Book 3 - Page 173

A symbolic jester

Book 3 - Page 173
Comic - Book 3 - Page 173
Recent posts... (See full thread)
House WarFan remembers. The forum remembers.

To read messages.
Crisco wrote:
Lingo wrote:
Re-reading the contract, I just don't see any ambiguity about what would happen if GK harmed Jillian. Part VI #1 says that any breach of Part I "Terms of Truce", which includes the clause protecting Jillian, causes the exchange of Schmuckers. And Part VII says that "breach or default of any part of the agreement" does not terminate the agreement; it remains in effect "even in the event of a breach or default of one or more of its parts." It seems that commenters who think something else might happen are counting on there being some difference between "default" and "full default", which I would bet is a meaningless variation in terminology on Rob's part. I think it would be bad writing if the plot depended on such a trivial difference in semantics (not to mention illogical -- a "full" default is still a default, is it not?).

I disagree here. While a 'full' default is still a default, a default is not necessarily a 'full' default, and I suspect it'll be relevant when we find out the difference. If it were so simple that it was just a standard penalty for violating the Jill clause, I seriously doubt it would be explicitly spelled out as though it were something different. How great or small that difference is remains to be seen, but it's almost certainly not a 'meaningless variation in terminology.' At the same time, how would that be bad writing? It's not at all trivial, in the sense that it stands out like a sore thumb in relation to the other parts, which have clearly defined penalties. Not in one other instance does the contract make mention of a "full default," instead addressing specific breaches.

Also: if it was just a loss of money for executing Jill, doing so would jump WAY up on GK's priority list as soon as they could afford to do so (as in, right now).


I've mentioned this before, but I didn't want to sound too sure of myself. Since it hasn't been noticed though I will make sure to give it the necessary weight.

I am absolutely certain that "Full default" merely means that GK will pay Half the treasury and it is a penalty not limited to 5 million.

I don't understand either why anyone would think that this would terminate the contract. Should GK take the opportunity to croak Jillian now that they "can afford it" the rest of the contract still stands.

By the way, I don't think they can afford to lose 10-15mill just to attempt croaking Jillian. When the enemy has a treasury more than 4 or 5 times larger and access to overwhelming technological superiority, risking that many schmuckers for something that may very well be fated to not succeed would be a very bad idea.
Thecommander236 wrote:
I, for one, want to see Ansom talk to Jed about his obsessiveness.


Jed's too busy giving head to the Last of the Mo-Chica-ns.
I keep missing the initial boom of posts as updates come when I'm not avaliable, but here I am.

Jetstone and capes for warlords, what's their protocol? 10 million warlords in red capes were at Spacerock, and here, warlords have green capes, probably as contrast to Ansom's red. Yet Webinar has no cape. Combat practicality reasons? Perhaps some warlords just don't really cape, especially the more individual identifiable ones.

I actually love Ansom being called out for only sending Jetstone troops in the tunnels. One of his most questionable moves, for pride reasons, and that he paid once via Parson psyops sending uncroaked Jetstone troops on the wall, and twice, now.

The mustached guy in a suit's got great Signamancy, that's for sure :P
Ansom's court outfit seems familiar? I'm going with some officers in Star Wars that don't have a shiny buckle. Works with the JEKs, surprisingly.
vivalakevolution wrote:
Jetstone and capes for warlords, what's their protocol? 10 million warlords in red capes were at Spacerock, and here, warlords have green capes, probably as contrast to Ansom's red. Yet Webinar has no cape. Combat practicality reasons? Perhaps some warlords just don't really cape, especially the more individual identifiable ones.

If I had to wager a guess, it would probably be a more level-based thing. As Jillian (derisively) points out to Webinar, "she's a 9, he's only a 5... and his girlfriend is a 2". Jillian and the top commanders merit capes or other adornment simply by being higher level and having earned it (see any RPG/MMORPG Armor sets... the higher the level, the flashier the bling, which fits perfectly into "altered reality" of Erfworld).

I imagine it is also a matter of specialty and purpose. Webinar is a ground commander, with little chance to allow a cape the proper flutter and flourish, where as the "true sons" of Slately commanded from the sky, atop the Magic Carpet or other flying mount, which gave their capes the full ability to demonstrate their awesome Signamancy.
I hope if Ansom does turn that he's a bit more sober about his self-assessment. Tramennis may want the old Ansom back, but do we really want that?
El Chupacabra wrote:
I hope if Ansom does turn that he's a bit more sober about his self-assessment. Tramennis may want the old Ansom back, but do we really want that?

I want to see his old daredevil outfit again. That's what I miss most about old Ansom!

JadedDragoon wrote:
Lingo wrote:
JadedDragoon wrote:

I agree that that part of the contract is almost guaranteed to be plot relevant... being a huge Chekhov's Gun and all. However, I don't think that necessarily requires the contract to end up in default. It very well may...


Re-reading the contract, I just don't see any ambiguity about what would happen if GK harmed Jillian. Part VI #1 says that any breach of Part I "Terms of Truce", which includes the clause protecting Jillian, causes the exchange of Schmuckers. And Part VII says that "breach or default of any part of the agreement" does not terminate the agreement; it remains in effect "even in the event of a breach or default of one or more of its parts." It seems that commenters who think something else might happen are counting on there being some difference between "default" and "full default", which I would bet is a meaningless variation in terminology on Rob's part. I think it would be bad writing if the plot depended on such a trivial difference in semantics (not to mention illogical -- a "full" default is still a default, is it not?).


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but given that you appear to be responding to what I said... I get the impression you are contradicting me. Only nothing you've said actually does contradict me.

I'm not saying "if they hurt jillian it won't cause the contract to default." I'm saying "this checkovs gun might prove plot relevant by how hard GK works to avoid it being fired... rather than it being fired." Ie... GK makes sure not to hurt Jillian and it significantly affects the plots somehow. I agree that the quoted parts of the contract represents a massive Chekhovs Gun and is very likely to affect the plot but I don't think it has to mean that Jillian will get harmed by GK.


Forgive me, JadedDragoon, I misread what you wrote and thought you were agreeing with magusjuniperb that "full default" means "the contract is terminated." (As for Chekhov Guns, I don't think that part of the contract is, because it's a very reasonable clause for Charlie to include whether or not it turned out to be plot-relevant...but probably this is all moot because I'm certain Jillian is about to strike GK, so it definitely is plot-relevant! :D)

╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛ wrote:

Lingo wrote:

Of course I'm writing all this on page 8 or 9 of a forum thread on the eve of a new update (and/or a holiday) so maybe no one will even read it! :lol:


╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛ did. As an eldritch abomination it is the duty of ╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛ to know what is on every mind. Which include reading every post EVER.


The only way I can acknowledge your acknowledgment is to quote you because I have no idea how to type your name otherwise. :lol:

Crisco wrote:

I disagree here. While a 'full' default is still a default, a default is not necessarily a 'full' default, and I suspect it'll be relevant when we find out the difference. If it were so simple that it was just a standard penalty for violating the Jill clause, I seriously doubt it would be explicitly spelled out as though it were something different. How great or small that difference is remains to be seen, but it's almost certainly not a 'meaningless variation in terminology.' At the same time, how would that be bad writing? It's not at all trivial, in the sense that it stands out like a sore thumb in relation to the other parts, which have clearly defined penalties. Not in one other instance does the contract make mention of a "full default," instead addressing specific breaches.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You said so yourself, a full default is still a default. Therefore Part VII applies, not to mention Part IV. I don't think it's "explicitly spelled out as though it were something different" or that it "stands out like a sore thumb", and it does have a clearly defined penalty (Part VI, #1). Even if it does have a different penalty, how would Signamancy determine what it would be if it's not spelled out? And I think it's bad writing for Rob to put something in there that depends on such a trivial difference in wording. I know Charlie is famous for his contract gotchas but I think Rob's also shown that Charlie knows how to screw you over even if you completely understand the terms of the contract. (In this case, the principal "gotcha" is that half a million Schmuckers is absolutely no deterrent to Charlie violating the contract.) I'm so confident about this I'd be willing to bet you all my Schmuckers on it (all, um, 7 of them).

Quote:
Also: if it was just a loss of money for executing Jill, doing so would jump WAY up on GK's priority list as soon as they could afford to do so (as in, right now).

Maybe so, but they're not exactly in a position to go after her at the moment. Of course, it appears that Jillian is about to arrive at their doorstep, and I agree that it may not be the worst thing in the world if GK were to croak her in their own defense.

WarFAN wrote:
Lingo wrote:
I find laughable the idea that Jillian may have simply overlooked a hat message from Tramennis on her desk for 3+ turns. That same update says that she spends most of her Turns at her desk managing her kingdom and attending to hat messages. She's not that dumb.


Oh, yes she is. Rob is a good writer and he has made it 100% credible.

Nah. I don't think you give her enough credit. She has serious lapses in judgment but I don't think she's that sloppy, careless.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course I'm writing all this on page 8 or 9 of a forum thread on the eve of a new update (and/or a holiday) so maybe no one will even read it!


Oh, yes we will.

And clearly I didn't give you enough credit. :D
Lingo wrote:
Nah. I don't think you give her enough credit. She has serious lapses in judgment but I don't think she's that sloppy, careless.


Compared to her Book 0 self, I think she is. I think whatever they did to her at the end of Book 0 Part 2 changed her concentration, made her angrier, more prone to rashness, less capable of taking indirect action. Now she's just charging in gung ho all over the place to the point where she constantly gets captured. She is careless and sloppy. She's constantly angry and grumpy. She's acting like someone who's had something seriously not nice happen to her brain. Like she has.
I'm not convinced the Book 0 Jillian we've seen so far is much different than the one in Books 1-3. :) I think Jack did say she's recovered some. I'm real curious to see how she'll act in Book 0 Part 3.

Anyway, I still don't think she's careless enough to miss a note on (or under?) her desk for 3 turns, but we'll see.
Symbolic Jester....
.... can you believe it took me a week to get that. Owwww.