Since LH's will was that America be split in two and not dissolved, it is done.
In addition, I'll be able to free the hundreds of income worth in stocks that Mandatum was stockpiling over the years.
Odd. Purchasing those stocks from Crimea would, if anything, make you lose money.
Read: You're not getting them for free, sir.
They were paid for with Crimean money, if at Mandatum's direction, and so, they're going to stay Crimean unless you pay full price.
And as your ally, I'm sure you wouldn't invade them to get the shares. And even if you did, they can always sign the ownership documents over to someone else out of spite.
Now, on a sadly more serious note:
I have been in correspondence with Thorvald.
Looking at the arguments for both sides, I have come to the following conclusions:
Thorvald's NPC embargoes are perfectly reasonable in the scope of human politics. When wars break out (which they do all the time), most nations do not even blink. Some might make a stand (the initial wave of embargoes), but most cannot be bothered. It takes serious escalation to motivate more nations to suddenly care. Genocide is generally a very good catalyst for further international action, and sure enough, implied acts of genocide are present in the Soviet roleplay; the potential use of nuclear weapons is not helping the issue either.
The NPCs' second wave of embargoes, therefore, is logical. That the USSR is close to victory is completely irrelevant. Iraq conquered Kuwait successfully; should the world have just accepted it? The rights of conquest are illegitimate in our world, and for the most part are in this one as well.
I will hold Thorvald to his word that if Kinich and AA do not make peace, AA will also face several starting embargoes. I consider the starting embargoes the states that actually have a conscious interest in peace, or are so close they naturally will be worried.
As such, I will need more compelling evidence that Thorvald is "biased," and will appreciate that no such accusations fly unless one has clear double standards that cannot be explained.
I consider myself - despite the running jokes of my being a sadist - to be fair and generous. Perhaps too generous. I am not issuing bans or kicks, despite petitions to the contrary.
What I am saying is, I will really appreciate it if such terms as "bias," "powergaming," and "metagaming" do not make it into common use. Their constant use makes me rather... disagreeable. The idea of penalising or banning players, quite frankly, leaves me feeling queasy. I want everyone to have fun - player, GM, observer - and I don't think getting at eachother's throats is helping this matter.
I said I would monitor Thorvald for any conflict of interest, any bias, etc. that one might be concerned about; overall I'd say he's done a fine job, and he has given good enough rationale for different actions. Never mind, mechanic-wise, things could be worse: I suspect the reason fewer folk have embargoed the USSR is because the NPCs are more or less in the hands of not just the Union of China, but Katterland and the 501st, via Philanthropy.
Alright then. I -think- I said everything that needs saying. So, everyone, please make up and behave. I -really- do not like bringing out the big guns, but if the situation mandates it (see my threat to ban folks from the UN a while ago) I most certainly am capable.
Anyway, have fun all.
