Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 336 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:53 am 
User avatar
Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day This user is a Tool!
Offline
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:35 am
Posts: 2325
Location: Wales... New South Wales
Merilynne wrote:
Gyrate wrote:
If we're doing music puns, I'd sooner expect "Maggie May...or may not". 8-)

How about just "Wake up Maggie" ;) I like subtle.

Is that a Wiggles reference? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S04NWbhpoE

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:11 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Mined 4 Erf Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:27 am
    Posts: 737
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    Is that a Wiggles reference?

    Rod Stewart.

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:17 pm 
    User avatar
    Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! This user got funny with a rodent Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Won Mine4erf for the Marbits Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:56 pm
    Posts: 206
    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    Vatosai wrote:
    I don't know if anybody's already said it but I would find it interesting is the link between the doll and Maggie counts as a contract violation and Charlie pays a fee for Bill hitting his own doll or taking any other actions against her to hurt Maggie in the course of their conversations.


    Automagical contract enforcement is pretty blind. Action seems to have to be OBVIOUS and direct. Maggie feeling pain because Bill slapped CC's doll is WAY outside anything the contract is going to notice. Because automagical contract enforcement is dump as a stump and blind as a bat.


    Then why did GK get dinged 5 million for the pitch landing on the Spy doll? Its because Claude intended for the pitch to land on the Spy doll, just like Bill intended Maggie to feel the hit. Either way the author is going to resolve it for us, theres a huge difference in the story for GK between having 500k and 5.5 million.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:21 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! This user posted the comment of the month This user got funny with a rodent Shiny Red Star Mined 4 Erf Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:55 am
    Posts: 608
    A thought has been lurking in the back of my own mind...

    The Makaleka "lives" in Bill's head, and she now knows that. She's angry with him, partly because Maggie is angry, but also on her own behalf. He commanded her to "be" Maggie, knowing she couldn't. He made her as a toy, for his own amusement, but he made her a bit too well, because she does have independent thought, or at least she believes she does.

    Now, hang on, because this is where is gets weird.

    Between the Makakela's knowledge of the H-string she implanted into Maggie, and her own desire to be free of Charlescomm (and probably Bill), could she get into Bill's head and cut, remove, rip-out, or in some other way, reverse whatever strings make him an autonomous unit? In other, even more convoluted terms, could she make him doll-like, subject to her will? Could she do something that will not croak him, but will remove his ability to think for himself?

    If that were possible, the Makaleka could force Bill to disable the trap and free Caesar, order the dolls and molls to make a few non-lethal hits on some bats, and then turn everyone quickly before Charlie realizes what has happened.

    _________________
    "You do have some terribly unorthodox personal views..."

    Thank you to Yshl's daughter for my new avatar. I love it! 3/4/2018

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:25 pm 
    User avatar
    Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! This user got funny with a rodent Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Won Mine4erf for the Marbits Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:56 pm
    Posts: 206
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    greycat wrote:
    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    Sure. But he was intending to 'trick' the contract by actively avoiding overtly making her his agent by covertly doing so...actively intending to circumvent the contract.

    If intent mattered, the all seeing eye of the automagical contract enforcement would have noticed the intent to get around the contract,

    People are talking about two different things here.

    1) Charlie circumvented the "agent of Charlescomm" clause with Jillian by avoiding any direct communications with her, or direct gifts to her. He has enough experience with Contracts to know exactly where the line is, so that he can avoid stepping over it.

    2) Claud attempted to circumvent the "no engagement" clause by placing a pitch golem unit in a specific spot and then de-animating it. This was not successful because Claud's intent was to engage (immobilize) the Charlescomm unit. Ivan, who has a greater working knowledge of traps and Contracts, explained that Claud had "emplaced" the pitch as a trap, albeit in a roundabout way.


    Charlie's intent to have Jillian attack GK was clear. Once he provided her with guns it was even clear to Jillian. I'd argue that alone proves intent doesn't matter to the interpretation of contract-party actions. I don't think it was Claud's intent that made the difference. I think he misunderstood the way "engagement" had been defined. Where as Charley knew exactly how "agent" had been defined. As such, it's not a question of intent... it's a question of is agent/is not agent and is engagement/is not engagement.



