Morkin's Island Takeover Policy

[Arminius]

warliter said:

what if he has been clearing the isle over the last 2 days, does that make any difference?

Not to me, but some players do think it does. However, what can you do? How are you supposed to know whether he 'cleared' it? It all boils down to this ideological divide again.

"No risk -- no fun"

[Ruku]

From the looks of the draft, it would apear that whoever 'cleared' the most fleet would be most entitled to it.

[Clausewitz]

Until we've actually voted and/or reached a consensus on our "Island Takeover Policy", it all seems a fruitless endeavor to argue how our "policy" applies to any particular case - as far as I can tell we do not yet have an official policy.

[Arminius]

Correct. Apart from the first part (1pt isles) that we all seem to agree on.

[kae]

I for one also think that the clearing clause is a fruitless one. It makes cut and dry situations muddy. Yes, there are risks involved in claiming that clearing does not entitle rights. Yes, it does mean that there is the chance that you will get 'sniped' by someone else.

But this paranoia that anyone and everyone will start sniping any islands we clear I find quite unfounded. There is no way for someone else to A) Know that anyone is clearing an isle B) know that it is someone from the Morkin group doing it.

The advantages are that there is never any question, whatsoever of who is in control and rightful ownership of an island. You know immediately whether it is your island, or their island.

To me, the advantages outweigh the risks.

[Clausewitz]

Simple it may be.

Politically prudent? I think we will see shortly on the IK forums how the server feels about it...

(that's not sarcasm - I'm obviously pretty certain that we will be resoundingly declared vultures, but I'd be glad to stand corrected)

[Null]

agreed Clause...while it may be the simple and clean solution to ignore clearing, it is also in contrast (I'd estimate) to pretty much everyone else on the server. While we can stand our ground and ignore this....I think it would lead to nothing but even further headaches down the road.

The further our own colo policy drifts from the overall server feelings on the matter, the more conflicts will arise each time we encounter a problem with another alliance. I'm not saying we just go with the majority in terms of our policy, just stating that in terms of acknowledging clearing losses, it seems to be pretty standard server wide.

[inyati]

The Colo Policy should serve our interest and not others...

I've already received IGM from other alliances wanted to now what we're up to, so there is at least interest in our dealings.

But back on the nut again:

inyati said:

Morkin's Island Takeover Policy
Diplomatic procedure with island claims and their colonization disputes

1pt ISLANDS (ruleless and undefended)

1^st - Players have a rightful claim over an island under their control, or previously controled, with a lv2 MH or higher. It is considered righfully yours and can demand compensation incase it is damaged or even lost to another.

2^nd - Colonyship fleets with cats are considered hostil acts even if the MH is below lv2.

>1pt ISLANDS (ruleless and defended)

3^rd - Players who have destroyed the greatest amount of military units in clearing have a rightful claim over an island. They are entitled to keep it or, if unsuccesful in being the first to colonise, demand it be handed over, or be righfully compensated for their losses.

Not going into how things are expressed (I know eproxy would prefere the first 2 points be written diferently, but its still the same idea, and we can do that later),
our biggest division lies with the 3rd point regarding ruleless but defended islands that require clearing.

The above latest draft gives ownership to the one who does the most clearing (but agree with using 2kcastle notion of clearing where the person who does the most clearing has the rightful claim, not the person that loses the most -important note!!)

This however contradicts the MH lv2 lobby that rightfull argue that reports can be forged and the only solid element for ownership is hoisting a flag on the house.

So I've mixed these two parties and added a Clauswitzian equation to the recipe (which is here somewhere), that points to the uselessness of spending several colonyships (= resourses + time) over an island dispute, that could easily be resolved via payment.

Formula mixed up, spurted into this:

3^rd - For highest effeciency, Morkin recognizes a rightful claim over an island with a lv2 MH or higher. It is considered righfully yours and can demand compensation incase it is damaged or even lost to another. However, players who have destroyed the greatest amount of military units in clearing and where unsuccesful in being the first to colonise, should be righfully compensated for their losses.

So what am I saying here:
First to get the MH to lv 2 can keep the island, BUT should, in goodwill compensate someone with subsantiated evidence of having cleared most of the island, instead of sending another coloyship and another and another...etc

(anyone come up with a better way to express what I'm saying here, be my guest and better it)

[kae]

I like that. Either pony up the compensation, or hand over the isle. It's a good middle ground.

[Null]

Its good. Can we ensure that its specified that we only acknowledge clearing AFTER the isle has gone rulerless? I know its been mentioned before, but I don't see it as part of the official statement above.

Clearing it before its gone rulerless is meaningless in regards to point #3.

[inyati]

Yes we could...but now I'm confused with skulkrins thread in Luxor

Whats up?

[Sol]

I think Skulks thread in Luxor means that Luxor will have a different colo policy than Morkin...and I disagree. I'd like to follow Morkin's policy because it symbolizes unity to me.

[inyati]

sol said:

I think Skulks thread in Luxor means that Luxor will have a different colo policy than Morkin...and I disagree. I'd like to follow Morkin's policy because it symbolizes unity to me.

Then there's a big confusion going on, again probably due to my fault for naming this thing Morkin's policy, assuming everyone would associated the name to the quartet.

But right now I've done the best I could to try and get this beast under control. I've not been successful. I'm disassociating myself from helping to rap this issue up and leave it to others, hopefully more skilfull and luckier than myself to finish the job.

I go knowing that the finalised version will be exactly what we all want.

[inyati]

Some support on our policy from [PAIN]:

Don_Quixote
11 hours ago
RE: Morkin Colo Policy
Hello inyati


thankyou for getting back to me. The debate currently in the IK forum has been very useful. I think you have definitely won majority support for the 1 pointer half of colo dispute procedures.

feel free to get in touch anytime
Don_Quixote

[conkeror]

That not final yet is it ? Would be good to have a wrap-up somewhere when its decided.

But, lets say players A and B both lost troops on the clearing. A cleared more than B, but B coloed successfully. A is rightfully owner, should he compensate B for the part he did ? I believe so, to keep the fairness trend.