Parity Shift Q
davey!
Parity Shift
Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1 stealth. Choose a Methuselah who
has more blood in his or her pool than you do. Allocate X of that pool
among the other remaining Methuselahs (including you), where X is the
number of Methuselahs in the game. Successful referendum means the chosen
Methuselah loses that pool, and it is allocated as you announced.
This may seem like a stupid wustion, but... say it's a 5 player game.
Can you allocate all 5 pool to yourself?
Gomi no Sensei
Since Parity Shift doesn't restrict your distribution scheme in any
way, sure. Go nuts.
gomi
--
Yes, I believe but I'd rather not pray
What I believe in I'd rather not say, baby
Reyda
"davey!" <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> a écrit dans le message news:
Pine.GSO.4.21.010614...@harper.uchicago.edu...
Yes.
reyda
davey!
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Gomi no Sensei wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.010614...@harper.uchicago.edu>,
> davey! <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Parity Shift
> >
> >Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1 stealth. Choose a Methuselah who
> >has more blood in his or her pool than you do. Allocate X of that pool
> >among the other remaining Methuselahs (including you), where X is the
> >number of Methuselahs in the game. Successful referendum means the chosen
> >Methuselah loses that pool, and it is allocated as you announced.
> >
> >This may seem like a stupid wustion, but... say it's a 5 player game.
> >Can you allocate all 5 pool to yourself?
>
> Since Parity Shift doesn't restrict your distribution scheme in any
> way, sure. Go nuts.
Yeah, that's what I thought. That's how it typically gets played.
So we have this phrasing "Allocate X among the other players," and we can
choose to allocate to one player.
But conventional wisdom also states that you can't do the same type of
allocation for Conservative Agitation. CA states:
Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Allocate X points between two or
more Methuselahs, where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game.
Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point
assigned.
The only difference in phrasing is "between" versus "among" - but that's
grammatical. (X goes "between" two things and "among" a number of
things.) So it seems like Parity Shift shouldn't work the way people
think it does. It would make sense if it were phrased "among any number
of the remaining methuselahs," but of course it doesn't say that.
So why the difference? LSJ?
Flux
"davey!" <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010621...@harper.uchicago.edu...
> Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Allocate X points between two or
> more Methuselahs, where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game.
> Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point
> assigned.
>
> The only difference in phrasing is "between" versus "among" - but that's
> grammatical. (X goes "between" two things and "among" a number of
> things.) So it seems like Parity Shift shouldn't work the way people
> think it does. It would make sense if it were phrased "among any number
> of the remaining methuselahs," but of course it doesn't say that.
>
> So why the difference? LSJ?
"Allocate X points between _two or more_ Methuselah's..."
CA specifically states that those points must be distributed between _at
least_ two methuselah's, so you can't put them all on one player. On Parity
Shift the number isn't restricted in any way, so 1 is a valid choice.
LSJ: it's probably a good idea to post an 'official' FAQ on the WW site,
next to the rulings/errata file. There are quite a few new players around,
and most of them don't think of searching the newsgroup archives to find
their answers.
Flux
jeroen rombouts
> So we have this phrasing "Allocate X among the other players," and we can
> choose to allocate to one player.
>
> Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Allocate X points between two or
> more Methuselahs, where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game.
> Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point
> assigned.
>
> The only difference in phrasing is "between" versus "among" - but that's
> grammatical. (X goes "between" two things and "among" a number of
> things.) So it seems like Parity Shift shouldn't work the way people
> think it does. It would make sense if it were phrased "among any number
> of the remaining methuselahs," but of course it doesn't say that.
>
> So why the difference? LSJ?
I'm not a native English speaker, but I think you are blaming the wrong
phrase. Key phrase in Conservative Agitation is: ".... between TWO OR MORE
Methuselahs...". That explicitly forbids doing all damage to 1 player.
Jeroen
LSJ
What's the question exactly?
--
LSJ
Gomi no Sensei
He wants to know why Parity shift can allocate to exactly one Methuselah,
but Conservative Agitation cannot. The answer, of course, is explicit
cardtext on Conservative Agitation: "two or more Methuselahs."
LSJ
OK. Correct.
--
LSJ
davey!
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Flux wrote:
> "davey!" <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010621...@harper.uchicago.edu...
> >
> > [ Parity Shift vs. Conservative Agitation - text & usage ]
> >
> > So why the difference? LSJ?
>
> "Allocate X points between _two or more_ Methuselah's..."
