Kreistor wrote: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...
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...