Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 375 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:30 pm 
User avatar
Has collected at least one unit
Offline
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:54 pm
Posts: 26
Skull the Troll wrote:
Shard wrote:
I think mayve Marie's scrolls were a prepared Teleport spell.

She gets the gun, then teleports back to where she casted her spell.


I think the signamancy of the names is wrong for that. The two names in the spells were mediums, who were later revealed to be frauds. That says to me a combination of Croakamancy and Foolamancy or Carnymancy. Personally I think its what allowed a decrypted unit to cheat/fool people in some way - perhaps to allow her to pull of the maneuver in the park. Could be many things. Maybe Marie had no juice and she just needed a scroll to predict when FAQ would fall and the ICFYS portal would appear.


We saw in the Battle of Portal Park that Decrypted Casters "pop again" with Juice.

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:44 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! This user has been published! Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:41 pm
    Posts: 116
    I don't know if this has already been said, but I totally want Marie to go all Die Hard up in I'm Coming For You Stanley.

    "Now I have a machine gun!"

    _________________
    "but I have to wonder how much anyone here really knows about their own world. What he told me sounds like a lot of crap about the four basic elements that people believed for centuries just because Aristotle said it." - Parson

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:44 pm 
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:57 am
    Posts: 9
    I strongly doubt that Marie would be able to talk it out with Jillian, considering that she's decrypted and now one of "Wanda's dolls". If she does stay in I'm Coming for You Stanley, I think it will be to conquer or do none of the above.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:53 pm 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:35 am
    Posts: 1847
    Location: Wales... New South Wales
    Billy_Snuggles wrote:
    Skull the Troll wrote:
    Shard wrote:
    I think mayve Marie's scrolls were a prepared Teleport spell.

    She gets the gun, then teleports back to where she casted her spell.


    I think the signamancy of the names is wrong for that. The two names in the spells were mediums, who were later revealed to be frauds. That says to me a combination of Croakamancy and Foolamancy or Carnymancy. Personally I think its what allowed a decrypted unit to cheat/fool people in some way - perhaps to allow her to pull of the maneuver in the park. Could be many things. Maybe Marie had no juice and she just needed a scroll to predict when FAQ would fall and the ICFYS portal would appear.


    We saw in the Battle of Portal Park that Decrypted Casters "pop again" with Juice.

    As much as I'm inclined to believe that repopped units get refilled juice supplies, for all we know those decrypted casters hadn't expended any juice before Charlie got them and Gobwin Knob got them.

    Furthermore, Marie wasn't out of juice when she croaked. Maggie was.

    12 minutes later:
    edit: Gave Maggie a period.

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:32 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:34 pm
    Posts: 187
    @Chiu ChunLing: Holy cow, dude/dudette. High five! I appreciate your willingness to take as much time and as many pixels as I did to rebut me point by point. Much respect.

    I may not attempt to rebut every single one of your points, partly because I'll concede some of them, partly because I don't understand some of them, and partly because I'm running out of time and/or pixels.

    But for the benefit of the four people who are still reading this thread, onward!

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Lingo wrote:
    I don't think Ansom has attacked Faq's capital. The update mentions that he drew his sword, but he wouldn't need it. He just lent Vinny his bonus. (To be fair, though, Rob doesn't make Ansom's non-participation as explicit as I would have expected him to, if it is true.)
    Sorry, but leading an allied stack in an attack counts. Otherwise all GK would have to do to completely subvert all contract penalties would be to use their new natural allies...or anyone else they allied with. Charlie isn't allowed to be that stupid.

    Well, again I will assert that TV made this action on their own, not upon the direction of their new ally GK, which perhaps means that Ansom is not violating the contract here, sort of like Charlie was not violating the contract when FAQ attacked GK even though he gave them the guns to do it. I will admit though that I am increasingly having trouble with squaring Ansom's actions with my interpretation of the contract, especially if he actually killed anything, which it's not clear that he didn't.

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Lingo wrote:
    And the fact that NOBODY in the entire story who's had a chance to comment on it (not Stanley, Bonnie, Antium, Parson, Maggie, or Jack) has mentioned that this clause no longer applies suggests to me that it actually does still apply.
    None of the character who know about the contract have any motive to discuss it in detail because they aren't allowed to discuss the details with anyone who doesn't already know the details. That's written right into the contract. What we see a lot of is people who have every other reason to talk about the terms of the contract refuse to do so because that would violate the terms of the contract.

    Huh? I'm talking about 6 members of GK, who all know of the contract, discussing it with each other (or thinking about it in thoughts we read). None of them bring up the new possibility of retaliation against FAQ.

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Lingo wrote:
    It makes sense if Charlie writes the contract. (No, seriously, I think it makes perfect sense for it only to apply during an attack on GK by FAQ.)
    Yes, it makes perfect sense for Charlie. It would have made even more sense for Charlie to put in the contract that Parson was obligated to use the GTFO spell the minute he knew what it did, and every minute of not casting the spell would be a contract violation. But guess what? It turns out that Parson won't sign just anything Charlie would like him to sign.

    Look, the way I'm interpreting the contract now was the way I naturally interpreted it the first time I read it (the "plain language" as other people are saying, even though their interpretation is the opposite of mine). I'm not trying to "willfully distort the meaning" as someone else wrote. Now Parson is a lot smarter than me, for sure, but it still seems reasonable to me that he would read it as I did, understand the implications, and still sign it. Because it still seems like a reasonable condition to me!

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    The clause isn't negated. It was intended to get GK to let Faq withdraw from the field and leave them alone so they could build up and have the opportunity for a first strike. It accomplished that...which is a non-trivial concession.

    OK...that's a fair reading. I'm still not sure that was what was intended.

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Also fair, but irrelevant because being stacked with allied units as they attacked counts, lending Ansom's leadership bonus to the stack is an "attempt to cause harm by any means to the units, allies, property, or material interests of FAQ," which Ansom tops off by trying to persuade Vinny to engage Albert, and does persuade him to eliminate Otoh and Kibo.

    OK, that last part is pretty persuasive at least.

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Lingo wrote:
    Right. Ansom went into FAQ motioning for parley and intentionally avoiding engagement. FAQ attacked first, and Ansom and the dwagon (minimally) defended themselves. This is all allowed by the contract as I read it (there's no penalty for FAQ attacking GK, and their attack doesn't give GK carte blanche to counter-attack FAQ at any point in the future).
    Ansom would have been allowed to exert all necessary force to prevent himself from being captured after Faq attacked him first. The fact that he was not able to do so was unrelated to the contract. Ansom's (actually only the dwagon's) sub-minimum "self-defense" has no bearing on the topic.

    So...we agree, I think? My reply was to an OP who pointed out that FAQ attacking Ansom did not incur a contract penalty, to which I was trying to say, of course it didn't.

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Lingo wrote:
    Nothing in the contract or since suggests that the provisions are permanently voided by a FAQ attack.
    "excepting in the case of new and further aggression by FAQ against GK, in which case GK may take reasonable actions to defend its interests." "except in the event that GK interests are physically attacked or threatened by FAQ." These clauses both invoke the singular direct article, indicating that there would only be one such case or event relating to the contract, otherwise it would be necessary to use "a" instead. The lack of limitation on the period during which "GK may take reasonable actions to defend its interests" is also dispositive evidence that there is no such limit. The contract cannot mean to impose a time limit if it does not mention one.

    OK, I get what you're saying, but as a linguist*, I can testify that the word the meaning of the word "the" is complex and situational and does not always mean "unique". It can mean "specific" or "salient" without implying uniqueness. For instance, if I say I'm going to "the" bathroom, it does not necessarily imply that that only one bathroom exists in the whole world or even in my house, or even on this floor of my house. And some uses of "the" rather than "a" are merely conventional. Personally, if I were to use "a" in those places in the contract, it would sound unnatural to me. Also, nouns can switch denotations between what we call "tokens/instances" and "kinds", so "the case" could mean (as it probably does here) "the unique kind of case" rather than "the unique instance of a case". As to your point of a time limit, my interpretation is that is intrinsically implied in the word "event", which denotes a finite span of time during which something notable occurs. I also think "defend its interests" naturally limits their actions to times when they are literally defending units/properties that currently belong to them.