>
> CA specifically states that those points must be distributed between
> _at least_ two methuselah's, so you can't put them all on one player.
You miunderstand me. I wrote "So it seems like Parity Shift shouldn't
work the way people think it does." I am not questioning how CA is
played. I am questioning why Parity Shift is not played the same way.
Conservative Agitation states:
"Allocate X points between two or more Methuselah's..."
Parity Shift states:
"Allocate X of that pool among the other remaining Methuselahs..."
In each case we have instructions of the form:
"Allocate X [between/among] Y players..."
As I observed, the between/among is a grammatical distinction only.
For Conservative Agitation, Y = 2 or more, your choice. As is frequently
pointed out, each member of the set of Y players must get at least one of
X - that's how we've defined allocate. This is not up for question.
For Parity Shift, Y = 4 in a 5 player game. By our definition of
allocate, each member of the set of Y players must get at least one point.
So that impliess a 2/1/1/1 split - a 5/0/0/0 split can't work, since that
would mean allocating 0 to some of the players. So it seems like Parity
Shift doesn't work the way people think it does....
> On Parity Shift the number isn't restricted in any way, so 1 is a
> valid choice.
Au contraire: it's restricted to exactly "the other remaining
Methuselahs."
> LSJ: it's probably a good idea to post an 'official' FAQ on the WW
> site, next to the rulings/errata file. There are quite a few new
> players around, and most of them don't think of searching the
> newsgroup archives to find their answers.
I fully agreee, however I am not a new player, and I did search newsgroup
archives :-P
For Parity shift, I referred to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=39A6A770.3908AC66%40white-wolf.com
For Conservative Agitaion (actually, Kine Resources Contested, oops):
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=395202EF.5301AA2E%40white-wolf.com
These two answers seem contradictory. I didn't see any messages
addressing the contradiction. Perhaps someone could post one now? LSJ?
davey!
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Gomi no Sensei wrote:
> In article <9gtdkl$dtn$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >What's the question exactly?
>
> He wants to know why Parity shift can allocate to exactly one
> Methuselah, but Conservative Agitation cannot.
Yes.
> The answer, of course, is explicit cardtext on Conservative Agitation:
> "two or more Methuselahs."
No. Sheesh. Everyone got it backwards :-)
I know how Conservative Agitation works. If I allocate X among a set of
methuselahs, everyone agrees that each methuselah in the set must get at
least 1 of X, right?
I now refer you to Parity Shift's own explicit card text: "Allocate X pool
among the other remaining Methuselahs." "The other remaining methuselahs"
is a fixed set of methuselahs - 4 in a 5 player game. To allocate X among
them means each must receive at least 1 of X. This implies a 2/1/1/1
split. But everyone, LSJ included, is saying that 5/0/0/0 is also ok.
This seems like a contradiction.
Gomi no Sensei
davey! <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Gomi no Sensei wrote:
>> In article <9gtdkl$dtn$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>,
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> >What's the question exactly?
>> He wants to know why Parity shift can allocate to exactly one
>> Methuselah, but Conservative Agitation cannot.
>Yes.
>> The answer, of course, is explicit cardtext on Conservative Agitation:
>> "two or more Methuselahs."
>No. Sheesh. Everyone got it backwards :-)
>I know how Conservative Agitation works. If I allocate X among a set of
>methuselahs, everyone agrees that each methuselah in the set must get at
>least 1 of X, right?
Yep.
>I now refer you to Parity Shift's own explicit card text: "Allocate X pool
>among the other remaining Methuselahs." "The other remaining methuselahs"
>is a fixed set of methuselahs - 4 in a 5 player game. To allocate X among
>them means each must receive at least 1 of X. This implies a 2/1/1/1
>split. But everyone, LSJ included, is saying that 5/0/0/0 is also ok.
>This seems like a contradiction.
Ah, now I geddit.
I agree, the PS text isn't super clear about this. A strict reading
hinges on the difference between 'among' and 'between', which is
tenuous at best. It does look like the set is defined as {non-target
Methuselahs}, versus CA's {2 to all Methuselahs}. In both cases
distribution could be (at least 1 to each setmember) or (0 to
a given setmember is OK), but what we seem to have now is one of each.
Hrmph. Well, I want to argue that there's support in text for PS
working as we all 'know' it does, but it's proving elusive to my
tiny brane. LSJ?
The only thing I can come up with is that it doesn't say 'all the other
remaining Methuselahs,' but that's damned tenuous grounds to hang
anything on.
