Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Lilwik » Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:39 am

Oberon wrote:Because alliances can be broken, and that's as close a thing to a contract that we know much of anything about.
We know about Charlie's deal with Parson that somehow guarantees that Parson will be honest when reporting the results of his calculations. Charlie actually knows that Parson is telling the truth, even when the numbers seem highly unlikely. See Book 1, Page 105.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby mortissimus » Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:07 am

Could be that while sides can break contracts, units can not.

Though if that was the case, then it is stronger tehn duty, and should replace duty. Have every unit pinky-swear their loyalty and they are unable to rebel.
mortissimus
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:04 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Oberon » Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:28 pm

Lilwik wrote:
Oberon wrote:Because alliances can be broken, and that's as close a thing to a contract that we know much of anything about.
We know about Charlie's deal with Parson that somehow guarantees that Parson will be honest when reporting the results of his calculations. Charlie actually knows that Parson is telling the truth, even when the numbers seem highly unlikely. See Book 1, Page 105.
And although the RCCII alliance included both Jetstone and Haggar, Slately was convinced that the force Haggar was sending to Jetstone (the city) was purposefully delaying to allow Jetstone to be weakened in conflict with GK, only to arrive just in time to turn on Jetstone and attack. In other words, to break their alliance, and with no penalty mentioned at all.

I'm not sure if you had a point you were trying to make, unless you were simply offering up one piece of the scant evidence we have on how contracts and alliances work. If so, I just offered up another.

Contracts may be harder to break than alliances (or even impossible), if only because, as in the contract Charlie has with Parson, one side may deliver well in advance of the other side, and allowing that to be broken before the second side delivers would be unbalancing. Alliances are typically for mutual benefit, with both sides delivering at least semi-equally with every passing turn. But we have seen alliances with turn limits, between Goodminton and Haffaton. And I'm pretty sure we've seen an alliance, or at least a proposed alliance, with a penalty clause.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Lilwik » Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:48 pm

Oberon wrote:I'm not sure if you had a point you were trying to make, unless you were simply offering up one piece of the scant evidence we have on how contracts and alliances work.
No, it has nothing to do with how alliances work, only contracts. Parson's agreement with Charlie is a contract. An alliance is when two sides share the same turn by mutual consent. I'm sure that you can have a contract and an alliance if they don't trust each other enough to be allies without some sort of binding agreement, but let's not get the two things confused.

As for the point I was making, I was just correcting someone who said that we don't know anything about contracts. It's important that we not spread misinformation about those sorts of details, especially when it looks like it will be very important in some future episode of Book 0.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Kreistor » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:15 pm

Sorry, Lilwik, but Oberon is correct. We know they exist, they give the appearance of being backed by magic, but we really do not know anything about Contracts... at least anything we need to know to draw any conclusions about anything.

We don't know if Contracts can be dissolved by Breach, as they can in Earthworld.
We don't know if all Contracts must have Penalty Clauses.
we don't know if Contracts have default penalty clauses.
We don't know if there are limits to penalty clauses.
We don't know if some Contracts can never be willingly breached because of magical compulsion.
We don't know if unintentional Breach triggers Penalty Clauses.
We don't know if they must be fair to both Sides.
We don't know if Vows/Oaths are Contracts.
We don't know if Casters can overcome contracts, completely or temporarily.
We don't know if there is any appeal mechanism to get out of contracts that become untenable, or if the contract was agreed to by coercion.
We don't know if a lack of Intent can prevent the Contract magic from successfully sticking.

We know Contracts exist. They appear to prevent breach magically. They can include clauses to prevent revelation of the existence of the contract. They can include Penalty Clauses for Breach. But that's not enough to know anything about the nature of Jack and Wanda's contract, whether they must get something in return, whether they could have breached it at any point with some kind of standard penalty had Charlie not stipulated one, or any of the relevant info I mention which can change our interpretation of events. Hopefully some of this comes out in the Book 0 pages to come, where Jack and Wanda should take on the Contract. Perhaps Jillian and Marie, too.

A contract in Earthworld would not prevent Wanda and jack from revealing their knowledge: it would only apply a Penalty at 4x normal damages, duie to Breach being intentional and not accidental. Wanda and Jack must receive reasonably equal compensation for whatever they agreed to. If you can prove coercion forced you into a contract, it becomes invalid. Standard contracts that include non-standard fine print are not enforceable unless the side that authored the fine print describes it before agreement. And there are a bunch of other contract law stipulations that may or may not have parallels. We can speculate that Contracts in erfworld are like those with the devil in which all terms are enforced literally, unfairness is irrelevant, coercion is irrelevant, and breach impossible. But we don't know for certain. Until we do, we're spitting in the wind.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Lilwik » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:57 pm

