65 replies to this topic

[SirCub]

Hmm, so now we know how he cheated him, and we need to know how the Lord figured it out, right?

Was the Lord able to somehow distinguish between the grain that had been wet, and the rest?

[hansman1982]

Hmm, so now we know how he cheated him, and we need to know how the Lord figured it out, right?

Was the Lord able to somehow distinguish between the grain that had been wet, and the rest?

No, it was all mixed together at this point.

[hansman1982]

Was this particular peasant the only who farmed close enough to water to pull off the trick?

No, but irrelevant. Only one of the peasants had the balls to actually do what they did.

[Cubbie Blues]

Was the peasant somehow related or of actual bloodline to royalty?

[hansman1982]

Was the peasant somehow related or of actual bloodline to royalty?

No, just a typical subject of a totalitarian regime. The Lord and him had no connections beyond that.

[Cubbie Blues]

Was the fact that only one of the peasants had the balls to actually do what they did have any relevance other than he actually did it?

Was there something about this particular peasant that made him more apt to "cheat"?

[hansman1982]

Was the fact that only one of the peasants had the balls to actually do what they did have any relevance other than he actually did it?

Was there something about this particular peasant that made him more apt to "cheat"?

No and No

[SirCub]

So the Lord didn't know the peasant, and didn't know anything about him right?

So the only piece of information he had about him was from what saw when the peasant brought the grain in?

[hansman1982]

So the Lord didn't know the peasant, and didn't know anything about him right? - Yes

So the only piece of information he had about him was from what saw when the peasant brought the grain in?
The Lord only saw the total weight as he wasn't present at the time the bags were brought in. It was a matter of bringing the bags to the wagon, emptying them into the wagon and then leaving. Noone paid particular attention to the actual event.

[SirCub]

So, like, did the Lord just name the peasant, like "hey, y'all, go throw Tony in the dungeon?"

Or did he somehow let the men know a piece of information that they could use to ID him?

[hansman1982]

I think I obscured the answer too much.

The Lord knew who shorted him because they knew of this tactic before so they would have know how much it shorted each bag.

To answer the questions:
He knew each peasants name just because he did.
Upon learning how much they were short he was able to identify the offending peasant.

In case I didn't answer it properly before: The Lord knows how much each peasant was supposed to give.

[Cubbie Blues]

So, what we know so far is:

A peasant put water in with his grain to be given to the lord for his whore daughters chastity belt.
This made his bags of grain heavier than dry grain would have been.
The lord knew that this was done in the past and that it was probably going to happen this time.
All the grain was weighed at once.
He also knew the amount of grain each peasant was supposed to give.
The lord knew from the weight given who shorted him.

Is all of the above correct?

Did I leave out any relevant information?

[hansman1982]

So, what we know so far is:

A peasant put water in with his grain to be given to the lord for his whore daughters chastity belt. Yes

This made his bags of grain heavier than dry grain would have been. He allowed the grain to dry prior to donating it thereby keeping the volume of grain but much lighter.

The lord knew that this was done in the past and that it was probably going to happen this time. After the last incident the lord implemented the process that caught the peasant this time.

All the grain was weighed at once. Yes

He also knew the amount of grain each peasant was supposed to give. Yes

The lord knew from the weight given who shorted him. Yes

Is all of the above correct?

Did I leave out any relevant information? From what I recall of the questioning, no.

[Cubbie Blues]

Is the number of peasants relevant?

Is the number of bags each peasant is supposed to give relevant? (we already know some gave more than 10 and some gave less)

[hansman1982]

Is the number of peasants relevant? Yes, for ease we will just say 20 (although it need not be 20, it could be 200 or 5 or 50)

Is the number of bags each peasant is supposed to give relevant? (we already know some gave more than 10 and some gave less) Yes.