Deacon wrote: Stuart Bailey wrote:Wonder if that would get things going?
Well, if your goal was to personally insult me, you succeeded.
I have to admire Stuart's intellectual dexterity, trying to defend the indefensible. I joined as Pope only a few months ago, and appeared on the forum only a few weeks ago. I deliberately did not join the forum during the period I was making my judgement because I was determined not to be influenced by anything outside the game and the submissions made to me. Looking back over this thread between those dates I read so many contradictory, misleading, and at times offensive posts, designed to undermine one position or another, insult one player or another. Not all of these would have been intended, others clearly were. It is the role of the forum moderator to examine such posts and make a decision, calling time on a discussion if he feels it has overstepped the mark.
If we have the right to post in agreement with something then we also have the right to post our disagreement with something. As I recall someone did point out a few days ago that a game where there is only one point of view would be rather boring.
If there is some surprise that in posting on the forum I am restoring some balance by questioning posts I consider misleading or unsupportable, then perhaps that indicates just how far the forum 'bubble' has influenced those who read it.
Deacon wrote:
Poland called the peace conference, Not Austria. It was stated repeatedly that it had no binding force and was a venue to discuss positions. I wasn't the least bit interested in trying to create a binding forum even if anybody had wanted that.
So for that to be a 'trap', the french position has to be so idiotic that to publicly enunciate it would be humiliating. Somehow I don't think France would characterize their own position that way. It may well have been a venue to earn honour, had France shown up and actually engaged. They didn't. Perhaps if they had, France's name would appear somewhere on the honour rolls.
Further, this statement says that Poland was acting dishonestly in its efforts, or perhaps worse that I'm some kind of dupe to have attempted to create a venue for such discussions.
I wouldn't know what peace proposals France put to Austria because despite asking over and over and over and over again in both letters and the paper, France never bothered to respond to me. As I am not Austria, surprisingly, I don't receive their mail. I have no knowledge of what was put directly to them. I said as much in one of the ignored letters. I gave France a venue to state their position and to make their case. They couldn't be bothered.
The only position that ever got stated at the conference was Austria's because, surprise, Austria was the only one who responded to my letters and gave me the courtesy of a reply.
And this flippant post is exactly why my enjoyment of the game was diminished by France's failure to even do me the courtesy of telling me to sod off and stop wasting my time and money.
It has been recognised in earlier posts just how much work Deacon put into the peace conference. I can certainly testify to that for in my startup turn I was swamped with paperwork and letters covering almost the entire history of the game. It was the one time I have been glad that the game was running so slowly!
So I understood the diplomatic background and could see what had not worked. I cannot be 100% sure that I have all the paperwork so cannot comment on whether Stuart's assertion that France did come close to an agreement with Austria which was supported by England/UDP. However there were broadly 3 problems which came through from the files:
1. Nations were very keen to divide up Spanish assets between themselves without even bothering to consult with or listen to Spain. As I pointed out in the judgement and subsequently, had such an agreement been made it could not have been implemented without the consent of Spain. Or more succinctly, you can't give away what is not yours to give away. I had guidance, which I believe was from the GM, on the views of Spain which along with other details were not necessarily available to Deacon as he was attempting to organise his conference.
2. Nations had different purposes/objectives in participating and those purposes changed over time. By objectives I refer to their territorial or other material hopes. By purposes I refer to their reasons for participating - whilst some were clearly approaching the issue with goodwill and in a sincere attempt to avoid war, others were not. This may have been the result of changes in player, I can't tell, but it was not so in all cases.
3. The occupation of various lands without declarations of war clearly impacted the positions of some participants. But there was no sense of agreement what to do about it. Various ideas were floated, but none could guarantee that those who had occupied certain lands would relinquish them or that Spain would agree to those ideas. There was also some doubt that there was a peace to be had given that the signs were that the world was at war even if no declaration had been made.
The immediate decision I had to make, considering these 3 factors, was whether to simply take the responses to Deacon's conference and give it the Papal blessing with Papal authority behind it, or to start again.
Starting again gave everyone the opportunity to reflect on what they had tried previously, withdraw elements they had subsequently found were not going to be acceptable to others and then simply summarize what they thought would be agreeable with the legal reasons behind it. By making this a legal, not a political, judgement it ensured that it was robust, not simply a political exercise in buying off competing demands. That I received so many responses was no doubt in part due to the work Deacon had done in the months before I joined. Based on those submissions, claims which did not stand up were rejected and the judgement gave the GM a choice of routes to move forward, routes which as it turned out had already been hinted at in the newspapers or in the papers supplied to me. There would have been no point in putting the effort in to reach a judgement if I had not been scrupulously fair or had allowed myself to be influenced by intimidation, bribes or promises of support from other players. Recent accusations in the newspaper that I have been so influenced are false and insult not only me, but those who made their submissions and trust the fairness of the GM. Had this been the case then the GM would rightly have ripped up the judgement or refused to publish it. I genuinely did not know which of the routes he was going to choose and I still don't know with certainty how it will ultimately play out.
But I do know that those who hoped for a diplomatic solution now have one. Stuart would appear to be incorrect in stating that "everyone decided a political settlement was not going to happen". If they don't like it and war results then, as happened in history, my character tried and failed. That so many players have appreciated what I have done means I count it as a personal achievement anyway. Nations may declare war on each other for many different reasons (including personal insults) and the judgement does not prevent them doing so. Nations may even declare war on each other for no reason at all or out of fear that their neighbour is growing so powerful that if they don't declare war, they will be the next target. The judgement does not prevent war, so if war breaks out it will not be taken as a personal failing. What the judgement does is discredit attempts to use the Spanish Succession as a reason for starting a war.
There could be many reasons why the war he has tried so hard to start has not "kicked off". France may not yet be ready to declare war, or see the need to given she is effectively at war already by proxy, hiding behind characters or 'allies', trying to avoid responsibility for what is being done in her name. If it looks like a dumpling, acts like a dumpling, smells like a dumpling, it may not be necessary to risk indigestion by eating it to prove it is a dumpling. Her opponents may still be hoping that the diplomatic solution is accepted, thus avoiding the need for them to respond; they may be waiting until France is so overextended that she is an easier target; they may still be gathering allies or they may still be deciding on a strategy and discussing it with each other. It is curious that whilst France is keeping the world guessing diplomatically, her opponents are keeping France guessing militarily, which is surely a much higher price to pay for silence.
But I certainly concur that it is a little early for France or her allies to claim any kind of victory or to underestimate the tenacity, determination and resilience of her opponents to stand up to repeated attempts to intimidate them.
.
Home
Portal
Search
Latest images
Register
Log in
And Ethiopia was the second country to convert to Christianity behind Armenia and establish the faith as a state religion (according to the wikipedia entry). Maybe you meant to say that Ethiopia established its state religion of christianity before Rome? That appears to be a true statement, though I'm not sure that really means much when examining the religious tradition itself.