[Discuss] Kinda weird question.

[Timothy Collett]

On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Peter Weisberg wrote:

> On 7/31/06, Alex Davies <the1exile at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> training/cohesion will increase, and they will be looked on more  
>> favourable
>> by the man who made the request in the first place. I also use it  
>> too see
>
> This is the #1 reason why requests from the higher-ups are looked on
> the same way as orders.  It's so significant that there's no point in
> discussing other reasons.  Even if the order-giver truly doesn't care,
> people underneath him will think that by complying with all his
> requests they can gain his favor.  There's no way of getting around
> this one.

I would argue that people will believe that by responding to  
*anyone's* requests, they can curry their favour, whether the game  
sees them as being in power or not.  This is true of Council-members,  
Dukes, guild elders, religion elders, former rulers, people with a  
lot of money...you get the picture.

I would say that the distinction between request and order is  
important because order carries with it the implication of *intended*  
negative consequences, should people disobey, while request carries  
with it *only* the consequence that those who carry out the request  
will be looked on a bit more favourably.

Since the root of all this was trying to say how we *should* be  
allowed to request things related to activity/inalienable rights, I  
think the whole thing is moot anyway, since (I think) we're already  
forbidden from doing so if we hold positions of power.  Why forbid  
requesting stuff, then remove the request option--why not just make  
sure that infractions are enforced?

Timothy Collett
Anaris Family

--

Let us not doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts.
-C. S. Pierce.



-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss