If you feel that such attacks are inevitable, then you agree with the
quoted statement, not disagree.
> The attack on Oleg was IMO unwarrented.
Note that, strictly speaking, talk about an "attack on Oleg" is
incorrect. Oleg hasn't been attacked. (He easily could have been.)
I assume you mean "unwarranted," i.e., "without justification or
reasonable grounds." You are entitled to hold whatever opinion you
want. But I personally find it hard to understand on what basis you
could have formed any such opinion, since I know for a fact that you
have no information on what those reasons might have been: you haven't
asked for such information, and it hasn't been volunteered to you.
Supposing that Shangri-La was attacked without a reason that you
consider sufficient, that still doesn't lend any credence to the
assertion that I intend to attack other players next. Any more than the
fact that you admit a "too harsh" attack means that every other player
should feel threatened by you and wipe you out. If players, not knowing
or caring the reasons for the attack, want to retaliate for it, that's
up to them. But if players are doing so because they believe propaganda
that I intend to attack them next, well, then, that's just foolish. And
you can ask any of the people I could easily have attacked before now,
and didn't.
> I think that there is a distinction to be made between competition and
> conflict. I'd hate to ruin another faction's enjoyment of this wonderful
> game just to get ahead unless they'd shown themselves to be a bunch of
> mean-spirited little greedheads.
If conflict ruins a player's enjoyment of the game, perhaps that player
would be better off in a different game which doesn't contain conflict?
David desJardins
-- Copyright 1994 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.