Book 3 - Page 242

Pitch, please

Book 3 - Page 242
Comic - Book 3 - Page 242
Recent posts... (See full thread)
The point is, the language of the contract simply isn't reliable in discerning what is and isn't a contract violation. We have to invent all kinds of caveats and alternate meanings in order to reconcile the plain language with the actual effects.

And the contract itself stipulates that the wording and the intent are both factors in the automagical enforcement mechanism, the wording cannot stand along according to the plain language of the contract itself.
Something has been bugging me a bit about this page. Forgive me if this has already been covered:

What if the penalty had nothing to do with the doll?

We know that Marie, as a newly-minted GK unit, has just popped into ICFYS, Ryuken'd one dude and is shooting at others. And the same truce covers Faq units. What if that penalty was from Marie's assault, and it just happened to occur at the exact same time as the doll's entrapment? After all, the casters don't know what specifically debited the treasury - they only know that it dropped 5 mil.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
The point is, the language of the contract simply isn't reliable in discerning what is and isn't a contract violation. We have to invent all kinds of caveats and alternate meanings in order to reconcile the plain language with the actual effects.

And the contract itself stipulates that the wording and the intent are both factors in the automagical enforcement mechanism, the wording cannot stand along according to the plain language of the contract itself.
The point is "automagical". The contract enforcement is stupid because it can't be any smarter. It can only hook into Erfworld mechanics. Wording and intend form the basis of these automagical judgements, but said judgements can only be rendered over things that can be automagicaly detected.

But then... I'm a long time D&D/Pathfinder player. And in tabletop rpg rules forums, every day is "talk about the contract" day! I've just developed a thick skin. And I have to admit that what seems reasonable and intuitive to one person is meaningless word salad to others - or, worse, still reasonable and intuitive, but interpreted in a completely different way... So yeah, I don't think the contract is that bad, but different points of view (both on the contract itself and Erfworld in general) can lead to vastly different conclusions.

kennyj wrote:
Something has been bugging me a bit about this page. Forgive me if this has already been covered:

What if the penalty had nothing to do with the doll?

We know that Marie, as a newly-minted GK unit, has just popped into ICFYS, Ryuken'd one dude and is shooting at others. And the same truce covers Faq units. What if that penalty was from Marie's assault, and it just happened to occur at the exact same time as the doll's entrapment? After all, the casters don't know what specifically debited the treasury - they only know that it dropped 5 mil.
So, Ivan was wrong when he said that it could never have worked and was a stupid idea?
I'm not inclined to believe Ivan is infallible, but I will defer to him as the trap expert.

As for rules lawyering in table-top gaming, the reason it happens is precisely because there is nothing automatic or automagic about how the rules are applied and convincing the DM (sometimes by convincing enough of the other players) that your interpretation of the rules is more correct can lead to a judgment in your favor. I suspect a lot of contract lawyering we're seeing is a carryover of this behavior from people who fail to see that Rob's story has been plotted out in advance with a significant degree of narrative integrity. I think that Rob probably (and correctly, if so) regrets having provided an apparently complete contract text rather than 'highlights' from a text with a suggestively higher page count and references to numerous appendixes/subsections (oh well, maybe next time).

But maybe he just wanted to distract everyone from arguing about Jillian all the time.
I'm only saying that it's a possibility. It would be an interesting way to square the almost-loophole that Claude developed, with Marie's blatant assault on ICFYS (which neither tunnel-bound caster has any idea about.)
JadedDragoon wrote:
Where in the hell are people getting this "Wanda sides with Charley" crap? Talk about yer epileptic trees. There's absolutely nothing supporting this idea and it completely goes against the existing narrative and the characterization of a half dozen separate characters. It's quite possibly the single least likely outcome that is still even possible. While you're at it why not predict Stanley making Jillian overlord of GK and stepping down to be a piker again. And then Jillian finds peace in her heart and takes up Banhammer's philosophy.

I'm all for oddball theories but come the hell on... let's not be absurd.


Well, people have talked about Stanley stepping down to be a piker and Jillian winding up with the arkenhammer. Wrt the Wanda theory, wandas big thing is getting the arkentools together. ...which would require gk lose the arkenhammer for Wanda to join Charlie.
Unfortunately, Jillian is a Macguffin character, so it would probably violate narrative economy for her to attune to an Arkentool. That doesn't mean she won't ever get her hands on the 'hammer, but she won't have it for very long. Living Macguffins that become too active as decisive characters in their own right cross into Mary Suedom very easily (Jillian is already considered by many to be over that border due to having become a ruler, but as a royal puppet she's still firmly in Macguffin character territory).

