The Times’ first editorial penned by ajqtrz on the dangers of land claims and “The Necessity of Respect” has garnered a tremendous amount of debate and discussion. From these debates, three players so far have come forward with rebuttals to AJ’s article. Now that the Times has a separate place to publish editorials, we will endeavor to include as many gamer voices in this discussion as possible, and plan to run all three throughout the course of the weekend.In his rebuttal, Trivium leader and longtime Illy vet Bonfyr Verboo draws upon his experience with the game to answer some of the poignant questions and points raised by AJ in the ongoing debate over land claims and the use of hostilities in Illyriad.
Is it logical to insist that players refrain from behavior allowed by the mechanics of the game? Is it reasonable? The editorial argues that it is and that to do whatever one wishes within the confines of the game rules could be tantamount to criminal behavior. I assert just the opposite; that the game is just that and we are not slapping one another, nor are we kicking kids while they’re down. We are simply taking part in a make believe world with a few other folks who enjoy this make believe world.
Over the time that Illyriad has existed, a few actions allowed by the rules have become unacceptable by community standards. The editorial is attempting to add to the community standards by arguing that unless we all treat each other with respect, we should be considered nothing more than bullies. Further, the editorial correlates treating others with respect to how we use the mechanics of the game. I believe that is a fallacy. Without the separation of game from real life, one could hardly get enjoyment from it. If it were the case, why bother?
In the editorial it is surmised that the game owners have given all players the “right” to settle and that land claims take this “right” away. Assuming players have this “right” to settle, why isn’t it reasonable to assume players have the “right” to claim territory? Based on game mechanics it is no less possible than settling.
This counter argument is made moot, though, simply because the editorial proclaims that we land claimers are disrespecting other players and the game. The author’s bottom line is that we are stopping players from enjoying their game given right to settle and his proof is that we’ve done this without agreement amongst the players and are therefore enforcing our claims with “intimidation by threats of coercion.”
I don’t disagree that we have claimed land without agreement amongst the players and I will grant that, in varying degrees, the initial way to enforce a claim is to threaten and use coercion. That is not against the rules, nor is it outside the norm of community standards.
A prime example of the use of threats and coercion is the origin of the nurturing and protecting of new players from “farming” activity. This standard came about not because it was debated but in a real way because a war was fought and won by those who wished to enforce that standard. Another example is the community favored 10 Square Rule, now accepted in a very visible way. It was introduced by a single alliance, backed up with the real threat of force and was debated by the community only after the fact. Threats and coercion are commonplace in Illyriad but most players take it in stride, not letting it dampen their enjoyment.
What should be the end result of the editorial’s assertions? Should we forgo the 10 Square Rule because it was started by a single alliance? Should we hunt and harvest only where no one else is harvesting? Should we all just get along? If we acted and reacted in Illyriad as we were required to act and react in real life, it would soon bore us to tears.
The point that we should treat each other with civility is a good one yet it has no bearing within the mechanics of the game. Certainly, players should keep their emotions in check and refrain from reacting based on emotions but we are all human beings. It isn’t difficult to understand why those who experience the loss of an army or a city, or more may feel as though they’ve been personally disrespected but those players forget that Illy is not real. We can accumulate much within the game, but we have no real property and there are no real consequences to our actions (actions within the rules). Even so, most of us are polite and civil to one another. Within that civility, though, remains many who want to carry on with the sorts of things one would never otherwise consider in real life.
It is the real possibility of loss that gives thrill. Without that, this would be little more than a chat room. I believe those who forgo that are missing the true nature of Illyriad. The freedom digital life gives us is empowering.
Bonfyr Verboo
07/17/2015
The Illyriad Times 
I preferred the Illyriad Times when it was reporting on things that happened. This is turning into an extension of the forums.
The previous comment has nothing to do with this editorial’s content, just the fact that there are now editorials.
LikeLike
The Times will continue to cover the news, and news will be the main focus. Our hope is that editorials will be a nice complement to the news reporting and, unlike the forums, where players go back and forth, line by line, these editorials will offer readers a different opinion format.