    (*Yes, actually a linguist. No, not actually a lawyer.)

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Lingo wrote:
    This at least partly persuades me, but perhaps as an escaping and not yet repatriated prisoner, the contract wouldn't apply to Ansom (or it does but it counts as self-defense?).
    The exact same consideration would have applied to Lilith's actions in that case. It did not apply to Lilith, therefore the contract does apply to escaping prisoners acting in self-defense.

    No, actually, Lilith was remotely repatriated by Wanda and thus no longer a prisoner. And yes, in reality Ansom was (it seems) repatriated by Vinny during the actual battle. But in the hypothetical situation I was referring to, in which Ansom was considering escaping his cell to take the city alone, he would have still been an escaping prisoner.

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Parson clearly believed that it was unlikely that Jillian would attack TV, he also clearly suggested that TV shouldn't wait to be attacked by Faq. While we don't know the precise terms of the alliance, it was clearly an alliance against Faq. And even persuading TV to stop funding Faq would count as a means of inflicting harm on Faq's material interests. The contract forbids that to the same degree as it forbids harm to units and property.

    Well I don't remember this "clear" stuff at this moment, so feel free to point me to some links. All I remember is Parson attempting to negotiate with Don King an alliance against Charlescomm. In any case, the alliance would not violate the contract if GK does not direct TV to act against FAQ before the end of the contract.

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Lingo wrote:
    I don't agree with this interpretation. GK had its opportunity to defend its interests while FAQ was attacking, with its own units already in GK City. It lost. Its inability to move other units until the following day does not grant GK a do-over.
    This is going too far. Faq hasn't even ended turn, and still has a GK warlord in their dungeon, whom Jillian ordered executed. No matter your disagreement about the contract, GK may attempt to rescue Georgia Power. The only way to actually accomplish this is to take back the city. But that is only contractually allowable if Jillian leaves the Garrison zone.

    Hmm, okay, has FAQ not ended turn? I guess FAQ's turn must still be suspended, thus it technically hasn't ended, which may give Marie an out.

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    I don't believe the contract was ever intended to be in so much dispute. Yes, it is an important plot point. But I noted the particular language of Part V,"Parties should be clear on both the wording and the intent of the agreement as to their particular obligations and restrictions at the time of Signing, as they shall constitute the basis upon which a breach is automagically adjudged." This to me indicated that we would need to rely more on what the story reveals about the meaning of the contract than trying to 'lawyer' it's language.

    <snip>

    Which means that we have to change our opinions to fit the evidence. But while a lot of the contract remains up in the air, the general Faq clause is basically dead from evidence of the story at this point, leaving only the Jillian clause.

    And, aside from Ansom's possible croaking of units in FAQ, and yes his persuasion of Vinny which would certainly be problematic, I'm still not convinced by the evidence.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:38 am 
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:17 pm
    Posts: 661
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    Crisis21 wrote:
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    The keyword is reasonable. So long as Gobwin Knob is defending themselves against Faq, it is not a violation. Walking into an enemy city is not a reasonable defensive action.
    The reason Ansom is not triggering any penalties is not because Gobwin Knob is allowed to attack Faq as they please. Ansom isn't attacking Faq (except for that barricade), it is Faq that is attacking Ansom. All those stabbers are coming towards Ansom to engage him. It is not his fault that they decided to all run up to Ansom for the purpose of croaking him.


    The key word may be reasonable, but the key context is Erfworld. We've already seen many things that are reasonable by Erfworld standards but not ours.

    You yourself are coming across as rather unreasonable by claiming all of these things that are happening should be impossible. Clearly they are happening, so therefore they are possible. Rather than crying foul over how the evidence isn't matching our expectations, we should be adjusting our expectations to match the evidence.

    You're calling me unreasonable when this is the first time I chimed in a conversation? This is me adjusting your expectations by claiming standards that haven't been addressed.

