On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On a side note, I would remind players who are critical of the > Protection Racket agreement that by harshly dealing with the RBOA in > this case as a result of the overlapping membership you would be > corrupting the very judicial system you claim to wish to keep > incorruptible.
I just wanted to take the opportunity regardless of the contracts involved, since I think it's the first R2144 violation we've had. I would have preferred to target the Protection Racket of course, but since it registered first that wasn't an option. Since both partnerships are designed to have very fluid bases, it's clear that this is not the sort of case that was really meant to be handled by R2144. But it also means that if the RBoA gets exiled, it will be trivial to form an RRBoA. -root
