Dramatic SFB: Alliances and mechanics

Majead Farsi majeadfarsi at googlemail.com
Mon Aug 23 15:18:04 PDT 2021 

Speaking for myself the main reason why I choose to make deals is because
by losing an encounter, whether by not sending ships there or not sending
enough means that I not only gain nothing but also lose points. Get rid of
losing EP and you will see less deals being made. Borders are not a big
deal but losing EP is. This I would guess may be one of the reasons for
deal making.
Again speaking for myself, I will never try and win a scenario where my
opponent is going to lose a substantial amount of EP unless forced to. Not
everyone is like me, including yourself!
We each play for pleasure, some like to make deals and fight a few battles
and some like not make deals and fight everything.
I do not have the time to ever fight every battle, so I have to make deals
on turn by turn basis to reduce the number of battles I maybe involved
with. Its what suits me.


On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 13:03 Marcel Trahan, <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Majead,
>
> There is a big difference between resolving battles by diplomacy and
> making alliances.
>
> To diplomatically resolve battles is normal and expected. You are
> outgunned or you outgun your opponent and offer him to leave is ok, because
> it can speed up the campaign. (i still love to blow up a few ships when i
> am outgunning my opponent or trying to escape with my ships when i am
> outgunned, those can be very fun scenarios to play)
>
> What  i am talking about is more of 2 or more players making alliances,
> deciding beforehand how to share the scenarios, and only sending very low
> BPV units to reap the EP, and increasing those borders as much as possible.
> When a player has 20+ friendly borders and lots of police ships that are
> there to cover those friendly borders, this is where the campaign gets
> boring.
>
> An example would be you and me having a 12 scenarios border, you build 6-8
> FXE at 26 BPV each and i do buy 6-8 SNP at 55 each (smallest ship i can
> build) and we do each send ships to the borders that we are defending and
> whenever we have a chance to get a BORDER scenario, we take it. This would
> end up each making on average 240+ EP per turn without risking any ships
> and using useless inexpensive units. After 5-6 turns of doing that, we
> soon get to 20 common borders, building another 4 cheap units and reaping
> on average 600+ EP each
>
> Once a few players start doing that, the other players will only have the
> option to start doing the same thing or they will quickly get relegated and
> fall so much behind that they cannot compete in the other scenarios. It
> takes 4-5 turns of doing that before the campaign turns into a stalemate
> and grind to a stop.
>
> If players want to have a strategic/diplomatic campaign, go that way or
> play F&E. If players want a SFB scenario generating campaign, just don't
> make alliances, manage your borders (not too many or too little) and send
> ships to try to get as many EP as you can and try to remove as many EP's
> from your opponent as you can. I love to be the attacker in those Colony
> Raid or Convoy Raid (yum yum, minus EP) or i will try to take as many enemy
> ships as i can when defending those ones.
>
> I currently have 1 SUB carrier group (I ended up with the SUB because the
> SUP-K that i had was deemed to require escorts, so i refitted it into a
> SUB) that could probably take any of my opponent fleet and i send it to a
> critical scenario and as for the rest, i will send 1 or 2 heavy ships (MC
> 2/3+) or a few smaller ships to most borders, hoping to outwit my opponents
> or have just enough ships to have a minimum chance of winning the scenario,
> hoping that my opponent did not send a big fleet.
>
> This turn, i am sending ships to 16 of my 22 borders, 3 of them with 4
> ships, 1 with 3 ships, 5 of them with 2 ships and the rest with only 1
> ship. I do hope this will end up having a few scenarios to play out. My 3
> or 4 ships fleet are spread among 4 opponents and my 2 ships fleet are
> spread among the other 3 opponents. Single ships are spread among all of
> them.
>
> This is way more fun than making alliances, reaping EP and sending huge
> fleets on the few non-allied scenarios that would be left. At least that
> way, i get to play scenarios, which is why i join those campaigns.
>
> Matt's last campaign turned out to be an alliance based campaign (and i
> was part of that alliance based campaign with my Hydrans and i plead
> guilty) and at the end, nobody was playing any scenarios because we where
> dealing with 1500+ bpv fleets and who wants to play those huge fleet games
> that takes weeks to play.
>
> I do sincerely hope that this campaign will not turn that way and ends up
> to whomever as more allies.
>
> Marcel
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 7:03 AM Majead Farsi <majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think there are alliances ever. Its just talking to resolve some
>> battles quickly. Speaking for myself, I can never play all battles as I do
>> not have the time. If we did not solve some battle results diplomatically
>> the game turn would be too long and I personally would start to loose
>> interest. I do not want to have to wait 6 months for all the battles to
>> resolve. Some have time to play out their battles but some will not be able
>> to. Two things will happen, 1, the campaign turn will take too long to
>> complete and 2 due to length of time people will drop out due to holding up
>> the campaign or just getting bored.
>>
>> Campaigns have diplomacy. Individual scenarios where the 2 sides have
>> predetermined ships and points get fought out. The format of what we are
>> playing is campaign. On the next campaign I suggest we use something like
>> FMJ to create more even encounters and battles and also keep some diplomacy.
>> Majead
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 11:13 Marcel Trahan via SFBdrama, <
>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> I think for now the best solution is to go with the honor system. Just
>>> all agree not to make alliances.
>>> Send ships to try to get as much EP's as possible without losing too
>>> many.
>>>
>>> If all players agree to go this way, it will create a lot of scenarios
>>> where we will enjoy playing which is the goal of the campaign.
>>>
>>> As for myself, i am not in any alliance and i will not make any in the
>>> future. I don't care if i win or lose the campaign as long as i can
>>> have fun playing the scenarios.
>>> I will even fight battles where i am outgunned just for the chance of
>>> winning the scenario if the conditions allow it.
>>>
>>> 2 turns ago, i attacked the prospecting raid with 2 SKA against 1
>>> Seltorian CA and 2 Seltorian DD defending. I was outgunned and i had lots
>>> of fun playing it. I pulled it out but almost lost a SKA doing it. That was
>>> way more rewarding then making alliances and trying to build the biggest
>>> fleets possible which ends up not playing any scenarios at the end.
>>>
>>> This turn, i will be sending ships to 16 of my 22 borders, leaving only
>>> 6 borders unattended. I hope this will generate some interesting scenarios
>>> even if it means that i am spreading my forces thin.
>>>
>>> Let's all agree not to make alliances and see where it leads.
>>>
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:13 AM Wayne Power via SFBdrama <
>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> best answer I have found for scenario battles to happen is to offer a
>>>> player to have a scenario battle (give out BPV or number of ship hulls to
>>>> get battles that are 50/50 or 60/40 balance in BPV)
>>>> On Monday, 23 August 2021, 10:19:53 am AEST, Gregory Flusche via
>>>> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boy did my little thing about diplomacy spark this thread?  The only
>>>> time i use diplomacy's like now when i have way to many borders and way to
>>>> few ships. Then it is a trade off of points. I do not add borders with some
>>>> one just to  get more points. Sooner or latter all them borders will come
>>>> back to haunt me
>>>>
>>>> There is no easy answer of course... but I still enjoy the game and how
>>>> to play... :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 6:29 PM David via SFBdrama <
>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me you could reduce alliances by just setting the EPV payments
>>>> to
>>>> more negative than positive for both defender and attacker. For example:
>>>> Whoever loses or doesn't show up gets -150bpv whoever wins gets +50
>>>> instead.
>>>> People have a natural tendency to feel losses more than gains and
>>>> besides
>>>> that reflects war's real profits. It isn't a zero sum game, let alone a
>>>> positive one. You might have to boost the base income to balance
>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, some will decide 'ok you win 3 and I win 3 so we each get +150 and
>>>> -450' plus our base of 450 but doesn't that make dealing sound less
>>>> appealing than 'you win 3 and I win 3 so we each get +200 and -50'? The
>>>> result is likely fairly close to EPV by kills. I'd probably change over
>>>> turns to balance things out given growing fleet sizes too.
>>>>
>>>> I tried doing a 'contest every sector and no alliances' approach and
>>>> discovered it worked horribly. Lasted about a turn before I started
>>>> concentrating force as much as allowed by the rules.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: SFBdrama <sfbdrama-bounces at lists.mattnet.org> On Behalf Of
>>>> sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 1:11 PM
>>>> To: sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> Subject: SFBdrama Digest, Vol 192, Issue 7
>>>>
>>>> Send SFBdrama mailing list submissions to
>>>>         sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>         http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>>         sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>>         sfbdrama-owner at lists.mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
>>>> "Re: Contents of SFBdrama digest..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>
>>>>    1. Re: GWO Turn 7 (Wayne Power)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 03:42:02 +0000 (UTC)
>>>> From: Wayne Power <wdpower at yahoo.com.au>
>>>> To: Gregory Flusche <shagrat1960 at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>,  Majead Farsi
>>>>         <majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>,  Brent Stanton
>>>> <brentzkrieg39 at gmail.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: GWO Turn 7
>>>> Message-ID: <1797979472.597435.1629603722309 at mail.yahoo.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>
>>>>  Orion Observation (final report turn 7), ..the carrier went to the Gorn
>>>> zone, and 2x DW are going to the Hydran space..
>>>>     On Saturday, 21 August 2021, 08:24:21 pm AEST, Wayne Power via
>>>> SFBdrama
>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I usually try and set up a battle (scenario) or two each turn (using the
>>>> Orion Observer giving information, mostly correct).