    And yet we've been shown time and time again that Erfworld's standards are not like ours. Things we consider 'unreasonable' may in fact be perfectly reasonable to these people. To claim what course of action counts as 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' in the course of these events requires a great deal of context that I feel you are ignoring.

    Keep in mind that the penalty for attacking Faq outside such 'reasonable' may not be 5 mil in shmuckers. It could very well be a city of Charlie's choice. As noted in an earlier post of mine:

    Crisis21 wrote:
    Laernan wrote:

    I'd also like to point out that, if it can be pulled off in a single attack, a single $5m to CC would probably be worth the benefit of wiping Jillian off the field at this point. Given Charlie's interest in her and her evasion of Stanley's bolt, I'm guessing she's Charlie's fate toy to counter Parson.


    Actually, looking over the conditions for not harming Faq units (except if they attack GK's interest, blah-blah-blah) and not harming Jillian in particular it looks like the penalty might not be the $5mil that attacking a CC unit would be. The language under that clause says a violation will 'trigger full default of the agreement'.

    Full default, not a breach.

    Now, I can't find anything that specifies the penalties therein. The only two 'default' penalties are CC's failure to abide by 'special considerations and compensation' (including the workings of the 'go home' spell) (500k), and not adhering to confidentiality (transfer of one city from the offender, chosen by the other party). The special language referring to Jillian (and a non-aggressive Faq's units) may mean that harming Jillian allows Charlie to pick one of GK's cities that he likes for himself.



    In essence I'm trying to ask that we assume any current action by GK's forces against Faq counts as 'reasonable' under the contract until proven otherwise. I consider this a very reasonable stance to take. ;)

    _________________
    My Erfworld fanfic: Revolutionary
    Comment here.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:14 am 
    User avatar
    This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:33 am
    Posts: 522
    Location: Earth, Sol System
    Crisis21 wrote:
    Crisis21 wrote:
    Laernan wrote:

    I'd also like to point out that, if it can be pulled off in a single attack, a single $5m to CC would probably be worth the benefit of wiping Jillian off the field at this point. Given Charlie's interest in her and her evasion of Stanley's bolt, I'm guessing she's Charlie's fate toy to counter Parson.


    Actually, looking over the conditions for not harming Faq units (except if they attack GK's interest, blah-blah-blah) and not harming Jillian in particular it looks like the penalty might not be the $5mil that attacking a CC unit would be. The language under that clause says a violation will 'trigger full default of the agreement'.

    Full default, not a breach.

    Now, I can't find anything that specifies the penalties therein. The only two 'default' penalties are CC's failure to abide by 'special considerations and compensation' (including the workings of the 'go home' spell) (500k), and not adhering to confidentiality (transfer of one city from the offender, chosen by the other party). The special language referring to Jillian (and a non-aggressive Faq's units) may mean that harming Jillian allows Charlie to pick one of GK's cities that he likes for himself.



    In essence I'm trying to ask that we assume any current action by GK's forces against Faq counts as 'reasonable' under the contract until proven otherwise. I consider this a very reasonable stance to take. ;)


    "Full default" likely means the contract would be rendered null and void and GK would be on the hook for everything they were given as part of the contract. This includes 227,800 shmuckers, 21 gobwin knob units to be delivered as prisoners, the remainder/restoration of prior agreements (including the one that required Parson to use the bracer to make calculations for Charley), and some sort of penalty equivalent to the value of the full details of the Dismiss Perfect Warlord scroll and some ~10 turns worth of truce.

    Frankly... at this point Gobwin Knob might be smart to pay that price. Such high costs would have been brutal for Gobwin Knob after Lilith's rampage but now that Gobwin Knob has take such a sizable portion of CCs treasury a full default would be chump change.

    Of course, the contract might require the units delivered to be of the same composition as those originally freed... including one GK overlord. GK only has one of those... so that could be bad.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:35 am 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:35 am
    Posts: 1847
    Location: Wales... New South Wales
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Crisis21 wrote:

    In essence I'm trying to ask that we assume any current action by GK's forces against Faq counts as 'reasonable' under the contract until proven otherwise. I consider this a very reasonable stance to take. ;)


    "Full default" likely means the contract would be rendered null and void and GK would be on the hook for everything they were given as part of the contract. This includes 227,800 shmuckers, 21 gobwin knob units to be delivered as prisoners, the remainder/restoration of prior agreements (including the one that required Parson to use the bracer to make calculations for Charley), and some sort of penalty equivalent to the value of the full details of the Dismiss Perfect Warlord scroll and some ~10 turns worth of truce.

