Dramatic SFB: Alliances and mechanics

Gregory Flusche shagrat1960 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 16:19:34 PDT 2021 

That is what I tend to do with diplomacy.. Trade of some scenarios  so i
can send ships elsewhere.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:18 PM Majead Farsi <majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> 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/fef401f0/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the SFBdrama mailing list