Albatross wrote:
Quick Qs:
- Are interested parties being proportionate in their military response?
- In cases of misrepresentation, is it possible for those 'responsible' to retire from their places, or to separate their 'offenses' from the body of their alliances? Would others allow them to rest?
- Can those itching for a fight just have an organised fight to burn off their excess military power, or does there need to be a causus belli having a traceable origin in-game?
|
I've been told that sometimes I use language that is inaccessibly dense, but I'm still not able to decode your inquiries. Are you worried that it's not a fair fight? Are you worried that weaker players are getting the business-end of siege weapons from stronger players? If those sorts of match-ups are happening in the first place, it might be hard to remedy, since compromise on anything seems difficult at the moment.
I do get the last questions though, and I'm guessing the unanimous answer will be no. From what I've read the what-nots and goings-on escalated to military-grade on October 1st, which is when the tourney started (and was at least posted on the tail-end of the previous day). So if people didn't want a full fight, couldn't they have just done what you suggest via the tourney? Or do you think people are reconsidering now?