> Probably, we are using different meanings of 'general rules'.
No, we both use the same meaning, but I wandered off the straight path...
> > But everyone else listening can have a good laugh at you both, and
> > keep reminding you of it forever after, permanently ruining your
> > reputation.
>
> I understand. The double fumble causes a very funny situation (for
> other people ;-) and everybody laughs at both forever. But I found
> more logical than, in most cases, my reputation is worse if my
> opponent uses against me a clever argument.
Personally, I'd find both people making complete fools of themselves even more memorable... it's not a matter of who wins in this case, just how badly you each fail.
> > You probably died of heart failure THINKING the poison was lethal.
> Well, I can feel a strange taste... But I think it must be more
usual
> dying because the potency of the poison than dying because the fear.
It IS more usual, but this is a fumble - it's ALWAYS unusual, more and more unusual the higher the abilities involved.
> > Tree breaks, you fall to your death.
>
> It has sense. But I think that the resistance of the tree, in that
> case is not its hardness but its 'difficulty of climbing'.
But, again, this is a fumble. Fumbles need not be solely and closely related to the actual ability, they are just things that go badly wrong. The tree isn't difficult to climb once it falls to the ground, but you fall off it anyway.
> Well, I'm sure that you can found very good reasons for [almost]
any
> kind of contest. But my problem is that I think that 'Minor Defeat
of
> both' it's probably more common in most number of cases. Well,
really,
> the problem is that i'm not sure ;-)
The real problem isn't 'how bad should the result be?' as 'how common is this result?' If it's one in a million, make it bad, very bad. There SHOULD be a nasty end, one in a million times. If it's more common, don't make it so bad. You get a complete failure on climbing the tree, it gets a complete failure resisting. It breaks and falls (it had a high resistance because it was rotten, and handholds kept breaking off?), you get such a shock you gain a permanent phobia about trees. The result is permanent, as a Complete Failure should be, but non-fatal. Both debaters get a permanent reputation as fools. You're not POISONED, but you're allergic to the wine it was in.
I still think a Complete Failure result is OK, but I would modify WHAT the result is.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail