@ Minerva: I do like a good debate. And when an oponent lines up easy targets, I might relish in demolishing them, but really... I like the rhetorical stuff less that I like honest discussion. And I prefer the pleasant and reasonable side of Kaitlin. (She does have one!)
And on to Kaitlin's arguments:
LOL pure BS
Ah. Yes. Arguments.
Something tells me he is one of those guys taking slaves through their "paces".
That something... would that be the part of you that really needs to WIN an argument and figures any silly sneer that is miles of the mark is worth posting?
It amazes me that for a person who clearly states how relatively new they were to Gor when it was presented in SL and how little exposure you have had to other platforms and sources created at the time of the Luther Scrolls how you manage to pull such inaccurate generalities out of nowhere. In previous platforms the players were far better read. I'd venture to say at least half the players had read more than one book so they didn't need a Gorums to explain why the Luther Scrolls were full of shit.
I do get that you are affronted by my audacity. That I'd dare talk about something I didn't witness myself, first hand. But I dind't say anything about how many of the books they had read as compared to SL Gor. And it is beside the point. My point was about earlier days SL Gor vs. now, really. And frankly, I am surprised you seem to disagree with my, since I have made the point before, several times and you seemed to agree with it then (or at least I am sure you never disagreed with it, before, so I am starting to suspect that you may be a little peeved at me over disagreeing with you... just a little
Personally, whatever BS you see in my argument, I am fairly SURE that if you had to weigh the two 'causes for onlinism' (1. The Luther Scrolls vs. 2. The Lack of a Medium where onlinisms could be exposed for the benefit a wider audience of people with little knowledge of the books), the second one would recommend itself as weightier. A fairly obvious argument presents itself: Back in SL Gor in 2006, you had the Luther Scrolls, and no forum about SL Gor. Now, you STILL have the Luther Scrolls AND forums about SL Gor... what changed? That is your most likely cause. What stayed the same? THat isn't.)
But on to the arguments you presented prior to your last few posts:
Pushing this as some type of legit RP guide is pretty hilarious
I am glad you are ROTFL-ing. But it is not an actual argument.
I'll admit I never expected to be having this conversation at this point in time.
I understand you believe they are a plus for RP as a guide but I'm not sure how that can be true if you expect users not to take what is said literally.
+4? On what scale? If that is 'great', then it is you doing your straw man thingy again, as usual. Pelo mentioned that already. (No one said they were 'great').
Now... sophistry asside...slave paces
You are only right in that he didn't call them slave paces. You are only right in that he didn't call them slave paces. He certainly advocates that these would be questions asked of most slaves so no this is not someone elses NC fantasy but straight out of the Luther Scrolls kajira basics and it is simply wrong
So... he didn't call them slave paces, after all. But you say he introduced slave paces anyway, even if he didn't call them that?
Now, as for these being asked of 'many' slaves: clearly, they are asked of slaves, in the books. So, you might object to 'many' as 'conjecture' if Norman didn't mention anything about frequency(though not very odd conjecture at all. But you go on...
This training is mentioned in the books but the idea that every slave would go through this training is a flawed belief.
And there you go straw-manning Luther. He didn't say EVERY SLAVE. He said MANY. So, once again, you are objecting to stuff he didn't say.
Not to give the context surrounding these questions pushes the idea that it should be a standard expectation not to mention it was true in practice in his own chatroom where this was supposed to serve as "guidance" on how to roleplay Gor.
So, whilst saying you didn't know Luther well, you do claim to know what he said in his chatroom. Which is fine. But how is that relevant to the question of whether the LUTHER SCROLLS are crap or not? We are not debating what Luther said ages ago. If he told you he was a Stalinist, I'd believe you, but it would also be irrelevant.MY Master
And this is where having first hand knowledge of how he expected his guide to be put into practice comes in handy. He did indeed expect all slaves to refer to their owners as "MY" master in his own chatroom. The rule is poorly written so yes he does get to take the hit for all of those he believes he is educating who use this as the source for such a ridiculous onlinism.
Again... how is what you saw him do or say many years ago first hand matter? We are talking about the Luther Scrolls. There is no way to check your testimony, so it would be a bit of a problematic argument in a 'scholarly' discussion, but in this case, it is really irrelevant, especially since you proclaimed him a laughing stock long before there even was an SL-Gor, so his chat-room could hardly have 'corrupted' SL Gor. The Lutther Scrolls don't say that a slave MUST call her or his owner MY Master, and that is the end of that.Slaves greeting everyone individually in specific order
Exactly where did you debunk it? I missed that entirely.
Many pages back. I looked up the tiny little bit that MIGHT refer to the onlinism. And there, he DID mention that slaves would typically great an important person like an Ubar first, or an Ubara, and then their owner. But that is about all he says. Nothing about there being an exact order to the greetings between castes, or men and women, or about a slave having to say hi to everyone individually. The first bit you MIGHT object to as conjecture, if Norman never said anything like it (though it is pretty much common sense, it is what people usually do. A soldier isn't going to salute to a sergeant and then to a captain and then to a general if he meets them, normally.) It might be MORE than just fairly logical conjecture (which you might indeed call interpretation presented as fact) unless there would be 'statistical' evidence to support this found in the books (of slaves generally following this pattern), in which case he probably still should have mentioned the 'evidence' for his conclusion, I guess. Would a slave really great their city's Ubar first, before greeting their owner. I have no idea... maybe one could browse the books for instances of such a situation in the books and see if Luther was right or wrong.
But regardless of that... clearly the scrolls didn't postulate anything CLOSE to the very silly practice I have observed in SL Gor (I have even seen slaves make their excuses for making a mistake, like "((Forgive me, I should have greeted you before I greeted the Mistress, Master Blacksmith))"
THAT stuff clearly isn't in the scrolls.
The bit you quote after would be the passage I was referring to, the passage that you claim was the source of the onlinism (which would be odd, because there were already elaborate rule-cards about how a slave should greet, saying something different (first the owner and then specifying lots of other details about who should go first and such) out there.Kajira's in Taverns
(A previously unknown onlinism)
Second, when a kajira enters the tavern, she does not need to seek permission or perform obeisance. She should just quietly walk to the serving area and kneel until she is needed. This is partially intended to promote the flow of role-play as massive greetings can be distracting. Third, a kajira should seek permission to leave the tavern. First, she should consult her owner. If the owner is not around, she should ask any other free person present.
Yes... I DO see something to object to. The 'shoulds' make it clear that he is indeed writing a bit of an RP guide, here, probably for instruction for his own RP place. He clearly isn't summarizing Norman, in this bit, but speaking as 'instructor'. Not that anyone could really be confused about that, but yes... this is his conjecture. But what he says is actually not that odd at all. It is probably exactly what a well-meaning tavern-owner in SL would offer as advice to a new slave working in a tavern in SL. I really don't see the birth of an onlinism here.
I am sure you can find some other bits that are closer to RP 'instruction' than to a summary of what Norman says in the books. However, the fact that some small parts of the stuff in the scrolls is his own conjecture (sensible or not) and some even his own personal 'instruction' on how best to RP rather than an actual summary of what Norman says doesn't mean that what he says is an 'insidious' onlinism or any onlinism or even the SEED for any onlinism at all.
And it is indeed a tiny
part. (And so far, like I said, all having to do with slavery, which is probably the stuff he was dealing with most in that chatroom, I am guessing). A MUCH LARGER
part of the Luther scrolls are simply filled with summaries of the stuff in the books, that really aren't bad at all. AND AN EVEN LARGER
part of the luther scrolls is filled with stuff about Norman's sources, the stuff that seemed to have inspired him, which I believe is probably the best elaborate stuff ever written on it, and on his philosophical inspiration, for which the same can probably be said.
So... unless someone pulls another rabbit out of a hat, for the time being, I am forced to conclude that the claim that his scrolls are mostly crap that introduced scores or terrible onlinisms into SL Gor is really not based on much by way of fact at all. Really, it is something on an onlinism in it's own right, I think.