    Frankly... at this point Gobwin Knob might be smart to pay that price. Such high costs would have been brutal for Gobwin Knob after Lilith's rampage but now that Gobwin Knob has take such a sizable portion of CCs treasury a full default would be chump change.

    Of course, the contract might require the units delivered to be of the same composition as those originally freed... including one GK overlord. GK only has one of those... so that could be bad.

    If what you say is true, then should a Full Default occur Ansom would turn out to be a prisoner of Faq... again. Either that or he'd be turned to Charlescom. You know, ever since I started Book 2, I have been wanting Ansom commanding Charlie's troops. Charlie and Ansom would make a great buddy-cop combo:

    One is a meticulous planner that goes to great lengths to have backups for every scenerio.
    The other is a meticulous planner that goes to great lengths to have backups for every scenerio.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:55 am 
    Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 5:21 pm
    Posts: 103
    Lingo wrote:
    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Lingo wrote:
    This at least partly persuades me, but perhaps as an escaping and not yet repatriated prisoner, the contract wouldn't apply to Ansom (or it does but it counts as self-defense?).
    The exact same consideration would have applied to Lilith's actions in that case. It did not apply to Lilith, therefore the contract does apply to escaping prisoners acting in self-defense.

    No, actually, Lilith was remotely repatriated by Wanda and thus no longer a prisoner. And yes, in reality Ansom was (it seems) repatriated by Vinny during the actual battle. But in the hypothetical situation I was referring to, in which Ansom was considering escaping his cell to take the city alone, he would have still been an escaping prisoner.

    Lilith isn't as good of a comparison for testing the boundaries of prisoners as you might think. She attacked/defended herself against Charlie's units (and Charlie himself). The contract says (I'm not quoting here and not going to look it up) that any attacks/damage/"material harm" between Gobwin Knob and Charlescomm units causes breaches and require payment. If Ansom were defending/attacking Charlescomm units then it would be a similar situation and Lilith would be a good example. He's not. He's defending/attacking FAQ units which is allowed under <insert however you interpret the FAQ specific criteria here>. So a prisoner, repatriated, or whatever, the important reason Lilith is NOT a good example is because of the enemy side he's attacking/defending against.

    JadedDragoon wrote:
    "Full default" likely means the contract would be rendered null and void and GK would be on the hook for everything they were given as part of the contract. This includes 227,800 shmuckers, 21 gobwin knob units to be delivered as prisoners, the remainder/restoration of prior agreements (including the one that required Parson to use the bracer to make calculations for Charley), and some sort of penalty equivalent to the value of the full details of the Dismiss Perfect Warlord scroll and some ~10 turns worth of truce.

    Frankly... at this point Gobwin Knob might be smart to pay that price. Such high costs would have been brutal for Gobwin Knob after Lilith's rampage but now that Gobwin Knob has take such a sizable portion of CCs treasury a full default would be chump change.

    Of course, the contract might require the units delivered to be of the same composition as those originally freed... including one GK overlord. GK only has one of those... so that could be bad.

    I know the contract has been discussed to death, and I wasn't involved (or even read through) all of those so I'm not sure what all has been said about "full default". However, since the MAIN PURPOSE of the contract was to keep Jillian from croaking I think that harming her would be penalized far worse than any normal breach. We can all speculate as to the details of that, but I would assume any penalty that is less than or equivalent to that of taking out a single archon (5 million schmuckers or the original items returned/restored like the 21 units, 227,800 schmuckers, etc.) would be idiotic and not something Charlie would do. He would make taking out Jillian a much bigger penalty in the contract than taking out an archon. I don't know what that would be, but I can't imagine it would be a lesser penalty than croaking/capturing an archon.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:09 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:34 pm
    Posts: 187
    Laernan wrote:
    I feel like the contract is being misinterpreted a little.

    .... the bit about "reasonable" self-defense was in Section 3: Recitals, which, while I am not a lawyer, seems to be a listing of laymans-terms INTENTIONS of the contract, which would be useful in guiding a judge if the contract was brought to court, but is not otherwise strictly binding. The legally-precise TERMS begin in Section 4: The Agreement, and the relevant language there is:

    Quote:
    GK agrees not to attempt to cause harm by any means to the units, allies, property or material interests of FAQ, except in the event that GK interests are physically attacked or threatened by FQA. Even in the event of such provocation, GK shall not cause bodily harm to, or destruction of, JILLIAN, by any means, directly or indirectly. Failure to abide by this clause shall trigger full default of the agreement.

    This could be liberally interpreted to mean that as soon as any FAQ unit so much as looked at a GK unit funny, it was open season on FAQ with the sole exception of Jillian. But even a strict interpretation would not limit GK's freedom to defend itself to the duration during which it was actively under attack (barring a willful and severe misinterpretation of the phrase "in the event").

    See now, that's funny that you say that, because that was exactly how I interpreted it. Not willfully, but naturally. But then again I'm not a lawyer either.

    I'll concede that my reading is not the only reading (which is a point in GK's favor, actually), but I won't concede that my interpretation in impossible or unnatural or a willful misinterpretation.

    Madhattan wrote:
    I don't get the confusion about the truce.

    Gobwin Knob the side may defend itself reasonably against FAQ. If FAQ would just take a city one might think (and i'd be also thinking so) that the city is allowed to defend properly (except vs Jillian ofc). Counterattacks on natural FAQ cities would not be within the permitted contract zone. Even starting a retake attempt after the battle ended would be questionable under contract terms.

    Concerning GK city, there's still Georgia Powers who still counts as an interest. But the effort it would take to liberate her, would NOT BE REASONABLE.

    Yay! Welcome to my club! Here's your membership card, enjoy your stay!

    Madhattan wrote:
    Concerning GK side Jillian has renamed Gobwin Knob to "I'm coming for you Stanley". So she is not coming to take a city or two for the shmuckers or expansion and be good with it. She is aiming to croak the ruler and with this proclaims the intent of ANNIHILATION OF THE SIDE.

    While the contract forbids harming Jillian herself, it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE to drain an enemy that intends and has begun to annihilate the side of any cities, troops, ressources, in any way possible as a defensive measure. From my perspective apart from Jillian everything of FAQ is fair game and this because of Jillian renaming GK city.

    ...Wait, what?? I'm taking that card back! [tears up card] Get outta here! The nerve of some people!

    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Also I really am sorry for starting this contract mess back up. I apparently was having a "senior moment" when I thought I had a really really good point to make and it would be worth it... and my attempt to quickly eat crow and hopefully stem the tide failed catastrophically.


    Oh come on, arguing about the Contract was inevitable, no matter who brought it up first. :D

    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Crisis21 wrote:
    Actually, looking over the conditions for not harming Faq units (except if they attack GK's interest, blah-blah-blah) and not harming Jillian in particular it looks like the penalty might not be the $5mil that attacking a CC unit would be. The language under that clause says a violation will 'trigger full default of the agreement'.

    Full default, not a breach.

    Now, I can't find anything that specifies the penalties therein. The only two 'default' penalties are CC's failure to abide by 'special considerations and compensation' (including the workings of the 'go home' spell) (500k), and not adhering to confidentiality (transfer of one city from the offender, chosen by the other party). The special language referring to Jillian (and a non-aggressive Faq's units) may mean that harming Jillian allows Charlie to pick one of GK's cities that he likes for himself.

    "Full default" likely means the contract would be rendered null and void and GK would be on the hook for everything they were given as part of the contract.


