Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Praeceps on March 26, 2014, 09:13:15 PM

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on March 17, 2014, 04:21:11 PM

Hard at work on the next set

I can't speak to anything but the status quo on this one. The characters in question are not Musicians, and that is unlikely to change unless you can find more or new evidence supporting their cases.

Just for clarification: does the REG definition of Musician count as new or more evidence? If not, does this mean that we can ignore REG definitions about what can be classified as what if we don't like what it has to say (that is the precedence that you are setting here...)?

Likely not, it will probably linger as an inconsistency in the game because no one will be bothered to deal with it.  I mean we have as much evidence for these guys to be musicians as practically any other musician in the game of Redemption, but they can't be musicians just because.

Completely with this. There is so many things that could be fixed but are not. While we are fighting for this, we should bring up the Phillistines are Canaanites argument again.

So now the Dome is a Super Nerd?

Dome goes along with the Super Nerd because the people chose Helix.

Hey,

If a definition in the REG and the list associated with that definition seem to conflict to you, try to get a better understanding of the definition.  We don't intentionally put contradictions in the REG.  Seeing as this topic has come up multiple times before if the REG and status quo haven't changed it's very likely that there's a valid argument for the opposite perspective that you haven't managed to adequately understand yet.

The REG says a character is a musician if they wrote a song.  What does it mean to write a song?  When the REG and the Elders use that phrase they mean that the individual created a song with intention for future use.  Therefore spontaneous worship in the form of song does not constitute writing a song.  Also speaking or writing words that are later turned into a song does not constitute writing a song.  There is a legitimate definition of writing a song that would include those things, but that's not the definition that we're using.  The people in this thread saying that the ruling on the characters in question "100% should be changed" are simply holding to a different definition than the Elders are.  That's fine, as long as they can accept that we chose to use a different definition.

It's also important to remember that there are a lot of different interpretations of various Bible passages.  Just because you found an interpretation that supports your argument doesn't mean it's necessarily the right interpretation, the most popular interpretation, or the most likely interpretation.  And it definitely doesn't mean that it's the interpretation used by the Elders in coming up with the status quo.

Using the NIV translation, Mary "said," Simeon was "saying," Habakkuk's words were a "prayer," and Zacharias "prophesied."  If it weren't for the chapter headings (which aren't actually part of the Bible) you wouldn't have any reason to think that these were songs.  Nunc Dimittis and Benedictus having the identifier Hymn is Redemption recognizing that the words of Simeon and Zacharias inspired songs and/or became songs, but it doesn't inherently follow that the original speaker of the words is credited as the writer of the song.  Isaiah 5 is the one place where a form of the verb sing shows up with regard to the characters in question but there is no conclusive evidence in that passage that the song was intended for future use.  The Wikipedia link in the original post regarding the four servant songs says they were first identified in 1892!  Which I can only assume means that for over 2000 years they were not thought of as songs (and again nothing in the Biblical text identifies them as songs).

In other words, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests these characters were at least musical, but there is no hard evidence that proves any of them were musicians.  So in Redemption, they're not. [Excluding Habakkuk since today is the first time I've heard mention of him as a potential musician and I've not done enough research on him yet to take a stand on him one way or the other.]

Regarding the comment about silence of the elders, on non-established issues silence suggests support for the proposed position.  On established issues silence suggests they have not seen enough evidence to merit changing the status quo.  The very first reply to this thread includes a quote from Gabe (an Elder) that both states and explains the official stance on the characters in question.  That quote still reflects the status quo, so no further input from elders should be necessary.  (Do keep in mind there are a lot of inactive or minimally active elders at the moment, silence from those elders means they are probably not aware of the issue and if you would like their input on the topic you should contact them directly and ask for it.)

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

If that's the definition, put it in the REG. If the REGs definition is incorrect,( if because the elders definition makes no sense to me) then update it.

The REG says a character is a musician if they wrote a song.

We need to clarify that this is not correct, and it says they are a musician if they "wrote songs, lead a group of people in singing and worship, or who was described in the Bible as being a musician by profession."  Otherwise almost none of the current musicians are.

When the REG and the Elders use that phrase they mean that the individual created a song with intention for future use.  Therefore spontaneous worship in the form of song does not constitute writing a song.  Also speaking or writing words that are later turned into a song does not constitute writing a song.

