A bug is whirling around my brain...

[Maldeus]

Razing a city is as simple as burning it to the ground, smashing the stones that make a building and carting them away, and leaving it in rubble. That doesn't take magic. We know they have wooden siege engines with wheels, so carts, cranes, or anything else that might be required are not beyond Erfworlders.

Given they can make food, I expect they have salt, too.

The problem is that the buildings can be rebuilt in a single Turn. That's the difference.

Er, that's what I meant. Heck, Gobwin Knob was left in rubble, so by Earth definitions, we've already seen a city razed. But Carthage-ing a city would appear to be more or less impossible. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Of course, the exact definition of "raze" in Erf terms is still extremely unclear.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Of course, the exact definition of "raze" in Erf terms is still extremely unclear.

Um... you mean the exact term for levelling (or "zero-ing") a city in Erfworld is unclear?

Since "Raze" is never used in Erfworld, and is technically not an Erf term, a definition would be unnecessary/impossible to attain. Right?

[raphfrk]

Still, as far as we know, changing terrain type is triple-mancer link-up level magic, so it still wouldn't be an easy feat.

I wonder if there is a "found city" trimancer link-up. It would probably require a dirtamancer, so the only question would be the 3rd caster.

[Kreistor]

Only, Noah, if it gets re-defined. It can retain the Earth meaning with no changes, just reduced implications and long term results. Not everything has to be redefined as a game term. Our language's defintiions still work entirely well, especially because Erfworlders don't speak in game terms. They don't have a lexicon in their heads that says, "Turn only means X." They can use their language to define concepts outside the strict definitions we need to create game rules. So, no, "raze" means "raze".

I don't think you're quite wrapping your head around that. One Erfworlder may say "sack" and another"plunder" and both mean exactly the same action. They aren't restricted to "sack" meaning one thing and "plunder" another, just because we view their world as having game rules. We are used to strict definitions of terms, but the Erfworlders are not.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Only, Noah, if it gets re-defined. It can retain the Earth meaning with no changes, just reduced implications and long term results. Not everything has to be redefined as a game term. Our language's defintiions still work entirely well, especially because Erfworlders don't speak in game terms. They don't have a lexicon in their heads that says, "Turn only means X." They can use their language to define concepts outside the strict definitions we need to create game rules. So, no, "raze" means "raze".

I don't think you're quite wrapping your head around that. One Erfworlder may say "sack" and another"plunder" and both mean exactly the same action. They aren't restricted to "sack" meaning one thing and "plunder" another, just because we view their world as having game rules. We are used to strict definitions of terms, but the Erfworlders are not.

Show me an Erfworlder saying plunder. Or loot. Or pillage. Just show me.

Also, how is this different from the word Disband being used by two different people with incredibly different background and current knowledge, in different contexts, apparently NOT meaning two different (though similar) things?

Raze can keep its definition, but if no one uses it, it's a moot point. Particularly if another word is used in its place.

"If a tree doesn't exist in the woods, and nobody is around to see it not exist, what sound does its not existing make?"

[Kreistor]

I don't need to, Noah.

You have to understand that the denizens of Erfworld don't see a lot of what a player would see in a game. Including XP. Leveling is a surprise to them, and XP (or the equivalent) is a theory (albeit a pretty solid one). The people are in the dark and guessing, and it's kind of hard to build an XP table by actually finding 10 new level 1 Marbits to croak, discovering that you level, then discovering through experimentation that you need to croak 50 to level again.

Erfworlders aren't plastic pieces in a game. They are people in a world with rules as certain as they are in ours. They are born with knowledge of some of those rules, but not all of those rules. Which things have been described that are just theories? Experience for certain, but what else? Natural Thinkamancy? Probably. They know they can't cross hex-boundaries off-turn. Are they born knowing that, or do they figure it out the first time they bounce off an invisible wall? What words are you certain they are born knowing, when we are certain that their lexicon is not complete?