LikeLike
“Is it logical to insist that players refrain from behavior allowed by the mechanics of the game? Is it reasonable? ”
The devs have coded the game and the game mechanics. Right? And they have coded and enforced certain rules about interaction of players. Right? Why did they do that? Is it not to make the game more pleasurable to a wider range of players than a mere “war game?” Yes, they allow for warfare. That is a behavior that is allowed, but it is not required. Between what is allowed in society and what is required there is room for choices.
Now of course you want to separate the game from real life. That is a fallacy. ALL the players are in the game and the game is part of real life. There isn’t a magic wand that separates your emotions, your time, your energy from real life when you play the game. YOU feel, YOU spend the time and YOU use your real body and financial resources to play. Play itself is part of the real world. What is truly “make believe” is your blindness to how the use of intimidation by threats of coercion makes the game unpleasant for other.
“Without the separation of game from real life, one could hardly get enjoyment from it. If it were the case, why bother?”
I would ask you this. Why do you play Illyriad? Do you get enjoyment from it? If you didn’t would you play? Of course not. So why needlessly take from others the pleasure they may get from it by using intimidation by threats of coercion? “Intimidation by threats of coercion” is not in the game mechanics, it’s what YOU and other land claimers bring to it. Don’t you think it’s a bit disrespectful for you to insist that YOU enjoy the game at the expense of other enjoyment? Especially since there is no compelling NEED for you to do so? The game does not require it. It does not require refraining from attacking new players. It does not require refraining from harvesting within so many squares of another player’s cities. WE the players of Illy have made such decisions because we have seen that there is little to no need to attack new players AND there is little to no need to harvest within a certain distance of another player’s city. Given your attitude one wonders why you aren’t out there taking from the new players, unless you, of course, think that would be sort of like needless bullying?
The game mechanics give the right of settlement to all of us. We can settle anywhere that is at least 10 squares from another player’s city. If we attempt to settle within a land claim area that is 10 or more squares from any city the game ALLOWS that as a right. When you apply a new rule…one of your own making…you are attempting to take from the game what the game allows. That is taking.
Now for the fun. You say,
“I don’t disagree that we have claimed land without agreement amongst the players and I will grant that, in varying degrees, the initial way to enforce a claim is to threaten and use coercion.”
Finally, somebody has figured it out and agreed. It is “to threaten and use coercion.” The phrase “to intimidate, threaten and or coerce” is how the dictionary describes bullying. So it’s at least “in-game” bullying.
And, you say: “That is not against the rules, nor is it outside the norm of community standards” which is only half true. The whole point of the debate is the question “SHOULD it be the norm of community standards?”
That you can do it as part of the game mechanics is obvious. But SHOULD you? The thrust of my entire argument is about the “meta-game” and what should be allowed and what should not be allowed in the game as a response to the meta-game. Your error in judgement is that you keep turning to the game mechanics as the definer of what happens in the meta-game. It wouldn’t be part of the meta-game if it was part of the game mechanics. The meta-game is he social and community interactions OUTSIDE the strictly speaking, game mechanics. That’s where the controversy resides.
Having said that you seem to want to pretend the meta-game doesn’t exist or that it isn’t something about which we should be too concerned. After all, the one who loses a city SHOULD understand that it’s “just a game.” Who, by the way, are you to tell that player what they SHOULD feel? I argue that you SHOULD be concerned about what others feel because that’s the basis of respect. It is not respectful to others to ignore what they feel without good cause. Land claims are in insufficient reason to disrespect the feelings of others. The game mechanics do allow you to do so, but the state of artificial intelligence is hardly up to the task or regulating or programming your moral stance toward others. That is the purview of the meta-game.
So I ask again: “If the players of Illy are real people how OUGHT they be treated?”
Finally, “if we acted and reacted in Illy as we do in real life it would bore us to tears?” Speak for yourself please. I do act and react in the game pretty much as I do in real life. And I’m not bored in the least. That you are, or would be without the intimidation by threats of coercion, seems odd. What did you do when you weren’t intimidating by threats of coercion?
In any case, you could find a game with a more “aggressive game play” and be less bored, as Illy is probably never going to be the game you want. It’s a sandbox and they tend to be more civil and hopefully, respectful of a wider range of players.
And finally, I must say, as per your usual style, you have written civilly and I appreciate that.
AJ
LikeLike
“Another example is the community favored 10 Square Rule, now accepted in a very visible way. It was introduced by a single alliance, backed up with the real threat of force and was debated by the community only after the fact. ”
I just want to address this statement since it is a steeped in ignorance. While it is true H? was the first to make a public declaration regarding the “10 square rule, ” many alliances were silently enforcing the rule and not just 10 squares from a city but from a “marking” army. H? went public with this policy a few months after the introduction of Exodus to the game, because of the above and the headaches, diplomatic issues it was causing. The rule, at the time, helped to greatly decrease the actual friction the ability to Exodus introduced. Bear in mind, that a large number of players didn’t have access to game mechanic analysis before building their first cities and that once built they further didn’t have the means to relocate short of being razed and rebuilding. Finally, H? only held to the “10 square” rule from one of their cities, while other alliances were doing so based on camped armies at the time.
Lastly, the rule as posted by KP: To avoid unnecessary conflicts, players who wish to move their cities or settle new ones within 10 squares of an existing Harmless city should contact the owner of the existing city and a Harmless Director or Diplomat prior to initiating the move. Any player who does not acquire the appropriate permissions in advance may be subject to having the new/relocated city removed by force.
Of which the latter part was enforced less then a dozen times while I was with H?. With the initial part: “To avoid unnecessary conflicts” is completely ignored or overlooked as to the extent to which it helped de-escalate conflict and/or put the a fire out before it started.
~Anjire
ps. as to the land claim issue – land claims have been around since 2010 and, in my opinion, are in no way detrimental to the game as long as they don’t instigate a join or die policy such as TMM”s land claim attempt.
LikeLike
aj you completely miss the roleplaying element of the game. While i do not have any problem there, i will fiercely object in your trying to manipulate the way i play and act, trying to police it to my real life character and behaviour.
If i want to be a scumbag, i will be a scumbag. If i want to be a bully, i will be a bully. Doing so might of course bring trouble on me, so i must be prepared to face the consequences. That doesn’t mean that i cannot or that i SHOULD not do so. Loud and clear?
In addition, i’m not obliged to treat you as a human player, so your question (that you have been banging us with so hard that even Rikoo had to come in and even then it was not enough for you) “If the players of Illy are real people how OUGHT they be treated?” falls pretty short in my twisted logic (hey, you are not the only one allowed one). Since you are not a human player but a dwarf (with elven taints of wisdom) to me, there is nothing to answer. If you were actually a human, i think that then you ought to be treated as you deserve.
Last but not least, since you like to talk about rules of the devs and the game and stuff, excerpt from the orcs’ game description:
“Fierce, strong and brave in numbers, Orcs excel in waging an aggressive playstyle.” You will never convince me NOT to follow that rule the developers set. And it is effectively a rule, because they have created orcs that way, aggressively. None is stopping an orc to be raised by elven literature and aqcuire wisdom that humans would envy, mind you. I, unlike you who tries to dictate behaviours and feelings, am not forcing anyone.
LikeLike
Ash, you are right. You specialize in twisted logic.
You are a real person, right? (if you claim otherwise do you think anybody is going to believe you?)
You are the real person who typed the lines of your statment and thus, it was a real brain that thought the thoughts. So why did you do that?
Why are you thinking about this whole thing and responding? Why, if you are only an imaginary orc, do you insist on reacting like a real human being? If you could please just become that orc avatar onthe screen, the one who cannot actually click on “send” to send an army, cannot type to offer AJ a rebuttal, or do anything but light up so pixels on a page, then I could agree with you. But you, whatever your real name may be, are a real person and I think that in all things, games and real life, us other real people need to show you some respect.
If I called you names, slandered you, or otherwise treated you without real respect what buttons would you click on in Illy? Would you click on “send” to send your armies? Of course you would. So if you, the real person doing the clicking, in involved in the game, that makes the game one being played in the real world and where the reactions to what happens in the game also reside. Or do you wish to now claim the imaginary avatars, the dwarfs, orcs, humans and elves, represented by the pixels on the page are the ones feeling.
And Rikoo did not answer the question I keep asking. Since you are a real person how should you be treated? Rikoo only said that they allow “aggressive game play” not that you MUST engage in it. So if you decided to be a “scumbag” or a “bully” I can only say that the scumbag and bully you decide to be are as real as the person deciding to be them.
Your mistake is that you think of role playing as merely acting. In acting somebody writes some lines and you repeat them as if you were the character. In improvisation people take on roles and enact the characters. But they don’t then go out into the audience of people and insist on what roles they must play under intimidation threats and coercions. Play any role you wish but remember it’s just a role and if it’s something that brings unnecessary displeasure to another player, back off. We are here to have fun and that means some will have to limit their fun so that others do not unnecessarily have to suffer the “fun” of others. You seem to think that everybody who is here must allow you unlimited “fun” at their expense. That’s disrespectful especially when it’s not even needed.
Saying you are not “forcing anyone” to feel something is just a silly overstatement meant to skirt the issue of harm done to others. You can raze a city of a player if you wish, but don’t tell me that if he or she feels upset you didn’t have anything to do with it. That’s a fantasy world even you shouldn’t be able to stomach, orc or not.
AJ
LikeLike
First things first, i never said i specialize in twisted logic, i only said i have one, while also accusing yours to be twisted. Brace yourself, i clicked on “Send Army” buttons cause you slandered me! Oh, no incomings? You said “of course you would”… So, you can be wrong? Entirely wrong? Interesting, cause you assume a lot of things in your “debates”.
Yeah cant argue that i m not actually a human being behind the game (note: that means you are right but only as far as this goes, not for anything else you might use that point for, like respecting others cause they are actually human) and all the fantasy, and that just killed the whole thing. Like when you see a child running along some flying birds, screaming “Mum, look, i ‘m flying, i ‘m flying!” and she just replies “You have no wings, idiot”…. Do i need to repeat how i dont like it when you kill my fantasy?
You are not fit for this game aj. Or any game, if you apply your hard limitations of humanity and feelings on every game. Most games have a winning condition that might make the loser feel sad. To stop that from happening, you either have to abandon the game or shape it so that noone ever feels sad, that’s what you are proposing. Which means the original game has to die.
It can be argued that Illy has no winning conditions and i will add “as a whole”. It’s just that every player can interpret winning any way they like here. Which means that in the end THERE ARE winning conditions that would make the losers feel bad.
Rikoo answered, but you just can’t see it.
In-game bullying is not real bullying. A person occupying with an insanely large army a grape patch not far from your city can be called an in-game bully. Did he come into your house with a gun just to sit on your sofa though? There is a clear distinction there that many tried to show you but you still insist. That is the way you debate, insist even when you are miserably wrong.
All that things you said about acting and improvising? There is no audience here, everyone takes part in the roles and no one is forcing or threatening anyone to play something they are not. You dont get a point there. If a role brings “unnecessary displeasure” to another role, thats only normal and perhaps needed in the play. Good vs evil, why ban any of the two? Of course the hero cries when the anti-hero kills his family (real or unreal feelings, not for me to decide) so we just intervene and script the anti-hero out of the play?
Lastly, saying that i m not forcing behaviours and feelings means exactly that: i will not force you to behave or feel this way or that way. You are forcing me to feel upset when i lose a city, upset when they take away my right to claim, upset when they are so many ranks above me, upset when they perma-occupy silversteel. You are forcing me not to do this or that cause it surely (according to you) upsets people.
I can raze someone’s city if i wish, indeed, but you didnt stop to think what would be the cause of it. What if they upset me in the first place? What if they violated my 10-square? What if they violated my land claim? And yet i still dont force feelings when i do raze it. There are individuals in this game that could be happy when they lost a city, happy to have met a real challenge at last, not easy to comprehend with your mind i know.
LikeLike
To paraphrase a saying: “It is better to have risked and lost, than never to have risked at all”.
LikeLike
The forum is ablaze with a certain leaders selective memory on this topic.
LikeLike