Coincidence, Cowardise or Both?

[Admiral Nelson]

Better ask Shadowood to get Danik some Rum, he is the port lord after all...

And you thought I was on about port ownership.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Alas, the good sawbones of this parish have decreed a lack of alcohol for a few more days to aid my recovery : some nonsense about avoiding undue excitement as well, but I figured PG should be safe enough ground....

[PhoenixKnight]

On a matter of contract,
Grenada did not violate anything. our agreed upon terms were met.
Does St. Kitts like the move? Absolutely not. It would have been our preference if Grenada contacted us out of courtesy for support or with the intention of merging before hand. However, I cannot fault Grenada citizens for doing what is best for them while respecting the contract.

On the matter of port ownership
When St. Kitts gave up 3 ports for smaller nations, we intended to offer a chance for growth for more nations. Grenada going to Spain reduced one flag on the map.
I would like to invite Spain to explore the possibility of giving that port to another small nation. St Kitts will be willing to support that move and enter into a joint protection of that port with Spain from attacks for up to 60 days until that nation can establish itself.
St. Kitts will not go to war with Spain over this and I have absolute trust in Spain's leadership as they have taken the initiative of port sponsorship before.

[William one eye]

When St Kitts was created, the original plan before Egypt and Isle were abandoned was to release the 3 to 4 ports to small nations.
Once the St Kitts was founded, the collection of ports owned were evaluated and council voted on what ports to release.
All candidates that applied for a port were seriously considered. Those that showed the best chance to successfully hold the ports
were given ports. St kitts offered protection for the small nations during their establishment period. I believe that was a time period of 45 days.

I would ideally like to see a small nation in the port. However I agree with the statement
- once you let a port go - it is gone - it was Grenada's port - most likely at reset is will belong to Spain.

[Dmanwuzhere]

Coincidence, Cowardice or both?
I too have those questions, but it would encompass a different topic.
When Grenada has been beset on all sides for the entirety of its timeline, I question the honesty in which disparity is mentioned.
I have seen far weaker multiple port owners sit unmolested as well as favored single port owning nations.
So I wonder if the Coincidence mentioned includes a favoritism clause for some ports due to some bond that pre exists or could it be Cowardice that keeps the other ports safe? Or could it be said it is both?
The answer doesn't concern me one way or the other, as they are the musings of an old man in newb attire.
What does concern me is the survival of our port which without it, our nation is a destitute entity. Instead of all of this support of new nations, I keep hearing about, I can only attest to the persecution and ill will offered over a period of months.
Now my eyes are old, so perhaps my voodoo log in both offensive and defensive voodoo have addled my brain a bit. But if that is the case, where is the proof that supports Grenada was ever welcomed by Avonmora, except in the offering of the port.
But that is enough of the musings of an old man in newb clothing, as I grow tired and my feeble and thin hands grow weary of draining the ink pot to waste such a valuable resource on musings that never matter as nothing ever changes.

[William Pitt]

Spain will have 1 port over the limit, are you saying that we should give up the port because another nation gifted it to a young nation? The council is open to your suggestions @Phoenix and @Shadow.

1. The decision made by X to give the port away was already made,whats the problem if the ownership changed peacefullly with Spain by the former owner(Grenada)? They own the port isn't it their choice now?

2. "Mexico didnt hand Regis to Egypt so Egypt could hand it to St Kitts : but once the port is gone, its gone " He said it best.

[Shadowood]

@dman
What's the old HELM motto? "Don't start none, won't be none"

I personally don't know when your troubles started, but I do know some of the history of some bad blood between some parties involved.

Having said that, you are blind to think that Grenada has been the only nation to befall attacks. In the last 3 months, USA, Spain, Grenada, Bermuda have been under some sort of attack and lost a port (for a very short time). I am sure the next 3 months will see struggles come to the shores of the other nations. You are not alone is this, you are only just new to the game. Port Control is difficult and not for all.

But if Spain is your home, you will do well there. They are a very stout nation and I hold Stan in some of the highest regard I have for players in the game. You and Pro can learn a few things from such a seasoned group of sailors.

[Shadowood]

Spain will have 1 port over the limit, are you saying that we should give up the port because another nation gifted it to a young nation? The council is open to your suggestions @Phoenix and @Shadow.

1. The decision made by X to give the port away was already made,whats the problem if the ownership changed peacefullly with Spain by the former owner(Grenada)? They own the port isn't it their choice now?

2. "Mexico didnt hand Regis to Egypt so Egypt could hand it to St Kitts : but once the port is gone, its gone " He said it best.

I am not saying they have to, I was just questioning the move. Since I joined the game Spain has always controlled 5 ports and i was told by Spanish counsel a few times, that they chose to reduce their ports to 5 and keep it there (From the time when they held more). I was just asking a question if they are now going to fully defend a 6th port.

Where this sits ill with me and some, is we wanted more diversity in the map. If we didn't we would have just tried to keep and run 9 ports. I am sure with the group that merged we would have been successful. We "gave" the port away for FREE to see a new nation blossom and grow. This nation has had its struggles yes, but with other small nations. I am safe to say there is no love lost between some Montenegro players and Grenada players. This is where some of the main struggle comes from.

[Dmanwuzhere]

Ink is so pre c iou s see ms my qu i ll is run ng dr . But I w ll say ......

[DezNutz]

Not the first time this has occurred. In actuality, both Haron and myself discussed the limitation of a player changing nations to include discussion on influence.

The issue at hand is that the nations largest influence holder has decided to pack up and leave Grenada for Spain and he took along with him a large chunk of influence that was likely purchased while under the flag of Grenada. The question that was discussed is should all the influence go with the player or if some of that influence should stay with the Nation it was purchased under. It's a worthy debate, and if changed would likely change how influence works.

The counter to this is that, a Nation shouldn't expect to hold a port on the shoulders of a single player. Port Influence should be spread among several players so that in the event that a player leaves, the port shouldn't change nations or require a large purchase of influence by the remaining members to retain it.