Wanda is apparently aware that Parson is Fated to (personally) croak Charlie, so she would likely prefer to avoid being on Charlie's side. Wanda has several times joined sides with the firm intention of outliving the ruler after using the side for her own ends...but she seems to be tiring of it, or at least realizing that it doesn't always go just as planned. I doubt she'll try it on Charlie except under considerable duress.
Lord Dominator wrote:

kennyj wrote:
Something has been bugging me a bit about this page. Forgive me if this has already been covered:

What if the penalty had nothing to do with the doll?

We know that Marie, as a newly-minted GK unit, has just popped into ICFYS, Ryuken'd one dude and is shooting at others. And the same truce covers Faq units. What if that penalty was from Marie's assault, and it just happened to occur at the exact same time as the doll's entrapment? After all, the casters don't know what specifically debited the treasury - they only know that it dropped 5 mil.
So, Ivan was wrong when he said that it could never have worked and was a stupid idea?


Marie killed quite a few people in rapid succession to get Power out. If the above is true, then that page had really convenient timing which strikes me as bad narrative flow.
Sigmoid wrote:
JadedDragoon wrote:
Not that it matters because there is a growing systemic racism against white people an sexism against men. Mostly by people who mean well but aren't considering the consequences of their us-vs-them mentality. Sure they are justified in being angry but being justified doesn't change the consequences of an us-vs-them mindset. It's still destructive. It's still not promoting equality. Us-vs-them mindset are never a good thing justified or not. One must always put the consequences of ones actions first when considering whether it is the right course of action.

I think you might have an issue with understanding what "systemic" really means.

Okay look at it like this. You're white, and looking for a job as, say, a software engineer (let's stay geeky). There are 50 open positions that you qualify for (and that you see as being of acceptable challenge and pay grade) in your area. Say, the head of HR or the CEO at maybe three of these companies are African American, and two of them hold a bias against white people. You happen to go to an interview at one of these companies, and are turned down in favor of an African American applicant, for being white... What do you do? Well, go to the other 48 companies, and probably get a job.

If you're on the other side of the fence, ie. an African American nerd looking for a job as a software engineer, you are faced with 47 white heads of HR and CEOs, out of whom, let's say, 50% hold a subconscious racial bias. You have 24 companies which would rather choose a white applicant based on racial grounds, 24 that don't care either way, and 2 that probably would favor you. And that was probably still overly optimistic.

THIS is what systemic means.

And no, straight men aren't being systemically discriminated against, either. At all. Not being allowed into lesbian bars, and women not having to pay entry to some parties is not systemic discrimination. Being called out on sexism and made to feel guilty in public isn't systemic discrimination either. When and if men will ever earn a lower wage on average than women in the same positions, then you can talk about systemic discrimination. For now though...


Speaking as an engineer (not a software engineer, but an engineer), let me tell you how it actually is in the current tech industry.

My company has implemented quotas for the hiring of persons of a certain gender and/or ethnic background (basically anyone not a "white" or Asian male, and no, they won't outright call them "quotas", because that would be illegal, but nonetheless they are de facto quotas). What this means is that hiring managers are now graded on how well they fill these required numbers, so when they create a job opening to hire, often they are specified as "minority only" positions, effectively "white/Asian males need not apply". There are also hiring incentives in place, offering bigger pay and bonuses for hiring people from the specified minority groups. Also, when the company institutes layoffs (as we've done a few times in recent years), they creatively tilt the layoff criteria to be heavily slanted towards the white/Asian male population. Specifically, they target those who have been with the company for 15 or more years, meaning those who were hired during a time period when the demographics of the tech industry were flush with white/Asian males and had less representation of these minority groups. Because the specific layoff criteria is time-based rather than directly gender/ethnicity based, they get around the legalities of a discriminatory layoff, but the end result is the same: they lay off a disproportionate number of white/Asian males compared to the demographic makeup of the company as a whole. And if a white/Asian male attempts to go to another major tech company, they do so only to find that similar measures have been implemented at our competitors as well.

All in all, white/Asian males have become socially less acceptable within the tech industry, and so are now less likely to be hired just because of their race and gender. You cannot say that this is not systemic discrimination, because it is the very definition of such. This is not some imagined situation or future possibility, it is real, and it surrounds me every day. Now, many people are just fine with this, believing it to be some kind of justice for past wrongs, but that does not change what it is, and I for one do not subscribe to the opinion that two wrongs make a right.
But the third wrong that comes about as a result of all this discrimination against people who have historically shown an unusual aptitude for a skill intensive productive position may...well, not make a right so much as demonstrate exactly why systematic racism is really a bad thing for society at a whole.

Unfortunately, most people who caused this will be too desperate trying to survive the results of their actions to consider they might be partially responsible for the situation.

Ah, the irony.