<blockquote class="Quote" rel="Zynti">
I do not support the idea of mirroring tethers because I believe each tether provides something unique and your personal decision of what tether you associate with is because of the unique qualities and skills you enjoy within that tether. </blockquote>
There is enjoyment from playing on a certain tether, enjoyment from playing a certain class (or 2 or 3 or 5), and enjoyment from playing/doing something unique. Right now, people can miss out on possible enjoyment due to the limitation of access to classes. You can enjoy X tether, but only enjoy these set of Y classes on that tether. If the goal is to maximize player enjoyment, then removing that limitation will help do that.

Uniqueness is more abstract, but there are also a lot of different ways to have more uniqueness. Each new mirror class will have unique messages, unique themes to the class, and allow for players to experience unique RP. In other words, although the mechanics of the abilities will not be unique, having mirror classes will still add to possible uniqueness in the game, and limiting classes/abilties to tethers does not necessarily maximize uniqueness or enjoyment from uniqueness.

<blockquote class="Quote" rel="Zynti">
I see mirroring as "watering" down tethers and trying to create a big community of people that all have the same thing. In life people don't have the same thing. There's value in the conflict and envy that each tether has for one another. Let's keep that decision real and with consequences. </blockquote>

My character may be new but I have played Aet for a long time. Something being "realistic" generally doesn't mean anything for the game, and trying to apply how things work in "real life" generally fall flat. Also, the "value" of the conflict and envy tethers have for one another could (and probably is) have a negative impact on the game. Even if it was a positive impact, it would need to be weighed against other values. Like Aet making actual real life money.

<blockquote class="Quote" rel="Zynti">
I think overtime if everyone had every class then I could see people leaving tethers purely because of politics and not because of the desire to try something new. If all classes are mirrored you take away the element of trying something new, which is a good feeling for anyone that has switched tethers in the past.</blockquote>

There is quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on here. Having mirrored classes will allow people to try MORE new things, not less. The will still be able to leave your tether to try new things. Except now, you have the freedom of trying new things (other classes) without being forced to do so. Providing more freedom and more choice, without the limitation of switching tethers, is a good thing.

People can already leave tethers purely because of politics. The only different is people will be more free to do so now. This might force people to be nicer to their allies, which I mean, they should be doing anyway since it's just a game.

<blockquote class="Quote" rel="Zynti">
I recognize the obvious financial benefits for the realms because now people could and would buy more classes, but I feel it to be the lazier approach that could have negative consequences on the overall value of aetolia. Obviously a big issue is the between-tether arguments during liaisons and I understand the work that @Keroc has to involve himself in - in order to making everyone happy - which the player base could be more cognizant of this and not add so much stress onto everyone one of @Keroc 's decisions.
</blockquote>

Even if there are negative consequences, they would have to be contrasted with any positive consequences. It's like asking someone why they would go see a doctor, since they might be hit by a bus on the way, or have to pay 100 bucks for a prescription.

Players could definitely be nicer to K, although I might argue that's a two-way street. However, I don't necessarily think his life will be made easier. Arguments will just go from being tether-based to the class-havers vs non-class havers. The group without a class will say something is OP, while the group that has the class will say it's fine. This will probably harm under-represented classes that can't make good arguments as to why they shouldn't be nerfed (or deserve buffs). But that kind of already happens so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

<blockquote class="Quote" rel="Zynti">
But... I would rather efforts be focused on the creation of new classes and keeping tethers separate. The idea that everyone needs to be the same is not a good idea. The idea that everyone needs to be the same is balanced is not how the world operates. Imbalance in some ways is actually good because it challenges all of us to improve and work toward "the idea" of balance. If you give everyone the same thing you lose that element of working toward something which could result in disinterest.

As weird as it may sound, imbalances actually keep us alive and keeps us improving and keeps us interested.

Just my 2 cents! Thanks</blockquote>

I think your ideology is showing. Read any good Ayn Rand recently?

Here, I'll put it in a way you may understand: Stop trying to regulate this business.