The characters we are referring to wrote songs that are currently used as songs by Redemption, as well as by the Church as a whole.  Also, if you want to go with that definition, how does Habakkuk not fit?  He clearly wrote songs to be distributed.

The Wikipedia link in the original post regarding the four servant songs says they were first identified in 1892!

First, if we cannot use the Talmud as a source, we should not be able to use Wikipedia.

Second, that is not what the statement says at all.  Instead, it points to Bernhard Duhm as the source of the modern commentary that led to the deeper understanding of Isaiah and Jeremiah, which includes identifying these already existing songs for what they are.  They were already in the book of Isaiah, and we cannot say what others in the past may have thought, as much of that was lost to the years.  Why is Magnificat involving music, or Benedictus, or Nunc Dimittis?  If, as you say, we are excluding the authors as writing 'music' because they are described with words like "say," "said," or "saying," then remove the "involves music" identifier from those enhancements, since that would have to have been understood to be music by the Church later (just like our understanding of the Servant Songs).

In other words, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests these characters were at least musical, but there is no hard evidence that proves any of them were musicians.  So in Redemption, they're not.

I have read everything you put forward, and everything posted on these boards on the issue, and it still very clear to me that there is hard evidence that these characters meet the current definition of musician.  You may say I don't understand your position, but I do; I just do not understand how that logic can keep you in the status quo ruling.

Any progress on the ruling front?

Something that really surprises and bothers me though is the lack of respect for the Elders that is communicated in the way that they are spoken of and to.

I can understand getting that sentiment, and it is true for many of the comments on the boards in general.  As a newer member, though, you probably also don't catch some of the humor (albeit sarcastic ) of some of the contributors that are not necessarily meant to be harmful, but you are right that the way things are approached can sometimes be a bit testy.

There is nothing wrong with us arguing with each other either, and it allows us to find more precise rules/rulings when more people with different interpretations give their input.

The only point of contention I would take with your post would be that Romans 13 is not necessarily applicable to this situation (beyond the "love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" part, which is ALWAYS applicable), because we are the customers of Cactus, not governed by them.  As customers of the game, if we are not satisfied with the product (in this case, the rules), we have outlets for that.  The Elders have been very receptive to input in the past (on most things  ), and that is what the meat of threads like this are for.

That said, if you have a problem with the way things are said on here, or think something crosses the line, you can always go to that person (or a mod if you feel more comfortable doing that).

Of course it's okay to disagree...but let's do so in the right spirit (humility and love) so we will please the Lord and witness well to all. 

Just as an FYI, my "hung, drawn and quartered" post from earlier was my way of lightheartedly saying what you are saying. 

Quote from: jesse on March 28, 2014, 06:44:04 PM

Of course it's okay to disagree...but let's do so in the right spirit (humility and love) so we will please the Lord and witness well to all. 

Just as an FYI, my "hung, drawn and quartered" post from earlier was my way of lightheartedly saying what you are saying. 

Yep, YMT was one of the people I was referring to who has an odd sense of humor that will come off as 'harmful' when it really isn't   I can certainly understand taking his posts the wrong way, but he means well with his posts (as he said), and he is actually rather funny (outlandish thought, I know).

Those who have been around have just gotten used to his antics by this point 

Sort of agree with Jesse, tired of seeing the same dissenting opinions over and over despite multiple elder ruling. Sure it might not make sense, but whatever. Beating a dead horse at this point.

We're getting information that some Elders disagree with the current ruling, and there are specific points given to support the status quo that are being specifically argued and countered.  Also, if the rule doesn't make sense to the majority of players, then addressing it is not a waste.

That's the point it doesn't make sense. If I'm buying the cards you can at least try to keep my business by being consistent with the REG. At this point I don't care if Simeon and everyone else become musicians. I just want them to change the REG to the definition the Elders use because currently they fit the definition,and that is just another inconsistentsy the game has because rules won't be changed to fit the REG just because.

Point taken. I'm sure the Elders will chime in if they have anything additional to add. The need for this thread to facilitate Elder answers by repeating the same thing over and over is probably not necessary for them to arrive at such answers.