Transfer of funds in Erfworld

[mortissimus]

I have been thinking about this sending gems thing. In the lastest comic Slately received a gem from Charlie that payed for promoting Trem (and possibly more). Earlier he tried to get a gem from Don King but Transylvito's moneymancer refused, a probably vital plot point in the development of Transylvito.

On the other hand we know that contracts can have punishment clauses that forces Schmuckers to be moved automagicly from one side to the other. So there is a mechanism for direct fund transfer, then why use gems? For example Don King could have made a contract with Slately stating that Don would not whistle by punishment of 50k Schmuckers. A quick tune later, the funds are transfered.

I see two possibilities here:

1) there is a potential exploit, which is not used because Erfworlders follow the rules. Parson might use it sometime down the line.

2) I have misunderstood the rules.

Thoughts?

[drachefly]

2a) the mechanism is not instant payment, but a restriction of the side's abilities until payment is made.

[0beron]

It's likely one of those things that doesn't make sense in our terms but is perfectly clear in Erfworld logic. You can make treaties about non-aggression and alliance and the like, but you can't just draw up a silly agreement with the intent to freely transfer funds.
Alternatively, the penalties for breaking a contract may not actually go to the opposing party, they may literally be a penalty that just vanishes from your treasury into nothingness.

Now, if the first point I raise is true, then it is likely Parson's lateral thinking will lead him to realize he can make a legitimate treaty and then somehow force it to be broken, triggering the transfer. If so, it would likely hinge around official mechanics such as aggression, or alliance status. Your example of whistling wouldn't be appropriate because that's not really a game/side mechanic.

That's just my ideas on it.

[Lamech]

It's likely one of those things that doesn't make sense in our terms but is perfectly clear in Erfworld logic. You can make treaties about non-aggression and alliance and the like, but you can't just draw up a silly agreement with the intent to freely transfer funds.
Alternatively, the penalties for breaking a contract may not actually go to the opposing party, they may literally be a penalty that just vanishes from your treasury into nothingness.

Now, if the first point I raise is true, then it is likely Parson's lateral thinking will lead him to realize he can make a legitimate treaty and then somehow force it to be broken, triggering the transfer. If so, it would likely hinge around official mechanics such as aggression, or alliance status. Your example of whistling wouldn't be appropriate because that's not really a game/side mechanic.

That's just my ideas on it.

I do note that Wanda's father drew up a contract that made an automagical payment to the side which didn't attack him. Actually I think the funnier idea would be to draw up a treaty with a loophole and a big penalty clause.

Say go back to the (failed) parley with Tram.

Parson: You agree not to attack any units in your airspace and we agree not to attack any units in Jetstone for the duration of the negotiations, and for long enough for Ossomer to fly back to the other GK units.
Tram: Deal, now lets talk. We'll let most of your units go, if
Parson: Oh noes! It appears we have been betrayed! Wanda and everyone else has turned to our allies the hobgobwins! And their bombing your units the horror the horror!
Tram: Well we'll just shoot them down. Hey, what why are we a million shmuckers in debt?
Parson: You attacked units in your airspace. You broke the contract. If you surrender we'll give you enough money to pay for upkeep.

[Nnelg]

I think there's more to a contract than just saying those words. Besides, who would agree to such an easily exploitable contract?

For example: Jetstone was demanding surrender, so if Parson refused to parley without a contract they would have just proceeded to obliterate the (then) trapped GK forces.

[drachefly]

I like the 'no one gets the money' solution.

[0beron]

I like the 'no one gets the money' solution.

I do too, but then Lord Firebaugh's treaty wouldn't have worked. He arranged that if either Frenemy or Quizling attacked, the OTHER one would receive a payment.

[Lamech]

I think there's more to a contract than just saying those words. Besides, who would agree to such an easily exploitable contract?

Someone who didn't think things through. You just miss a loophole or don't think of something.

[drachefly]

I like the 'no one gets the money' solution.

I do too, but then Lord Firebaugh's treaty wouldn't have worked. He arranged that if either Frenemy or Quizling attacked, the OTHER one would receive a payment.

From the aggressor's coffers? Hrm. Yeah.

[0beron]

I like the 'no one gets the money' solution.

I do too, but then Lord Firebaugh's treaty wouldn't have worked. He arranged that if either Frenemy or Quizling attacked, the OTHER one would receive a payment.