And if you think a little detail is automatically a rule, well...

Now, if you are seriously hung up on whether or not Ansom could touch a magical button projected in the air by an Archon hovering just above the city wall, then you are not really granting us any license at all for a joke, you know? There's occasionally some humor in this comic. The EULA joke is meant to make you laugh.
...
We are telling a story set in a whole alien universe here. We have mythologies and character histories and world mechanics backing this up, but it's the story that matters. I care ten times more about Sizemore's emotional state in the heat of battle than I do about whether or not a sourmander could spit acid across a hex boundary. (But I still know the answer.)

Oh, yeah... you wanted two different terms for something? How's "Unit points" vs. "Statistics"? Like I said, I didn't need to. But I just did.

So, what it comes down to is this:
1) Erfworld is not a game: it is a world with different rules, some of which are game-like to us.
2) Erfworlders aren't plastic cookie-cutter cut-outs. They are people, and all people are different. They will say the same things in different ways, because no one speaks exactly like anyone else.
3) Not everything is automatically a rule or not a rule. Story first, rules second. So we have to be careful in our analysis.

We look for consistency -- multiple examples overcome the limitation that a single example might be for humorous or dramatic effect. Why do you think I want to see citations and references? An impression formed on one event has no evidence, by Rob's demands for his story.

So, does "razing" occur? Abso-frickin'-lutley. Cities are destroyed, and that means they are razed, by the very definition of "raze". Does an Erfworlder need to say the word "raze" for it to have meaning in Erfworld? Heck, no, because the peopel of Erfworld aren't a rulebook, dictionary, or of fixed vocabulary. They're people just like us so far, and they speak English, so they have a variety of words with a the same meaning (English is especially good for that). The problem you're having is that you're looking for a "mechanic" behind every word. Raze can mean to them exactly what it means to us in exactly the same way, without a rule/mechanic giving it a strict definition.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

I don't need to, Noah.

don't need to what? show me someone using a different word than Sack? since Raze is never used?

Erfworlders aren't plastic pieces in a game. They are people in a world with rules as certain as they are in ours. They are born with knowledge of some of those rules, but not all of those rules. Which things have been described that are just theories? Experience for certain, but what else? Natural Thinkamancy? Probably. They know they can't cross hex-boundaries off-turn. Are they born knowing that, or do they figure it out the first time they bounce off an invisible wall? What words are you certain they are born knowing, when we are certain that their lexicon is not complete?

What are you talking about? Seriously, I want to know. Where am I indicating they have a rulebook in their back pocket? All I'm saying is we should default to using their lexicon to describe things they're describing. Where they haven't used a word, we can use one of our choosing, but why skip over the ones they're handing us? Is it some kind of "Official Erfworld Game Term?" No. But if that's what they're calling it, why be different?

And if you think a little detail is automatically a rule, well...

What?

Now, if you are seriously hung up on whether or not Ansom could touch a magical button projected in the air by an Archon hovering just above the city wall, then you are not really granting us any license at all for a joke, you know? There's occasionally some humor in this comic. The EULA joke is meant to make you laugh.

Where have I come out any actual event of the story "Couldn't Happen" or "shouldn't have worked that way?" Who are you even arguing, here?

Oh, yeah... you wanted two different terms for something? How's "Unit points" vs. "Statistics"?

Uhh... no, I don't. Or, more plainly, not just any two. While you're nicely illustrating that Parson's terminology is not always "offical" (if there is such a thing), which adds to my Disband vs disband argument, you're missing my point in this thread: Show me an example of someone using ANY OTHER TERM besides "Sack" for activities after taking a city. Because unless I'm wrong, that's the only one Rob's used, and I'm wondering if there is any reason not to have that be the Wiki article title for wrecking a city.

Like I said, I didn't need to. But I just did.

Whatever you just did, it was nothing I asked you to do.

1) Erfworld is not a game: it is a world with different rules, some of which are game-like to us.

What's your point?

(I'm not arguing this, it has nothing to do with what I've said)

2) Erfworlders aren't plastic cookie-cutter cut-outs. They are people, and all people are different. They will say the same things in different ways, because no one speaks exactly like anyone else.

What's your point?

(Also, in this case no one has done that yet, or you won't show me where.)

3) Not everything is automatically a rule or not a rule. Story first, rules second. So we have to be careful in our analysis.

Sounds like #1 again, but WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

I'm not claiming there is a rule here, (though there must be a mechanic of some kind working) I'm just seeing a word used in a context and wondering why we would use a different word to describe those events.

We look for consistency -- multiple examples overcome the limitation that a single example might be for humorous or dramatic effect.

Like multiple people using the word Sack, and nobody using any other word for the same events? I'll grant you it was only used twice (on 147 by Wanda - "sacked" Faq (leaving it in ruins) and this new one... some kind of threat/punishment that will get them to pony up 40K at least sometimes), but surely 2 > 0?

Why do you think I want to see citations and references? An impression formed on one event has no evidence, by Rob's demands for his story.

But you refuse to provide me with any.

So, does "razing" occur? Abso-frickin'-lutley. Cities are destroyed, and that means they are razed, by the very definition of "raze". Does an Erfworlder need to say the word "raze" for it to have meaning in Erfworld? Heck, no, because the peopel of Erfworld aren't a rulebook, dictionary, or of fixed vocabulary. They're people just like us so far, and they speak English, so they have a variety of words with a the same meaning (English is especially good for that). The problem you're having is that you're looking for a "mechanic" behind every word. Raze can mean to them exactly what it means to us in exactly the same way, without a rule/mechanic giving it a strict definition.

Okay, this is the only thing you've said that makes any sense. We could, if we wanted, ignore all words used by Erfworlders and come up with our own "more appropriate" terminology. But we haven't been, really, so why start? Why confuse the issue? And isn't this the exact opposite of your argument that because Stanley threatened to "disband" Parson, and ONE TIME Parson used the term "disband" for the Barbarianization of units after a capital is taken, that they ABSOLUTELY HAD TO BE THE SAME MECHANIC?? That Parson, the outsider, who uses his own "right" lingo, like us, rather than what the Erfworlders say, couldn't possibly have used the same word in a different context coincidentally, it HAD to be a knowing remark that they were the same "Rule."

I will grant you that "sacking" a city or a kingdom might mean something other than taking it to ruins - but there's no indication of that yet, no use of any other term for the event ("fall" and "taking" are used for the transfer of ownership of an intact city, but that's the only other event I know of), when we know it has occured. There is no reason to continue using Raze, except that you think it's a better term for taking a city to ruins. But what if you could wipe the ruins off the map, deny the hex for any side to make a city ever again? Wouldn't that be better called "Raze?" Just because we don't know it can happen...

[Maldeus]

Noah, Kreistor, it's not page 4 yet. Cool off for a bit.

Certain terms that are game terms in Earth, and thus are likely to have commonly used alternate definitions amongst non-gamer circles, are scientific terms in Erf. "Level," for example, may have several different definitions on Earth, but will only have one common definition on Erf. Definitions for "level" besides "level of experience" will be exceptionally exceptional, if not completely unknown. Further, because Erfworlders are popped with knowledge of things like language, they are likely also popped with knowledge of things like what "level" and "sack" mean within the world of Erf. So while it can't yet be proven one way or another, it is in no way unreasonable to assume that Erfworlders do indeed have a pre-set lexicon of terms. Occasional slang doesn't mean the terms don't exist or aren't common, just like someone using the word "chick" doesn't mean they don't know the word "woman."

Also, yes, that example was kind of sexist, but most slang was offensive.

Also, also, if the argument is whether or not to use the term "raze" on the wiki, since the term hasn't been used in Erfworld yet, I would propose that "raze" redirect to "sack" until someone in-comic (Parson or otherwise) uses it.