Re: Azrain & the Peace Accord

kicker@ix.netcom.com
Thu, 09 Apr 1998 21:41:03 -0400

Seehawk42 wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-04-09 16:24:55 EDT, kicker@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> > 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
I did not say anything about trade. Captain Arrr mentioned trade. I do
not trade in Azrain. PLATO is not a uniform entity that thinks and
believes the same thing about every issue. Keep this in mind when making
blanket assumptions about every member of PLATO.

Goran

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links