There's a lot to unpack here, so here we go:
Responding to, “I had a 60 man rally in a week... which is more than most nations. This proves quite a few people love conflict,” This is a hasty generalization: conflict and rally attendance are non-sequitur. There are a lot of reasons people show up for rallies; for example, I show up primarily as a show of force so my community doesn’t look bad due to poor attendance. I don’t care for PvP, necessarily, on any given rally. PvP isn’t a good reflection of roleplay.
I feel that your argument is one-sided. You don’t address the desires of defenders or their potential desire for conflict. Most of your argument seems focused on how much of a drag the rule is on bandits and other would-be criminals, but you don’t really talk about why conflict is essential to the defending party other than your statement that you will prove it to be good. This is something that can be done, but you choose not to do so; for example, you could have brought up that conflict drives the narrative of character’s stories and prevents stagnation. Instead, you focus on the negatives of the rules.
There’s a bit of showboating on your end about how great you are at rallying, and how you’d do so well; however, this doesn’t really create a strong ethical appeal. There were 78 grammatical mistakes that I counted in a second reading of your argument. It is difficult for me to believe that you are a great bandit role-player when this post seems like a rant; if this was indicative of your roleplay, I would not want to participate in it willingly.
You never show how conflict is constructive for the server. Nothing in the post really tells me that player-driven conflict is good, and you take it as a given. In my experience, road-bandit roleplay, which is what I feel like you’re hinting at because you focus on the tile rule, has never been good. I can’t recount a single time it was enjoyable, and it always leads to a plethora of ban reports. Maybe you’re an outstanding lad, but there’s plenty of “minas or die” roleplay.
Those were my issues with the post. My personal opinion is the rule is fine as is and it seems to address a loophole that bandit role-players can use to exploit cooldowns. Your rant was mostly on that rule, and it didn’t address the core issue of “conflict being essential,” which is sad because I agree with that statement, just not road-bandit roleplay.
I believe a push towards constructive roleplay, even bandit role-play, is good for the server. I don’t see why a bandit group should be allowed to attack settlements, even the entire tile, so often. It creates stress as people feel a need to respond, and it becomes quite tedious that people attack, usually the same people, every time the cooldown goes off.
If I came off as hostile, know this: I was once a bandit, and I approve of the idea of player villains. However, the current take on banditry is petty and inconsequential. I’ve seen too many generic meme bandits and one-day alts who put little effort into their characters and impose consequences on players who put in a ton of effort into their characters.
I would like to see improvements to player villainy and more communication oocly to make these experiences enjoyable, threatening and less obstructive for the defender. I don’t feel like you really create a counter-argument, and many settlements have to deal with constant bandit attacks from players while dealing with server events and nation roleplay. It is overwhelming. There is an argument to be hard on this topic, but I don’t feel like you addressed it properly.