Xian
"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message
news:9gttv4$1lm4$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> I agree, the PS text isn't super clear about this. A strict reading
> hinges on the difference between 'among' and 'between', which is
> tenuous at best. It does look like the set is defined as {non-target
> Methuselahs}, versus CA's {2 to all Methuselahs}. In both cases
> distribution could be (at least 1 to each setmember) or (0 to
> a given setmember is OK), but what we seem to have now is one of each.
Conservative Agitation: Allocate X points between two or more
Methuselahs where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game
Read as: Allocate X to a set of 2 or more Methuselahs...
Parity Shift: Allocate X of that pool among the other remaining
Methuselahs (including you), where X is the number of Methuselahs in the
game. Successful referendum means the chosen Methuselah loses that
pool, and it is allocated as you announced.
Read as: Allocate pool equal to the number of Methuselahs in the game
as you see fit...
I'm pulling this interpretation not from my ass, but from the final
sentence that starts with "Successful referendum..." and ends with the
(big words here) *important part* "...it is allocated as you announced."
If it were supposed to be allocated as 1 to all remaining Methuselahs
and the last point to the named Methuselah (presumably you), it would be
worded that way. ("Each remaning Methuselah gets 1 pool, and the named
Methuselah gets the remaining point. The chosen Methuselah loses X
pool." etc.) On the other hand, it is worded "allocated as you
announced" indicating that you can divide up the pool among any set (of
1 *or* more) of the remaining Methuselahs as you see fit.
Xian
James Coupe
<Pine.GSO.4.21.010621...@harper.uchicago.edu>, davey!
<dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes
>I know how Conservative Agitation works. If I allocate X among a set of
>methuselahs, everyone agrees that each methuselah in the set must get at
>least 1 of X, right?
The reason for this isn't a "set" of anything. It just says two or more
Methuselahs. If you only allocate to one, you've only allocated to one.
Remove the set theory from your thinking and it works.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
"You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F
an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6
Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D
LSJ
> These two answers seem contradictory. I didn't see any messages
> addressing the contradiction. Perhaps someone could post one now? LSJ?
Parity Shift allocates the pool among the specified players.
CA allocates the pool loss similarly among all the players, but must
be allocated between at least two.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ
> I now refer you to Parity Shift's own explicit card text: "Allocate X pool
> among the other remaining Methuselahs." "The other remaining methuselahs"
> is a fixed set of methuselahs - 4 in a 5 player game. To allocate X among
> them means each must receive at least 1 of X. This implies a 2/1/1/1
> split. But everyone, LSJ included, is saying that 5/0/0/0 is also ok.
> This seems like a contradiction.
5/0/0/0 is permitted because card text doesn't say you have to split it up
between two or more (or between all four of you).
davey!
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, James Coupe wrote:
> In message
> <Pine.GSO.4.21.010621...@harper.uchicago.edu>, davey!
> <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes
> >I know how Conservative Agitation works. If I allocate X among a set of
> >methuselahs, everyone agrees that each methuselah in the set must get at
> >least 1 of X, right?
>
> The reason for this isn't a "set" of anything. It just says two or
> more Methuselahs. If you only allocate to one, you've only allocated
> to one.
Did you even read the post? The operation of Conservative Agitation is
not in question. We agree. For Conservative Agitation you can't allocate
to one methuselah, because one methuselah is not "two or more
methuselahs." I repeat, this is not up for question.
But by the very same logic, for Parity Shift, you can't allocate to one
methuselah because (in a 5 player game) one methuselah is not "the other
remaining Methuselahs." Applying the same logic as CA to Parity Shift
implies the same conclusion - a conclusion that's different from the way
Parity Shift is currently ruled to be played.
davey!
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
> "davey!" wrote:
> > These two answers seem contradictory. I didn't see any messages
> > addressing the contradiction. Perhaps someone could post one now? LSJ?
>
> Parity Shift allocates the pool among the specified players.
>
> CA allocates the pool loss similarly among all the players, but must
> be allocated between at least two.
This isn't addressing the contradiction, it's just restating it. You seem
to be using the word "allocate" in an inconsistent way here. I thought
the idea was
"Allocate X among Y"
implies
"Each Y gets at least one X."
Is this not the case?
davey!
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
> "davey!" wrote:
> > [ Parity Shift 5/0/0/0 split not allowed? ]
>
> 5/0/0/0 is permitted because card text doesn't say you have to split
> it up between two or more (or between all four of you).
