> Eric the Seehawk seems to be under the impression that PLATO has to hide
> behind anything. In that he is sadly mistaken. Further, the Eagle
> Alliance had absolutely nothing to do with our attack on Azrain either
> the first or the second time. They came late to the fight and we never
> directly engaged them in any way. To characterize our conflict as a
> Camaris affair is thoroughly inaccurate. Our beef was with the New
> Empire, a Provinian alliance. The Eagles are an ally of the New Empire
> so they came from Camaris to the New Empire's aid;however, they arrived
> 2 turns AFTER PLATO had vacated Provinia. We did not directly attack
> them at any time, so please get your facts right before you make
> accusations.
I'm sure if you reread my post you'll see that I never accused Plato of
directly attacking EA or anybody else. The gist of my post was that, along
with many other underlying themes, one of them was the desire for Provinian
alliances to be able to dictate and direct their own destinies without any big
brother alliances (be them Plato, EA, SA or other) telling them how to run
their local politics.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I accused Plato of attacking
EA....I've reread the post twice and don't see it. Perhaps you'd point it out
to me? Because if I did, I certainly owe Plato an apology.
> Eric also implies that PLATO is effectively banished to Camaris and no
> matter what we can't "influence" Provinia. Personally, I don't care
> about Provinia but I do care about the areas in Provinia close to my
> territory for security reasons. If Eric or anyone else tells me I
> can't, then we have a problem more serious than the word of the treaty
> versus the spirit of the treaty.
>
I implied no such thing as Plato's banishment to Camaris. Plato is welcome to
tromp all over Yellowleaf or Azrain or Drassa if they choose. But, its a
distortion of the Yellowleaf Accord to use it as cause for such action.
Captain Arr, after being informed that LotC's action was not against the
Accord cited the "spirit" of the agreement as justification. I was merely
pointing out that the "spirit" arguement, taking to it's logical conclusion
and looking at the document as a whole, would preclude Plato from direct
action on Provinia.
As for the "security reasons"....how does closing Azrain pose a security
threat to you or the rest of Plato? Is it easier for them to mount an assault
from a "closed" city? You can scry or vision a closed or open one. So again,
the "security reasons" arguement doesn't hold water. Azrain may pose a threat
to Plato, but that threat is not increased or diminished based on whether or
not people can trade there.
Eric the Seehawk