    Yes, Charlie is a master of breaking or working around the rules. None of that matters in the case were discussing however. A unit of Charlescomm took a direct action to intentionally harm a unit of GK's, just like Claude did with the pitch golem. Its really not much different than a Archon hitting a baseball knowing that the ball would travel across the room to hit Maggie. The doll makes it interesting and uncertain surely, but its even the same mechanic. They both used a doll to harm a unit indirectly.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:45 pm 
    User avatar
    This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Mined 4 Erf This user got funny with a rodent This user is a Tool! Shiny Red Star Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:33 am
    Posts: 1342
    greycat wrote:
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    I don't think it was Claud's intent that made the difference.

    Ivan disagrees with you.
    Ivan wrote:
    "You need to make yourself some ears ta go with them fake eyes, Dressmaker!" Ivan was shouting, in order to be heard over the rumble of the speeding minecart. "I distinctly said a trap is based on intent!"


    Intents matter to traps, not to contract rulings of actions. His intent made it a trap... that it was a trap made it an engagement... that it was an engagement made it a violation of the contract. This is entirely consistent with what I've been saying. So no, Ivan is not disagreeing with me. :-/

    Claud was trying to trick the nature of traps so it wouldn't be a trap and thus wouldn't be an engagement. He failed, and because it was an engagement it triggered the "engagement clause" of the contract.

    _________________
    Occam's razor for dummies.

    Fear the would-be hero. For against the pangs of conscience, there is no more effective anesthesia than a righteous cause. And no one sees themselves as the villain, especially the villain.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:55 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Mined 4 Erf Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:27 am
    Posts: 737
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Ivan wrote:
    "You need to make yourself some ears ta go with them fake eyes, Dressmaker!" Ivan was shouting, in order to be heard over the rumble of the speeding minecart. "I distinctly said a trap is based on intent!"
    Intents matter to traps, not to contract rulings of actions.

    Then what on erf is an "action"? What specific Contract clause are you talking about?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:58 pm 
    User avatar
    Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user got funny with a rodent This user is a Tool! Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 2:52 am
    Posts: 351
    I've re-read this update 3 times now and each time it's struck me just how much this page begins to expand our knowledge of this world in a new way. When we learned about G-strings our understanding of Erfworld radically changed. So too with H-strings. I wonder if Maggie has become flexural or if she is a kind of caster Erfworld has never seen before. Lots of answers coming in these next pages.

    _________________
    NEEDZ MOAR JUGGLEZ

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:06 pm 
    User avatar
    Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user got funny with a rodent This user is a Tool! Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 2:52 am
    Posts: 351
    Also: if Maggie has, in this page, become a new kind of caster - a caster who can see and manipulate both G- and H-strings, it kind of reminds me of when Miles Teg got super powers in Heretics of Dune.

    _________________
    NEEDZ MOAR JUGGLEZ

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:14 pm 
    User avatar
    This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Mined 4 Erf This user got funny with a rodent This user is a Tool! Shiny Red Star Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:33 am
    Posts: 1342
    greycat wrote:
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Ivan wrote:
    "You need to make yourself some ears ta go with them fake eyes, Dressmaker!" Ivan was shouting, in order to be heard over the rumble of the speeding minecart. "I distinctly said a trap is based on intent!"
    Intents matter to traps, not to contract rulings of actions.

    Then what on erf is an "action"? What specific Contract clause are you talking about?


    Neither Party shall attempt to cause, either directly or through agents or other contracted parties, any material harm to the units, cities, property, or other assets of the other Party.


    Google wrote:
    ac·tion
    ˈakSH(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    1. the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.

    "he vowed to take tougher action against persistent offenders"

    synonyms: measures, steps, activity, movement, work, operation
    "the need for local community action"


    • What charley did when he gave Jillian money intending that she use it to attack GK was an action.
    • What charley did when he gave Jillian guns intending that she use them to attack GK was an action.
    • What Claud did when he placed the tarbaby golemn on top of the mine cart intending to disband it was an action.
    • What Claud did when he disbanded the tarbaby golem intending that it's tar trap the spy miniature golemn was an action.
    These are all actions. All of them had intent behind them. Some counted and some didn't. Therefore, intent doesn't matter to what actions are considered breaches of the contract.

    However, as you pointed out and as Ivan stated... intent does matter to what is considered a trap. And the contract clearly considers using a trap on a unit of CC by a unit of GK to be an "attempt to cause [...] material harm." Meanwhile, it clearly does not consider someone Charley gave a bunch of guns and shmuckers to knowing exactly how that someone would use them to be "agents or other contracted parties."

    Intent exists in both cases... but in one case it is material harm (in the form of a trap) and in the other she is not an agent.

    _________________
    Occam's razor for dummies.

    Fear the would-be hero. For against the pangs of conscience, there is no more effective anesthesia than a righteous cause. And no one sees themselves as the villain, especially the villain.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:24 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Mined 4 Erf Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:27 am
    Posts: 737
    Fuuuuck! The stupid login cookie expired and ate my entire post when I tried to preview and got redirected to the login screen. :( :(

    Trying to recreate it from memory...

    So, your argument is that intent matters for some contract clauses, but not for others. We the readers, as well as Parson, do not know which clauses are intent-driven, but Charlie does. OK. I don't like it, but that's what we've got.

    Now, with that said, I think everyone will agree that if Bill had struck Maggie in the face, directly, using his hand, that would constitute a violation of the "attempt to cause material harm" clause.

    And I think we would also agree that if Bill had struck Maggie in the face with a stick, held in his hand, that would also be a violation.

    Now, what if Bill had thrown a rock at Maggie, aiming at her face, and successfully hit her? I think most people would agree that that must be a violation as well. (This may be where intent comes in -- the contract may differentiate between a rock thrown with intent to hit, and a rock that's accidentally knocked off a shelf or something.)

    That leads us to the Makaleka. Bill, a CC unit, struck Makaleka, also a CC unit, knowing that this would cause direct physical pain to Maggie, a GK unit. This was a chain of events initiated by Bill, with full intent to cause harm to a GK unit, and with full knowledge of how the events would unfold. Nevertheless, an ordinary Erfworld unit would not understand the chain of causality. Nor would even most experts (Master-class casters, Rulers) be expected to discern a causal connection here. Is it a violation?

    Consider also:
    Quote:
    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 these shall constitute the basis upon which a breach is automagically adjudged.


    Is the contract's automagic enforcement mechanism driven solely by the understanding of the physics of Erfworld by both parties at the time of signing? We know that Parson had no knowledge of shared sensory systems between a doll and a unit at the time of signing, and it's a reasonable guess that Charlie didn't either. Possibly no living units other than Bill and Bunny did (maybe the Great Minds' Temple had it on file somewhere). Is the contract similarly limited in knowledge? Even though Parson subsequently learned about it?

    I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions, but I find them interesting.

    Now I'm going to copy/paste this entire thing into a local text file just in case the cookie expires again.


    Last edited by greycat on Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tipped by 2 people!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:26 pm 
    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: 239
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    greycat wrote:
    Then what on erf is an "action"? What specific Contract clause are you talking about?


    Neither Party shall attempt to cause, either directly or through agents or other contracted parties, any material harm to the units, cities, property, or other assets of the other Party.


    Google wrote:
    ac·tion
    ˈakSH(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    1. the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.

    "he vowed to take tougher action against persistent offenders"

    synonyms: measures, steps, activity, movement, work, operation
    "the need for local community action"


    • What charley did when he gave Jillian money intending that she use it to attack GK was an action.
    • What charley did when he gave Jillian guns intending that she use them to attack GK was an action.
    • What Claud did when he placed the tarbaby golemn on top of the mine cart intending to disband it was an action.
    • What Claud did when he disbanded the tarbaby golem intending that it's tar trap the spy miniature golemn was an action.
    These are all actions. All of them had intent behind them. Some counted and some didn't. Therefore, intent doesn't matter to what actions are considered breaches of the contract.

    However, as you pointed out and as Ivan stated... intent does matter to what is considered a trap. And the contract clearly considers using a trap on a unit of CC by a unit of GK to be an "attempt to cause [...] material harm." Meanwhile, it clearly does not consider someone Charley gave a bunch of guns and shmuckers to knowing exactly how that someone would use them to be "agents or other contracted parties."

    Intent exists in both cases... but in one case it is material harm (in the form of a trap) and in the other she is not an agent.


    I think you're drawing false parallels here. The definition of what constitutes an agent doesn't need to be the same as the definition of what constitutes material harm. Therefore if the intent to do something doesn't turn someone into an agent, you cannot draw the conclusion that the same line of thinking wouldn't mean material harm. Only if something has been proven not to count as material harm can it be used as evidence that a similar action wouldn't count as material harm either.

