[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]


I wrote:

>> There are clearly situations where the creation of borders (Principality
>> or Kingdom) is, in the long term, a good thing.  If we can form a
>> characterization of situations where it might be good, and when it
>> might be bad, we may then be able to see more clearly whether our
>> current situation fits any of the criteria.

To which Diccon responded:

>I would suggest this is an oversimplification.  Borders can not be lumped 
>into the categories GOOD or BAD.  All borders create problems.  Wouldn't 
>it wonderful if they could all be eliminated.  But, borders are a 
>necessary evil.  One of the borders Dafydd mentions, Meridies-Atlantia, 
>has permanently stolen almost half the wind from the sails of the poor 
>ship Border Vale Keep, no matter which side of the line they are on.  

Of course it is a simplification.  The affects of every border are going
to change as the groups around it evolve.  But you can't hide from my
point by calling borders a "necessary evil".  By "necessary evil" you
clearly mean that borders do some bad, but sometimes we need to have
them for other reasons (which we obviously consider good).  So you
are saying that sometimes borders do more good than evil, right?  (If
not, please lend evidence to your thesis regarding the total dissolution
of all borders and amalgamation into SCA-pangea :^)

Which was exactly my point.  Borders do some good things, and some bad
things, depending upon the situation and the point of view.  If we can
characterize what these effects are, then we will be able to apply the
characterization to our current data set:
	Atlantia, internal Principality(s), hypothetical.