Heffernan Makes a Bet

[er-queent8r]

Vex confirmed to be Heff's only friend. Nice work Dallane!

[Procne]

Heffernan doesn't seem to be English as his first language. I apologize if this is not the case. However if so, and even if not so, we can only go by what is actually said, not what is meant.

I read Heffernan's post to be more along "what is meant" as a playable character in game and also at the login screen.

You "mean" that you have a character persisting on the server while also being logged in with another character to the very same server.

By using the words "logged in the game" you gave precedence that you would be in control of a character in game and also have the ability to be at the character select menu of the same account.

This is not possible. You were wrong. The terms are everything.

I am only here for the bet, not the side discussion in how it all started. The bet was quoted in my original reply. That is what stands to be argued.

Yeah, and next we will start arguing about what "persisting", "character being logged in" (not a player), "in control", "all my characters logged off" etc. actually mean.

Everyone know what was said and what was meant and that heff lost. Even Heff himself accepted the Dallane's screenshots with the only objections being whether the characters on screens are from the same account or whether bugs were used. Which later a dev verified to be bug-free, same account chars. Only then Heff started trying to weasel out by saying that it wasn't what he meant. Everyone sees that, and even you, now trying to help him (god knows why), don't try to convince anyone that Heffernan wasn't wrong but instead resort to some formal remarks, because, frankly, that's all you have left.

[Vexus]

I am only here for the bet, not the side discussion in how it all started. The bet was quoted in my original reply. That is what stands to be argued.

I can add the rest in if you are going to go by that.

We were talking about characters currently persisting in the game(using the terms logged in the entire time). He knew exact what was being said. How do you explain him trying to change the terms after he lost with multiple different stories?

I really hate to be the one to bring logic to this, but you cannot go by what people "meant" as a background for the facts. The factual terms of being logged in to a character, or logging off a character, are means of being in control of the character. Indeed, if someone closes the client while their character is holding something, they have in fact "logged off". The server no longer maintains a client-server connection from the player's client to the server's rendering of the character. The server has its option at this point to maintain the presence of the character. This is not part of the bet.

Again, if you stated your bet in different terms, it would be in your favor. In this case it is not, due to the words you specifically made a bet upon, that you used yourself. If you said, "Are you actually saying that I can't be on the logon screen with a character existing in the game?" we would then have no issue.

[Vexus]

Yeah, and next we will start arguing about what "persisting", "character being logged in" (not a player), "in control", "all my characters logged off" etc. actually mean.

Everyone know what was said and what was meant and that heff lost. Even Heff himself accepted the Dallane's screenshots with the only objections being whether the characters on screens are from the same account or whether bugs were used. Which later a dev verified to be bug-free, same account chars. Only then Heff started trying to weasel out by saying that it wasn't what he meant. Everyone sees that, and even you, now trying to help him (god knows why), don't try to convince anyone that Heffernan wasn't wrong but instead resort to some formal remarks, because, frankly, that's all you have left.

No, persisting is an actual term, just like being logged in. It is easy to reproduce and easy to find out if it is true or not. Character being logged in the game was indeed the statement, which means client having access to the character on the server. This could be referenced to "in control". "All my characters logged off" is irrelevant - you can only have one logged in at any one time with Salem.

I see what Heffernan meant which is why I am posting actual logic to this out of control thread.

You can not plot to murder someone, get caught right before you do it, and say, "Well, I actually just meant to give him a hug!"

[Procne]

Guess Vexus will join the list of not-trustworthy people, along with Heff. It's hard to make deals with a person who will start explaining to you that what both sides agreed to is actually not what they both meant, because a word or two could have been used in a wrong way or in a context changing their dictionary meaning. After he takes the silver or goods leaving you with nothing

[ericbomb]

Both JC and Meow agreed that Heff lost the bet. How dare any of you dare argue against a god! Heffernan is no pope! He is nothing but a fraud for arguing with the will of a god!

[Vexus]

Guess Vexus will join the list of not-trustworthy people, along with Heff. It's hard to make deals with a person who will start explaining to you that what both sides agreed to is actually not what they both meant, because a word or two could have been used in a wrong way or in a context changing their dictionary meaning. After he takes the silver or goods leaving you with nothing

I'd much rather deal with someone who explains things in exact terms before a deal rather that someone who says, "Well, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT SO GIMMIE MY MONEY!"

[Procne]

Guess Vexus will join the list of not-trustworthy people, along with Heff. It's hard to make deals with a person who will start explaining to you that what both sides agreed to is actually not what they both meant, because a word or two could have been used in a wrong way or in a context changing their dictionary meaning. After he takes the silver or goods leaving you with nothing

I'd much rather deal with someone who explains things in exact terms before a deal rather that someone who says, "Well, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT SO GIMMIE MY MONEY!"

That's what people tell you when you treat them with your witty explanations and lingual lecture instead of an actual payment?

[Vexus]

No, they simply see how you attack someone's character (as in, human trait) based on them providing a factual review of an emotional situation. And how you attack (me) this person's trustworthiness because he wishes to shed some logic on a bet made on specific terms. If anything, I'd expect people to deal with you more carefully if you are with the mob who will riot and shout, "But that's not what he meant!"

I'd say you have many colleagues in the real world with the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" crowd et al.

[Procne]

No, they simply see how you attack someone's character (as in, human trait) based on them providing a factual review of an emotional situation. And how you attack (me) this person's trustworthiness because he wishes to shed some logic on a bet made on specific terms. If anything, I'd expect people to deal with you more carefully if you are with the mob who will riot and shout, "But that's not what he meant!"

I'd say you have many colleagues in the real world with the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" crowd et al.

Uhm, you are the one shouting "But that's not what he meant!", or rather "he meant that but that's not what he said!". Everyone here, along with Heffernan, agreed that this is what he meant. Until he ran out of excuses and was left only with "that's not what I meant".

Everyone knows what the bet was about. Stop word-lawyering