Ok, so from this I infer that Conservative Agitation's card text instructs
you to split X (a point on which we agree.) The ONLY relevant card text
is:
Allocate X points between two or more Methuselahs
i.e. allocate X to Y, with a specification on what Y can be. The
specification includes a minimum possible size for Y. The minimum size is
2, hence the "splitting." We are in agreement. This has never been
questioned.
Now look at Parity Shift:
Allocate X of that pool among the other remaining Methuselahs
i.e. allocate X to Y with a specification on what Y can be, as above.
This time the specification is an EXACT specification. Thus there is a
specific size of Y (4 in a 5 player game.) Thus Y has a minimum possible
size (4 in a 5 player game.) Hence if you apply the same logic as before,
you should get the same conclusion - you must split X. Here we disagree.
I know your position. Please don't restate it. Please JUSTIFY it, and by
"it" I don't want an explanation of how Conservative Agitation works. We
have always agreed on that. Use a CONSISTENT use of the word "allocate"
or explain why it's not consistent, given that each card instructs you to
allocate to Y methuselahs and Y != 1 in both cases (in a 5 player game.)
LSJ
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
>
> > "davey!" wrote:
> > > These two answers seem contradictory. I didn't see any messages
> > > addressing the contradiction. Perhaps someone could post one now? LSJ?
> >
> > Parity Shift allocates the pool among the specified players.
> >
> > CA allocates the pool loss similarly among all the players, but must
> > be allocated between at least two.
>
> This isn't addressing the contradiction, it's just restating it. You seem
> to be using the word "allocate" in an inconsistent way here. I thought
Sorry you missed it. It's actually addressing the perceived contradiction
in a manner which attempts to explain why it is not a contradiction. Both
statements above use "allocate" in the same way as each other (as do the
cards); a concept I tried to emphasize by the use of the word "similarly".
There's no inconsistency in the use.
> the idea was
>
> "Allocate X among Y"
>
> implies
>
> "Each Y gets at least one X."
>
> Is this not the case?
No, as stated. Allocate is being used in the same way each time - it's
the restriction on how the allocation is done (given in card text on
CA and absent from PS) that makes the difference, as indicated in the
section you quoted above.
To get "Each Y gets at least one X", the card should use "allocate X
between Y or more Methuselahs".
LSJ
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
> > "davey!" wrote:
> > > [ Parity Shift 5/0/0/0 split not allowed? ]
> >
> > 5/0/0/0 is permitted because card text doesn't say you have to split
> > it up between two or more (or between all four of you).
>
> Ok, so from this I infer that Conservative Agitation's card text instructs
> you to split X (a point on which we agree.) The ONLY relevant card text
> is:
>
> Allocate X points between two or more Methuselahs
>
> i.e. allocate X to Y, with a specification on what Y can be. The
> specification includes a minimum possible size for Y. The minimum size is
> 2, hence the "splitting." We are in agreement. This has never been
> questioned.
The instructions specify that the allocation must be between at least
two Methuselah. Hence, it must be between two or more Methuselah.
> Now look at Parity Shift:
>
> Allocate X of that pool among the other remaining Methuselahs
>
> i.e. allocate X to Y with a specification on what Y can be, as above.
Different than above.
CA is equivalent to "Allocate X points among all Methuselahs, but between
two or more of them."
> This time the specification is an EXACT specification. Thus there is a
> specific size of Y (4 in a 5 player game.) Thus Y has a minimum possible
> size (4 in a 5 player game.) Hence if you apply the same logic as before,
> you should get the same conclusion - you must split X. Here we disagree.
Yes, we disagree.
> I know your position. Please don't restate it. Please JUSTIFY it, and by
> "it" I don't want an explanation of how Conservative Agitation works. We
> have always agreed on that. Use a CONSISTENT use of the word "allocate"
> or explain why it's not consistent, given that each card instructs you to
> allocate to Y methuselahs and Y != 1 in both cases (in a 5 player game.)
Justification: card text, designer intent, current rulings.
Allocate is being used consistently.
James Coupe
<Pine.GSO.4.21.010622...@harper.uchicago.edu>, davey!
<dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes
>> The reason for this isn't a "set" of anything. It just says two or
>> more Methuselahs. If you only allocate to one, you've only allocated
>> to one.
>
>Did you even read the post?
Yes.
HTH HAND
Aaron
Maybe used consistantly, but used wrong. Allocate, the literall
meaning is to "to apportion for a specific purpose or to particular
persons or things : DISTRIBUTE" personS being the key word, meaning
multiple people. Or check the synonom distribute, which means "to
divide among several or many" not to 'give everything to me' The idea
of dividing something into 1 part..well thats not division is it? The
act of 'Allocation' 'division' and 'distribution' are non-sensical
with only 1 target.
If I had $100, and there were 4 of us in the room, and I decided to
"allocate" all $100 to me...well I have not allocated anything, I just
kept it all.
I believe that card text is bad, designer intent is fuzzy at
best...but you got current rulings on your side.
Perhaps you are looking for the word "Assign" which would function as
you believe the card should function. Assigning the remaining pool
makes no assumtion of parts, which allocation does. I can easily
assign you no homework. I cannot divide the homework just to me.
davey!
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, James Coupe wrote:
> In message
> <Pine.GSO.4.21.010622...@harper.uchicago.edu>, davey!
> <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes
> >> The reason for this isn't a "set" of anything. It just says two or
> >> more Methuselahs. If you only allocate to one, you've only allocated
> >> to one.
> >
> >Did you even read the post?
>
> Yes.
Well then, why not address the point instead of dropping useless net
acronyms?
You say: If you allocate to one, it's not allocating to "two or more."
I say: If you allocate to one, you're not allocating to "the other
remaining MethuselahS."
You say: absolutely nothing to address this inconsistency in your point of
view.
HAND yourself.
Wes
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
>
> HTH HAND
Ok... Derek was nice enough to tell me what WABT means. Now what the hell
does HTH HAND mean? I'd hazard a guess, but I'd be... well, very wrong.
Cheers,
WES
Derek Ray
wrote:
"Hope this helps! Have a nice day!"
...taken from the Perky Legions(tm) who infested (and still do) any
technical-help forum or newsgroup... and who consistently and cheerily
dispense 100% incorrect information. Alternatively, they correctly
answer a question completely different from the one being asked.
-- Derek
Cameron
HAND == Have A Nice Day
HTH == no clue, ask someone else
Cameron
Joshua Duffin
> > In message
> > <Pine.GSO.4.21.010622...@harper.uchicago.edu>, davey!
> > <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes
> > >> The reason for this isn't a "set" of anything. It just says two or
> > >> more Methuselahs. If you only allocate to one, you've only allocated
> > >> to one.
[someone else said something]
> You say: If you allocate to one, it's not allocating to "two or more."
>
> I say: If you allocate to one, you're not allocating to "the other
> remaining MethuselahS."
Well, I'm not the person you were replying to, but anyway:
It seems to me that "the other remaining Methuselahs" (nitpick: one
of "other/remaining" is redundant) is not intended to specify
a fixed set of players, all of whom must receive pool, but rather
to specify who is eligible to receive pool: everyone except the
person losing it.
Note that the "among/between" choice is *not* determined simply by
whether you're talking about two things or more than two; www.m-w.com
says:
"There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used
only of two items and that among must be used for more than two.
Between has been used of more than two since Old English; it is
especially appropriate to denote a one-to-one relationship,
regardless of the number of items. It can be used when the number
is unspecified <economic cooperation between nations>, when more
than two are enumerated <between you and me and the lamppost>
<partitioned between Austria, Prussia, and Russia -- Nathaniel
Benchley>, and even when only one item is mentioned (but repetition
is implied) <pausing between every sentence to rap the floor --
George Eliot>. Among is more appropriate where the emphasis is on
distribution rather than individual relationships <discontent among
the peasants>. When among is automatically chosen for more than two,
English idiom may be strained <a worthy book that nevertheless falls
among many stools -- John Simon> <the author alternates among mod
slang, clichés and quotes from literary giants -- A. H. Johnston>. "
Now, I'm not sure that that sheds any light on the issue, but hey.
As far as I can see, if the writers had intended to require Parity
Shift pool to be divided evenly among all the non-Shifted Meths,
they would have said so in a more transparent form, like "Choose a
Methuselah with more pool than you. Successful referendum means that
that Methuselah loses X pool, where X is the number of Methuselahs
in the game, and all other Methuselahs gain 1 of that pool, except
that one Methuselah of your choice gains 2 instead."
Josh
posting up a storm today
(or something)
davey!
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
> "davey!" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
> >
> > > Parity Shift allocates the pool among the specified players.
> > >
> > > CA allocates the pool loss similarly among all the players, but must
> > > be allocated between at least two.
> >
> > This isn't addressing the contradiction, it's just restating it. You seem
> > to be using the word "allocate" in an inconsistent way here.
>
> Sorry you missed it. It's actually addressing the perceived
> contradiction in a manner which attempts to explain why it is not a
> contradiction. Both statements above use "allocate" in the same way as
> each other (as do the cards); a concept I tried to emphasize by the
> use of the word "similarly". There's no inconsistency in the use.
Let me go back and point it out to you:
If I play CA and choose to allocate between two players, I can't split it
5/0. This violates the "between at least two" clause. Apparently, that's
because you can't allocate 0 to someone. I thought all this was a given.
You say:
> > > Parity Shift allocates the pool among the specified players.
> > >
> > > CA allocates the pool loss similarly among all the players,
Here you state that CA always allocates among ALL players. This weird use
of the word "allocate" allows 0 to be allocated to some, inconsistent with
the given usage.
> > > but must be allocated between at least two.
Here you observe the allocation restriction "between at least two."
Well, if we are already automatically allocating among all the players, as
you state above, that must be at least two. And if we can allocate 0 to
some of them, as with your usage above, why not 0 to all but one? This
contradicts the given assumption.
When allocating X to Y, either some of Y can get 0 or none of them can.
It's either allowed or it's not. Otherwise you are contradicting
yourself, it would seem.
> > I thought the idea was
> >
> > "Allocate X among Y"
> >
> > implies
> >
> > "Each Y gets at least one X."
> >
> > Is this not the case?
>
> No, as stated. Allocate is being used in the same way each time - it's
> the restriction on how the allocation is done (given in card text on
> CA and absent from PS) that makes the difference, as indicated in the
> section you quoted above.
PS also has a restriction - you are restricted to exactly the other
Methuselahs. Note that it does not say "among all Methuselahs" (and
neither does Conservative Agitation.)
> To get "Each Y gets at least one X", the card should use "allocate X
> between Y or more Methuselahs".
Q1: Is the difference between "allocate X between Y or more" and "allocate
X among Y or more" intended to be anything other than grammatical in this
usage?
Q2: For Parity Shift to work the way I think it does, you're saying it
would have to be phrased:
"Allocate X pool between N or more of the other Methuselahs, where N =
the number of the other Methuselahs."
?
davey!
On 22 Jun 2001, Joshua Duffin wrote:
> davey! <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.01062...@harper.uchicago.edu>...
>
> > > In message
> > > <Pine.GSO.4.21.010622...@harper.uchicago.edu>, davey!
> > > <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes
> > > >> The reason for this isn't a "set" of anything. It just says two or
> > > >> more Methuselahs. If you only allocate to one, you've only allocated
> > > >> to one.
>
> [someone else said something]
>
> > You say: If you allocate to one, it's not allocating to "two or more."
> >
> > I say: If you allocate to one, you're not allocating to "the other
> > remaining MethuselahS."
>
> It seems to me that "the other remaining Methuselahs" (nitpick: one of
> "other/remaining" is redundant) is not intended to specify a fixed set
> of players, all of whom must receive pool, but rather to specify who
> is eligible to receive pool: everyone except the person losing it.
Then shouldn't it say "Among one or more of the other remaining
Methuselahs" instead of the more precise, fixed set "the other remaining
Methuselahs?"
> (nitpick: one of "other/remaining" is redundant)
Hey, it's card text, not me :-)
> Note that the "among/between" choice is *not* determined simply by
> whether you're talking about two things or more than two; www.m-w.com
> says:
Very cool :-) But I don't think it applies to the usage at hand, since...
> "There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used
> only of two items and that among must be used for more than two.
> Between has been used of more than two since Old English; it is
> especially appropriate to denote a one-to-one relationship, regardless
> of the number of items.
> It can be used when the number is unspecified <economic cooperation
> between nations>,
...this is different because it's talking about things which are actually
pairwise in between the members of the group - each nation has a relation
with each other nation...
> when more than two are enumerated <between you and me and the
> lamppost>
...the cards don't enumerate...
> <partitioned between Austria, Prussia, and Russia -- Nathaniel
> Benchley>,
...this is like the "relations" example above - partitions go in between
things...
> and even when only one item is mentioned (but repetition is implied)
> <pausing between every sentence to rap the floor -- George Eliot>.
...another in-betweener. Different from card usage.
> Among is more appropriate where the emphasis is on distribution rather
> than individual relationships <discontent among the peasants>.
This would seem to substantiate my claim. Perhaps Conservative Agitation
should be worded "*among* 2 or more methuselahs?"
> Now, I'm not sure that that sheds any light on the issue, but hey. As
> far as I can see, if the writers had intended to require Parity Shift
> pool to be divided evenly among all the non-Shifted Meths, they would
> have said so in a more transparent form, like "Choose a Methuselah
> with more pool than you. Successful referendum means that that
> Methuselah loses X pool, where X is the number of Methuselahs in the
> game, and all other Methuselahs gain 1 of that pool, except that one
> Methuselah of your choice gains 2 instead."
We know the current text's writers' intent, since LSJ (presumably)
contributed the writing of the current text. I'm not here to debate the
writers' intent - if so, we might be talking about Concealed Weapon. All
I'm saying is current wording is consistent between Parity Shift and
Conservative Agitation, but current interpretation is not.
davey!
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
> "davey!" wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
> > > "davey!" wrote:
> > > > [ Parity Shift 5/0/0/0 split not allowed? ]
> > >
> > > 5/0/0/0 is permitted because card text doesn't say you have to split
> > > it up between two or more (or between all four of you).
> >
> > Ok, so from this I infer that Conservative Agitation's card text instructs
> > you to split X (a point on which we agree.) The ONLY relevant card text
> > is:
> >
> > Allocate X points between two or more Methuselahs
> >
> > i.e. allocate X to Y, with a specification on what Y can be. The
> > specification includes a minimum possible size for Y. The minimum size is
> > 2, hence the "splitting." We are in agreement. This has never been
> > questioned.
>
> The instructions specify that the allocation must be between at least
> two Methuselah. Hence, it must be between two or more Methuselah.
Parity Shift's instructions specify that the allocation must be among the
other remaining Methuselahs. Hence, it must be among the other remaining
Methuselahs...
> CA is equivalent to "Allocate X points among all Methuselahs, but
> between two or more of them."
Either there's a difference between "between" and "among," or in one case
you're allocating 0 to some, and in the other you're forbidding it, which
is inconsistent.
>
> > This time the specification is an EXACT specification. Thus there is a
> > specific size of Y (4 in a 5 player game.) Thus Y has a minimum possible
> > size (4 in a 5 player game.) Hence if you apply the same logic as before,
> > you should get the same conclusion - you must split X. Here we disagree.
>
> Yes, we disagree.
>
> > I know your position. Please don't restate it. Please JUSTIFY it, and by
> > "it" I don't want an explanation of how Conservative Agitation works. We
> > have always agreed on that. Use a CONSISTENT use of the word "allocate"
> > or explain why it's not consistent, given that each card instructs you to
> > allocate to Y methuselahs and Y != 1 in both cases (in a 5 player game.)
>
> Justification: card text,
Since we're talking about interpretation of card text, we're both claiming
to be correct because "that's what the card says." This is not
justification unless you say WHY your interpretation is right and mine is
not, and you apply consistent reasoning, as I have done and you have not.
> designer intent,
If you know the designer intent, you should correct the card text
accordingly. Like what happened with Cat's Guidance.
> current rulings.
Nothing about it on http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulings.html
> Allocate is being used consistently.
Riiiight...
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > CA is equivalent to "Allocate X points among all Methuselahs, but
> > between two or more of them."
>
> Either there's a difference between "between" and "among," or in one case
> you're allocating 0 to some, and in the other you're forbidding it, which
> is inconsistent.
Correct. The former. The difference isn't fixed, though. It's just a matter
of usage. English is funny like that.
> > designer intent,
>
> If you know the designer intent, you should correct the card text
> accordingly. Like what happened with Cat's Guidance.
Designer intent or not, Cats' Guidance inferior was not usable before.
The situations are different, since Cat's Guidance had no room for
interpretation that would allow it to be useful.
> > current rulings.
>
> Nothing about it on http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulings.html
And yet you seem to know what the ruling is.
Joshua Duffin
> On 22 Jun 2001, Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > It seems to me that "the other remaining Methuselahs" (nitpick: one of
> > "other/remaining" is redundant) is not intended to specify a fixed set
> > of players, all of whom must receive pool, but rather to specify who
> > is eligible to receive pool: everyone except the person losing it.
>
> Then shouldn't it say "Among one or more of the other remaining
> Methuselahs" instead of the more precise, fixed set "the other remaining
> Methuselahs?"
See, I don't think that's meant as a fixed set. It doesn't say "one
or more of the other Methuselahs", but I think that is what it means.
If it does in fact mean "among *all* the other Methuselahs" it should
say so rather than omitting "all".
If card text were to be changed to clear up this confusion, it seems
to me that it might make more sense to change Conservative Agitation's
wording than Parity Shift's - it makes perfect sense to me to allocate
something with 0 going to some of the allocatees, but ConAg doesn't
want to let you do that. So ConAg should specify "at least 1 point to
at least 2 Methuselahs".
> > (nitpick: one of "other/remaining" is redundant)
>
> Hey, it's card text, not me :-)
Yeah, I know. I was just nitpicking the poor choice of words that
shows up on cards sometimes. ;-)
> > Note that the "among/between" choice is *not* determined simply by
> > whether you're talking about two things or more than two; www.m-w.com
> > says:
>
> Very cool :-) But I don't think it applies to the usage at hand, since...
No, you're probably right; it sounds to me like "between" is always
appropriate for two things, they're just trying to point out that it
can also be used for more than two (where Parity Shift used "among"
for (potentially) more than two).
> > Among is more appropriate where the emphasis is on distribution rather
> > than individual relationships <discontent among the peasants>.
>
> This would seem to substantiate my claim. Perhaps Conservative Agitation
> should be worded "*among* 2 or more methuselahs?"
Ah, but note that "discontent among the peasants" does not imply
that *every* peasant is discontented. :-)
> We know the current text's writers' intent, since LSJ (presumably)
> contributed the writing of the current text. I'm not here to debate the
> writers' intent - if so, we might be talking about Concealed Weapon. All
> I'm saying is current wording is consistent between Parity Shift and
> Conservative Agitation, but current interpretation is not.
I think you have a point there, except that I don't read Parity Shift
as specifying the set that you think it does.
Josh
parsin' and stealin'
Derek Ray
>davey! <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.010624...@harper.uchicago.edu>...
>> > Among is more appropriate where the emphasis is on distribution rather
>> > than individual relationships <discontent among the peasants>.
>>
>> This would seem to substantiate my claim. Perhaps Conservative Agitation
>> should be worded "*among* 2 or more methuselahs?"
>
>Ah, but note that "discontent among the peasants" does not imply
>that *every* peasant is discontented. :-)
Actually, it quite substantiates the current interpretation.
'Discontent among the peasants' is perfectly capable of meaning that
only one peasant is discontented... although he may be trying very
hard to get OTHER peasants discontented too, it is a completely valid
meaning to assume that it refers to only one peasant among many.
-- Derek
Aaron
> "davey!" wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > CA is equivalent to "Allocate X points among all Methuselahs, but
> > > between two or more of them."
> >
> > Either there's a difference between "between" and "among," or in one case
> > you're allocating 0 to some, and in the other you're forbidding it, which
> > is inconsistent.
>
> Correct. The former. The difference isn't fixed, though. It's just a matter
> of usage. English is funny like that.
It's also funny that allocate means to divide, and I didn't see how
you think division amongst 1 person can happen? "Allocate" "among"
and "Methuselahs" are all refering to a set of more then 1. Please
explain how there can me 1 Methuselah*S*?
LSJ
Allocate: distribute; designate. Not exactly "divide". (www.m-w.com)
At any rate, even if one usage of "allocate" is equivalent to
"divide", not all instances of "allocate" mean "divide between two or
more". See above. If I have my portfolio allocated as "100% stocks", I
still have it allocated. I'm sure some wills have allocated an
inheritence to a single individuals. etc.
PS allocates the pool among a set (possibly even a set of 1) of
Methuselah(s). It doesn't force the allocation to be divided between
"2 or more" members of that set (which, indeed, would be impossible
when the game is down to just two players) - you are free to allocate
it all to one member of the specified set.
Contrast CA which allocates the X points among all Methuselah(s) with
the additional restriction that the allocation be between 2 or more of
the members of the (implied) set (of all Methuselahs in the game).
James Coupe
<roans...@yahoo.com> writes
>It's also funny that allocate means to divide, and I didn't see how
>you think division amongst 1 person can happen?
Ask your Maths teacher?
Johan Lundstrom
>Aaron <roans...@yahoo.com> writes
>>It's also funny that allocate means to divide, and I didn't see how
>>you think division amongst 1 person can happen?
>
>Ask your Maths teacher?
Now, division among 0 persons, that's the trick... ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se>
"Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."