Flawed? It wasn't an argument. I was not saying that Disbanding in Erfworld was exactly what Disbanding means on Earth. I did not in fact relate the Earth term to anything Erfworld, so there was no flaw and no argument. I was pointing out the foolishness of ignoring the Earth term. If Rob chose the word disbanding, he knew that it would bring a connotation with it. How much of the Earth term relates tot eh Erf term is yet to be seen, but I do not believe he intended Disbanding to mean croaking for the simple reason that Execution fits far better and brings the correct connotations.
As for Disbanding in games, yes, they are used, however Unit in those games mean company or platoon, not individual. A disbanded unit becomes civilian or reinforcements and thus "disappears" as a distinct entity, but the hypothetical soldiers are not dead, merely parts of different units, retired, or otherwise unimportant to the game system. How many game systems have "farming" units on the battlefield or "reinforcement" units to move about? Not many. That sort of minutiae is often beyond the intended scope. So though the "unit" disappears, in concept, the soldiers are still present.
The first is that the word ‘disbanding’ is not used in Erfworld in this way. I don't recall an instance in which someone talked about disbanding a company, platoon, or any Erfworld equivalent. (There may have been one or more, but I don't actually recall any.) It's not “I will disband your side/stack/company/group/whatever”; it's “I will disband you”—an individual, not a collection of individuals. So the comparison with the military use of the word is inappropriate. How do you disband a sergeant?
That's correct, but short sighted. Disbanding is not used on the indivdual level. It has different names. But it is a military terms and it is loaded. Rob's smarter than that. If he used "Disbanded" he knows what it brings to the table. I do not believe he is trying to redefine terminology, so I believe he chose the word for a particular reason. I don't know which reason yet, that's all.
The second is that disbanding is used as a threat. Whenever Stanley used the word—when disciplining Parson after his arrival, or when chewing everyone out after the Donut of Doom—it was with the clear impression that disbanding was something that they would not want to happen. It's not hard to jump from there to the conclusion that disbanding = croaking, but it is a leap of logic.
For a military man, there are few threats greater than, "We're not going to pay you anymore"? Remember that peopel threaten based on what is scary to them, not what is scary to the person they are threatening. Seeing Parson as military (incorrectly), threatening him with becoming a farmer that is not allowed to defend himself is significant. Or becoming Barbarian in the midst of of an army is instant death. I've shown the threat in previous messages.
All we can really say for certain is that disbanding can be used as a form of severe punishment.
Whoa up, Hoss. That was my argument. Please return to my previous message and review my text. I contended from the start that Disbanding was not definable yet. I stand against those convinced it must mean "croaking", or anything yet. Are you preaching to the choir?
If, for the sake of argument, we assume that disbanding = ceasing to exist, then why not call it ‘croaking’? Here's a possible reason: Croaking implies the possibility of uncroaking or decrypting. Disbanding, on the other hand, doesn't. When the unit ceases to exist after being disbanded, there's nothing left to uncroak.
Okay, again, review my previous message. I spoke of a unit disbanded becoming a farmer. "All things that fight are a unit." If a farmer does not fight, it is not a "unit", but it is still a creature. It ceases to exist as a "unit", but it does not cease to exist, which is synonymous with what you just wrote. (I was non-specific on that point.) If a disbanded unit becomes a civilian, but not a "unit" because it cannot fight, it is not an non-allied unit, and so would not inspire auto-attack. It can co-exist with all sides, but can be influenced by any nearby units via threat. It might even be recruitable and return to being a unit, but a Commander could order units to attack it. Basically, what you described I already described, just from a different perspective. You see disbanding as "ceasing to exist", but I see it as "ceasing to exist as a unit", with a specific meaning for "unit", which does not actually cause de-popping, for which we have no evidence. It retains the threat (by preventing fighting, something we see in the limbo state of a city without a Ruler), while retaining the physical reality. Note that some units simply can't enter that state due to knowledge: casters can't forget how to be dangerous, and Warlords may be capable of knowing how to become barbarians ue to fighting prowess, so that's why I don't see Disbanding as having a singular result. Parson, threatened with disbanding, would become barbarian in the midst of an army. An infantry unit in the field would lay down its weapons and farm, A caster becomes unpaid, and has no access to the Magic Kngdom because portals seem to go only to cities they can't enter without permission, and making contact risks capture and enslavement (explaining Parson's desire to see the casters safely to the MK when GK fell).