Cargo costs

[Straybow]

Do those revisions, anywhere, say "Interpret my written words as necessary to satisfy your desires"?

No. My point is that the words say only what the words themselves say. If you have to interpret the words from any other source, however authoritative, it isn't RAW, it is RAI.

Do those revisions DIRECTLY, word for word, contradict the 1977 version? If so, the revision is correct.

No, they don't contradict the 1977 version, they fail to correct the words and sentences that are unclear. They add to the confusion because the phrases that are still unchanged in 1981 are so easily and naturally read to mean the opposite.

If things are still unclear, the author has had ~36 years (since 1981) to update the rule if he thought it unclear and didn't. Thus the author thinks the written word is sufficient.

Just because the author thought he wrote clearly doesn't make it so.
Did he think he wrote clearly in 1977? Yes.
Did he? No.
Did he think the revision fixed it in 1981? Sure.
Did it? Not so much.

If those black and white words are not sufficient for you then you are inserting your opinion via your personal interpretation.

Not the point. My point is that the words themselves have meaning, and neither the original text nor the corrections alter the meanings of the unchanged words and the sentences they consist.

Clearly you are unwilling to consider anyone else's opinion as worth considering as a truth since it differs with your own, you are arguing for arguing's sake and not to improve your understanding or to improve the group's understanding of the rule.

Therefore, I return to run it the way you want in YTU, since you aren't willing to accept the word of the author as written.

Once again, I'm not contradicting what MWM says. It is when people (yourself, as an example) try to say that the words mean something else when they don't. For example, you keep saying that I don't understand what you say. I do understand what you say, and I point out that what you're saying is only an interpretation of what the words in the book say. Not what the words actually say. Which is different.

That's why I point out, for example, that the 1981 correction adds the phrase "requiring three separate tickets." The word "ticket" is nowhere defined, and therefore the correction doesn't actually change the interpretation. In fact, the concept of multijump passage is reinforced in the correction, and therefore it strengthens the per parsec interpretation instead of weakening it.

Anybody else think that Straybow is really just Marc screwing around with us?

Hahaha. No, no. If Marc were making these arguments, he'd have issued an errata long ago.

It doesn't matter if MWM began every public and private encounter since 1977 with a verbal assurance that he always intended and meant that pricing was per jump. It still doesn't change what the written words say, and where they are unclear and contradictory they remain so. If you have MWM's verbal interpretation, well and good. If you're picking up the books and reading them for your self, you might lean upon something quaint like "logic," which cannot magically communicate the writer's mind outside of the words.

 

[pendragonman]

Ticket:

tick·et
ˈtikit/Submit
noun
1.
a piece of paper or small card that gives the holder a certain right, especially to enter a place, travel by public transport, or participate in an event.
"admission is by ticket only"
synonyms: pass, authorization, permit, token, coupon, voucher; transfer
"present your ticket at the gate"
2.
a certificate or warrant, in particular.
verb
1.
issue (someone) with an official notice of a traffic or other offense.
"park illegally and you are likely to be ticketed"
2.
(of a passenger) be issued with a travel ticket.

This is what the black and white word ticket means, according to Webster. Clearly this was good enough for the author. (AND GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME)

Since it is not good enough for you, you are inserting your opinion.

 

[Supplement Four]

Straybow, just run it the way you want and ignore the gallery. It doesn't matter if we're all "correct" and you are not (or, even the other way around).

Run your game for maximum enjoyment.

 

[pendragonman]

Straybow, just run it the way you want and ignore the gallery. It doesn't matter if we're all "correct" and you are not (or, even the other way around).

Run your game for maximum enjoyment.

That is what I have been trying to tell him. Run it the way you want in YTU.

What he wants is to convince us of his position.

 

[Straybow]

The definition says nothing about how much the ticket costs. Or whether three tickets for three legs could be booked for one trip.

Again, I give the example of the airline fare. When you book a trip, it doesn't matter whether it is on one plane going direct, or one plane with a stopover, or two planes with a change at the layover. Getting to the destination is what you are paying for.

You could book originally on a two-plane route with a long layover, and the airline could bump you to a direct route flight that ends up getting you there sooner than the original time. You would then exchange your original two tickets for one ticket. No change of price for you.

Note that in this case, someone else on the same flight could easily pay much more, or much less, than what you paid. It is based on when the trip was booked, and price goes up as departure gets nearer. For Traveller, the passage price is always the same without upcharges for late booking or discounts for early booking (unless chartering the whole ship).

 

[Straybow]

Straybow, just run it the way you want and ignore the gallery. It doesn't matter if we're all "correct" and you are not (or, even the other way around).

Run your game for maximum enjoyment.

We did run it per parsec back in the day BECAUSE we thought that was RAW.

My original point was that per jump doesn't make economic sense for the OTU. My following point was that per parsec is RAW because INTERPRETATION is befuddled due to the wording of the rules.

And I find it subtly humorous that the corrections issued in 1981 don't actually fix the problem in the wording. It still says that J3 = 3×J1 to reach a destination three map hexes away...

 

[Supplement Four]

What he wants is to convince us of his position.

Well, that's not going to happen, because he is not correct.

We did run it per parsec back in the day BECAUSE we thought that was RAW.

It is RAW. I'm sorry that you cannot accept that.

But, hey, rock-n-roll, hoochie koo!

Roll it all up in the stew.

 

[aramis]

[m;]thread closed for going round in pointless circles.[/m;]

And for pushing to the point of borderline insulting in tone on several people's part.