Really, now...

"While Oakstone can not prove that Silverfox commited a crime, they can
neither prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't."

Since when is this a sound and logical argument? Because we cannot prove
that he did not commit a crime, he shall be punished as if he has?
Besides that, it sounds to me, by virtue of the many posts (being made,
I might add, at least in some part by people who are in the posistion to
know quite a bit about Oakstone law and history) that there is a very
reasonable doubt that Silverfox commited a crime. If we are to take the
stance that he is guilty until proven innocent by a "reasonable doubt"
at the very least, it looks like quite a few people doubt that he did
commit a crime.

But, before I am argued on that point, let us accept for a moment that
by harvesting in the same room as Ysbadadden, Silverfox did indeed
commit a crime. When was the crime commited? The moment Silverfox
harvested one herb? When he harvested two? When he harvested ten? He has
stated and Oakstone has not refuted that when he noticed Ysbadadden
harvesting, he stopped to prevent an overharvest on his part. This
course of action seems most reasonable (to me, at least, but then
perhaps I'm crazy). Why the actions that followed by Ysbadadden were
Silverfox's responsibility, I fail to see. How is Silverfox to know if
Ysbadadden is not paying attention to the plants? How is he to know that
there is an illegal use of reflexes being applied? If it were me,
dealing with another Druid in the same situation, I would not see it
unreasonable to believe said Druid was aware of what he was harvesting,
and how much was there, especially since ALL Druids are made KEENLY
aware of the serious matter that overharvests are. Bearing in mind that
accidents DO happen, the actions of that Druid (and their regard for the
plantlife) are no-one's responsibility but their own. I will take
responsibility for my overharvests. I will not take responsibility for
another's. I do not see this as unreasonable, and I do not see why
Silverfox should be made to bear the responsibility of another. Let us
be frank: Silverfox has said and it has not been refuted by Oakstone
that he stopped harvesting when there were 25 (or so) plants remaining.
25 plants left in a room IS NOT an overharvest (unless Oakstone has
changed it laws THAT drastically to suit it's purposes).

By the logic being applied by Oakstone, certainly any Druid could enter
a room and read "Lastharvest: 35 by Druid X", even if Druid X had long
ago left that area and left that room with plenty of herbs still in it,
then overharvest and claim that they wouldn't have overharvested if not
for Druid X's previous harvests in that same room. How is this logical?
Concoctioners having no restrictions put upon them have (or should have,
I think), the right to harvest as many plants in a room as they like,
provided they do not overharvest the set limits which have already been
set down and should be understood by all Concoctioners. This is
perfectly reasonable. So there shouldn't be any reason Silverfox should
be punished for entering a room, beginning to harvest without realizing
that Ysbadadden was also harvesting, and stopping as soon as he did
realize it. Seems like the logical course of action to me.

Another example, which I think all of Sapience can relate to: If Person
A is bashing a mobile, and Person B comes in and attacks the same mobile
without realizing Person A was already working on said Mobile, Person B
is generally expected to stop attacking and allow Person A to finish the
mobile off. I have generally believed this to be proper ettiquette, as
evidenced by past behavior of other Achaeans in the situation. Maybe I'm
wrong. But if the mobile kills Person A, Person A doesn't generally
blame Person B becuase Person B happened to enter the room and attack
without realizing there was an attack already underway. Or, if Person A
does, Person A is one sore loser.

Before I close (as I'm sure Achaea is done listening to the ranting of
one lonely rogue begging for common sense), let me voice my own support
for the Forestrals of Achaea to work on a new, more effective method of
protecting the forests and the relationships therein than the current
Council of Oakstone. I have long believed the Council of Oakstone has
grown outdated, and their laws and the effectiveness with which they
uphold these laws, flawed. I have long believed the Council of Oakstone
to abuse the power of Forest Enemy Status to further their own goals (be
it monetary or just a game of It's Our Way or the Prelatorian Highway).
Forestrals of Sapience, allies and enemies alike... let us consider the
possible replacement of Oakstone, with a Council more adept and informed
and reasonable. I am more than happy to hear any thoughts on the subject
of bettering the current situation, which is obviously not performing to
the best of its abilities.

Cheysuli I'halla Shansu,
Let there be Shapeshifter's peace upon you.
Shayden Lena, The Feral Lady.

Penned by my hand on the 16th of Scarlatan, in the year 344 AF.