> With all due respect, Sir Captain Arr,
> I think this is a bad idea. (makes me wrong I guess).
>
> It seems to me that the gcoa was part of the reason why
> the original treaty didn't work. Some people didn't feel party to it.
> (dont tell Jheremai I said so).
>
I happen to agree with this sentiment. Recent accusations ref the way the
accord negotiations were conducted would not be possible if they were done in
a more public forum. I also think it's important for groups other than those
represented on the gcoa to know what's happening around them. As such I will
continue to reply to any posts on the list if I feel the need. But, per
Arrr's request, I am also discussing this with him on the gcoa list.
> Also, the amusement factor for the 308 factions (316 minus 8)
> not represented in this council will decrease dramatically.
> This was why we reformed our own Alliance to the Harn Confederacy (or
> as some like to call it, the Confederacy of Southern Provinia),
> to allow for more factions to enjoy the game.
>
You lose my support here though :-)
I don't write what I write or believe what I believe for the enjoyment of
others. If my posts are enjoyed, that's an unintended side effect. But I
don't post for amusment.
(well, sometimes.....)
> On a different issue:
> A personal comment in the Camaris vs Provinia discussion.
> From where I stand (reporting from the Kingdom of Eastern Harn),
> this is a non-existent conflict. Rather, it seems to be the codrickers vs
> the rest of Olympia. The king bird (no disrespect meant) himself has
> for some reason sided with the codrickers rather than just wait for them
> to make concessions, as is their custom. Always livin on the edge, those
> people. Why does the old Seehawk do this? Me thinks he is still angry over
> the old
> wargame discussion he had with PLATO back in the old days.
>
> Stuart LaGavulin
> The Mouth of the South
>
Yikes, where did this come from?
First of all Stuart, I didn't participate in the "wargame discussion" of old.
I may have offered some comment, but I was hardly involved. I think Oleg
actually summed up my feelings on that debate when he said "you may not
consider it a wargame, but if I do, and I attack you, then it becomes a
wargame for you". Forgive me, I'm paraphrasing and I'm not even sure if it
was Oleg that said it.
I think the wargame/roleplaying game debate is a deadend issue for percisely
the reason Oleg gave.
As to the comment that "The king bird (no disrespect meant) himself has
for some reason sided with the codrickers rather than just wait for them
to make concessions, as is their custom."
I've seen this charge stated similarly many times. I guess my message was
lost in the recess-yard bickering between Oleg and myself.
As I stated more than once, I think LotC's decision to close Azrain is wrong.
Nobody does more to assure newbie resource and trade rights than TIB and I
don't think that LotC should attempt to hinder newbies in any way. What I
take issue with is Plato's belief/desire/attempt to enforce their will over
another alliance. Plato's base tactic for getting what they want is warfare
and the threat of warfare. This tactic is directly opposed to the tactic's
I've chosen to further my own, and TIBs, goals. It stands to reason that I'm
going to take issue with Plato's threats and intimidation because it's the
exact opposite of what I believe in.
I haven't "sided" with LotC on this issue, and until this morning, I hadn't
sent or received any mail to them on this issue. LotC and TIB are not allied
in anyway and I personally have no stake in the outcome of the current Azrain
debate. My issue is not the rightfulness or wrongness of LotC's actions (as I
have already stated I don't agree with them) but rather the wrongness of
Plato's continued attempts to exert their will over other alliances and to
tell a soverign nation (LotC) how they should run their cities.
Eric the Seehawk