Kreistor wrote:We don't know if Contracts can be dissolved by Breach, as they can in Earthworld.
We know some of them can't. Parson is magically bound to deliver his end of the deal. See Book 1, Page 103.
Kreistor wrote:We don't know if all Contracts must have Penalty Clauses.
It makes no sense to have a penalty clause on a contract that can't be breached.
Kreistor wrote:We don't know if there are limits to penalty clauses.
True, but why would there be? It would be very strange for Erfworld itself to prohibit you from making a deal where the escape clause involves payment of over a certain arbitrary amount of shmuckers, even if you have the shmuckers to pay.
Kreistor wrote:We don't know if unintentional Breach triggers Penalty Clauses.
There wouldn't be much point to a penalty clause otherwise. Since contracts can be magically binding, I expect it is impossible to breach a contract without paying the penalty clause first, but that's just a guess.
Kreistor wrote:We don't know if they must be fair to both Sides.
Surely Charlie has demonstrated that they don't need to be fair somewhere. On the other hand, since both parties need to agree to the contract, they can't be very unfair.
Kreistor wrote:We don't know if Vows/Oaths are Contracts.
That's true, as far as I'm aware. I'm also curious about the significance of pinkie swears.
Kreistor wrote:We don't know if Casters can overcome contracts, completely or temporarily.
It doesn't seem likely. That Magic Kingdom's supply of shmuckers seems to depend on making contracts with the outside world, and if casters could ignore a contract even theoretically that would probably be a huge problem.
Kreistor wrote:We don't know if there is any appeal mechanism to get out of contracts that become untenable, or if the contract was agreed to by coercion.
Since contracts are magically binding, Erfworlders don't need courts to handle disputes. I also suspect that Erfworld has no sympathy for people who are militarily overpowered, even if they are forced to sign contracts that they would normally not sign. They're lucky just to avoid croaking. I expect this will be demonstrated in Book 0 before long.
Kreistor wrote:We don't know if a lack of Intent can prevent the Contract magic from successfully sticking.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby drachefly » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:05 am

We don't know if it takes a caster - to even FORM a contract. It might not be natural magic.
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Kreistor » Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:50 pm

Significant Earthworld Contract Law could be Natural Magic in Erfworld. We don't have enough information to know if any of it is, nor if the Deal with the Devil interpretation of technical language is the only Natural Magic in the system. Most of your citations are "failure to mention", not positive evidence by speaking of non-existence. It's not conclusive, and Contract Magic can yet be defined to match Earthworld Contract Law without requiring any changes to the conversation you cite.

The progression and confusions around what was permissible off-Turn demonstrates how in this comic, you can't read much into the "failure to mention."

For instance, Parson may not mention that he can Breach to Wanda, but that may be because Wanda already knows he can, and what the penalty may be. In Earthworld, intentional Breach is 4x damages, which would be 4x the value of the remaining Calculations. He wouldn't need to mention that in his conversation, if it's standard. So that can still go either way. Why would Parson Breach? If the calculation threatened his Overlord to the point it triggers Duty disbanding by answering. That leads to the realization that we have competing (Natural?) Magics with potentially devastating outcomes, even annihilation. If Contract Magic does not inherently prevent such conflicts, then the Contracts themselves must be written to prevent it, or anyone signing a Contract risks it turning into suicide.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Lilwik » Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:50 pm

Kreistor wrote:For instance, Parson may not mention that he can Breach to Wanda, but that may be because Wanda already knows he can, and what the penalty may be.
That's not failure to mention; that's a different interpretation of Parson's words. So you think that when Parson says, "I'm magically bound to give him twelve battle evaluations," it's actually still an optional thing and that the magical part of it isn't that he's being forced to do anything, but rather that a magical punishment will come down on him if he doesn't do it. I admit that it's technically possible that he might have meant that, but I consider it low probability because I don't think he would say it that way. He wouldn't call that magical, because there'd be nothing magical about him having to do the battle evaluations, at least as long as he doesn't break the deal. He would just have said, "I have to give him twelve battle evaluations," or he might have said, "I have to give him twelve battle evaluations or I turn into a frog."

I really think we should take "magically bound" to mean what it sounds like until there is any evidence to the contrary.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Justyn » Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:10 pm

Kreistor wrote:Significant Earthworld Contract Law could be Natural Magic in Erfworld. We don't have enough information to know if any of it is, nor if the Deal with the Devil interpretation of technical language is the only Natural Magic in the system. Most of your citations are "failure to mention", not positive evidence by speaking of non-existence. It's not conclusive, and Contract Magic can yet be defined to match Earthworld Contract Law without requiring any changes to the conversation you cite.

The progression and confusions around what was permissible off-Turn demonstrates how in this comic, you can't read much into the "failure to mention."

