|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on May 29, 2019 15:27:31 GMT
I just realized an unlikely and horrible alternative: The "mental jail" has already been implemented, and Kat will spend Friday's comic in a "Tell me about the rabbits, George" haze...
|
|
|
|
Post by tustin2121 on May 29, 2019 15:32:47 GMT
What would even be a multi-use contract??? Given that a "single-use contract" is one person, one object, status of this contract (as illustrated by the comic), I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that a "multi-use contract" is simply more than one person, one object, status of this contract. ie, a piano that is owned by the whole family, or when two siblings own a set of legos, or even perhaps a public swing-set that is owned by a whole community of people. The problematic situation outlined in this page is that Annie owns her stuffed toy, and Kat's use of the arrow would have made it where Arthur would also own Annie's stuffed toy without Annie's permission or knowledge. And if this had been allowed, both ownership contracts would be valid and thus contradict each other. (EDIT: That or, given the "living mind" thing, Annie was about to own Arthur, which is against the nature of the ownership contract stuff.) The situation itself would be a simple case of misunderstanding/ignorance of the rules if this interpreter guy wasn't all about jailing Kat for simply owning and playing with the arrow... |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 29, 2019 17:51:23 GMT
How the heck did Diego get away with creating the arrow if just owning the arrow is punishable? DID he get away with it? Maybe Kat is going to Ether jail and we'll see Diego there. Clippy said on page 2151 that they have not been able to track the arrow's use until recently.
Maybe they would put Diego into jail, if his soul had not long since dissolved into the Ether.
|
|
|
|
Post by arkadi on May 29, 2019 18:48:10 GMT
Kate Is Totally Fine With This Situation.
Also, now that said situation has been explained, I suppose that the dodgy logic of punishing someone for a crime that has not been committed will be addressed at some point (?)
|
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on May 29, 2019 18:55:05 GMT
How the heck did Diego get away with creating the arrow if just owning the arrow is punishable? DID he get away with it? Maybe Kat is going to Ether jail and we'll see Diego there. Clippy said on page 2151 that they have not been able to track the arrow's use until recently.
Maybe they would put Diego into jail, if his soul had not long since dissolved into the Ether.
On this page they say "but using the arrow would allow you to use the contract [of ownership] on a living mind, ... for this you must be punished." So perhaps it is the *use* that is punishable. In which case, its possible the archer Steadman should have been jailed in the Jeanne case (the arrow was given to him to use). Unless Diego still technically owned it after it was shot.... and then he should have been jailed, if there hadn't been so much etheric damage that the trail of ownership was probably obscured... EDIT: artilleryman -> Steadman (got them confused...) |
|
|
|
Post by mturtle7 on May 29, 2019 18:55:48 GMT
Gonna be honest, that explanation was nowhere near as helpful as I thought it would be. I presume this "single-use contract" is a contract initiated by the arrow, but I still have no idea what that contract actually entails, or what precisely the "multi-use conflict" involved here is. I also used to have no idea what was up with the "use the contract on a living mind" part, but some of the questions posted by tustin2121 actually did clear up some things for me! Now, it sounds to me like owning inanimate objects is actually totally legal, EVEN IF there happens to be another (living) mind trying to use that inanimate object. Even though, functionally, Annie has total control over Renard, it's an INDIRECT form of mind control, and thus ok. The reason using the arrow's powers on Arthur is so "unacceptable" is because it works DIRECTLY on his mind/soul, just like how it worked DIRECTLY on Jeanne's mind/soul in order to separate her from her body and mess with her emotions to turn her into the ultimate ghost-guard. Also, the fact that Diego did that goes to show that making an ownership contract on a living mind isn't literally impossible, it's just a really gross abuse of power and punishable by the etheric authorities if they can ever find you and catch you. |
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on May 29, 2019 19:23:55 GMT
Kate Is Totally Fine With This Situation. Also, now that said situation has been explained, I suppose that the dodgy logic of punishing someone for a crime that has not been committed will be addressed at some point (?) Clippy has already gotten jail and prison mixed up, it would be par for the course if they pull an "Alice in Wonderland" and give the "sentence first, verdict afterwards!" Or, maybe the "Mental Jail" is actually a "Mental Denver Boot" - Kat has been caught thinking in a No Thought zone, and she can have her mind unbooted when she pays a fine. Hopefully they accept arrows as payment. |
|
|
|
Post by skusci on May 29, 2019 21:30:02 GMT
Gonna be honest, that explanation was nowhere near as helpful as I thought it would be. I presume this "single-use contract" is a contract initiated by the arrow, but I still have no idea what that contract actually entails, or what precisely the "multi-use conflict" involved here is. The contract in question is supposed to be the one between Annie and her toy. Presumably that contract was created in accordance with "The Rules" the normal way. (Just believing that you own something probably makes some stuff happen in the Ether.) It seems like the arrow itself doesn't actually establish new contracts, but rather has the ability to rip existing ones out from one place and put them somewhere else. I think it's more like the contract itself can't be used multiple times. Like say maybe the contract is more like a computer function that provides simple access to a lot of wierd complex background woojoo that makes the world turn, so copying just the contract doesn't actually copy the background woojoo. Like say plugging in a second keyboard and mouse and monitor into the same computer any trying to have two people use it at the same time. Incidentally Kat seems to have a pretty sweet computer. Guessing that this gets resolved because she analyzed the functions of the arrow and the contract, determined that the background woojoo was completely arcane and incomprehensible, and developed her own functionally identical system that has the ether world confused because it looks the same on the outside. Like Kat's stuff is inspired and influenced by others and even robot's body still runs on a mystery CPU. Arthur's body however is implied to be completely different, which I think means that it's something that Kat built such that she understands the function of every part. And while she does have the arrow hooked up to her computer, I bet it's not being used at all for the transfer. Thus the chapter name "New Contract." |
|
|
|
Post by skusci on May 29, 2019 21:47:59 GMT
Clippy said on page 2151 that they have not been able to track the arrow's use until recently.
Maybe they would put Diego into jail, if his soul had not long since dissolved into the Ether.
On this page they say "but using the arrow would allow you to use the contract [of ownership] on a living mind, ... for this you must be punished." So perhaps it is the *use* that is punishable. In which case, its possible the artilleryman should have been jailed in the Jeanne case (the arrow was given to him to use). Unless Diego still technically owned it after it was shot.... and then he should have been jailed, if there hadn't been so much etheric damage that the trail of ownership was probably obscured... Sound mostly like just being able to apply contracts to living minds is a crime. I mean think of it like owning a tactical nuclear missile. Just because you only intend on reverse engineering it to develop nuclear power doesn't mean the government is gonna be super happy that you dredged it up from where it got misplaced during the Cold War and keeping it in a secret underground bunker. |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on May 29, 2019 22:25:54 GMT
Hmm. So if the robots are all "non-living objects that fall under the rules of ownership," then does the Court own all of them? That might explain why they can't leave the Court, and why most of them are content to serve humans. It doesn't explain why there are exceptions, though (more than just Robot: see the destroyed robots in the first link). Maybe it's that pesky blue piece on the chip. I also find myself wondering if Robot somehow became owned by Antimony (thus the title of "Mommy")--perhaps because he was destroyed and she put him back together? The " you gave me a choice" line seems to suggest ownership. It sounds like, if Annie had told Robot to come right back after delivering Shadow to the forest, he would have been forced to obey, rather like Reynardine is. Also, now that said situation has been explained, I suppose that the dodgy logic of punishing someone for a crime that has not been committed will be addressed at some point (?) You can be prosecuted for certain not-yet-committed crimes, such as attempted murder (or conspiracy to commit murder, if "attempted" is still considered too active). Like say plugging in a second keyboard and mouse and monitor into the same computer and trying to have two people use it at the same time. I love this analogy! |
|
|
|
Post by novia on May 30, 2019 3:27:40 GMT
Plot twist: Kat is answering to what Saslamel said, which has nothing to do with what Clippy is "interpreting". This is a diversion tactic to test her ability to understand the contract/golem/Diego code/language and on Friday they'll be congratulating her on becoming a wizard with magical abilities! God I hope so. This rules business is the pits. What would even be a multi-use contract??? The court owns the robots. The court is made up of more than one human in the court. Basically, if any of those human commands a robot to do a thing, the robot will do the thing. So in essence, the object has multiple owners. On this page the interpreter refers to the contract between Annie and her toy as single use and implies that it wouldn't be if both Annie and her sister were on the contract. tustin2121 beat me to the punch Multi-use contracts could define different levels of permissions for each user on the contract. Like when you have a user on a computer with admin privileges vs another user with only guest access. |
|
|
|
Post by arf on May 30, 2019 4:31:15 GMT
I would be quite happy for Annies to put her hands up at this point to say: "If I might apply a little technique passed on to me by the Great Coyote..." Looking back on this, I am taken by the phrase "When you take a life, you let it escape." That, with all this talk of etheric imprisonment, reminds me of some foreshadowing |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 30, 2019 7:38:33 GMT
You can be prosecuted for certain not-yet-committed crimes, such as attempted murder (or conspiracy to commit murder, if "attempted" is still considered too active). You won't be charged for attempted murder if you haven't made the attempt. Under US law, a charge of conspiracy cannot occur unless (a) the aim of the conspiracy is illegal and (b) at least one illegal act has been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. If you and a buddy are planning on robbing a bank, and you buy an old car to use as a getaway vehicle, there is no crime (yet) so no prosecution. But if your buddy steals a car, and the prosecutors think they can show that the purpose of this theft was to use the car as a getaway vehicle for the bank robbery the two of you were planning, then you can be prosecuted for conspiracy. In either case, no prosecution until some sort of a crime has actually occurred. Like say plugging in a second keyboard and mouse and monitor into the same computer and trying to have two people use it at the same time. Actually, that's extremely common - although less so than it used to be. I started my professional career with, on my desk, one of about 40 sets of keyboard and monitor - just on that one floor of that one building - all plugged into the same computer. We were the largest single concentration, but the company as a whole probably had over 200 terminals hooked up to the one computer. The laptop I'm using right now, with the OS that I have installed, will support at least 8 concurrent user sessions. And I know how to set things up so another device can remote-control one of them, while the laptop's screen and keyboard are working with a different one. |
|
|
|
Post by arkadi on May 30, 2019 12:00:46 GMT
Hmm. So if the robots are all "non-living objects that fall under the rules of ownership," then does the Court own all of them? That might explain why they can't leave the Court, and why most of them are content to serve humans. It doesn't explain why there are exceptions, though (more than just Robot: see the destroyed robots in the first link). Maybe it's that pesky blue piece on the chip. I also find myself wondering if Robot somehow became owned by Antimony (thus the title of "Mommy")--perhaps because he was destroyed and she put him back together? The " you gave me a choice" line seems to suggest ownership. It sounds like, if Annie had told Robot to come right back after delivering Shadow to the forest, he would have been forced to obey, rather like Reynardine is. Also, now that said situation has been explained, I suppose that the dodgy logic of punishing someone for a crime that has not been committed will be addressed at some point (?) You can be prosecuted for certain not-yet-committed crimes, such as attempted murder (or conspiracy to commit murder, if "attempted" is still considered too active). Yeah, but this... This is like if you build a homemade contraption to fire up your barbeque, and then the police pop up and say "wow, this could be used as a flamethrower so we're going to arrest you for attempted arson." It's way out of line. |
|
|
|
Post by netherdan on May 30, 2019 15:07:39 GMT
Yeah, but this... This is like if you build a homemade contraption to fire up your barbeque, and then the police pop up and say "wow, this could be used as a flamethrower so we're going to arrest you for attempted arson." It's way out of line. I think skusci's nuke analogy fits better in this case Sound mostly like just being able to apply contracts to living minds is a crime. I mean think of it like owning a tactical nuclear missile. Just because you only intend on reverse engineering it to develop nuclear power doesn't mean the government is gonna be super happy that you dredged it up from where it got misplaced during the Cold War and keeping it in a secret underground bunker. |
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on May 30, 2019 15:49:07 GMT
Hmm. So if the robots are all "non-living objects that fall under the rules of ownership," then does the Court own all of them? That might explain why they can't leave the Court, and why most of them are content to serve humans. It doesn't explain why there are exceptions, though (more than just Robot: see the destroyed robots in the first link). Maybe it's that pesky blue piece on the chip. I also find myself wondering if Robot somehow became owned by Antimony (thus the title of "Mommy")--perhaps because he was destroyed and she put him back together? The " you gave me a choice" line seems to suggest ownership. It sounds like, if Annie had told Robot to come right back after delivering Shadow to the forest, he would have been forced to obey, rather like Reynardine is. You can be prosecuted for certain not-yet-committed crimes, such as attempted murder (or conspiracy to commit murder, if "attempted" is still considered too active). Yeah, but this... This is like if you build a homemade contraption to fire up your barbeque, and then the police pop up and say "wow, this could be used as a flamethrower so we're going to arrest you for attempted arson." It's way out of line. From Clippy's point of view, it sounds like Kat's barbecue has giant, dangerous-looking flames coming from it. Which is a lot more "interesting" than the copyright infringement it sounds like this started out as at first. |
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli33 on May 31, 2019 7:32:52 GMT
So from this page, we've learned that the robots/golems are indeed "non-living" in the eyes of etheric law and thus they must be owned by someone, and that you cannot own a "living mind", which basically makes slavery impossible under etheric ownership laws. Which... actually puts an interesting spin on Renard's "The mind is nothing but a plaything of the body" line. Because Renard technically doesn't own his own body, which is housing his mind/spirit... but Annie isn't allowed to own Renard's mind/spirit under etheric ownership laws... and yet she own's Renard's body... and this means that she can command him and he must obey her commands... ...Um, excuse me, Mr. Arbiter! o/ I have many questions about this whole "contract on a living mind" thing! God-powers break rules. Now that I think of it, that seems to be the very definition of god-powers. And Reynard wouldn't even be in his position of existing as a Living Mind inhabiting an Owned Thing were it not for his god-powers, given to him by Coyote. --- As an aside, it makes me wonder about Court robots...etherically. As far as the ether is concerned, they are ascended Owned Things - forever fundamentally different than life. Though I wonder if, as time goes on, and we learn more about the process that created the robots, we might learn more about their nature. Diego owned them, initially - does he own them still? And if not, who did their ownership pass to? Did Diego play some etheric-arrow-tech type of trickery to transfer ownership to something more abstract? Or are they now considered Lost? --- Another aside, we have to remember that the arrow did so much more than allow ownership and contract-ship of a living soul. Remember the ROTD officials describing the amount of damage the arrow caused - evidently significant damage they had to expend real effort and energy (saying "physical" effort and energy doesn't seem right) to repair. We may - and Kat may - understand more about that thing, but its still so much more than it seems. Monstrously so, I'd wager. |
|
|
|
Post by arkadi on Jun 5, 2019 7:36:43 GMT
Yeah, but this... This is like if you build a homemade contraption to fire up your barbeque, and then the police pop up and say "wow, this could be used as a flamethrower so we're going to arrest you for attempted arson." It's way out of line. I think skusci's nuke analogy fits better in this case Sound mostly like just being able to apply contracts to living minds is a crime. I mean think of it like owning a tactical nuclear missile. Just because you only intend on reverse engineering it to develop nuclear power doesn't mean the government is gonna be super happy that you dredged it up from where it got misplaced during the Cold War and keeping it in a secret underground bunker. Yeah, now that Saslamel and co. have made their point clear, it looks like possessing the technology is in itself the crime, no matter what use you intend to make of it. Took them long enough to clarify that, though. |
|
