[Discuss] inalienable rights

[AJ]

On 9/29/05, Jonathon Taylor <its_never_enough at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> So when I said punishments, well that word shouldn't have even left my lips.
> It really should have been just "please don't recruit infantry, if you do
> you might fall out of favour with the realm, but with our situation usually
> we wouldn't request this, but we need to right now to ensure the realm
> continues to grow. But if you do so, no punishment will be against you, but
> it may make it more difficult in the future for you to get a Local Lordship
> or financial backing (gold being sent to you) if we don't favour you over
> some one else who knew better of our situation and understood us more.

I am not talking about your use of Important orders. I am talking
about the retribution faced by the other TLs. What if I told you, give
me all your tax gold or it might make it more difficult for me to give
you a lordship or further funds.

What you are saying is I/We will punish you while being diplomatic
about it. Sugar coating does not change anything at all. Isn't denying
lordship/gold a form of punishement? Sure not as bad as a ban but a
punishment nonetheless.
Equate it to expulsion from school and detention or Physical
punishment or writing a very long essay 10-20 times..

Anyways, I will not add any more to this thread. If it is felt
inappropriate/appropriate by Tom/Titans, they will act accordingly.

aJ
--
--------------------------------
bLogging at - http://aj.accosted.net/rambler