While I appreciate the clarifications in your response, I'm going to have to ask for another with regards to the basic message of what you've said here. Before I get into that, I would like to clarify myself that what I'm about to say isn't coming from a place of wanting more death plots and what have you; I am all for those taking consequences and being curbed within reason. However, the fact of the matter is that you threatened your playerbase (whether you want to invoke permadeath or not, the entire last portion of the modpost itself was an overt threat to do it, and there is no way to read it otherwise given the wording you used) and the reason seems to be "you're doing things that do not follow the narrative that we as mods want for the game." It sounds as though we cannot do anything that might run the risk of upsetting the natives, lest we deviate from whatever scripted narrative you're following - that is to say, we cannot do anything that could threaten the status quo or lead to the natives turning against us, or we're going to see further threats like that as you see fit.

Is this what you're saying, or am I misunderstanding the situation you're spelling out? If I am not misunderstanding, where is the line being drawn? There are a lot of IC actions that could run the risk of upsetting the natives and garnering NPC resentment; should we see an 'uptick' in those as well, are those also going to be restricted for the sake of preserving the narrative direction that you, as mods, want to pursue?