, but not enforced by the game.  It would be up to the alliance to manage their claim, just as it is up to the player to manage their personal sov.

Dung, file your own claim? Perhaps a modest border around your cities where you can reasonably grow? There is no reason why you can't be the Andorra of the Broken Lands.

Almost forgot. Should war break out over these claims, always remember, if your arsenal isn't Von Brandt, there is still time to upgrade!

Weaponry by Von Brandt: smithed by dwarves, wielded by professionals.

First Response.  PhoenixFire, ask your questions and I will answer. 

You may have asked before and I just didn't see it.  It is always easier to answer a question when one is not being bombarded with several lines of reasoning in a fast paced conversation, isn't it?  Of course, belligerent  or personal attacks will be ignored, but knowing you, you will continue to ask honest ones.  I will do my best.

Along those lines people, do remember that I'm not mad at anybody.  If, in the long run, things don't go the way "I" want them I won't be threatening or coercing anybody.  So relax, you have nothing to fear from me but forceful and as clear points as I can make.

aj

Good of Brandmeister to respond so well.  I truly appreciate his candor.

He commented on my claim that allowing land claims could lead to a situation where all players would not have access to most of Illy and, if they did, could be forced to support the alliance claiming that area.

He said:

"This assumption is highly implausible. Illyriad has run for almost five years with only a tiny handful of land claims. You are suggesting that everyone's policy is about to change across all 5000 players, simply because 100 players made 3 land claims? That seems laughably farfetched. All the rest of your "end of the sandbox" scenario--heavy restrictions on new players, harvesting restrictions, and mega-alliance dominance--is predicated on our acceptance of that first assertion. Fortunately, that assertion is never going to happen on any meaningful scale."

Here's what I read in his response: "It could never happen here because the folks currently running the big alliances are such nice guys and wouldn't change THEIR policies."  As for it being "laughably farfetched" I have to wonder how Brandmeister knows this.  It seems to me that some players are pushing to make Illy more warlike with "warlords" (not my term) controlling more areas so the game becomes more "competitive"... meaning more attractive to the warlord types.  And that WILL attract more military alliances.  But then again, the claim has been made that it's been done before and that it has not been done before, that it has been done formally and informally before and that this is the first time it's been done formally ...or not...has also been made.  It matters not if it has or has not been done, it matters not if it's been formal or informal, if it is done a lot it will change the game and make it more warlike....driving off those who wish to avoid wars....not a good thing, I think.

He also quotes my contention that the issue was not discussed in GC or the forums before the current round of land claims and declares that "The forums and GC are not appropriate venues for statecraft." and asks, "why would alliance leaders elicit feedback from any random person who [via the forums or GC] wanted to give it?"  Let's see what that means to the small alliances, to the individuals, to those who do not have the power to force their views upon other through threat, intimidation and coercion....hmmmm...it appears to me he is saying that guys like me have nothing to say and should, what? shut up already? 

Illy is a community and, like it or not, most players are not at the top.  Most do not lead alliances and are not part of whatever statecraft forums or chats you have set up outside Illy.  Thus, all we have is GC and Forums.  How can that be "inappropriate?"  If not in those two places, where? In the "good old boys" club where Illy is run from smoke filled back rooms?  It appears Brandmeister likes the current power structure more than a little and would rather they be in totally in charge than allowing the rest of us into the conversation.  Sorry I didn't get the memo, Brandmeister, but I will be heard!  LOL

Still, he does have a good point when he says that land claims are nothing new....except perhaps the formal announcements.  Some have argued that the claim does not amount to coercion, and they are right...it's not coercion until you follow through with the threats.  And since a formal claim is meaningless if you don't threaten to "remove" the "offender," it's intimidation.  Thus, to the degree that there have been claims in Elgea and they have been enforced, Brandmeister's first point that the claiming of nearly all of Illy seems a bit less than "farfetched' and somewhat at least in tension with his earlier claims that there are only three claims.  He both wishes to make a distinction between "formal" and "informal" at the same time he wants us to believe that they are the same.

Still, I appreciate the more or less civil tone and his points.   The more people talk the more I learn, and that's not a bad thing.

aj