For instance, Parson may not mention that he can Breach to Wanda, but that may be because Wanda already knows he can, and what the penalty may be. In Earthworld, intentional Breach is 4x damages, which would be 4x the value of the remaining Calculations. He wouldn't need to mention that in his conversation, if it's standard. So that can still go either way. Why would Parson Breach? If the calculation threatened his Overlord to the point it triggers Duty disbanding by answering. That leads to the realization that we have competing (Natural?) Magics with potentially devastating outcomes, even annihilation. If Contract Magic does not inherently prevent such conflicts, then the Contracts themselves must be written to prevent it, or anyone signing a Contract risks it turning into suicide.


Just to let you know, Kreistor isn't going to be here for the next month; he's currently on a temporary vacation, if you catch my drift.
If I am acting as a mod, you will know it.
Justyn
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:22 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby bladestorm » Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:37 pm

Maybe they are called the Great Minds that Think Alike because they have their meetings and polls either via thinkagram or in their temple, and only present a unified front to outsiders. If the judge thinkamancer is the only one at the end of the discussion that is vehemently against progressing forward, and the rest of tGMtTA have been persuaded to either vote neutral of for.... Maybe the judge just stays silent on the issue and lets the "Yea"'s have their day.

They don't have to be a hive mind and think the exact same thing, but they support group decisions regardless of personal views on the subject.

Much shorter title than "the Great Minds that Discuss Issues Ad Nauseum and After Careful Debate Agree to Agree with the Majority or Plurality Vote Regardless of Individual Speculation or Pet Theories".

On a side note, it'd be nice to see other factions within MK in a similar update, giving names to casters we have only seen before, and going more in depth into their discipline. It was very interesting to see that thinkamancy can be set up as a poll and bounced around to different thinkamancers.
bladestorm
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Jabberwocky » Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:00 pm

Justyn wrote:
Just to let you know, Kreistor isn't going to be here for the next month; he's currently on a temporary vacation, if you catch my drift.


So he really did win a free vacation to Hawaii from McDonald's? Lucky boop.
Jabberwocky
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby balder » Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:11 am

It's actually 90 days. It was a difficult action to take, but I think a clear one. We haven't had to action anyone on this forum in a year or so, but when all the discussions start to revolve around one user, it's time to talk with that user.

And I didn't like how our talk went.
User avatar
balder
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:30 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Surfal » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:30 pm

balder wrote:It's actually 90 days. It was a difficult action to take, but I think a clear one. We haven't had to action anyone on this forum in a year or so, but when all the discussions start to revolve around one user, it's time to talk with that user.

And I didn't like how our talk went.


Thank you... at least for this user, what was revolving around that user was my dropping in to read and giving up when I encountered him/her... and then not coming back for a while. And just the knowledge that anything I did post might draw Kreistor in acted as a disincentive.

Not that I'm all that much of a loss as I almost never post, but I'm part of the usually-invisible effect. For the next month I'll be reading and enjoying, so you have my thanks, and I thought you ought to know this kind of thing was out there.
Surfal
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:02 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Shai_hulud » Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:22 pm

The censor user's posts button being right under peoples avatars would resolve a lot of these issues. :|
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Tonot » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:59 am

I feel compelled to say at least one gentle word in the fellas favour. I think he was not malignant. He wasn't trying to be a troll or unkind, he just had an excessive-compulsive edge to his posts. We none of us shine with the light of perfection I guess, I know that I myself don't always notice when the compulsion to contradict overtakes me.

In making this comment, I am not saying "thing one" about whatever actions the people who provide us with the website as "a meeting place to enjoy the stories ramifications together in" were compelled to take, you are to consider. Thankfully I just get to benefit, not endure any of the difficulties.

"Tugs fetlock in subservient gratitude"
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Surfal » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:09 pm

I feel compelled to agree wholeheartedly with Tonot's first paragraph. And his second. I'm not sure if I have a fetlock, though, so I'll bow out there.
Surfal
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:02 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby drachefly » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:08 pm

Unless you're a horse, Tonot, you mean forelock.

Maybe you're RP-ing as a pony, though? You never can tell, these days.
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby Tonot » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:06 am

lol. Good catch there. of course, I meant forelock, Squire. And being accurate, I don't got one of them anymore either. Sunburn only in that spot.

Furry people know too well to admit to it, don't they?. Just because they saw cartoon characters being offered humanity, don't mean they would lose their learn'd wariness.
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 04 – Thinkamancers' Poll

Postby gazes_also » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:41 pm

Just catching up on these, so this is a bit late.
But there is a reference (intentional or not) that may have been missed. It's noted that Jintau responds to the poll before anyone else and this is out of character...
So...

...Hu's on first??
User avatar
gazes_also
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], derfy and 13 guests

cron