On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Are we metagaming, or roleplaying? Is the stealing of a few crops >> from a contract truly such a terrible scam that it is to be severely >> punished? > > The thing particularly annoying about it to me is that you took *all* > the crops. If you had just taken a few, then fine, exchange rates > would go up, life would go on. But you devalued pens to absolute > worthlessness, and the only fix to that is to recreate the stolen > crops (which is unfair to the players who had nothing to do with the > violated contract), or to destroy all the pens and start over from > scratch (which is just frustrating). The fact that the AFO won't > agree to any proposed changes to the Bank isn't exactly helping > matters either.
Looks like there's some good out-of-courtness going on so that's happy :) But you asked so, on my part: I think part of the whole point of contests and (some) contracts is that sometimes you just wanna play Werewolf (or Bank, or Brainfuck or whatever) without worrying about dotting every damn I and crossing every t against scam-style spoilers. When a good faith clause is in there, backed by equity, that spirit should be respected. Hence the initial level of annoyance. The secondary level of annoyance was perceived attempts from you to escape previous contract obligations; to wit the vote market. The tertiary frustration is that, as a non-member of the Bank, the only route to you (since you weren't part of the Bank's equation) was through the AFO. That allowed the description at least of a legal theory of pursuit but it gave the initial appearance of untouchability in defiance of the equity court. But the final bit (for me) was that your first response was, by attempting to argue against the "AFO issue" without first mentioning that you were willing to settle in another way, hence the appearance that this was a self-interested delay attempt against a judgement that I put a lot of thought and work into. (We can kindly agree to disagree with the theory behind it, I can go on at length in refution etc., but it doesn't look like it will be tested so that's for the "next" case :). -Goethe
