Thank you all for this very revealing series of posts.

Stratos argued that: "Not all my years has Oakstone been underhanded,
pushy or unwilling to listen to my side on any point". I do not misdoubt
the sincerity of Stratos's statement, and I congratulate him on his
positive experience with Oakstone. However, not everyone has had such a
pleasant experience:

A clanmate of mine was enemied by Oakstone for overharvests, however,
she was not presented with any terms of punishment for eleven, yes,
eleven years. Back then, I argued that the Hierophants should stand down
because of gross incompetence. Yet, none of them have taken that
decision. While I remain with my opinion of that time, recent changes in
the Charter were positive, and I believe positive changes should be
stimulated wherever found.

If Stratos has been enemied to the Forests for eleven years without
being presented any terms of punishments, yet insists that his treatment
has been just and fair - well, a baffled silence would be the only
possible reaction on my part.

Recently, a Druidess was enemied for overharvesting in a Temple, in
flagrant violation of the Oakstone Charter. While the decision was
undone on the part of the Divine (notably, not the Oakstone
Hierophants), the Hierophant who did this remains at his post.

All of this confirms the points of our original document - that the
current political divisions within the Forestal Community are too large
for Oakstone to handle in an impartial manner on the basis of the
current Charter. Focusing on manifest enemies of Nature _only_ would be
a beginning of solving this issue - but only a beginning.

Elsp argued that there is nothing in the document we posted that has not
been dealt with by Oakstone before. If this is true, I would ask Elsp to
present us with the reasoning for Druids being punished significantly
harsher than Sentinels for identical crimes, for four plants being a
crime to Nature - but five plants being all peachy. Perhaps the
reasoning has escaped me before.

Loak found the document intellectually insulting. I am very sorry to
have intellectually insulted him. Every single word in the document is
there for a reason, has been weighed and considered - and has been
commented upon by quite a few people, who, for some reason, had no
problems understanding the contents of the document. I do not believe
its contents to be obscure in any fashion. I also believe the original
document not to have been rude to anyone, in any conceivable manner. It
is upon Loak to point out the putatively rude parts.

N.

Penned by my hand on the 15th of Mayan, in the year 376 AF.