Book 3 - Page 237

When one door closes

Book 3 - Page 237
Comic - Book 3 - Page 237
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Jade wrote:
By the Titans, we've had contract talk for 19 pages D: This isn't even making glue at this point; this is an archeological expedition to find fossils of the first horse ancestor, carefully retrieving the remains, doing extensive lab testing to ensure it does in fact share some genetic similarities with horses we know today, and after a peer review and a journal submitted: try to make glue from the remains.



I'm stealing this. It's going in my quotes file, and I'll pull it out some hundredturns from now and claim it in the name of Michael Scott.
Yawner wrote:
JadedDragoon wrote:
In another startling senior moment (I'm only 32 for cripes sake... what the boop?) I was confused for a minute too.


Hey, I'm 32 as well! How's that working out for you? Figured out what the boop are you supposed to do with your life? Because I sure as hell haven't.


Only just figured it out last year at 40. You have an "ah, fuck it" moment and decide to do whatever you want and to hell with everyone else.

Personally, I'm moving to Africa to build houses.
I'm back! Ready and eager to extend this debate another 7 pages!

No no, I'm only kidding ... I'm almost out of arguments.

Laernan wrote:
Lingo wrote:

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.


I entered 'define "in the event of"' in a google search bar. Result: 'if —— happens'

It's...really weird if you're unfamiliar with the meaning of that construction.

Well...I'm really weird, I will concede that much. :mrgreen:

However, let's take an example closer to the real world. You may see a sign that says, "In the event of an emergency, break glass", or "in the event of an emergency, you can use the fire doors." That doesn't mean that once an emergency occurs, you can break the glass or use those doors forever afterward. It just means for the duration of the emergency.

Now that I've written that, I expect that you will come up with an example where "in the event of" can include a significant period after the event. And then we'll both laugh and say that it really depends on ... something (Charlie's intent, or Signamancy, or Rob's intent).

And I'll probably agree, because believe it or not, I largely agree with Chiu ChunLing that Rob does not intend for the plot to hinge on the precise wording of the contract (which is why I think "full default" has no special meaning). I think it's better writing if the way Charlie screws over GK is not through tricky wording but simply by being able to foresee consequences of the contract that Parson could not (like with the Jillian clause). And so I think we're really just meant to take the contract pretty much as it's written on the face of it -- its "plain language". The only problem is that we all clearly have different interpretations of what the plain language means :lol:

JadedDragoon wrote:

Actually we're all wrong, lingo included. While a full glass of water is still a glass of water, a glass of water is not necessarily a full glass of water. Full default/breach implies default/breach to the maximum extent possible. Default/breach by itself implies only more than no default/breach at all. In other words, exactly 100% versus a value within the range of 1-100%. And the fact that there is this very specific use of the word "full" in just this one part of the contract implies that it is meaningful wording.

There are two ways I see to interpret maximum breach....

While I can't argue with the specifics you go into, my personal feeling is that the single instance of "full" default is just (possibly accidentally) redundant language. Much like "new and further aggression by FAQ" is redundant (how can further aggression not be new, or new aggression not be further?). In other words, Rob was being imprecise. He's only human. Again, my principal argument against a hidden meaning for "full default" is just that I personally wouldn't like it if the plot hinged on such a nitpicky thing like that, which admittedly is not much of an argument. Though also I feel like there being some unwritten, hidden penalty violates the spirit of Part IX ("This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement...").

JadedDragoon wrote:

In another startling senior moment (I'm only 32 for cripes sake... what the boop?) I was confused for a minute too.

I was confused by it too! (I'm in my mid-40s.)

zilfallon wrote:
I come home from a few hours overtime and the author of my signature is writing walls of texts discussing the contract and another guy is linking to TVTropes (possibly trying to make us all click on it and waste 75 hours?).

What the boop happened here while I was away? Boop's on fire, yo.


I suppose I am partly to "blame" for prolonging this discussion beyond all necessity. Though honestly, what's the harm? If you want to blame something, blame my job, because I am procrastinating the hell out of it.

Jade wrote:

How many more turns of this truce are left? D: And I swear, if another two sides sign a truce after this one, I don't know what I'll do.