    Personally I think that the definition of agent is more than just "someone who does what I'd like them to do." In that regard, Charlie didn't even need to be so furtive in giving Jillian the guns, because it still was solely her idea to attack Gobwin Knob and it happened independently from his wishes.
    But I also think that Bill's slap didn't count as material harm. We learned from this update that you can hit an ally without breaking alliance if you don't hit them hard enough. In other words, there are ways to hit people that don't count as attacks. It's not unlikely that a blow under that threshold wouldn't count as material harm, either.

    _________________
    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 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:04 pm 
    User avatar
    This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Mined 4 Erf This user got funny with a rodent This user is a Tool! Shiny Red Star Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:33 am
    Posts: 1342
    greycat wrote:
    Fuuuuck! The stupid login cookie expired and ate my entire post when I tried to preview and got redirected to the login screen. :( :(


    God I hate when that happens. I've taken to select-all -> copying every post before hitting submit.

    greycat wrote:
    Trying to recreate it from memory...

    So, your argument is that intent matters for some contract clauses, but not for others. We the readers, as well as Parson, do not know which clauses are intent-driven, but Charlie does. OK. I don't like it, but that's what we've got.


    No. My argument is that intent doesn't matter for any contract clauses... not in how they are applied, at least.

    Intent does matter for whether or not something is a trap. Not "is a trap according to the contract"... I mean "is a trap." Full stop. Contract or no contract a trap requires intent by Erfworld rules.

    It can be the case that a contract clause happens to cover traps... as the one I quoted does... but that doesn't mean intent applies to the contract clause. It means whether or not something qualifies as a trap applies to the contract clause. It just so happens that what qualifies or does not qualify as a trap involves intent. The intent is still applying to whether or not the trap is actually a trap... and whether or not it is a trap applies to whether the contract clause applies. See? One step removed.

    Trying to think of an analogy... it's like... in soccer (football for anyone that's not in the US), kicking the ball out of bounds awards the other team a throw-in. It's not kicking the ball that awards the other team a throw-in. It's the ball going out of bounds that awards the other team a throw-in. Kicking the ball is just a prerequisite for the ball going out of bounds.

    EDIT: The only way in which intent applies to contracts that we have seen so far is in the intent behind the meaning of the words... that is... the intent of the person who wrote the contract matters. But whether or not someone's actions falls under actions described in the contract is determined only by whether or not the way that word is defined covers that action. The intent behind the action does not matter. The contract writer's intent defines the meaning of the words... the meaning of the words defines whether or not they apply to a given action by parties named in the contract.

    _________________
    Occam's razor for dummies.

    Fear the would-be hero. For against the pangs of conscience, there is no more effective anesthesia than a righteous cause. And no one sees themselves as the villain, especially the villain.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:26 pm 
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 8:26 am
    Posts: 13
    Another way of saying it:

    Making a trap causes material harm
    Arming Jillian allowed material harm

    Jillian wasn't his agent, as he couldn't command her (cause her) to do the harm he wanted.

    Bills slap is insulting, but not strictly harmful.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:29 pm 
    User avatar
    Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! This user got funny with a rodent Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Won Mine4erf for the Marbits Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:56 pm
    Posts: 206
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Google wrote:
    ac·tion
    ˈakSH(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    1. the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.

    "he vowed to take tougher action against persistent offenders"

    synonyms: measures, steps, activity, movement, work, operation
    "the need for local community action"


    • What charley did when he gave Jillian money intending that she use it to attack GK was an action.
    • What charley did when he gave Jillian guns intending that she use them to attack GK was an action.
    • What Claud did when he placed the tarbaby golemn on top of the mine cart intending to disband it was an action.
    • What Claud did when he disbanded the tarbaby golem intending that it's tar trap the spy miniature golemn was an action.
    These are all actions. All of them had intent behind them. Some counted and some didn't. Therefore, intent doesn't matter to what actions are considered breaches of the contract.

    However, as you pointed out and as Ivan stated... intent does matter to what is considered a trap. And the contract clearly considers using a trap on a unit of CC by a unit of GK to be an "attempt to cause [...] material harm." Meanwhile, it clearly does not consider someone Charley gave a bunch of guns and shmuckers to knowing exactly how that someone would use them to be "agents or other contracted parties."

