How powerful are T5 dukes?

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Not me!

For GMs out there who would like to know how to use the Soc characteristic to relate high, middle and low values to each other I present this training video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mURhNIjc-Kw​

:rofl:​

You can't see the Imperial Noble in this skit because he's in orbit on his Yacht. :devil:

 

[rancke]

So, what is the big deal, I mean this is like say water is wet. Everyone knows already.

If everyone already knew, everyone would also know that the rules were self-contradictory.

So, in fact a real numbers significantly higher than your number so you made one up that was more to your liking. Okay.

You're wrong. Try reading it again.

Because I do care that your crabbing drives people off the site.

And so you arrogate yourself the position of fun policeman and try to get me to toe whatever line you think is appropriate? (Something that, incidentally, would be totally futile if I actually took you seriously enough to put you on my ignore list.)

And if someone doesn't occasional poke you and remind you don't know everything and aren't the world's authority on Traveller, I suspect we will lose even more cool people.

We may or may not lose people. Not cool people, though. If they were cool, they would have open and subtle minds and a discussion like this would interest them rather than chase them off.

I don't set myself up as the ultimate authority on Traveller, although I do believe I have enough knowledge of the pre-T5 OTU to qualify as a bit of an authority. Not the only authority nor an infallible authority, but still an authority. When someone wants to refute any of my arguments, I expect them to use facts and logic, not emotional appeals like yours.

I am, incidentally, making a concious effort to ignore my knowledge about the pre-T5 OTU while exploring the ramifications of the T5 rules. However, a discussion about whether or not a given rule makes sense has absolutely nothing to do with the OTU.

Oh and I too am something of dick and so I see it as fair play. You get to be an arrogant so and so and I can have my fun poking at authority. See works out great.

I'll agree on the first part of your first sentence, anyway. I do believe dickery is against the site rules, but I'm not going to report you, because I only get upset with people whose opinion I respect.

And here we get to the meat of the issue, you are talking out ass as you have not even read the rules.

What a charming turn of phrase.

I have read what other who do have the rules have told me about them. Have they been lying to me? Unless they have, I beleive that I'm sufficiently conversant with the bits that I'm talking about to talk out of my mouth.

*shakes head* That, sir is just plain wrong and pretty sad. Now, if you had a copy of the rules or had helped in the Beta I could take your crabbing, but to bitch about something second hand. Dirty pool, sir, just plain dirty.

I have read your opinion and will accord it all the weight and respect it deserves.

And in the end, for crying out loud, it is a bloody game and don't give me that "logical and self consistent" crap either. That just doesn't float when talking about any world. I mean have you seen planet Earth? There isn't a hell of lot of logic or consistency in it, why should game worlds be so perfect when not even the primary model for them is not. It reminds me of that old consultant motto "Best is the enemy of good enough!" and in this case it is at least good enough. Perfect, no, but what is outside the HTU?

I don't think 'self-consistency' means what you think it means. And when we talk about arrogance, you might consider just how arrogant one has to be to treat one's own opinion on what is and what isn't important as a universal truth.

Could you at least wait to crab about stuff when you actually know what you are talking about? Might save us a couple of lost members.

As I said, unless people have been lying to me, I actually do know what I'm talking about. Might I suggest you make an attempt to do the same?

To your tiny point, some us did it because it was privilege. And we really love the game and wanted to help craft it and make it better.

That's a straight line that I shall manfully refrain from avaling myself of.

While you have positive things to contribute you often have really cool things to say, but man when you are on a rant you are like a rabid bulldog, scary and mean. And you may not think that is how you come off, but it is.

I do admit to getting testy when I repeat the same argument multiple times only to have it ignored, overlooked, or misunderstood. I don't think I'm entirely the only one to blame for that.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Really. You don't have the book? So were not working from a common frame of reference [sigh]

Why aren't we? Surely you're not lying to me about what the rules say, are you?


Hans

 

[Reban]

I freely admit that I might be misinterpreting, misunderstanding or missing applicable sections of material in almost 700 pages.

The real potential for misunderstanding comes from you not having access to the equivalent terms for Soc used in T5. We may be having problems in relating the "Soc scale" or where people sit from 0 Social Outcaste to F Supreme and how T5 separates Nobility from being Soc = Title to Soc indicating an expected or equivalent Noble Title.

I've tried to capitalize those terms where I used them in my explanations.

There is also the added information for Caste and Charisma which might add depth to the understanding of Soc.

I'm not sure if I can post them [the tables] under fair use.

There's also lots of world creation information such as HASS that has a bearing on society. The expanded Technology Levels might also impact on society and social class. Finally there is Fame, probably the single most important characteristic that will modify how Soc works.