From the aggressor's coffers? Hrm. Yeah.

No, from Goodminton's own coffers, but same result. There was a transfer.

[drachefly]

[Lord Firebaugh] arranged that if either Frenemy or Quizling attacked, the OTHER one would receive a payment.

From the aggressor's coffers? Hrm. Yeah.

No, from Goodminton's own coffers, but same result. There was a transfer.

Ah, but in that case then it was a voluntary action - and they might have set up an escrow account or something with MK moneymancers. This wasn't spur-of-the-moment, but arranged in advance.

[Whispri]

The thing about the Battle of Goodminton, is the Quisling and Frenemy Warlords were actually in the City, able to fly down and speak with Overlord Firebaugh in person. The gem thing, we've only seen that done at range or when dealing with Barbarians.

[Nnelg]

Someone who didn't think things through. You just miss a loophole or don't think of something.

I mean to say that the mere fact that these contracts are absolutely binding will mean that only the most idiotic of individuals won't stop to think it through first. Of course people like Charlie will still sometimes be able to sneak things through, but as a rule only the very stupid or the very desperate will accept a contract in a rush.

Specifically, it would be a very idiotic move to accept a magically binding contract in a situation where one's word should suffice. For instance, during parley.

[Lamech]

Someone who didn't think things through. You just miss a loophole or don't think of something.

I mean to say that the mere fact that these contracts are absolutely binding will mean that only the most idiotic of individuals won't stop to think it through first. Of course people like Charlie will still sometimes be able to sneak things through, but as a rule only the very stupid or the very desperate will accept a contract in a rush.

Specifically, it would be a very idiotic move to accept a magically binding contract in a situation where one's word should suffice. For instance, during parley.

After multiple betrayals by the RCCII during parleys?

[mortissimus]

It's likely one of those things that doesn't make sense in our terms but is perfectly clear in Erfworld logic. You can make treaties about non-aggression and alliance and the like, but you can't just draw up a silly agreement with the intent to freely transfer funds.

Sounds reasonable to me. Parson may or may not use it, considering that GK has no lack of gems, they just need to set some aside instead of converting them to the treasury. Of course, Parson may not be with GK for the whole story.

Someone who didn't think things through. You just miss a loophole or don't think of something.

I mean to say that the mere fact that these contracts are absolutely binding will mean that only the most idiotic of individuals won't stop to think it through first. Of course people like Charlie will still sometimes be able to sneak things through, but as a rule only the very stupid or the very desperate will accept a contract in a rush.

And - judging by the scene with Ansom at Gobwin Knob - reading contracts is a free action.

[Nnelg]

And - judging by the scene with Ansom at Gobwin Knob - reading contracts is a free action.

Not necessarily: a quick skim-through can be enough to identify a contract as blatantly unfair. This specific example falls under the "very desperate" category.

Specifically, it would be a very idiotic move to accept a magically binding contract in a situation where one's word should suffice. For instance, during parley.

After multiple betrayals by the RCCII during parleys?

I'll assume you mean against the RCC by GK.

Anyways, it's especially after multiple betrayals. There's no way that you'll give them anything they could possibly exploit after that. So, it'd be a one-sided contract, or nothing.

[Whispri]

I'll assume you mean against the RCC by GK.

You're joking, right? The RCC II break parley all the time. Pretty much every time they have the chance in fact.

[Nnelg]

You're joking, right? The RCC II break parley all the time. Pretty much every time they have the chance in fact.

Really? Name once.

[Whispri]

You're joking, right? The RCC II break parley all the time. Pretty much every time they have the chance in fact.

Really? Name once.

Warlord Cruz was murdered during parley on the orders of her mother, Bea, the murderer of Unaroyal. The Don King and Slately rather approved of that particular incident.

[Lamech]

I'll assume you mean against the RCC by GK.

Nope, Unaroyal against GK, and Jillian against Jitterai. If you want to get technical Jillian again when she attacked GK during a parley. You can see Duncan mention "parley again" next comic confirming that it was in fact a parley. Oh and Jillian immediately betrayed Wanda with Kingworld, while claiming that she was still planning on negotiations.

So that's three betrayals of parley. Four if we get technical. And seeing as how they have only gotten four chances to betray during a parley... why would they expect anyone to trust them?