Re: [eia] allow me to muddy the waters even more

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

You've got it backwards.  I am suggesting that France should have _more_ of
a say in where their forces could be repatriated to, not that Spain should
have a say; in other words, they wouldn't neccessarily have to go to the
closest French-controlled areas, but perhaps could be placed somewhere else
along the border between French and Spanish territory.  This would allow us
to sidestep some ridiculous outcomes of repatriation.

But as I said, I haven't thought this through completely yet, for instance
how to apply it to cases where the territories of the two former enemies do
not actually touch.  Does anyone think this is a worthwhile avenue to pursue
for a compromise solution ?

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] allow me to muddy the waters even more


>     I don't understand what is prompting this suggestion.  In the case we
> are currently dealing with, why should Spain have a say in where my troops
> end up when they are returned to France?  Without seeing any reason for
such
> interference by a former enemy in my decision-making process, this
provision
> would certainly make repatriation even *less* appealing to me (not *more*
> appealing).
>
> kdh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerald Jeffrey Young (CPS - Personal)" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:11 PM
> Subject: [eia] allow me to muddy the waters even more
>
>
> > What about using repatriation, but with the former enemy having some
sort
> of a
> > say in where his troops are transported to along the border ?  I have no
> > thoughts yet about details, but maybe as a general framework, this could
> yeild
> > a result not as displeasing to everyone ?
> >
> > -JJY
> >
> >
> > Quoting Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > At 01:15 PM 10/9/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >I'm worried that our 2 choices are either a 4-3 vote in favor of
> > > repatriation
> > > >(which makes all of us somewhat unhappy), or a 4-3 vote in favor of
> limited
> > > >access with at least restriction #2 below, and possibly #3 and #4, as
> well
> > > >(which will leave 3 of us very unhappy).  Which is the better choice
?
> > > >
> > > >-JJY
> > > I expect we'll come to some sort of temporary solution like we did
last
> > > time and then take another stab at it the next time it'd be nice to
have
> > > limited access.  By the end of the game, we might actually have
figured
> out
> > > a good compromise that works. :)
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eia mailing list
> > > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eia mailing list
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia