[@Dealdric]

The GA is also just to set enough laws to keep the gods alive. I think the problem is, having not given Gammaton a chance to truly speak his mind, Dirka doesn't even know what Gammaton's ideals are to be able to hate them.

But by presenting it in the form of a contract, I think it falls into the realm of law, especially since signing it or not signing it changes the ramifications. I would count this as a situation where Dirka accidentally plays into Gammaton's court. By creating it in contract form in order to spite him, she has inadvertently put it firmly in his realm. But I still need to know what not signing the contract means. If not signing it doesn't change anything, he won't destroy it. Would she trust him more if he does the stupid thing and signs it? That doesn't make sense because it means acknowledging her as his enemy, which is precisely what he is trying to avoid. If he signs it, it allows her to restrict his choices, which is precisely what she said she didn't want to do because "she's not him".

As for what [@Stabby] said, people keep jumping to the conclusion that Gammaton's laws are going to be rigid. Yes, he may be OCD and desire order in his heart, it's not what he's going to act upon. And are Anu and Dirka promoting war between gods or between mortals/humans?

As for the harsh language, I used the word 'metagaming'. I know some people bristle at the accusation since it's kind of a 'bad word' on the Guild. But again, I bring it up as a way to technically distinguish Dirka's actions from what I incorrectly perceived to be 'player whimsy'.