>>>> , and this turn I now may send a force toward tall enough Hydran border
>>>> if
>>>> they want to battle the Paravians? ( Hydrans only have about 12 ships
>>>> left),
>>>> the Paravians can send a carrier group with a warp signature of 2.0 to
>>>> scenario 1182.
>>>>
>>>>     On Saturday, 21 August 2021, 08:48:43 am AEST, Gregory Flusche
>>>> <shagrat1960 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I have thought about this for a while now. More on victory conditions
>>>> and
>>>> generating fun interesting?battles. As well as doing as Matt wants.
>>>> Generating fun stories as well,?
>>>> 1 set fleet sizes.. build a legal S8 fleet with the points given. No
>>>> tugs as
>>>> they and other ships like Minesweepers are given in a scenario.?
>>>> 2 victory conditions are set, Such as adding up EPV/BPV of kills. Using
>>>> basic victory conditions, So much for a destroyed/captured or crippled
>>>> ship.
>>>> When one player exceeds three times?or whatever?of other players is the
>>>> winner..? Could of course use Matts empire score as well as a way of
>>>> winning.
>>>> I like the idea of getting points for what you kill. When I played
>>>> ancients
>>>> Miniatures, Tournament battles were judged by enemy units routed
>>>> destryed?or
>>>> broken. You won if you had the higher?kill ratio. This promoted
>>>> fighting.?
>>>> If you do not attack You get no points.?
>>>> You can still have allies. So you can mass more ships elsewhere. You
>>>> would
>>>> get?points for killing units added to a scenrio?such as bases and ground
>>>> units. This also means getting points for killing fighters/shuttles. .?
>>>> 3 each player would get so many EPV depending?on the number of borders
>>>> to
>>>> buy replacement ships for those lost in combat.. Then the border/no
>>>> border
>>>> battles can matter as? Size of fleet can be determined by number of
>>>> borders,
>>>> ( The government?will give the admiral so much to spend on a fleet )?
>>>> 4 all this means to win you must fight battles. Fleets dependent on
>>>> borders.... as well as everyone having about the same EPV means more
>>>> even
>>>> battles to be fought, Mind You can still send what ships were you want
>>>> and
>>>> well it does happen.?
>>>>
>>>> Just some thoughts guys..?
>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 6:01 PM Wayne Power <wdpower at yahoo.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea of a set amount of EP each turn (the EP each turn could
>>>> go
>>>> up or down at a campaign year end based on how many victory/loss in
>>>> battle
>>>> each player had) Perhaps each empire needs to win certain types of
>>>> scenarios
>>>> to also advance EP.
>>>> At present in these types of Campaigns some players make small deals
>>>> every
>>>> now and then, others players have allies from the beginning and have
>>>> them
>>>> for the whole Campaign.
>>>> I think also if there could be a limit on the size of each border
>>>> empire,
>>>> and the overall total number of borders.    On Saturday, 21 August 2021,
>>>> 06:56:45 am AEST, Majead Farsi via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  yep I remember that one, and that's why I think your format would be
>>>> better
>>>> for encouraging players to fight a few as well. I like to do a bit of
>>>> both!
>>>> Maybe allowing a certain number of encounters to be resolved by
>>>> diplomacy
>>>> but everything?else must have at least 1 shop?+ like your format
>>>> allocated
>>>> to it. It would be fair I think. For myself I have not had any
>>>> alliances but
>>>> have made some logical diplomacy choices depending on the random
>>>> encounters
>>>> where the gain and losses have been mutual.The only reason why players
>>>> try
>>>> for diplomacy?is because they do not have enough ships to cover all
>>>> borders
>>>> that need covering and allocating ships to cover the ones that can be
>>>> fought
>>>> will leave them open to overwhelming encounters. Again your format
>>>> solves
>>>> that issue??.
>>>>
>>>> Majead
>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 20:48, Marcel Trahan <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Majead,
>>>> I do understand the need for sporadic diplomacy based on the encounter
>>>> type.
>>>> But if it gets like the previous campaign, where allies were?sharing 17
>>>> to
>>>> 24 borders, increasing them every turn and only sending Police ships to
>>>> pre
>>>> negotiated?borders, then it becomes unbalanced. I remember some players
>>>> that
>>>> had 35-40 total allied borders and enough small ships to cover half of
>>>> them,
>>>> those players were getting so many EPs every turn that they could send
>>>> 9-10
>>>> ships fleets to the few other borders where they?did not have any
>>>> alliances.. I think i did not play any scenarios?in the last 4 or 5
>>>> turns of
>>>> the campaign. And once a few players started that process, other
>>>> players had
>>>> to?do the same to try to keep up with the other alliances. And i was
>>>> guilty
>>>> as well of doing it and it is why i am not doing it in this campaign.
