Loryen writes: "Thanks for cutting of any opportunity for rebuttal"
I did not. I addressed many of your points that were relevant to the topic at hand. You ask me "once again" to explain why the odd corrupt kami or kara official would waste resources on a neutral, but as you had no response last time, I don't know why repeating myself would change that. If you don't actually have a rebuttal, perhaps ignoring my response is the best you can do.
I'm sorry that you think that diminished unfairness would wreck the game for you. You completely slip past my point that the game currently imposes severe penalties for acknowledging the lore of the game and finding neutrality to be the reasonable course. Yet you insist that you wish there were more consistent roleplaying. These views are mutually exclusive. It's possible that you have found a way to genuinely hold mutually incompatible views: lots of people do it. But it does tend to render attempts at dialogue moot.
I did not. I addressed many of your points that were relevant to the topic at hand. You ask me "once again" to explain why the odd corrupt kami or kara official would waste resources on a neutral, but as you had no response last time, I don't know why repeating myself would change that. If you don't actually have a rebuttal, perhaps ignoring my response is the best you can do.
I'm sorry that you think that diminished unfairness would wreck the game for you. You completely slip past my point that the game currently imposes severe penalties for acknowledging the lore of the game and finding neutrality to be the reasonable course. Yet you insist that you wish there were more consistent roleplaying. These views are mutually exclusive. It's possible that you have found a way to genuinely hold mutually incompatible views: lots of people do it. But it does tend to render attempts at dialogue moot.