    Intent exists in both cases... but in one case it is material harm (in the form of a trap) and in the other she is not an agent.
    [/quote]

    You're missing the difference between what happened with Jillian and what happened with Claude. While you're correct that Charlie clearly had a goal in mind by leaving those guns by the tree, he left himself enough of an out to fool the contract. (Along with any carnymancy he may have employed) He didn't say "Go get those guns for your attack on GK" He had an archon wax philosophical about trees. If Jillian had decided not to go to the tree or had decided to go attack someone else after finding the guns Charlie would be out of luck. I agree that intent can be fooled, but it clearly doesn't have "zero effect" like some are claiming. Just because we have an example of intent being subverted, it doesn't mean its not normally a rule. Rules can be broken in this world though the use of magic. After all normally units require upkeep and siege engines cant be uncroaked, but go ask the one other caster with an Arkentool about that.

    Also once again, Bill didn't use any tricky subterfuge, he slapped. The line is: "The Dollamancer threw a rubber-gloved backhand at the makaleka, striking it on the cheek and ear. The not-quite-a-Thinkamancer, who was meant to feel it, felt it quite keenly and winced." I fail to see how this is any different than the pitch golem, but it seems very different than how Jillian got guns.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:36 pm 
    User avatar
    Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! This user got funny with a rodent Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Won Mine4erf for the Marbits Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:56 pm
    Posts: 206
    Waffle_Iron wrote:
    Another way of saying it:

    Making a trap causes material harm
    Arming Jillian allowed material harm

    Jillian wasn't his agent, as he couldn't command her (cause her) to do the harm he wanted.

    Bills slap is insulting, but not strictly harmful.


    Just demanding a surrender is implied to be enough to trigger the contract. At least two Archons thought this to be true and they would probably know better than anyone besides Charlie or a signamancer. Its hard to imagine a physical blow wouldn't also trigger it. I really like the way you phrased the first part though. The causes/allows is exactly what I was getting at in a much clearer form.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:37 pm 
    User avatar
    This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Mined 4 Erf This user got funny with a rodent This user is a Tool! Shiny Red Star Won Mine4erf for the Gobwins For when you need it most Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:33 am
    Posts: 1342
    Morgaln wrote:
    Spoiler: show
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    greycat wrote:
    Then what on erf is an "action"? What specific Contract clause are you talking about?


    Neither Party shall attempt to cause, either directly or through agents or other contracted parties, any material harm to the units, cities, property, or other assets of the other Party.


    Google wrote:
    ac·tion
    ˈakSH(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    1. the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.

    "he vowed to take tougher action against persistent offenders"

    synonyms: measures, steps, activity, movement, work, operation
    "the need for local community action"


    • What charley did when he gave Jillian money intending that she use it to attack GK was an action.
    • What charley did when he gave Jillian guns intending that she use them to attack GK was an action.
    • What Claud did when he placed the tarbaby golemn on top of the mine cart intending to disband it was an action.
    • What Claud did when he disbanded the tarbaby golem intending that it's tar trap the spy miniature golemn was an action.
    These are all actions. All of them had intent behind them. Some counted and some didn't. Therefore, intent doesn't matter to what actions are considered breaches of the contract.

    However, as you pointed out and as Ivan stated... intent does matter to what is considered a trap. And the contract clearly considers using a trap on a unit of CC by a unit of GK to be an "attempt to cause [...] material harm." Meanwhile, it clearly does not consider someone Charley gave a bunch of guns and shmuckers to knowing exactly how that someone would use them to be "agents or other contracted parties."

    Intent exists in both cases... but in one case it is material harm (in the form of a trap) and in the other she is not an agent.


    I think you're drawing false parallels here. The definition of what constitutes an agent doesn't need to be the same as the definition of what constitutes material harm. Therefore if the intent to do something doesn't turn someone into an agent, you cannot draw the conclusion that the same line of thinking wouldn't mean material harm. Only if something has been proven not to count as material harm can it be used as evidence that a similar action wouldn't count as material harm either.


    I didn't say they have the same definition. I very clearly said they have different definitions. I only said that it's their definitions that matter... not the intent of the person taking the action being defined.

    And you are quite wrong. I not only can draw that conclusion... I (and you) reasonably _should_ draw that conclusion as it is the conclusion in keeping with what we have seen without necessitation assumptions we have not seen. It's more reasonable that two things which are the same will work the same way. There's no reason to think how the contract applies itself changes with each word.

    "Intent matters for this word... the definition matters for this word... the number of characters matters in this word... the color of the eyes of the person reading it matters for this word" No. That's absurd. Either intent matters, or it does not. Either the way the words are defined matters, or it does not. Until we have some reason to think otherwise we should not assume otherwise.

    Morgaln wrote:
    Personally I think that the definition of agent is more than just "someone who does what I'd like them to do." In that regard, Charlie didn't even need to be so furtive in giving Jillian the guns, because it still was solely her idea to attack Gobwin Knob and it happened independently from his wishes.


    You start by disagreeing with me then immediately contradict yourself by paraphrasing what I've been saying all along.

    If someone simply doing what you want them to do makes them your agent then someone simply attacking Gobwin Knob would automatically make them an agent of CC even if Charlie had never heard of them. That would make every attack by a caster in the Magic Kingdom ding Charlie.

    No... an agent, in the contract, means that they did what they did cause they wanted to do what they believed you wanted them to do. But, as you said, it was solely Jillian's idea... which, as I've said over and over now, makes her not an agent of CC. She did it because she wanted... not because she thought it's what Charlie wanted.

    Skull the Troll wrote:
    Spoiler: show
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Google wrote:
    ac·tion
    ˈakSH(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    1. the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.

    "he vowed to take tougher action against persistent offenders"

    synonyms: measures, steps, activity, movement, work, operation
    "the need for local community action"


    • What charley did when he gave Jillian money intending that she use it to attack GK was an action.
    • What charley did when he gave Jillian guns intending that she use them to attack GK was an action.
    • What Claud did when he placed the tarbaby golemn on top of the mine cart intending to disband it was an action.
    • What Claud did when he disbanded the tarbaby golem intending that it's tar trap the spy miniature golemn was an action.
    These are all actions. All of them had intent behind them. Some counted and some didn't. Therefore, intent doesn't matter to what actions are considered breaches of the contract.

    However, as you pointed out and as Ivan stated... intent does matter to what is considered a trap. And the contract clearly considers using a trap on a unit of CC by a unit of GK to be an "attempt to cause [...] material harm." Meanwhile, it clearly does not consider someone Charley gave a bunch of guns and shmuckers to knowing exactly how that someone would use them to be "agents or other contracted parties."

    Intent exists in both cases... but in one case it is material harm (in the form of a trap) and in the other she is not an agent.


    You're missing the difference between what happened with Jillian and what happened with Claude. While you're correct that Charlie clearly had a goal in mind by leaving those guns by the tree, he left himself enough of an out to fool the contract. (Along with any carnymancy he may have employed) He didn't say "Go get those guns for your attack on GK" He had an archon wax philosophical about trees. If Jillian had decided not to go to the tree or had decided to go attack someone else after finding the guns Charlie would be out of luck. I agree that intent can be fooled, but it clearly doesn't have "zero effect" like some are claiming. Just because we have an example of intent being subverted, it doesn't mean its not normally a rule. Rules can be broken in this world though the use of magic. After all normally units require upkeep and siege engines cant be uncroaked, but go ask the one other caster with an Arkentool about that.


    No, I'm not missing the difference. I'm quite _litterally_ describing the difference. I'm describing the out he left himself and how what Claud did was an attempt to exploit a completely different out... one that doesn't exist (hence why it failed).

    Sigh... it gets _really_ frustrating saying the same thing over and over and having people react as if you said something completely different forcing you try to find yet another way to expalin the same thing.

    _________________
    Occam's razor for dummies.

    Fear the would-be hero. For against the pangs of conscience, there is no more effective anesthesia than a righteous cause. And no one sees themselves as the villain, especially the villain.


    Last edited by JadedDragoon on Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:50 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter This user has been published! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter This user got funny with a rodent Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner Mined 4 Erf Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:59 pm
    Posts: 267
    Website: http://jadesage.tumblr.com/
    Location: Behind you!
    Merilynne wrote:
    A thought has been lurking in the back of my own mind...

    The Makaleka "lives" in Bill's head, and she now knows that. She's angry with him, partly because Maggie is angry, but also on her own behalf. He commanded her to "be" Maggie, knowing she couldn't. He made her as a toy, for his own amusement, but he made her a bit too well, because she does have independent thought, or at least she believes she does.

    Now, hang on, because this is where is gets weird.

    Between the Makakela's knowledge of the H-string she implanted into Maggie, and her own desire to be free of Charlescomm (and probably Bill), could she get into Bill's head and cut, remove, rip-out, or in some other way, reverse whatever strings make him an autonomous unit? In other, even more convoluted terms, could she make him doll-like, subject to her will? Could she do something that will not croak him, but will remove his ability to think for himself?

    If that were possible, the Makaleka could force Bill to disable the trap and free Caesar, order the dolls and molls to make a few non-lethal hits on some bats, and then turn everyone quickly before Charlie realizes what has happened.


    I hope something along the line of this happens.

    Best case scenario, Maggionette finds a way to make herself "real", and the now doll-like Bill can go croak in a fire. On the plus side, Bill gets his comeuppance, Maggionette gets to live, and Maggie/Jack get to keep their connection to Jed. Downside is that the Velveteen Bunny signamancy is quite literally Bunny, so it's more likely to be used on her than Maggionette. Plus, after Maggionette deals with Bill, I'd wonder if her next person to resent would be Maggie herself, since Maggionette is trying to be a copy of her but never will.

    Second best scenario, Maggionette can control Bill, frees Caesar, takes out both Bill and itself. Here we don't have to deal with the existential issue of being an imperfect copy of someone who's still alive, but then we lose Maggionette D':

    Either way I hope this gets used so it'll tie in nicely with Maggie's "And the Titans never made a string that couldn't be pulled both ways." I may be paraphrasing that, but that's the gist of it.

    I'm pretty much assuming that a win situation for TV/GK is going to mean a croak situation for Bill here. Even if Maggionette doesn't get him, he's certainly got no friends here, and I don't see Caesar being so forgiving once he's free and has his self worth back.

    Croaking in some fashion (heh) due his own Dolls would be rather satisfying I think. Either by Maggionette, Bunny Doll, or perhaps a dramatic fall down a well, to be torn apart by his very own Eldritch horror, who I'm naming Mistress Centipede (assuming that, in addition to lots of breasts, the Doll also has lots and lots of arms).

    Titans, what if we end up having to see Mistress Centipede in the comic?

    Balder wouldn't do that to us, would he?

    Would he?

    Edit: Reading the posts I missed while writing this is definitely helping my theory that Contracts are the true Big Bad :P

    Perhaps when we see the big reveal Parson will have to fight:

    Spoiler: show
    Image

    _________________
    Master Class Lurkamancer!
    Feel free to browse my Erfworld Fan Art!


    Last edited by Jade on Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:56 pm 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 12:48 pm
    Posts: 252
    greycat wrote:
    Fuuuuck! The stupid login cookie expired and ate my entire post when I tried to preview and got redirected to the login screen. :( :(

    I sometimes fly into a rage when this happens (though somehow manage to remember not to smash up the expensive laptop...)

    _________________
    and whose turn is it anyway?

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 313
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:36 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Was an active Tool on Free Cards Day
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:54 pm
    Posts: 1891
    Website: http://www.tendonitisexpert.com
    Merilynne wrote:
    could she get into Bill's head and cut, remove, rip-out, or in some other way, reverse whatever strings make him an autonomous unit? In other, even more convoluted terms, could she make him doll-like, subject to her will? Could she do something that will not croak him, but will remove his ability to think for himself?

    If that were possible, the Makaleka could force Bill to disable the trap and free Caesar, order the dolls and molls to make a few non-lethal hits on some bats, and then turn everyone quickly before Charlie realizes what has happened.


    Well, she could certainly TRY to get back to where she lives/get that string by ripping his skull apart and picking through his brain matter trying to find it. (While everybody else looks on in possible horror...she eventuall looks up at them, notices their expressions, with a shrug and expression like 'what?').

    That would be fun.

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 336 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: DeanXeL, Drovean, Gaiyamato, Henning Makholm, Hunter of Wisdom, Moonflyer, pmenstrom, Shienth, TimeBot, TMZ Cinoros, Windscion and 7 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: