Re: ring the bell (Was Re: Brothers and Sisters ... Ayh have THE ANSWER (Touch the screen with me))

["Kris Ames" <kris@cioe.com>]

Okay

John..Lets make them immobile with no relativity definition and claim
immobile is an absolute.  My next ruling the next time someone casts a
blue field is that from their perception it disappears immediately
(something about Jarean circling around Jarean's sun at some very fast
speed and the galaxy moving at an even faster speed etc.)  The blue field
is immobile so it doesn't move.  This is a wonderful ruling particularly
if waste management was an issue on Jaeran.

Saying "us engineering and physics types" was a specific jab..it was a
jab aimed at the fact that you, being "one of us" seemed to imply that
the saying the word "immobile " ment anything if it wasn't defined in
relation to what.  I am glad you caught the jab. Since you brought up 
the PC meter in regards to my comment, I hope there weren't any other
English types (besides myself) on this list or they might think you were
calling them dumb.

----------
> From: John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
> To: Kris Ames <kris@cioe.com>
> Cc: gmlist@cioe.com
> Subject: ring the bell (Was Re: Brothers and Sisters ... Ayh have THE
ANSWER (Touch the screen with me))
> Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 12:33 PM
> 
> 
> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Kris Ames wrote:
> 
> > John,
> > 
> > Hmmmm...I think the original question was still valid.  They are
immobile
> > by itself is not clear.  Maybe it is to you, but us engineering and
> > physics types are big into relativity :)
> >
> 
> Well, Yeeeeeeehhhhaaa Doggie!  Wut wuz ah thinkin'?  Aw wuzzunt reedin'
> y'all's posts!  Been a Journalism type, ah wuz jist copy editin' 'em.
> 
> Oh, and if you would like to recreationally discuss the theoretical
> applications of time dialation, please let me know.  Oh, silly me, did
I
> mention I came here, years ago to study physics?  What WAS I thinking.
> 
> And here Texas A&M was offering me a scholarship.
> 
> Relativity arguement for you:
> 
> Blue fields can't happen.  Energy and matter are neither created nor
> destroyed, merely transformed (now where did I get that theory?).  As
> such, to go from having mass to having no mass (immaterial) would
require
> a (likely exothermic) release of energy.  As no such expendature
occurs,
> save a faint blue glow (bonus points for determining the candlepower of
a 
> formerly 1 kg target), blue fields don't happen.
> 
> Oh, but wait, it's MAGIC in a GAME.
>  
> > A couple of your statements might have been a little biased and
appear to
> > be your opinion. 
> 
> You think?
> 
> >This is fine, 
> 
> Thanks for your permission.
> 
> > but opinions that haven't been agreed upon
> > by other GMs I really don't think make an immutable or strong e basis
for
> > an argument for why a ruling should be one way or the other.  For
> 
> They make a wonderful basis for an argument.  If I took an agreeable
> rhetorical stand on a topic all participants agreed on, there would
exist
> no argument.
> 
> > example, almost none of the elemental spells specifically state that
some
> > of the element in question must be within touch distance of the
caster. 
> > Very few spells have a clause like this the vast majority do not. 
Now I
> > would agree that some fire spells don't work well underwater, but I
view
> > this not because water element opposes fire but because the effect of
> > these spells (producing flame) are immediately extinguished by the
water.
> >  In real life water will put out a fire no matter how that fire is
> > produced (oxidizers aside here).  Lack of Earth would not cause a
blue
> > field to not exist other than by made up qualifiers that aren't in
the
> > book.
> 
> If a spell were not element specific, at least on some level, it would
be
> core.  There's also a difference between saying I advocate touching
earth
> for the spell to work (I don't) and saying I think earth ought to exist
> within the dimension one wishes to cast an earth spell (I do).
> 
> > Now if the GM group voted on and agreed with the idea that the
> > element of the spell being cast must be present within blah radius in
> > order for the spell to work, your logic would be valid.  But as of
now I
> > know of no such consensus.
> >
> 
> Insofar as "If the group voted and passed the idea... blah (and it was
> implemented into the game)" Yes, you are correct.
>  
> > The other statement which was a little questionable was "They are
> > intended to be immeterial and immobile".  Yes the book right now says
> > these things but intended is an iffy statement since they were mobile
and
> > material for MANY, MANY years.  They were changed by Dan to prevent
some
> > specific bends.  Mainly the building material use which wasn't really
a
> > bend.
> > 
> 
> You seem to be arguing my point, but not reaching my conclusion.  The
> arguement goes like this:
> 
> "they were mobile and material for MANY, MANY years."
> "They were changed by Dan to prevent some specific bends."
> 
> going with the earlier posted progression of blue fields:
> 
> 1)	mobile and matterial	(many years)
> 2)	immobile and matterial	(1 wk)
> 3)	immobile and immatterial(since last year)
> 
> Now, seeing they changed from 1 to 2 indicates that the way they were
was
> unsatisfactory.
> As they then changed, within a week or two, to their current mechanism,
> indicates 1) the immobility was satisfactory, 2) the immatterial aspect
> was more desirable than the matterial aspect.
> 
> The progression indicates they were evaluated twice, and the current
> incarnation is, SO FAR, the most desirable to those doing the
evaluating.
> Now, if someone want's mobile blue fields, propose them.  If someone
wants
> material blue fields, propose them.
> 
> > The purpose of this discussion is to believe it or not reach a clear
> > concrete definition 
> 
> Correct
> 
> >(immobile relative to the nearest earth isn't that
> > concrete..ie is stone earth, what if earth that is more earthy is
moved
> > within the area of effect,
> 
> I will re-word my position in a following, shorter post.
> 
> I will address the x ft radius in that post.
> 
> gotta fry up some possum for lunch ;)
> 
> John
>