But really how are numerous digs actually considered harmful or an abuse of power and not just plain annoying?In this case, any rational person can look at the situation - a player not from any major alliance digging multis - and understand that what this player is doing is harmful, even though the "book" says it's not.
Let's presume the role of a town owner has a desire to disrupt fort battles (hypothetical I'm not actually doing this) for the purpose of causing havoc. But why? War is havoc. Fort battles cause discontentment in the west. Large powerful alliances attempt to dominate the land while small town owners or small alliances have little influence over what happens in it. The peasant class town works to upset the apple cart so to speak and attempts to make fort battles more difficult for the more powerful.
There could be like a real-world example of this - militia style tactics being employed by a less powerful la résistance!
What is difficult for me to understand at this moment is the following. There is a spillage which has occurred here in this thread, that is coming out of a role-playing game into the real world of game play. The western forts are not real battles but real people actually playing in the game is real. The question in this thread seems to be should players be able to play the game as they see fit ( such as disruptive digs) and not face a substantial call for moderation. <- If that sounded confusing I'll cheerfully explain what I meant if asked.
Once again I have no wish to take sides but as a rational person, simply seeking to understand game play. I don't mind being corrected. I now understand how havoc is caused but my question is if it is a doable thing then the player might be finding a loophole in order to take on a different role than that of dominate fort fighters?