Author Topic: Missing Royalty? (Read 4373 times)

Redoubter · « **Reply #25 on:** May 29, 2015, 02:30:49 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on May 29, 2015, 02:17:23 PM

I really don't mean to whine or to be saying this about one person's response, but can we please not get this response when we ask about giving an identifier to a character (i.e. royalty for Moses, musician for Isaiah/Simeon), get told what the current definition is and are asked if we have any scriptural evidence to back up our argument and then we provide it?

This isn't about Gabe or his response specifically, but it seems to me at least, that you (the collective elders, you) are using the argument of "We've always played it without ruling him that way", as your rebuttal to browarod's argument without giving any other reason why his proposal is being turned down.

What he's actually saying is that we have hashed this debate out several times, and when I ask for scriptural basis it is to get as much information out there as possible. I was only involved in this maybe once before, but Gabe has likely seen all of these arguments and the evidence, and the group has stuck with the ruling in the past (so we'd need more to overturn that).

However, without the information being provided, we as the Elder group have to assume what the evidence is from everyone who holds that view, and that's not going to help us decide on any changes.

Now that we have everything, we can have a discussion as Elders as warranted, and if there is a change, then we will announce it. There needs to be clear evidence (as agreed by the group deciding these things) to undo a status quo ruling that has been in place for a long time, so saying that something is staying the same should not be a surprise, particularly in the short-term.

This type of conversation is also helpful as we work on a new REG to ensure that our definitions are not confusing to players or ambiguous generally.

Further, there are going to be changes to "the way we've always done it" in this update, but we are not going to share that until we have everything codified and verified as far as impact. Just know that your assessment is unfair and inaccurate, and I hope that you'll see what I mean later on.

browarod · « **Reply #26 on:** May 29, 2015, 03:02:56 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on May 29, 2015, 02:26:35 PM

1. Does Moses being royalty actually affect anything in the game? He's not a King so even if you converted him to purple he wouldn't gain the benefit of Throne of David for example.

2. If we did give him royalty, that could potentially limit future abilities that we create--for example, making a CBN battle winner if used by royalty would be incredibly strong with Moses and probably not something we would want. (Not that we're planning to do that with Throne, but the point is that expanding a character's identity inherently makes that character stronger.)

3. This particular example is one of interpretation, and it has typically been the MO of the Elder team to stick with the status quo and not make changes unless there is an obvious benefit to the game.

To be honest, I think this is a worse reason than "it's been X way all this time, I don't see it changing" to not correct a character's identifiers (though I personally didn't have anything against Gabe's post). I feel as though we (the Redemption community) should be striving to provide representations of the people from the Bible that are as accurate as possible. Just because a character doesn't gain anything immediately by having an identifier corrected, or might cause something to become more powerful, doesn't mean we shouldn't update that character so as to represent them accurately. If you don't want that character to be a part of a specific group you can always change the definition of the identifier to exclude them, but don't exclude them "because it wouldn't change much/anything."

Based on the definition of royalty in the REG we have provided evidence that suggests Moses should be considered royalty. If you don't want Moses to fit for whatever reason, that's fine, all I ask that the definition/reason be made clear as to why Moses doesn't get the status which:

Quote from: Redoubter on May 29, 2015, 02:30:49 PM

This type of conversation is also helpful as we work on a new REG to ensure that our definitions are not confusing to players or ambiguous generally.

if this is true then that would be splendid and all my concerns would be appeased.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #27 on:** May 29, 2015, 03:26:45 PM »

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 29, 2015, 03:28:16 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 29, 2015, 02:30:49 PM

This type of conversation is also helpful as we work on a new REG to ensure that our definitions are not confusing to players or ambiguous generally.

Given that this is a topic that has come up time and again with much the same conclusion, what definition do you think will be put forward in the updated REG for "royalty" that would not be confusing and/or ambiguous when it comes to Moses?

I am not arguing as much as asking for a sneak preview.

Redoubter · « **Reply #29 on:** May 29, 2015, 03:41:08 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 29, 2015, 03:28:16 PM

I am not arguing as much as asking for a sneak preview.

Maybe just a "no-Moses" clause

In all seriousness though, that's not my decision to make by myself, or anyone else to give on their own. The Elders, as a group, will discuss each change to be made to the REG, and no one person could overrule a consensus.

To browarod, I can say that those are not the only reasons for excluding Moses, just additional ones and expounding on the issue as a whole. Treating them as the only reasons to keep the status quo is unfair.

