LWO war

Back onto topic..

So I think I got this

LWO wanted fun thieved bsh, bsh caught  asked LWO why, but no real leadership in lwo, just got answer "we want fun"  bsh pissed and war, confeds come into play and war.

LWO gets fun, bsh called war but isnt warring, is using confed to dispatch lwo so it can stay in tourney.

am i right on all this?

Thanks SS. And in fairness I should learn not to feed the trolls.

The thread has also thrown up some other issues, which are just as interesting. The division between those who want violence to be consensual, and those who want a less humane game is bubbling along, of course. More interesting is the immediate reaction that if something is talked about it will get worse....

On a theoretical level I disagree with this. I think some of "the community's" more questionable actions have been based on very limited information, and a fuller understanding of a subject should avoid people jumping to false conclusions in future, so I'm always going to be up for fairly full disclosure. But on the other hand, on a practical level, there have been examples of people trying to blow things out of proportion in order to justify battering people, so I do get why people might fear this. (And someone sent me an IGM quite justifiably pointing out that I've previously said that the absence of the bloodthirsty concerned and humane community getting involved in disputes does make a diplomatic resolution harder - fair point.)

Still, the level of fear over this is striking.