Re: the principality debate

[Greg Lindahl <gl8f@fermi.clas.virginia.edu>]

On Feb 9, 10:01, Lance Harrop wrote:

> When anyone says it wouldn't be 
> good or it wouldn't be fun, I feel they should be required to bring forth 
> reasons too.  I have heard ONE good reason for opposing, or at least not 
> joining, principalities, and it's group specific, not universal, and not 
> applicable to the whole Kingdom.

The biggest objection I've seen is that it will reduce travel across
principality boundaries and end up splitting people from their
friends. Had you been listening in Cheapside the last time the
principality issue came up, you might have heard this, in some
detail. An additional objection is that border groups get hurt; this
IS applicable to the whole Kingdom, because we're supposed to care
about all the groups in the Kingdom, not just our individual local
groups. My local group happens to be one that's on every border
proposed so far, and I don't like it much when our concern is labeled
"group-specific" and "not applicable to the whole Kingdom".

I personally don't believe that this discussion is going anywhere at
the moment, except into a large number of virtual trashcans.

In service (and in the trash),

Gregory Blount of Isenfir