Lastly, while you (and others) may disagree with the current ruling, it does not mean that it is an incorrect rule, or that we should devolve into an argument about how things are run (thanks for coming in, Mr. Police Man RDT

)

browarod · « **Reply #30 on:** May 29, 2015, 04:07:04 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 29, 2015, 03:41:08 PM

Lastly, while you (and others) may disagree with the current ruling, it does not mean that it is an incorrect rule, or that we should devolve into an argument about how things are run (thanks for coming in, Mr. Police Man RDT )

I never said it was an incorrect rule, though I do disagree with the current interpretation based on the current definition. All I'm asking for is clarity. If there's a specific reason why the evidence we provided doesn't indicate Moses is royalty like we seem to think it does, I just want it added/clarified in the definition of what counts as royalty (since there's obviously room for doubt in the current definition, otherwise this wouldn't keep coming up).

Since it sounds like you're already planning to do that, I'm fine with this discussion being concluded.

I apologize if it came across that I was attacking anyone. I personally find some of the reasons posted here to be less than spectacular (such as the "status quo" argument and the "it wouldn't change anything" or "it might make something overpowered" arguments) however if that is how the Elders as a whole decide these things I'm certainly not in a place to judge. It would be nice if that was recorded somewhere (preferably in the REG), though.

Hopefully that helps clarify my position/feelings.

Praeceps · « **Reply #31 on:** May 29, 2015, 04:46:23 PM »

The point I was trying to make, was that as you said, these arguments have come up before, and it has always boiled down to "Yes, Character X fits the defenition of identifier Y, but Character X has never been ruled to have identifier Y before and we don't think that it will help anything to give him identifier Y so he wont get it."

I understand you don't want certain characters to have certain identifiers, I get that. I can see that it would be very abuse-able in some cases, but I've never liked the argument of "We've never ruled that way before so don't expect us to ever do so in the future." To me, and I could be reading more into than is meant to be there with this being all text and all, it smacks of a sanctimonious, we-know-better-than-you-and-we-don't-have-to-explain-why attitude.

And while I understand that a lot of these arguments will become moot (hopefully) after you finish the overhaul, and I do agree that would be a good thing however the chips may fall, I was just really trying to ask for an answer that didn't seem so dismissive of our arguments or points of view. After all, we were told that despite having written a song that is still used in Worship today, Simeon is not considered a musician and the definition was not changed to exclude him, or others.

That being said, I will reiterate that I was in no way trying to focus on Gabe or just what he said, but on an attitude that I read to be there, and that if my words were taken to be critical of him, I offer my apologies. I also apologize if I am reading too much into this or seeing your answers/arguments in a light other than that in which they were offered.

Gabe · « **Reply #32 on:** May 29, 2015, 05:12:38 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on May 29, 2015, 04:46:23 PM

The point I was trying to make, was that as you said, these arguments have come up before, and it has always boiled down to "Yes, Character X fits the defenition of identifier Y, but Character X has never been ruled to have identifier Y before and we don't think that it will help anything to give him identifier Y so he wont get it."

This is an inaccurate assessment of history. These discussions have come up before. Players wanted to make Moses an Egyptian and royalty. The elders at the time discussed it and decided he does not fit the definition of either and ruled against it.

Just because it gets brought up again doesn't mean that it's a good use of the elders time to discuss it again (and again and again).

**EDIT

Quote from: Praeceps on May 29, 2015, 04:46:23 PM

After all, we were told that despite having written a song that is still used in Worship today, Simeon is not considered a musician and the definition was not changed to exclude him, or others.

Simeon did not write a song. He spoke words which were recorded in scripture and later turned into a song by others. That does not fit the definition of musician.

browarod · « **Reply #33 on:** May 29, 2015, 05:22:02 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on May 29, 2015, 05:12:38 PM

Just because it gets brought up again doesn't mean that it's a good use of the elders time to discuss it again (and again and again).

In fairness, the only reason I suggested revisiting it now is because a REG update is already in the works so it seems like a good time to tidy up the definition, if possible, to confirm why Moses (or others) either does or (more likely, based on current Elder opinion) doesn't fit in the interest of preventing this discussion from happening again (and again and again) in the future.

Obviously the Elders' time is valuable, I'm not trying to diminish that, and I always will appreciate the time you guys do put into Redemption (on all the fronts).

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #34 on:** May 30, 2015, 07:12:21 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 29, 2015, 03:41:08 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 29, 2015, 03:28:16 PM
I am not arguing as much as asking for a sneak preview.

Maybe just a "no-Moses" clause

Ha! That would be funny.

Quote from: Gabe on May 29, 2015, 05:12:38 PM

This is an inaccurate assessment of history. These discussions have come up before. Players wanted to make Moses an Egyptian and royalty. The elders at the time discussed it and decided he does not fit the definition of either and ruled against it.

Just because it gets brought up again doesn't mean that it's a good use of the elders time to discuss it again (and again and again).

Given this historical pattern, in the event that the upcoming definitions are still confusing/ambiguous might it be worthwhile to include a subsection to the definition in the REG for "Notable X that appear to be Y but are not?" This could include the list of verses considered (where applicable) and the reason for lack of inclusion. This is already sort of done with trumpets in the definition of "Involving Music." If this were in place, at least a player would know that X was considered and what evidence was used.

I know this would add a bit of work to updating the REG, but I am not sure that there are that many ambiguous cases that the work would be overly burdensome.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #35 on:** May 30, 2015, 08:17:57 AM »

Well now that this is all settled, let's discuss the scriptural evidence to classify Moses as a N.T. Female.

Redoubter · « **Reply #36 on:** May 30, 2015, 01:43:58 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 30, 2015, 07:12:21 AM

Given this historical pattern, in the event that the upcoming definitions are still confusing/ambiguous might it be worthwhile to include a subsection to the definition in the REG for "Notable X that appear to be Y but are not?" This could include the list of verses considered (where applicable) and the reason for lack of inclusion. This is already sort of done with trumpets in the definition of "Involving Music." If this were in place, at least a player would know that X was considered and what evidence was used.

Actually, that's a good point. I'm not sure if we'd add that to the REG itself, but perhaps I'll put it in the FAQ, since I have a section on "Why isn't X a Y?" there already. The REG should generally be a place to document what is, not necessarily what is not. The FAQ should get updated once we publish updated identifier lists.

The Guardian · « **Reply #37 on:** May 31, 2015, 02:14:03 AM »

Quote

To me, and I could be reading more into than is meant to be there with this being all text and all, it smacks of a sanctimonious, we-know-better-than-you-and-we-don't-have-to-explain-why attitude.

I'm just going to be honest here...that right there is one of the biggest problems this community has, and probably one of the root causes of many of the other problems. Let me be clear that I am not singling out Praeceps or any particular individual--I readily admit there have been times I have done this myself so I am speaking to US, not him or them or this group or that group. I've seen it from Elders just as I've seen it from those not on the Elder group. Far too often we read things that aren't actually being said or assume the worst when someone says something that disagrees with our position. I'm not sure why, but somehow disagreement has been equated with disrespect in the culture of this forum. As is often the case, when someone feels disrespected, they fire back and we've all seen how those threads end up...

I don't want to go much further so as not to derail this thread, but I am literally begging everyone to please do 3 things when reading and responding:
1. Assume the other person is responding with good intentions (until they explicitly fail to do so)
2. Remember that a soft answer turns away wrath
3. Be okay with someone respectfully disagreeing with you

Once again, I admit I have failed at these things on more than one occasion, but I am doing my best to do better. I encourage everyone to do the same.

Gabe · « **Reply #38 on:** June 10, 2015, 12:56:53 PM »

I wanted to follow up here with some scriptural backing as to why we do not consider Moses an Egyptian (or royalty since he would have been Egyptian royalty).

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

Hebrews 11:24-26

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #39 on:** June 10, 2015, 01:10:43 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on June 10, 2015, 12:56:53 PM

I wanted to follow up here with some scriptural backing as to why we do not consider Moses an Egyptian (or royalty since he would have been Egyptian royalty).

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

Hebrews 11:24-26

There's what we needed to hear!

The Guardian · « **Reply #40 on:** June 10, 2015, 01:39:19 PM »

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 10, 2015, 01:10:43 PM

Quote from: Gabe on June 10, 2015, 12:56:53 PM
I wanted to follow up here with some scriptural backing as to why we do not consider Moses an Egyptian (or royalty since he would have been Egyptian royalty).

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

Hebrews 11:24-26

There's what we needed to hear!

Interestingly enough, that verse has been in Hebrews this whole time...

browarod · « **Reply #41 on:** June 10, 2015, 02:20:37 PM »

Thank you Gabe for providing that verse. It is much easier for me to accept Moses not being royalty since that verse confirms he willingly gave up the association as opposed to just having the other verses posted earlier and simply being told "he's not."

I withdraw my arguments and pack up my briefcase. Case dismissed! *gavel bang*

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Missing Royalty? (Read 4373 times)

Redoubter

Re: Missing Royalty?

browarod

Re: Missing Royalty?

Red Dragon Thorn

Re: Missing Royalty?

EmJayBee83

Re: Missing Royalty?

Redoubter

Re: Missing Royalty?

browarod

Re: Missing Royalty?

Praeceps

Re: Missing Royalty?

Gabe

Re: Missing Royalty?

browarod

Re: Missing Royalty?

EmJayBee83

Re: Missing Royalty?

YourMathTeacher

Re: Missing Royalty?

Redoubter

Re: Missing Royalty?

The Guardian

Re: Missing Royalty?

Gabe

Re: Missing Royalty?

Minion of Jesus

Re: Missing Royalty?

The Guardian

Re: Missing Royalty?

browarod

Re: Missing Royalty?