I'm doing my best but up to this point I was assuming you knew I was incorporating all this into my overview of how Soc works.

EDIT: btw As a Knight of the Iridium Throne I sorta feel like I should challenge you to a duel for impugning my honor, but I don't know if you are my social equal. (A little Soc joke there)

 

[Dragoner]

Why would an Imperial noble be better than a planetary noble? Forex a sector Duke probably wants to keep an entire system happy over a baron.

 

[rancke]

I freely admit that I might be misinterpreting, misunderstanding or missing applicable sections of material in almost 700 pages.

If so, someone else with access to the rules will correct you and you will have benefitted from this discussion.

The real potential for misunderstanding comes from you not having access to the equivalent terms for Soc used in T5.

Don posted those in another thread:

Here.

Looking through that thread will let your see my problem expressed in slightly different terms. One argument I'd like to repeat is:

"Human nature doesn't work in a way that would give an Imperial baron the same effective social standing as 6.94 million other SOC 12 people (calculated as 1/36th of 250 million). 'Should I invite Baron Snooty to my party or one of his 7 million social peers? Gee, that's a tough decision'."

(Please note: The exact numbers are guesstimates, but I believe the orders of magnitude are reasonable.)

We may be having problems in relating the "Soc scale" or where people sit from 0 Social Outcaste to F Supreme and how T5 separates Nobility from being Soc = Title to Soc indicating an expected or equivalent Noble Title.

I do have a problem relating the Soc scale to a plausible society, but that doesn't affect the problem I'm having here. The problem I'm having here is figuring how a small group of people with more power and prestige than the rest of the people with their social standing can be of the same social standing as a vast number of people with less power and prestige than they. It really has nothing to do with Imperial society except for the claim that such is the case in Imperial society. I can't figure out how it could be the case in any society. If I could, I could merely assume that that was the way it worked in Imperial society.

EDIT: btw As a Knight of the Iridium Throne I sorta feel like I should challenge you to a duel for impugning my honor, but I don't know if you are my social equal. (A little Soc joke there)

Well, I don't have an Imperial knighthood, but do I need one to be your social equal?


Hans

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

8sigh*

/snips/We may or may not lose people. Not cool people, though. If they were cool, they would have open and subtle minds and a discussion like this would interest them rather than chase them off.

Wow, that is just it right there, you don't care. Nice attitude.

It isn't the discussions that drive them away, they love discussing Traveller. It is the way you pontificate all the time and treat everyone else like they are a bunch of idiots since they don't agree with you. That is what drives them away.

I don't set myself up as the ultimate authority on Traveller, although I do believe I have enough knowledge of the pre-T5 OTU to qualify as a bit of an authority. Not the only authority nor an infallible authority, but still an authority. When someone wants to refute any of my arguments, I expect them to use facts and logic, not emotional appeals like yours.

Do you read what you write? That is exactly how you come off. "I, the Great Hans, will now educate the clueless masses as to how Traveller should work if they would only listen to me." This is how you sound. It may not be how you think you sound, but it is. And that attitude drove them off the site. And maybe they weren't cool, but hell which of us came out the womb cool? I know I didn't.

What emotional appeal? You mean the one where I suggested you might want to try not coming off like a know it all dick? Or are you talking about something else?

I am, incidentally, making a concious effort to ignore my knowledge about the pre-T5 OTU while exploring the ramifications of the T5 rules. However, a discussion about whether or not a given rule makes sense has absolutely nothing to do with the OTU.

Right now it seem your "ramifications" are that you don't like how things work now and therefore the rules are flawed. Again, maybe not what you mean, but again how it comes off.

I'll agree on the first part of your first sentence, anyway. I do believe dickery is against the site rules, but I'm not going to report you, because I only get upset with people whose opinion I respect.

Ah, nice way to let me know you think I am just chock full of worthless opinions. And thanks for the pass, it makes all those times I didn't bitch to a Mod about you all the better now. Also, I claim crime of passion. :devil:

What a charming turn of phrase.

Isn't it just.

I have read what other who do have the rules have told me about them. Have they been lying to me? Unless they have, I beleive that I'm sufficiently conversant with the bits that I'm talking about to talk out of my mouth.

Not that I have seen, no, they aren't lying, but they might like me think we were arguing from both having read all the rules about Nobles. Which you haven't so it does sort of mess things up.

I have read your opinion and will accord it all the weight and respect it deserves.

I seriously doubt that, since you already stated that my opinions aren't worth anything to you.

I don't think 'self-consistency' means what you think it means. And when we talk about arrogance, you might consider just how arrogant one has to be to treat one's own opinion on what is and what isn't important as a universal truth.

Well, then why don't you take this time do that thing you love where you get to show me up and explain it to me, but I are dumb so use small words, please. I am pretty sure the arrogance and universal truth thing are some sort of jab, which is cute it were true, but my opinion is just that me talking not some "universal truth". I mean I am not even sure there is such a thing.

As I said, unless people have been lying to me, I actually do know what I'm talking about. Might I suggest you make an attempt to do the same?

I did that already. I have read those rules. Several times and I even found and forwarded some errata. So, how about you take a page from your own book and read the rules and then come back tell us all how they ruined the OTU for you?

That's a straight line that I shall manfully refrain from avaling myself of.

While I admit that I am not in top form today being sick as a dog, I don't see it. Must be 'cause I don't know anything worth spit.

I do admit to getting testy when I repeat the same argument multiple times only to have it ignored, overlooked, or misunderstood. I don't think I'm entirely the only one to blame for that.


Hans

And I get testy when I see you ranting and acting like you are the expert on everything Traveller.

Anyway, I am sick and tired and I think done poking the bear for now, but then I have pretty quick temper, so who knows, I may be back. Or maybe someone will post another funny video that I will have to comment on.

Basically to sum up. I could just talk a bunch of trash about you where you could not respond or hear, but I have this weird thing. I try to be an ethical, decent human being for the most part and that means saying things to people's face (in this case virtually). Which is why we are even having this conversation, I not going to be driven off to complain about you somewhere else when I can call you out here, where we both hang out.

Also, terribly stubborn too.

 

[pendragonman]

What Magnus said!

Hans,

Are you aware that there are many of us that as soon as we see that you have decided to jump into any conversation at all we decide that that particular thread is no longer worth reading as all it is going to do is make us angry?

 

[rancke]

Wow, that is just it right there, you don't care. Nice attitude.

It isn't the discussions that drive them away, they love discussing Traveller. It is the way you pontificate all the time and treat everyone else like they are a bunch of idiots since they don't agree with you. That is what drives them away.

If I believed your unsupported allegations about driving cool people away, I would care.

Do you read what you write? That is exactly how you come off. "I, the Great Hans, will now educate the clueless masses as to how Traveller should work if they would only listen to me." This is how you sound. It may not be how you think you sound, but it is. And that attitude drove them off the site. And maybe they weren't cool, but hell which of us came out the womb cool? I know I didn't.

And yet, I've had interesting and fruitful discussions with people who did use facts and logic. Not everybody seems to be as easy to drive off as you claim.

What emotional appeal? You mean the one where I suggested you might want to try not coming off like a know it all dick? Or are you talking about something else?

I'm talking about you unsupported allegations about how much I scare people away.

Right now it seem your "ramifications" are that you don't like how things work now and therefore the rules are flawed. Again, maybe not what you mean, but again how it comes off.

Some people do seem to get that I believe the rules are flawed because I believe that their ramifications are self-contradictory. It's true that I don't like self-contradictory setting details, but you're putting the cart before the horse.

Ah, nice way to let me know you think I am just chock full of worthless opinions.

I don't know about full, but the ones you've expressed in this thread certainly aren't worth spit.

Not that I have seen, no, they aren't lying, but they might like me think we were arguing from both having read all the rules about Nobles. Which you haven't so it does sort of mess things up.

I really can't be held accountable for people not reading a thread from the beginning.

I seriously doubt that, since you already stated that my opinions aren't worth anything to you.

Not the ones you've expressed in this thread, no. When you began with your "I don't care so your concerns don't mean a thing" arguments, you lost any right to be taken seriously.

Well, then why don't you take this time do that thing you love where you get to show me up and explain it to me, but I are dumb so use small words, please. I am pretty sure the arrogance and universal truth thing are some sort of jab, which is cute it were true, but my opinion is just that me talking not some "universal truth". I mean I am not even sure there is such a thing.

I was referring to your opinion that if you didn't care about something, other people were silly for caring.

Basically to sum up. I could just talk a bunch of trash about you where you could not respond or hear, but I have this weird thing. I try to be an ethical, decent human being for the most part and that means saying things to people's face (in this case virtually). Which is why we are even having this conversation, I not going to be driven off to complain about you somewhere else when I can call you out here, where we both hang out.

That I do respect. I try for the same thing.

It would probably be for the best to let this sub-thread die a well-deserved death.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Hans

Are you aware that there are many of us that as soon as we see that you have decided to jump into any conversation at all we decide that that particular thread is no longer worth reading as all it is going to do is make us angry?

I'm sorry to hear that. I shall think an extra time before jumping into a thread, then, though I won't promise not to do so. After all, there seem to be others who do feel that such threads are still worth while contributing to.

I would like to be made aware of it when I anger someone. As it is, I can't really judge the merit of such anger.

Also, people who feel that way may wish to consider if jumping into a thread that I'm contributing to is worth while.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

Seconded. Aramis, could you lock this one please?

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Gotcha!

If I believed your unsupported allegations about driving cool people away, I would care. /snip/

I sooooo want to name names right now, but no need to involve them, but I can if I get permission name people that I have personally had tell me you are the reason that they aren't here anymore.

So, they supported, I just don't want to traumatize them more.

Also, did you not see pendragonman's comment? Seemed pretty plain to me, if you post in a thread, he doesn't follow it any more because your attitude makes him angry.

So now that we have established you do make people spitting mad with your attitude is there a chance you could maybe bring it down a notch?

Or don't our posts and interaction count because you have written us off as...well worthless I guess since that was the word you used.

 

[rancke]

Seconded. Aramis, could you lock this one please?

I said sub-thread. As in my increasingly personal discussion with von Thornwood. Which I'm not going to continue.


Hans

 

[Reban]

Also, people who feel that way may wish to consider if jumping into a thread that I'm contributing to is worth while.

Ouch!

 

[rancke]

von Thornwood, feel free to start a new thread if you like or take it to PM. I'm not going to continue our discussion on this thread.


Hans

 

[rancke]

And just in case this thread does get locked soon, I'd like to express my appreciation of the helpful information and thoughtful arguments people like Reban and Bloo and Hemdian and Pendragonman (and others) have contributed to it before it does.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

snip...
Also, people who feel that way may wish to consider if jumping into a thread that I'm contributing to is worth while.


Hans

Having pointed out my anger to you in the past, and having it have no discernible affect, I have considered whether to jump into ANY thread you are in.

I restrict myself to minimal postings in those threads as often all it gets me is angry as in my opinion there is no way to get you to perceive someone else's point of view.

I also know of many others who hold the same point of view as myself. Many of whom no longer participate in these boards, a few of those are people who used to have paid memberships.

 

[Vladika]

Magnus von Thornwood & Ranke

It would be nice to maybe agree to disagree?

I've enjoyed this thread. As I last looked 1,968 "hits" from readers were made. I'd say that shows it has interest to more than a few.

I don't care to alienate either of you BUT, one of you has crossed the line on personal attacks and the other is whipping a dead horse. So, back to neutral corners and calling this fight a draw?

I see this site in a family sort of way. We get angry with each other today, and are friendly down the line. Bottom line is, we all live here.

With that, I'm ending this post, hoping we all stay friends.

 

[rancke]

I don't care to alienate either of you BUT, one of you has crossed the line on personal attacks and the other is whipping a dead horse. So, back to neutral corners and calling this fight a draw?

I've stopped arguing with von Thornwood and I actually thought the rest of us were getting to a point of mutual understanding. But if my esteemed opponents are also growing tired of the discussion, by all means let's drop it.

I see this site in a family sort of way. We get angry with each other today, and are friendly down the line. Bottom line is, we all live here.

With that, I'm ending this post, hoping we all stay friends.

I always assume roleplayers are kindred spirits until and unless proven otherwise. And I don't take crossing the line in a fit of bad temper for evidence of any such thing. So I'm fine with everybody who has posted in this thread.


Hans

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

You know I was so trying to be nice about this...

Origianlly posted by Hans
Also, people who feel that way may wish to consider if jumping into a thread that I'm contributing to is worth while.

Did you read this Vladika? Do you get what Hans is saying here?

He is saying that his ability to continue to engage in behavior which costs this board subscribers and plain members is more important than his trying to be less antagonistic.

He has stated that his comfort is the most important, if we don't like the way he behaves we should leave.

Not, that maybe he might want to reevaluate his behavior, no we should leave instead.

Magnus von Thornwood & Ranke

It would be nice to maybe agree to disagree?

I've enjoyed this thread. As I last looked 1,968 "hits" from readers were made. I'd say that shows it has interest to more than a few.

I don't care to alienate either of you BUT, one of you has crossed the line on personal attacks and the other is whipping a dead horse. So, back to neutral corners and calling this fight a draw?

I see this site in a family sort of way. We get angry with each other today, and are friendly down the line. Bottom line is, we all live here.

With that, I'm ending this post, hoping we all stay friends.

As for personal attacks, sure he said my opinions are worthless, but I can let that slide if it helps him be less of a dick. And yeah, I beat the hell out of horse corpses. They have no right to just lie around and rot like that.

And now, I will go back to watching cool science videos and drinking more fluids.