    Oy, not this argument again!
    You're both wrong. The contract uses "breach" and "default" interchangeably. A "full default" is still a default, just like a full glass of water is still a glass of water. The penalty for attacking FAQ would fall under a general breach of Section 4 Part 1, which is covered by Part VI par. 1, i.e. 5 million Schmuckers. The last page specifies that any breach/default of the contract does not nullify the contract.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:31 am 
    User avatar
    This user has been published! This user is a Tool! Has collected at least one unit Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:32 pm
    Posts: 195
    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    drachefly wrote:
    Squall83 wrote:
    Okay, I've heard that some assumed the Dude may have been a reference to NAV (I read about it over there), buuuuut I think if that were true we should've seen him running away screaming by now (potentially running for a Portal like he has been doing until the most recent update in NAV, see http://navcomic.com/not-a-villain/page-550/ ). :mrgreen:


    What are you talking about? I mean, on the Erfworld side of things. I know who The Dude is in NaV.
    http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%203/235 Second panel, left bottom corner. I suspect it's a reference to a cafepress shirt, like http://www.cafepress.com/+dude+t-shirts, which kinda suggests a webcomic reference. But I don't know. It's probably not the NAV Dude.

    Yeah, I'd go with the shirt, too, thanks for posting the link!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:53 am 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:47 am
    Posts: 1126
    WLM: zilfallon@hotmail.com
    Location: Magic Kingdom
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Also I really am sorry for starting this contract mess back up. I apparently was having a "senior moment" when I thought I had a really really good point to make and it would be worth it... and my attempt to quickly eat crow and hopefully stem the tide failed catastrophically.

    Well, even a realist like me can lose himself to dreams once in a while, so it is understandable that you chose to fight for your dream.

    _________________
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    I was hoping we could debate the meaning of "agent" in the the Declaration of Non-Aggression again. It totally hasn't been argued to death already.

    You know... at this point you boops aren't beating dead horses any more. You're making glue.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:54 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:30 am
    Posts: 33
    Even though I'm a contract lawyer (although from a country far far away, so, you know, non-American (subpar, I guess? Probably? Not?) law), I kept myself well away from all the contract discussions. Apart from them being tedious and boring and even reading, like, 2 pages of the stuff saps all my enthusiasm towards life, love, nature and existence, there is one super important thing, which has a great impact on the contract discussions (and is a reason why I don't feel like even touching the subject).

    The contract is game and plot, not law.

    You see, when dealing with contracts in real life, you always have to deal with the fact that words are taken into interpretation. That interpretation can go in various directions, since parties may often have different ideas on definitions, intentions and such. This is why we have multiple interpretation rules, but that still doesn't mean that there is no room for misunderstandings, there is plenty. Sometimes the contracts are drawn up in a way that they are internally conflicting, sometimes there is no clear way to interpret a definition or figure out intention, sometimes couple of conflicting interpretations apply perfectly but neither is definitive or governing. That's why, in the event of a conflict, we also have courts where judges decide which interpretation rules apply and how to understand the contracts, and if all fails, they just go with "meh, dude gets house because reasons *slam* NEXT! ".

    That's not something we're getting here. There is no court, there is no judge. The contract is being executed automatically. There is no room for interpretation, it just does what the game wants it to do. Therefore, it's not governed by law or language or interpretation rules, it's governed by the game. The game doesn't give a flip how masterful legal constructions you bring up to combat different interpretations of the contract, it just does what the game mechanics tell it to do. And since the game mechanics are just a plot device, the contract will do anything and everything Rob wants it to - and it will be perfectly fine just as long, as it will be cool story-wise and he will be able to present a passable interpretation so that it will not shatter our suspension of disbelief. Or not, because we'll do that for him anyway.

    We can discuss whether breaking out of prison or taking back a city is or isn't a reasonable defensive action and we may have some perfect points to defend any stance on this matter, but in the end - the game will do what the game rules/plot will want, and the game doesn't even have to explain itself to us. The game just says: "screw you, it's defensive because I say so", and that's the end of discussion.

    I get why people like to discuss the details and quirks of the game mechanics, especially that the comic is strongly based on game mechanics, but seriously... guys... just wait for it! :) I mean, if I were to choose a side here, I'd go with people who just say "Charlie's smart and has contract skill lvl 10, so when discussing contract always interpret in favor of CC", because the contract interpretation might be governed by contract skill lvl +2d3 and Parson is lvl 2 here, so he loses anyway.