>>>> Currently, this campaign is still at the point where you try to outwit
>>>> your
>>>> opponents, Sending ships where it matters and creating interesting
>>>> scenarios. If we start alliances, then, it becomes only brute force or
>>>> whoever has more allies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marcel
>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:26 PM Michael Helbig <admgrraven at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have lately only allied with players that are almost totally
>>>> incompatible
>>>> with my schedule. Since changing jobs my time has gotten more flexible
>>>> so
>>>> need fewer allies. Also learning to enjoy the game again.?
>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:48 PM Majead Farsi via SFBdrama
>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I kind of agree with you Marcel,?to a certain?degree. I do think that a
>>>> certain amount of diplomacy has to be in it. The campaign moves forward
>>>> by
>>>> granting Ep's to the winner of encounters. Some encounters are fair on
>>>> both
>>>> sides and some are not, some have fair EP distribution some don't. This
>>>> forces us to use diplomacy wherever?possible.?To not use diplomacy you
>>>> would
>>>> need to remove the variation in the EP's granted. All should be equal.
>>>> All
>>>> encounters give the same EP advantage. To remove diplomacy entirely then
>>>> give every empire a certain amount of EP each turn, no reduction or
>>>> increase
>>>> and measure the campaign by another means?of measuring wins and losses.
>>>> By
>>>> Campaign end see who has the best ratio of wins and losses and claim
>>>> them as
>>>> winners.?
>>>> I think your format FMJ does not get rid of diplomacy entirely?but it
>>>> does
>>>> limit it. I would like to play a later campaign with your format where
>>>> we
>>>> are able to field at least small carrier groups, which would require a
>>>> higher initial?EP to build with.
>>>> Just my thoughts!
>>>> Majead
>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 17:11, Marcel Trahan <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you Majead,
>>>> But i do remember the last few campaigns where allies were?building
>>>> lots of
>>>> cheap units, opening borders between themselve, splitting scenarios?to
>>>> get
>>>> the most EPby sending cheap units while massing huge fleets to the few
>>>> enemy
>>>> borders that were left.It ended up that for the last few turns, we did
>>>> not
>>>> play any scenarios at all. That was my main reason behind?FMJ rules.
>>>> If it goes that way, it means that alliances are the only way to go and
>>>> we
>>>> end up not playing any scenarios, which kinda defeats the purpose of the
>>>> game.
>>>> As for myself, i don't have any allies and will not get any. I am here
>>>> to
>>>> play encounters?and have fun.
>>>> Marcel
>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:13 AM Majead Farsi <
>>>> majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To prevent, that Marcel we need to adopt your encounter format which has
>>>> advantages and has some disadvantages ( I think the disadvantages can be
>>>> solved!) but it does create more battles. Diplomacy is part of most
>>>> campaigns.
>>>> Majead
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 15:43, Marcel Trahan <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Romulan Star Empire is RTA.
>>>> Diplomacy kills the spirit of the game. It turns the campaign from a
>>>> scenario?generation for SFB to a who gets the most allies and builds
>>>> impossible fleets to battle against.
>>>> Hope this one does not turn into a hoarding game.
>>>> Marcel
>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 8:23 AM Majead Farsi via SFBdrama
>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Federation Horde are RTA.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 23:58, Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama
>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tribunal 13 is ready to advance... unless I get more diplomatic cries On
>>>> Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:28 PM Wayne Power via SFBdrama
>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GWO turn 7 Y179 Orion Observer reports,
>>>> no Paravian ships at the Tall enough Hydran border area1182 Organian
>>>> Treaty.
>>>>
>>>> battle group Albatross moving toward the oasis planet "Lighthouse" to
>>>> defend
>>>> from a Gorn planet crusher.
>>>> battle group "Fire" defending one of the last Paravian convoys on the
>>>> NERF
>>>> border.
>>>> battle group "Sword" with a warp signature of 2.0 heading toward the
>>>> Romulan
>>>> border.
>>>> scattered elements of battle group Petrel at the Dino-Mites border.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On Friday, 20 August 2021, 12:45:13 am AEST, Wayne Power via
>>>> SFBdrama
>>>> <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Shearwater Albatross Petrel Paravian RTA?
>>>> Battle Groups,
>>>> Sword
>>>> Albatross
>>>> Petrel
>>>> Shearwater
>>>> Fire
>>>>     On Thursday, 19 August 2021, 02:34:49 pm AEST, Brent Stanton via
>>>> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  The People's Front of Hydrax is RTA.
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>   ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>   ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>>   ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL:
>>>> <
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/2021082
>>>> 2/6853ec6a/attachment-0001.html
>>>> <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210822/6853ec6a/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> <a href='sfbdrama.mattnet.org'>Dramatic SFB</a> campaign chatter list
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> End of SFBdrama Digest, Vol 192, Issue 7
>>>> ****************************************
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210823/f4c9a624/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the SFBdrama mailing list