Believe it or not, if the Timeline is correct, there are still 13 more days after this one. :cry:
I think "full default" just means "touch Jillian, and by all that is unholy I will destroy you."

That suggests that a full default means that GK pays out AND loses all protection. But exactly how that works is fuzzy. Charlie might just be saying "saving Jillian is the whole point of this contract", or there might be an unspecified meaning to full default beyond paying the maximum contract violation penalty and ending the contract.

I think that the key point here is that GK is unlikely to cause bodily harm to Jillian (or destroy her) as long as the contract is in play. And from a narrative perspective it's supposed to remind us that Jillian is key to Charlie's fate for reasons we do not as yet fully understand. The jester, which seemed like an avatar of Jillian's sense of duty, was referred to by Charlie as "Tool of the enemy", one which he took great pains to eliminate and which apparently could be back in full force if Jillian is decrypted, undoing all Charlie's manipulations. The fact that Charlie is a Carnymancer and other evidence suggests that Fate is his enemy...but it could be something else. For instance, the Jester could be Jillian's Fate and thus a tool of some greater enemy Charlie fights...Peace on Erf? What exactly is that? To the Hippymancers it's just a dream, but the Predictamancers know more. Is their vision attractive, or simply one they accept as Fate?

Like Parson, Jillian is Fated...but to do what? She already killed the ruler of Haffaton, but possibly Charlie knows a bit more of the Prediction...perhaps not about Jillian personally, but about the warlord who would croak Olive.

That's right, I'm turning this into a discussion about Jillian. Because the comic hasn't updated yet.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:

That's right, I'm turning this into a discussion about Jillian. Because the comic hasn't updated yet.


Good news, everyone!
Good news, everyone!

Or did you mean that the latest update was posted, like, two minutes after I started talking about Jillian?

If only there were a causal connection. But there definitely isn't.
Lingo wrote:
The only problem is that we all clearly have different interpretations of what the plain language means :lol:
From my extensive background of playing D&D/Pathfinder and reading the respective optimisation and rules discussion boards (which include arguments that make the contract discussions seem simple by comparison), I bring the following wisdom:
Do not invoke common sense, for it is not common.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
Good news, everyone!

Or did you mean that the latest update was posted, like, two minutes after I started talking about Jillian?

If only there were a causal connection. But there definitely isn't.

I was definitely referring to the latter (as in "good news, we don't have to argue about Jillian!"), though I was echoing the update's title, which I knew was referencing Futurama.

Lord Dominator wrote:
Lingo wrote:
The only problem is that we all clearly have different interpretations of what the plain language means :lol:
From my extensive background of playing D&D/Pathfinder and reading the respective optimisation and rules discussion boards (which include arguments that make the contract discussions seem simple by comparison), I bring the following wisdom:
Do not invoke common sense, for it is not common.

Amen, brother.
I have a hard time believing that Marie is planning to help Wanda escape. I mean, if she was, why not teleport into Wanda's cell and repatriate her? And even if we presume that was impossible for some reason, I'm not even sure what she could hope to accomplish at this point, given that the executions are about to commence. Maybe croaking Janis would help, but...

Honestly, it may well be that Wanda is right where Marie wants her to be. There was a conspicuous lack of any warning about the imminent attack by the rogue casters after all. And Marie arranged for Wanda to blow her own veil with that healing scroll, which she could just as easily have thrown to Jack.
It has just occurred to me that as a Decrypted, Marie is neither sided with Faq nor is she a Barbarian, and she is no longer duty-bound to protect Jillian. Being a unit of Faq was probably the only thing stopping Marie from directly croaking Jillian. Like that time where she "Predicted" Jillian falling into an ambush, the reason she didn't give specifics was because Marie didn't want Jillian to avoid it.

Now as a unit of Gobwin Knob, Marie is willing and able to croak Jillian. Jillian be like, "What are you gonna do, shoot me"

Then Marie be like "Yas!". *BLAM*

Marie probably thinks that Wanda's not gonna be excecuted tonight, and that she still has the Arkenpliers (Under account of Marie being newly decrypted and all). So she'll croak, Jillian, and then drag her body back to her mistress.