    Last edited by Yawner on Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tipped by 4 people!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:29 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:28 am
    Posts: 37
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    12 minutes later:
    edit: Gave Maggie a period.


    Completely OT here, but being able to give women periods at-will - in a world where we've never seen such a thing happen, nor does anyone actually bleed at all, suggesting it doesn't happen naturally - seems OP. I just hope that doesn't scare TV away from the alliance!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:37 am 
    This user posted the comment of the month
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:24 pm
    Posts: 215
    Laernan wrote:
    I feel like the contract is being misinterpreted a little.

    BRB lolling forever :D

    JadedDragoon wrote:
    I thought I had a really really good point to make and it would be worth it...

    <dad-voice>And what have we learned?</dad-voice>

    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    Furthermore, Marie wasn't out of juice when she croaked. Maggie was.

    Maggie didn't croak, though? :?

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:58 am 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:49 pm
    Posts: 227
    Fusilli wrote:
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    12 minutes later:
    edit: Gave Maggie a period.


    Completely OT here, but being able to give women periods at-will - in a world where we've never seen such a thing happen, nor does anyone actually bleed at all, suggesting it doesn't happen naturally - seems OP. I just hope that doesn't scare TV away from the alliance!


    Bleeding is a special (Parson said so to Caesar, it must be true). Weirdomancers can give specials. -> Anomynous is a Weirdomancer! Myth confirmed :!:

    _________________
    I did a thing: http://www.erfworld.com/blog/view/55086 ... redth-king

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:36 am 
    User avatar
    This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:33 am
    Posts: 522
    Location: Earth, Sol System
    greyknight wrote:
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    I thought I had a really really good point to make and it would be worth it...

    <dad-voice>And what have we learned?</dad-voice>

    NOTHING! Muahahahahahahaha! :twisted:

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:45 am 
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:17 pm
    Posts: 661
    Lingo wrote:
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Crisis21 wrote:
    Actually, looking over the conditions for not harming Faq units (except if they attack GK's interest, blah-blah-blah) and not harming Jillian in particular it looks like the penalty might not be the $5mil that attacking a CC unit would be. The language under that clause says a violation will 'trigger full default of the agreement'.

    Full default, not a breach.

    Now, I can't find anything that specifies the penalties therein. The only two 'default' penalties are CC's failure to abide by 'special considerations and compensation' (including the workings of the 'go home' spell) (500k), and not adhering to confidentiality (transfer of one city from the offender, chosen by the other party). The special language referring to Jillian (and a non-aggressive Faq's units) may mean that harming Jillian allows Charlie to pick one of GK's cities that he likes for himself.

    "Full default" likely means the contract would be rendered null and void and GK would be on the hook for everything they were given as part of the contract.


    Oy, not this argument again!
    You're both wrong. The contract uses "breach" and "default" interchangeably. A "full default" is still a default, just like a full glass of water is still a glass of water. The penalty for attacking FAQ would fall under a general breach of Section 4 Part 1, which is covered by Part VI par. 1, i.e. 5 million Schmuckers. The last page specifies that any breach/default of the contract does not nullify the contract.


    Looking again, it would seem you are correct. Hadn't considered the interchangeable terms and it confused me. Thank you for clearing that up.

    _________________
    My Erfworld fanfic: Revolutionary
    Comment here.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:01 am 
    This user posted the comment of the month
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:24 pm
    Posts: 215
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    greyknight wrote:
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    I thought I had a really really good point to make and it would be worth it...

    <dad-voice>And what have we learned?</dad-voice>

    NOTHING! Muahahahahahahaha! :twisted:

    You're grounded until you think about what you've done.

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 237
     Post Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:02 am 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:35 am
    Posts: 1847
    Location: Wales... New South Wales
    greyknight wrote:

    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    Furthermore, Marie wasn't out of juice when she croaked. Maggie was.

    Maggie didn't croak, though? :?

    But Marie did.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 375 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Blarghedy, greycat, pitycrit, Willematrix and 18 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: