text:
Lawaspect.com
Plagiarism Cheker
Law Essays
Essay Category
Law Notes
North Dakota v. United States – Oral Argument – November 02, 1982
Media for North Dakota v. United States
Opinion Announcement – March 07, 1983
Oral Argument – November 02, 1982
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – March 07, 1983 in North Dakota v. United States
Warren E. Burger:
We will hear arguments next in North Dakota against the United States.
Mr. Attorney General, I think you may proceed when you are ready.
Robert O. Wefald:
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, this appeal involves a statutory construction of the word 1961 and the constitutionality of certain North Dakota statutes believed by the United States to unconstitutionally interfere with the acquisition of wetland easements for waterfowl production areas in North Dakota's prairie pothole region covering central and northwest North Dakota.
Three issues developed at the proceedings below.
Briefly, these are as follows.
First, the United States sought a declaratory judgment action that these several North Dakota laws are unconstitutional.
Second, the district court held that these laws are unconstitutional, and that no consent is required.
Third, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held not only are these laws unconstitutional and that no consent is required, but that consent is present here and cannot be revoked.
As you will see, the dispute between the United States and North Dakota has been narrowed through several concessions made by the United States in its brief.
The United States has conceded that consent is required, but that consent can be revoked after a reasonable period of time, and that some of the challenged laws are constitutional, and that others are constitutional only insofar as they cover future acquisitions of wetlands in excess of those wetlands not yet acquired under consents the United States claims to hold.
Let me first deal with the question of consent, including whether it is required, whether it has been revoked, and whether it has been exhausted.
I then want to deal with the constitutionality of the North Dakota laws in question.
Our argument today is staged against the backdrop of our position that the acquisition of these wetlands involves two separate and disinct steps.
First, consent must be obtained from our governor.
Second, easements must be governed by the real property law of the state of North Dakota.
Let me point out that we are talking here about easements, not fee land.
Secondly, I want to point out that consent seems to be the main issue as opposed to the unconstitutionality of our laws, because the United States has essentially taken the position that our laws basically constitute a condition of prior gubernatorial consent, and to that extent it cannot fall through on the revocation that we cannot do it.
In other words, the governor says… the United States says, you cannot revoke, you cannot condition your laws.
Let's first of all talk about the consent and the first concession on Pages 12 and 16, particularly Footnote 11 of the United States' brief on Page 16.
I think that concession, our brief adequately sets forth the laws we are talking about and the particular error made by both the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Court, where they held that the gubernatorial consent provision simply doesn't apply, and I think that is adequately taken care of, and I will not be addressing that particular point.
Let's talk now about the consent and the revocation of the consent.
The revocation we are talking about here is prospective only.
North Dakota does not assert that the consent of our governor to the acquisition of these wetland easements is retroactive.
We are only talking about prospective.
This bill, the Wetlands Loan Act of 1961–
Harry A. Blackmun:
Mr. Attorney General–
–prospective in what sense?
As I… Maybe I am confused, but it seemed to me there were 700,000 acres in which easements had been formally acquired.
765,000, Your Honor.
And approximately the same amount in which they were described as unused or unconsummated.
Would your prospective argument not apply to the latter group?
What we are suggesting is that there is… that the governor of our state has the right to say, I hereby no longer consent to the acquisition of any easements.
What the United States is suggesting is that somehow in the early sixties, 1961 through '64, and again in the early seventies with Governor Link, that certain consents were signed, and that those consents are irrevocable.
Now, an example of that consent is found on the Joint Appendix, Page 3.
A couple of things to notice about that consent form, first of all.
That was prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
That document is on official Wildlife Service letterhead.
The United States says, well, it says unequivocally in there that the governor consents, and it doesn't say that he says, I am reserving the right to revoke.
Query: If the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service, as the drafter of that instrument had wanted to be clear that the governor could not revoke, couldn't they have out into their instrument, this should be irrevocable?
And query: Do you think our governor would have signed it under that circumstance?
I doubt it.
And that's the issue here.
Well, Governor Guy was an able person.
He certainly was, a good governor.
So he signed a document prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service that said, we are now going to be consenting to the acquisition of easements in North Dakota.
He has also signed an affidavit which is in the Joint Appendix that says, I am… I never intended to relinquish my right to approve from time to time.
William H. Rehnquist:
General Wefald–
–I found the record, or the opinions, at least, a little skimpy as to exactly what each of these two stages consist of.
The first, I gather, is getting consent from the governor.
That's correct.
Which is given on a county by county basis?
And does the government, the federal government, or the Fish and Wildlife Service simply come in with the sort of consent form that appears on Page 3 of the Joint Appendix?
Does it come in with that along with a map showing, you know, how much in Kidder County is being taken, or does the governor simply sign these without having any map before him?
You raise an excellent question, Justice Rehnquist.
When these signings took place, we don't know exactly what the governor had before him.
We know that there was no specific indication as to what particular potholes, what particular wetlands were going to be acquired.
Well, that was the governor's problem, I suppose.
I mean, if he hadn't wanted to sign the consent, he could have said, show me some maps.
Well, I think if the governor's problem at all was that he believed that the United States would treat him fairly in this regard, and that he put his faith in the fact that this acquisition was going to take place over a period of time.
Now, one other thing to point out, which is sort of an interesting observation.
We first discovered these consents for these 41 counties in 1979, when the interrogatories were answered by the United States government.
When you say you first discovered them–
That is, we don't have copies of those.
You see, they are on official Wildlife stationery.
They were taken back by them.
We didn't know they existed.
–But you are running a state government.
I mean, you could have asked for a copy if you wanted one.
Certainly we could have.
You don't say we should appoint a guardian for the state of North Dakota.
0 [Generallaughter.]
And we do say that we ought to be able to rely on the federal government.
These acquisitions were going to take place over a period of time.
What would the United States–
Byron R. White:
What was the purpose of the governor ever signing these authorizations if it was a parcel by parcel thing?
He authorized the acquisition of certain acreages in each county, certain acreages–
–Not specific acreages.
–and your claim is that… Well, do you mean not specific parcels… up to any amount he agreed to.
And now you are saying it has to be a parcel to parcel thing.
Well, there was no possible reason for ever getting the authorization then.
Well, first of all–
He should have just said, wait a minute, George, when you get ready to acquire a parcel, just come back and ask me.
But he didn't.
He says, go ahead and acquire 50,000 acres.
Ah ha.
He didn't go to the Fish and Wildlife Service and say, I want to give you a consent for 41,000 acres.
They came to him and said, we want you to sign off on 41,000 acres of land.
And neither did they ask him to give them anything.
They just wanted–
And that' the… The reason the United States came to our governor is because the Congress said that it wanted to continue the partnership established in 1959.
I agree with the position of the United States which is that if Congress had not authorized us to consent by law or our governor to consent, that we would have no right to interfere or to be involved in the acquisition process whatsoever, but this federal-state partnership was created by the Congress.
–General, you talk about the governor's giving the government, giving the federal government, as if the government were kind of conveying state lands, but I take it after the governor consents, that just opens up the acquisition, or if the law provides for a condemnation process.
The government still has to go to individual owners in the state of North Dakota and then pay, doesn't it?
Absolutely correct.
And that is what they did over a period of time.
And what you are saying is that what the government has already acquired from individual owners under these consents should be inviolate, but as to land for which consent is still outstanding, but where the interest in the land hasn't been acquired from the individual owner, as to that, the consent should be revocable.
Well, why shouldn't the past acquisitions where individual parcels hadn't been submitted to the governor, why wouldn't they be vulnerable?
Your Honor, it is not a question of whether or not the governor had consented to specific parcels.
It's a question of whether the United States is still ongoing in its acquisition process, which it was until they abruptly stopped on July 1 of '77.
They have under those consents, if they were to proceed ahead, they claim the right to acquire more easements.
we say you don't, because that consent is revocable and our governor–
And it has been revoked, you say?
–Well, all we can tell you today affirmatively is that they hold no consent from Governor Olsen to go about this business, and until they hold a consent from Governor Olsen, they are not authorized by this waterfowl… Wetlands Loan Act of 1961 to come into our state and acquire easements with the fund, with the Stamp Act fund.
Sandra Day O'Connor:
Well, they do have the unused consent forms from previous governors, right?
They have… they claim that they have acreages yet to acquire.
They claim that they have about 700,000 or 600,000 yet to acquire, yet they only want to acquire 20,000.
All right, and you are taking the position now that maybe those have been completely used, and furthermore, you are taking the position that maybe the original consent was not sufficiently specific, right?
As to the specificity–
Did you make those arguments below?
Or are we hearing those for the first time here?
–The argument with respect to the acreage was made at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
How about the specificity?
I believe it was.
I do not know.
Did you make the argument, Attorney General?
Now, with respect to this consent, it goes back to this federal-state relationship.
What we perceive is the Congress intending to create a partnership.
We think that we are not the equal partner in this relationship.
In fact, we are not even a junior partner.
Our status at best is one of a minority stockholder in a closely held corporation.
We simply aren't… It's as if we put our capital in at one point and all of a sudden it's lost forever.
John Paul Stevens:
May I ask you one other question–
–about the specificity of the consent?
Have you abandoned the argument that I thought you were making in your brief that they had to be parcel by parcel?
That's what is suggested in the Swan Lake case.
What we are suggesting–
But what is your position?
–We are not suggesting that applies retroactively.
You suggest… but are you suggesting the statute requires parcel by parcel consent?
But you say that until the consent is revoked, or something equivalent to it, a–
They can go ahead.
–they can go ahead–
–even though it isn't parcel by parcel consent?
And that's what they have done in fact, and that is how they get the 765,000 acres that they are claiming that show within the boundaries of 4.8, but we will talk about that in just a moment.
May I just ask you one other–
–What is the relevance of your parcel by parcel consent argument in your brief then?
Oh, I think it is interesting with respect to the question of specificity.
I guess I wouldn't rest my entire case on the specificity point.
Well, you mean, we can just forget about that part of it?
Well, I want you to think about it, please.
Let's take a look at that consent again.
South Dakota area.
North Dakota area.
Well, whatever.
I think it is fair to ask some questions about Congressional intent.
I think it is fair to believe that Congress in its refusal to repeal the gubernatorial consent provisions over the years has indeed intended that we have an active voice in this partnership, and in fact we would be able to consent.
It is not that the… the government doesn't contend that that consent is irrevocable.
It simply says it is irrevocable only after a reasonable period of time.
It is then revocable.
We could have placed conditions, as has been suggested.
Would that have made the government's position any better had we placed conditions on it?
Thurgood Marshall:
Well, wouldn't it have been good to have gotten a copy of the thing that the governor signed?
That probably would have been an excellent idea, but when you trust the Fish and Wildlife Service, you just have to deal with them as is.
And we did.
We dealt in good faith with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
We certainly didn't suggest at the outset that we had to be doubtful about the federal government.
My goodness.
Has your government signed any other papers without keeping a copy of it?
When we are dealing with the federal government, we believe that we have a right to believe in the good faith, and in this particular case we did put our good faith into it, and over time that may not have been warranted.
May I ask one other question?
You said the government concedes that these consents are revocable.
I didn't read the government's brief that way.
They say in words,
"The consent, once given, cannot be revoked. "
on Page 22.
Well, let me see.
They do explain on several pages in their brief, specifically 14, 25, 26, and 27, that they consent can be subject to revocation after a reasonable period of time.
That is the qualifier they put on it.
They don't say that it simply can never be revoked.
They put a qualifier upon it.
And I indeed agree that in fact it is revocable and was intended so by the United States Congress, and that in fact the federal government is not suffering any detriment whatsoever by virtue of the prospective revocation.
All they simply have to do is work with us.
Have any of Governor Guy's or Governor Link's successors in office attempted to revoke the consent?
The point is simply this.
The United States today does not hold a consent from Governor Olsen.
I know, but isn't that a yes or no answer to that?
The answer is, no, they haven't.
There is no specific document signed by Governor Link, Governor Guy, or Governor Olsen that says, I hereby revoke, period.
Well, have there been things other than specific document signings that might indicate an intent to revoke?
There has been a statute, hasn't there?
Well, there has been–
A state statute, which–
–Those… but those, interestingly enough… the question was with respect to the governor's revocation, and the governor has not.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has treated the enactments of 1977 as a revocation because they said, these constitute conditions with which we cannot live.
You cannot do that, because you cannot revoke.
Therefore, on the advice from the Attorney General of the United States, we are only going to try to acquire this one piece of land, and we are going to stop right here and bring a lawsuit, and not acquire any more land until such time as we resolve this at this Court.
Now, so for all practical purposes, the United States has treated it as a revocation, although they do not argue as such.
–A legislative… a legislative revocation.
And in fact, the revocation that the legislature specifically imposed was a revocation of our 1931 legislative consent to the acquisition of refuges… lands.
If the governor… if the state law purported to revoke a governor's consent, and the governor turned right around and gave it again, I suppose as far as the federal law is concerned the condition would be satisfied.
There would be consent.
It is simply the governor has not consented.
They hold no consent from Governor Olsen.
May I ask an impertinent question?
Are there any political overtones in this litigation?
I don't… I am not close enough to North Dakota politics.
Are the three governors whose names have been mentioned, Guy, Link, and Olsen, are they all of the same party?
No, they are not.
Which is who?
Guy and Link are Democrat, Olsen is Republican.
And there are no… this… over the years starting with the Kennedy Administration this hasn't been a partisan political issue.
We have been unilaterally sort of not had a good relationship with all the Secretaries of Interior until this year, and we are very pleased with the present relationship that we do have.
I wanted to note that for the record.
Let's talk about the other point.
But you are interested in keeping the ducks breeding and flying.
That is kind of a major industry is the Dakotas.
Well, it sure is.
We are the duck factory of America, and it is indeed a big industry in North Dakota.
A lot of hunters come in.
And we have done our part since statehood, since the first cultivated land was broken in North Dakota.
It is impossible to find a lawyer practicing during the duck season, isn't it?
Well, we have some goose hunters and duck hunters, although I myself don't do that.
Let's talk about this 4.8 million acres for a moment.
I want to lodge with the Court as a part of this argument this really nice map.
It has marked on it in purple all of the legal subdivisions constituting this 4.8 million acres of easement, and you take a look, you've got to remember that the total legal subdivision… holding fee in an easement is about 5.3 million.
That is 8,300 square miles, bigger than the entire state of Massachusetts, New Jersey, et cetera.
I must point out in fairness that when we show the legal subdivisions of 4.8 million acres, it is the position of my Sister Etkind and the United States that the lands claimed directly by the United States are about 765,000 wetland acres to which they hold easements.
Our position is–
What is this map?
Is it part of the record, or just–
–No, it is basically information.
It has not been ever put in as an exhibit.
–Your opponents have seen it, though?
They have.
And that is why I explained that we have a difference of opinion as to what it shows, and what is in there.
I think that as a backup position with respect to the question of consent and the acquisitions, that even if it is not necessary to address the question of revocability, I think we can successfully find that the government has exceeded all of its acreage acquisitions.
They have legal subdivisions describing easements in North Dakota totaling about 4.8 million acres.
That is well in excess of about the 1.3 million acres that they were authorized to acquire as shown in the table in the Joint Appendix at Pages 4 and 5.
Incidentally, we use the figure of 1.5, but I think it is closer to 1.3, because there were some… you are only supposed to take the last figure as shown on the particular appendix page.
Are those larger acreages paid for out of the fund?
They are not paid for.
Unfortunately, they take a legal description to it, and they claim to impose no restrictions on it except that the farmer can us it only insofar as it does not interfere with or violate the restrictions on wetlands.
Does the legislation in your view require the consent of the governor or the state agency only for acquisitions out of the fund?
Yes, and that is what the law specifically provides.
It is just that the Congress put the money into it, and has continually put money into that fund for the purpose of making these particular acquisitions, but the United States in this particular case has acquired 4.8 million acres, and there are several cases below that in fact pose… that in fact bring all the total legal subdivision into the National Wildlife Refuge System and not just the waterfowl production areas, and in fact in the untried case of Towner v. Key, on Footnote 14 of Page 19 in the United States' brief, the United States in fact claims the entire tract is part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but it says that it is only for access.
Let's take a look at the laws for just a few moments here that are alleged to be unconstitutional.
The laws basically are in two groups.
One is entitled 47, and that's the one that deals strictly with easements.
That's the one that says all easements in North Dakota, regardless of by whom held, will not be in excess of 99 years.
No direction from the United States Congress as to how long these easements are to be held.
That is simply an administrative determination by the Secretary.
At the time the legislation was enacted, they were taking easements of 20, 30, up to 99 years.
The Secretary desires perpetual easements, but that is not required, and in fact that is governed by the law of the state of North Dakota.
We deem it not to be an impediment, and we believe that it should be upheld as to constitutionality.
As to Section S of the provisions in Title 20.1, they are in 0218, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, somewhat run together, 18 is our 1931 legislative consent, and we simply amended that to say that if you don't agree with us, that is, if you don't go along with the other sections, we are going to revoke the consent.
18.1 simply provides for public participation in the wetlands acquisition process, public comment.
I think there is an objection to the environmental impact statement type requirement, but as we argue this case here in the capital of this great nation from which NEPA came and the environmental impact statements, surely it is clear that there is a right and a good reason for public participation and a need for doing so, whether it is at the federal level or the state level, and we simply imposed a reasonable and a rational requirement in fulfillment of our sovereignty.
The 18.2 law advises the landowners of their right to negotiate.
There is nothing wrong with that.
There can't be anything unconstitutional about that.
And indeed, the United States concedes that that is constitutional, notwithstanding the pronouncements of the courts below.
They simply indicate that the constitutionality is dubious insofar as that section talks about after expanded wetlands and the right of the farmer to drain those after expanded wetlands back down to the original wetland parameters.
Insofar as that happens, we believe that unless the government negotiates specifically with the individual, unless the farmer knows of his right to negotiate about the after expanded wetlands, that the government has not made a valid acquisition.
In other words, if they want the after expanded wetlands, then they should negotiate with the farmer, and the farmer should be free to negotiate, and I can't imagine that there is anything unconstitutional with that.
Is it your position that the state statutes should be interpreted as simply putting conditions on the pre-existing governor's consent?
That is as to–
So that Governor Guy's consent has never been revoked.
And so if the United States must have a governor's consent… suppose the United States went ahead and satisfied the statutory conditions, the state statutory conditions.
It would still have to satisfy the federal statutory conditions.
Namely in having a governor's consent.
And that is Governor Guy's consent.
Until such time as it is revoked by Governor Olsen.
So the governor's consent has never been revoked.
And so the question is whether the legislature may put conditions on a governor's consent that the federal act requires that the federal act does not authorize.
As to the question of the relationship between our governor and our legislature, I believe that is properly a matter for state law and our state courts, and is not properly before this Court.
I know, but it is still a question of whether there is a governor's consent under the federal law.
And the federal law doesn't require any legislative consent.
And you do not claim now that Governor Guy's consent has ever been revoked.
It has never been specifically revoked by Governor Guy, Governor Fink, or Governor Olsen.
Or by anybody else.
And if the United States satisfied the legislative conditions imposed by the state legislature, it could go ahead based on Guy's consent.
It could until Governor Olsen revokes it, which he will do.
Well, he has never revoked it.
Yes, but he simply hasn't had to act–
You are not authorized to say that he has revoked it.
–No, he hasn't.
You don't even claim that he has revoked it.
I do not claim he has revoked it.
I have a reasonable expectation as to what he will do when I talk to him about it, but he has not done so to this point.
I will reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.
Ms. Etkind.
Barbara E. Etkind:
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, I would like to begin, if I may, with a few concerns that were raised during General Wefald's argument.
With respect to your question, Justice Blackmun, about prospective, retrospective revocation, I just want to make clear we believe that it is a prospective revocation here.
He is retrospectively revoking those consents that have been given, even though they have not yet been exercised by–
–Well, I would say… we would be–
I take it that the Attorney General doesn't claim Governor Guy's consent has ever been revoked.
–We would be very pleased if the consent had ever been revoked, but I feel constrained to show you that in a stipulation filed in the District Court, North Dakota took the position that the consents could be cancelled and in fact had been cancelled.
Well, by whom?
They were not specific, but I think–
Well, the Attorney General now says the governor's consent has never been revoked.
And if you were going to satisfy the legislative conditions imposed by the state legislature, you would have to still have a governor's consent, and whose would it be?
Well, we would say that we have the consent of Governor Guy, Governor Link, and… of Governor Guy and Governor Link, and that they remain outstanding.
But as General Wefald explained, Governor Olsen is ready to revoke those consents, and in fact I think that it is a fair reading of the state's position all along that they have been, that they have been revoked.
Where is that stipulation?
Is that the stipulation on Page 71?
Of the Joint Appendix?
Page 71 and 72, the top of Page 72, right before the paragraph numbered 4.
I would also like to take… to point out in contrast to the implication that the United States was overreaching the state of North Dakota when we first went to get these consents, as was pointed out, Governor Guy had an opportunity to sign any sort of consent he wanted to sign.
In fact, with respect to our fee acquisitions, he explicitly kept the right to consent on an acquisition by acquisition basis, and if he had wanted to do so with respect to fee… with respect to easements, he could have done that as well.
Ms. Etkind–
–supposing that the 1977 statute, instead of reading the way it did, said that the legislature of North Dakota hereby cancels the consent previously given by Governors Guy and Link and forbids any future governor of North Carolina from ever entering into such consents.
I believe that the legislature of North Dakota could do that on a prospective basis.
If the governor can speak for the state, presumably the legislature can restrict his authority to… under federal law.
I believe that the governor needed authority under state law to consent, and if he did not have that authority, then he could not make the consent.
Well, the stipulation just recites what the state's position is.
And it recites your contrary position.
But it recites their position–
–But it doesn't… but it doesn't explain how the state claims cancellation has been effected.
–That's right, but in 19–
Have they ever taken a position in this litigation how it has been effected?
The Attorney General now says it has never been effected.
In the papers in the District Court, the… North Dakota took the position that our declaratory action judgment action was not right on the ground that the gubernatorial consents had been revoked, and since we–
By whom?
–The state… at that point, the state was relying on a 1979 statement by Governor Link.
Now, he said in that statement, I will not consent to any further wetland acquisitions.
We explained in our brief that we think that is ambiguous, but I think the fair understanding of what he was saying is that he viewed the consents that already were in effect not to be in effect, and he wasn't going to revitalize them.
That is somewhat ambiguous at the top of Page 72, is it not?
Well, I think they are more like alternative arguments than ambiguous.
They say it can legally be cancelled unilaterally by the state, that they have been cancelled, and that even if they have not been cancelled, and so on.
That's right, but I think they were trying to make alternative arguments.
North Dakota has come to rely more and more on its argument that even if its governor's consent cannot be revoked, the United States already has acquired more acreage than the governors already… ever approved, but the state did not present this issue in its jurisdictional statement, and it therefore cannot rely on it before this Court, nor is that issue fairly comprised within the issues that were presented.
And in any event, the contention is specious.
It is because of the peculiar nature of waterfowl production area country, that is, lands that have been… that are characterized by numerous small, scattered, and irregularly shaped wetland.
The Secretary early on adopted the practice of acquiring easements covering all of the wetlands occurring on a given described legal subdivision, but while the easement instrument describes a legal subdivision, the easement restrictions which are only on draining, filling, leveling, and burning, expressly apply only to the wetlands occurring on that subdivision.
The landowner thus remains completely free to utilize and dispose of the entire balance of his land, that is, the upland, in any way he sees fit.
The only conceivable restriction on the landowner's use of the uplands, in addition to not impeding the Secretary's right of access across them to get to the wetlands, is that he cannot take any action on the uplands that would have the expressly prohibited purpose of draining the wetlands.
Indeed, Interior's standard easement document permits the landowner to farm even the wetlands when they are dry of natural causes.
As General Wefald pointed out, the question before this Court is a straightforward one of statutory construction.
The Duck Stamp Act authorizes the United States to use money from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to purchase small wetland and pothole areas, interests in them, and rights of way to provide access to them.
When Congress became aware in the late 1950's of the ongoing destruction of much of the nation's wetlands, it authorized the United States to buy up portions of these wetlands in order to preserve the desired waterfowl populations and distribution, and in 1961, in the Wetlands Loan Act, it authorized a $105 million interest-free loan to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund in order to make possible a crash program of wetlands acquisition.
At the same time, it provided that no land shall be acquired with money from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund unless the acquisition thereof has been approved by the governor of the state or the appropriate state agency.
The question in this case is whether Congress intended that governors would be permitted to revoke those consents once validly given.
Are you taking the position that the consent can be revoked within a reasonable time?
And if so, why?
We have conceded that after a reasonable amount of time for the federal government to act on the consents, they… they perhaps could be revoked, but we say that that is not the case here.
Well, on what do you base that theory?
The reasonable time?
And has it always been your position?
No, it was not the position in the courts below, but then we have come a long way from the position in the… The courts below held that we didn't need to get any consent whatsoever, but we believe that that flies in the face of the statutory language, as well as in the face of our consistent administrative practice.
Ever since 1961, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to the states and has acquired consents for easements for waterfowl production areas.
But your practice has always been to do it in the manner you did it here, namely, county by county, rather than parcel by parcel?
That's not in the–
Or do you know?
Or you have done it both ways?
I believe that we have always done it county by county, but that is not in the record, and I can't say for certain.
I interrupted Justice O'Connor.
Do you want to answer her question?
We believe that that question is not presented here, because clearly here the federal government has acted reasonably in not acting on this consent.
In waiting 17 years?
I'm sorry?
In waiting 17 years to–
Well, in fact, we have not been waiting 17 years.
Not all of these consents were given at the outset of the program in 1961.
In fact, as late as 1973, Governor Link authorized the acquisition of more easement lands, and in 1977 he authorized some adjustments in the acreage.
So it hasn't been a full 17… nearly a full 17-year period.
–Are there some consents executed by Governor Guy, who was the one that executed them in the early sixties, I take it, that still have not been acquired by the government?
–That's probably true, because they weren't done on a parcel by parcel area.
It's not… I couldn't say for sure, but I would think that there probably are some areas in some counties that have not–
So then Justice O'Connor's suggestion of a period of 19 years would apply to those particular ones.
–To some… to some acreage.
To some acreage, that's true.
But the moneys for our acquisitions were not appropriated until… the moneys under the Wetlands Loan Act were not appropriated until the very first instance was in 1963, and since that time we've been operating within… we've been constrained by the appropriations from Congress under the Wetlands Loan Act and under the revenues that we get from the sale of duck stamps.
Well, just as the state, I suppose, has to bear the responsibility for the failure of Governor Guy to ask for a copy, if he didn't, I suppose the federal government has to bear the responsibility for the failure of Congress to appropriate money.
I mean, that can't inevitably be a defense to conduct that would otherwise lead to a forfeiture or a divestiture of a claim.
Well, but even within those constraints, regardless of who is responsible for them, we have gotten consents from the governors up to 1.5 million acres, and until 1977 we exercised a full half of those.
We have more than 750,000 acres.
Well, but… what have you done, stockpiled the other half?
For one thing, as Congress foresaw, the negotiation process does take some time.
In these programs, we only buy from willing sellers.
We don't–
You don't have the authority to condemn?
–We have the authority, but we have never exercised it.
You have never used it.
That, of course, takes some time.
As Congress recognized when it conceived of this program, it was a huge program.
It contemplated the federal government acquiring an additional two and a half million acres of land, and it realized this was going to take some time to do.
It realized the type of intricate planning that was going to be involved.
Contrary to stockpiling our consents, we have had to plan out where we are going to buy these, what would be the lands that would be best used by the expenditure of limited federal funds.
The statutory language, of course, contains no mention of revocability.
It provides simply that no lands shall be acquired until the acquisition has been approved by the governor or appropriate state agency.
It thus makes no provision for the revoking, qualifying, or conditioning of any consent once it is validly given.
By its express terms, all the legislation required is that the governor or state agency at some point have consented to the acquisition.
There is no reason why this plain language should not prevail.
Particularly since in the absence of explicit legislation, the United States does not need a state's consent to purchase land within its boundaries at all, it would seem that any legislatively imposed consent requirement should be narrowly construed.
Why shouldn't the full intent of Congress be given expression to?
Well, we believe the full intent of Congress should be, but we believe that the full intent of Congress was that the states had a right to withhold their consent at the outset if that's what they chose to do, or to condition it prospectively, but not to revoke it once it had been given.
Well, I was curious about where you derived the principle of narrow construction.
From the fact that in the normal case, we would be able to just go into a state and buy the land.
Well, but Congress has said this isn't going to be the normal case.
That's right, but this is a proviso, a limiting proviso at the end of a general enabling provision, and the statutory rule of construction is that such provisions are narrowly construed.
The legislative history bolsters the plain meaning of the statute.
Like the statute itself, the history contains no mention anywhere of a right to revoke gubernatorial consent.
To be sure, Congress intended that the legitimate concerns of the states wouldn't be ignored, and therefore it required the United States to obtain prior gubernatorial consent, but the main thrust of the legislative history is Congress's concern with the urgency of the need for the federal acquisition of wetlands.
As I mentioned in response to Justice O'Connor's question, the Congress knew that it would be impossible for the federal government to bring about a program of this magnitude without meticulous long-range planning, and it would have been wholly inconsistent with that recognition for Congress to have intended the governors would be free to revoke their consents once validly give, at least until the United States had had a reasonable time to act on them.
The Secretary must be able to rely on the continued effectiveness of gubernatorial consent, at least for a reasonable time, in order to obtain the optimal amount and the type of wetlands in the configurations and in the areas that will most further Congress's goal of protecting and preserving waterfowl populations and distribution.
I think there is some tension in your argument that the statute has to be narrowly construed, and yet we should interpret is as giving the state a reasonable time within which to revoke, but 19 years is not a reasonable time.
Well, I don't think… well, for one thing, our argument doesn't… this case doesn't require finding that the states can revoke after a reasonable period of time, since… if you agree with me that we have not been unreasonable here.
Well, that's a question that perhaps this Court isn't equipped to decide.
The question of the reasonableness?
I think the Court can look to the state of the record just in the sense of how many acquisitions we have made, with how much money, over the period of time.
I think it's a question, not necessarily one of a certain number of years.
In some contexts perhaps 20 years would have been unreasonable, if we had had these consents and there were no barriers to our purchasing the easements, but–
Wouldn't you ordinarily have a hearing before some fact-finder on a question such as reasonableness, though, with the focus being on the sort of issues you say, rather than just kind of gleaning from a record that was devoted to focusing on other issues what you can about reasonableness?
–In the ordinary course, perhaps that would be… that would be the thing that would be done.
We submit that isn't necessary to do here, and we further submit that any further delay in this case would be unfortunate.
As Congress recognized, and is continuing to recognize, these wetlands are disappearing very quickly.
Nineteen years is fine, but 20 would be fatal.
If the Secretary could not rely on the continued effectiveness of gubernatorial consents, he would be forced to purchase immediately any land that he could as soon as the governor had consented to its acquisition, last that consent be withdrawn, without being able to weigh the relative merits of potential acquisitions that would have to be purchased out of very limited federal funds.
In addition, if the Secretary could not count on the continued effectiveness of the consents he received, federal resources would be wasted in the negotiations of acquisitions that ultimately could be frustrated by gubernatorial revocation.
Moreover, permitting governors to revoke their consents would seriously delay and therefore ultimately frustrate the purpose of the program as a whole, the acquisition of wetlands.
In each case of revocation, the planning and negotiation processes would have to begin again.
In turn, in view of this rapid shrinkage and destruction of the nation's wetlands, and the continued escalation of the cost of acquiring them, any delay in acquisition would necessarily result in the ultimate acquisition of fewer acres of wetlands.
Why didn't he just… why was the… why was the position of North Dakota such a hindrance to the Federal Government?
Because we needed their consent, and once they said–
Well, why didn't you just get it?
–After 1977?
They refused to give it after 1977.
No, they didn't.
They just had conditions.
There was no question that they were refusing to give it.
well, did you… did North Dakota take the position that there's no way that we'll ever give consent to acquisition of any more wetlands?
I thought there were just conditions on it.
Well, as I said before, I believe it's been North Dakota's position that it has revoked.
Well, it has revoked.
It may be, they may have revoked.
But they've never… has the United States ever tried to satisfy those conditions and get consent?
Governor Link said in 1979 that he would not consent to any further wetland acquisition.
Even with the consent… even satisfying the conditions?
Well, he was tieing it to the Garrison diversion project, which… it's a completely different, completely separate matter.
There have been numerous disputes between the Federal Government and North Dakota, and in a sense the wetlands acquisition program has sort of been held hostage to the resolution of those other disputes.
There was no question that we were not going to be able to get any more land and that they weren't going to consent to that.
Well, Ms. Etkind, why is this one thing, this one question of whether the present Governor or perhaps his predecessor will or will not consent, will or will revoke, so obscure in this record?
I get the impression both from you and your opponent that both of you perhaps, or your clients perhaps, pretty much tiptoed around actually going to Governor Link or Governor Olson and saying, you know, will you revoke or will you consent.
I don't think that's the case.
I think it was just so clear, there was such hostility, the state was not going to consent to any more.
Well, has he ever proposed… have you ever gone to the Governor, Olson or to Link, and said, here's a tract, a specific tract of land we want to acquire, give us your consent?
Well, that was done with respect to fees, yes.
Since 1977 no fees have been authorized and they have been returned to the state to ask for action on them, and they were refused.
By the Governor?
By whom, by the Governor?
Well, they've been refused since… they were returned in '79, so they've been… I'm not sure when Olson took over.
Well, it's the Governor's consent that you needed.
Were they turned down, the specific tracts turned down, by the Governor?
They have not been… they have not been given.
Whether in fact he signed something that said "Declined", I don't know.
But he certainly didn't approve them, and we gave them for his approval.
The have never been approved.
On the question of revocable and irrevocable, that's what we have to decide.
You found it necessary to get the Governor's consent.
You couldn't operate without it?
Was it your duty to get it irrevocable?
We believe that we did.
Well, I don't see the word "irrevocable" there.
He consented to any wetlands.
But I mean, the word "irrevocable" is not there.
No, the word is not there.
Well, isn't that your duty?
You're the one who was doing the negotiating and you're using your paper to write on.
Perhaps they could have been more artfully drawn.
So you don't think the state unreasonable in saying the failure of you to do it leaves you outside?
Oh, I do think that is unreasonable.
But you said it was a reasonable time, and you will decide what is a reasonable time.
Well, the Court can decide what is a reasonable time.
But I think that as long as the Federal Government has been actively pursuing this program of acquiring the wetlands, which it certainly has… the only reason we haven't been getting anything from '77 'til now is because of the state's refusal to allow us to… I think that qualifies as reasonable.
Well, suppose the present Governor revokes it.
If the present Governor revokes?
I think we can't purchase, if he could, if he had the power to revoke and he revoked.
He issues an executive order and says, by this order I revoke any alleged signed paper you have on your stationery that a former Governor signed.
I believe that's exactly the question before this Court.
Well, could he do it?
No, he cannot do it.
You'd take him to court if he did it now, I take it?
The Governor, you'd said take him to court.
We believe we've taken him to court.
Well, if it's a subsequent development on this posture, if it's done subsequent to this day.
That's a new event.
And you'd take him to court then.
You'd try to hold him in contempt, wouldn't you, for violating an outstanding injunction?
Wouldn't you try to hold him in contempt if he did it now?
Isn't there an injunction outstanding, a declaratory judgment order at least, that he can't do it?
I'm not sure that there's an injunction outstanding.
Well, at least there's a judgment that says that he has already consented.
And he has no right to revoke.
Isn't that in the district court order?
I would think he'd think twice before he did it now.
I would hope so.
But it sure would standing states' rights up on its edge if you say that the Federal Government can tell a Governor, you can't sign a paper.
You can't revoke.
You can't revoke something something you've already give.
I wasn't trying.
The Court of Appeals' opinion seems to have a little confusion about it.
At page 26A, they recite, "North Dakota contends", and so forth,
"and that any previous consent has been revoked by Governor Link. "
Perhaps the Attorney General will be able to clear that up for us later on.
I think that's an accurate reflection of the stipulation, and I think it's an accurate reflection of the way this case has been litigated all the way through.
I firmly believe that there's no question in this case that there has been a purported revocation by the Governor, as well as by the legislature.
Once it's established that Section 715(k)(5) does not permit revocation of consent, at least for reasonable period of time after the consent has been given, it follows that the Northern Dakota statutes at issue here as applied to previously given but not yet exercised gubernatorial consents also are invalid under the supremacy clause as partial revocations of the previously given consent.
Ms. Etkind, suppose you submitted a particular tract to the Governor now and he consented, but that the legislative conditions were not complied with.
Do you think you could go ahead?
That I could go ahead and purchase it?
The federal–
What's the United States' position with respect to the relationship between the legislation and the power of the Governor to consent?
–The legislation itself works at least a partial revocation of the prior consent.
So you think the Governor's consent, future consents, must be consistent with and comply with the state legislation, the '77 legislation?
Well, it's our position that they don't have to comply with it, that the '77 legislation is void.
But even if… suppose we disagreed with you, that the Governor, that the state may revoke, and so you have to go get the Governor's consent.
But when you go get the Governor's consent, do you have to get a consent on conditions that are consistent with the state legislature?
Or just, can you ignore the state legislation and just get the Governor's consent?
If you agree with us that the Governor… I mean, if you disagree with us and you say that the Governor can revoke, then I believe that we would have to comply with the state statute.
I thought you took the position that at least compliance prospectively was required.
Oh, clearly, yes.
Well, but you're not saying that as to land where you claim you already have a consent.
Some large blocks of land, you claim you've got consent, but you're objecting to the fact you have to comply with the conditions of an impact statement and all that sort of thing.
If that consent is valid, which we believe–
Then you say the legislative conditions that require you to reimburse them for an environmental impact statement and all that sort of thing, that's invalid?
What about the 99-year restriction on the easement; is that equally invalid?
That is equally invalid.
Is that geared to this particular program, the way these other things are?
You mean, was it–
–Isn't it a general state law that 99 years is the maximum length of any property easement?
It was submitted together with the other language.
I mean, it was submitted in response to this same federal-state problem.
But isn't there a justification for that rule that may not apply to some of these other conditions that place specific burdens on this program?
Well, I think there's two problems with it.
One is that if you agree with us that the consents we already have are valid, then that would be a partial revocation of that consent because the consents we have allow us to–
well, but they would argue, I suppose, that what you've got a consent to is to acquire in accordance with the otherwise valid laws of the state of North Dakota that do not specifically burden wildlife land any differently than it burdens anything else.
–Well, we would say that those statutes that were in effect at the time the consent was given, but not after-enacted statutes.
Well, supposing they passed a new recording statute that said every transfer of real property has to be recorded with the secretary of state instead of the country recorder of deed or something like that.
Would you have to comply with that?
Well, I think that would be on a different footing, because this particular statute has a particularly adverse impact on the acquisition program.
In a related context, when Congress amended the Migratory Bird Conservation Act in 1976 to permit the Secretary to purchase easements as well as fees for wildlife refuge purchases, it made clear that he should make every effort to obtain permanent easements rather than lesser interests, because such an approach was in the best interest of the habitat and the migratory water fowl involved.
That's in the legislative history, the House–
But they counter by saying, well, that may be better, but you have for a long time acquired a lot of easements for lesser periods, such as 20 years and 30 years.
–That's not true.
Oh, isn't it?
The vast majority of our easements are perpetual easements.
I was told by Interior 99 percent, but that is not in the record.
What is in the record on that point?
What is in the record is reflected in our brief.
If it's in your brief I'll find it.
In particular, North Dakota Centennial Code Section 20.10218.3 purports to suspend gubernatorial consent to federal acquisition of any land or interest in land with money from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.
Now, since this provision amounts to a straightforward revocation of consent, it is void as inconsistent with federal law for the reasons I've already discussed.
I see that my time is up.
Do you have anything further, Mr. Attorney General?
Yes, sir, I do, Mr. Chief Justice.
Let me just focus real quickly on this questions of the constitutionality of our laws with respect to the argument made again in oral argument by the United States.
They are suggesting that our laws are constitutional to any consents that may go on beyond this 1.3 or 1.5 million acres.
In other words, our laws are constitutional.
The only thing that makes our laws unconstitutional with respect to the United States is that insofar as they purport to condition the acquisition by the Federal Government of another 600 or 700,000 acres, that that constitutes a revocation or a conditioning, in that they cannot do that, and that revocation or conditioning is indeed an impediment to us.
The last section that my sister just mentioned, 18.103, does not revoke, It simply suspends until the Federal Government of the United States gets together or December 31st, 1983.
Mr. Attorney General.
Is the present Governor Olson the former Attorney General of your state?
Well, did Governor revoke or not?
Governor Link… we cannot find a single document where Governor Link said, I revoke these consents signed by myself and governor Guy.
But if he said, I will never… I will not agree to any further acquisitions, if some piece of land the United States claimed was covered by a prior consent and Governor Link says, I will not agree to that, has he in effect revoked or not?
The only fair reading of that statement made by Governor Link is that it relates to the fee lands and not to the easements.
Let me explain why this consent–
You still say, then, that the prior consents have never been revoked by a Governor?
–There is no written document to that effect, that's correct.
Or no conduct by them.
There's plenty of conduct to the effect, but there is no written document.
That they revoked?
The United States has treated them as revoked.
We treat them as revoked.
Well, the Eighth Circuit said they were revoked, too.
Indeed, and so did the district court.
Let me explain how this came up–
In your argument on direct you said they weren't revoked, I thought.
–Well, they are not revoked through an action of our Governor where he signs a paper saying, I hereby revoke these particular previous consents.
But you've taken the position that the legal effect is they've been revoked.
That's the position you've taken throughout this litigation until this afternoon, right?
In terms of the Governor's signature, that's correct.
We should judge the case on the ground that North Dakota's legal position is that the consents have purported to have been revoked.
Well, that's correct.
Let me tell you what came up at the district court level, just to clear this up.
The United States sued us.
Their complaint sought to declare unconstitutional our laws.
At the end of the oral argument the judge suggested, well, I don't think consent's necessary.
Thereafter followed the stipulation, in a very curious order of events, and it has subsequently snowballed to this particular point.
Thank you, counsel.
The case is submitted.
The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at 10:00.
Block v. North Dakota ex Rel. Board of University and School Lands – Oral Argument – February 23, 1983
Rapanos v. United States – Oral Argument – February 21, 2006
Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson
Weinberger v. Rossi – Oral Argument – February 22, 1982
Case Briefs - 1982
Kyllo v. United States
City of Boerne v. Flores
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Dames & Moore v. Regan
Goldberg v. Kelly
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Terry v. Ohio
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper?
How about receiving a customized one?
HAVEN'T FOUND ESSAY YOU WANT? FOR ONLY $13.90/PAGE
Plagiarism Cheker Law Essays Law Schools Law Notes Case Briefs
47 Bergen St--Floor 3, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
© 2020 Law Essays and Papers
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this
website. If you need this or any other sample, we
can send it to you via email.
Please, specify your valid email address
We can't stand spam as much as you do
No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own.
Remember that this is just a sample essay and since it might not be original, we do not recommend to submit it. However, we might edit this sample to provide you with a plagiarism-free paper
Edit this sample
YOUR TOPIC ISN'T HERE?
We can write it from scratch
GET YOUR PAPER
100% Purchase


text:
Q: Hibernate: possible to get a specific value as String using join, or does it require the whole object to be joined? Say I have
class Agent {
     private String a;
     private String b;
     private String c;
     //other values
}

class Bandit {
     private String a;
     private String b;
     private String c;
     private String d;
     //other values
}

And I would like to join the D value in class A.
Now I was wondering whether it was possible to do this using a JoinFormula
With something along the lines of:
    @JoinFormula(value="select bandit.d from Bandit bandit where bandit.a = a, bandit.b = b, bandit.c = c")
    Private string d; //<== extra transient variable in Agent

Or would a better way be to use @Formula?
The issue I'm facing is that both of those only seem intended for mapped objects, whilst I don't want to retrieve the whole object, just join a single value.
The class\variable names are just dummies so don't get too fussed over the unlogical join of Agents and Bandits.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Obituary for Adolphus T. Temple | Loftus-McManus Funeral Homes Inc.
Mr. Adolphus T. Temple, 82, of Metropolis, Illinois, passed away at 3:20 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2019, at Massac Memorial Hospital.
Funeral services will be held at 1 p.m. Friday, Jan. 18, 2019, at Aikins-Farmer-Loftus-McManus Funeral Home in Metropolis with Amon White and Jim Faughn officiating. Burial will follow in Metropolis Memorial Gardens with military rites.
Mr. Temple was a retired Navy veteran and worked at Thane's Building Service for many years. Adolph was a member of Broadway Church of Christ in Metropolis and attended Happy Hearts Senior Center.
Adolph is survived by his two daughters, Terra Temple of Metropolis and LuAnn Harris of Warren, Rhode Island; two grandchildren, Zak Harris and wife Lindsay of Santee, California and Tyler Harris of Warren, Rhode Island; two half-sisters, Ellen Neal of Petal, Mississippi and Mary Ann Gothart of Scottsboro, Alabama; four half-brothers, Wayne Hill of Knoxville, Tennessee, Larry Hill and Fred Hill of Starkville, Mississippi and Charles Hill of Vickersburg, Mississippi; one aunt, Becky Coffer of Chickamauga, Georgia.
He was preceded in death by his parents, Henson Temple and Anna (Laird) Temple Hill; his wife, Luna (Farley) Temple; one grandson, Matthew Harris; one brother, Wilbern Temple and his family, Laurie, DeAn and Darin; one half-brother, Tom Hill.
Visitation will be held on Thursday, Jan. 17, 2019 at the Aikins-Farmer-Loftus-McManus Funeral Home from 6 to 8 p.m.
Pallbearers will be his nephew, Larry Logeman, his cousin, Mitch Laird, John Merriweather, Greg Bradford, Ardell Nance, and Hank Pollard.
Memorial contributions may be given in Adolph's name to Happy Hearts Senior Center, 701 Ferry Street, Metropolis, Illinois 62960, Broadway Church of Christ Metropolis, 808 Broadway Street, Metropolis, Illinois 62960, Metropolis Public Library, 317 Metropolis Street, Metropolis, Illinois 62960, or USS LST Ship Memorial Attn: Maintenance Fund, 840 LST Drive, Evansville, Indiana 47713.


Meet the Civic Area Artists!
When: Thursday, December 6, 2018; 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.
Arts and cultural components are integral to Civic Area experience, which includes both permanent and temporary projects in a variety of media. Adam Kuby (Portland, OR) and Michelle Sparks (Boulder, CO) were selected for permanent public art commissions by a community selection panel. Kuby has been awarded a public art commission for the newly renovated Civic Area and Sparks has been awarded a public art commission for the Boulder Creek Path Underpass at Arapahoe Ave. and 13th St. Their respective artworks are civic in scale, site-specific and responsive to Boulder's public space and natural environment.
Portland, OR-based artist, Adam Kuby, creates landscape-based public art installations that respond to the interaction between the built and natural environments. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Design from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Fine Arts in Sculpture from the University of North Carolina. He has recent commissions in Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver and Calgary. Kuby has received two awards from the Public Art Network.
Kuby's project for Boulder, titled 55 Degrees, is inspired by the iconic Flatirons. The artist has designed a series of large-scale corten steel sculptures that will be installed in late 2019. Click for more information about Kuby's project.
Boulder, Colorado-based artist, Michelle Sparks, explores human interaction with nature. She collects, records and broadcasts community stories to create unusual immersive spaces to challenge the way we relate to public space. Recent commissions include, "Cycle of Life," in Bergen, Norway and, "Uproot," for the Museum of Outdoor Arts, Denver, CO. Sparks earned her BFA at CU Boulder and her MFA in sculpture from University of Bergen, Norway.
Inspired by the Boulder Creek, Sparks will design and install a caustic light installation that utilizes the inherent qualities of the creek flow to project light onto the ceiling and walls of the Arapahoe Underpass. Click for more information and renderings of Sparks' project.


Polin Composites is one of the major leaders in the composite marketplace throughout Europe. We provide many industries with excellent products, Aerospace, Construction, Automative, Hotel and Urban Equipments, Transportation, Wind Energy, etc. With our investments in inspection facilities and our experienced team, we can proactively monitor every aspect of our product quality. We have strong, long-term relationships with outstanding partners across the world to be able to offer the best technology-based product solutions in composite materials.


Zombra wrote: It's not intended as an argument, or to shut down the conversation. It's a reminder that the forum has rules you should keep in mind. Calling a moderator names to his face is not going to end well. Take a few deep breaths and think it over.
No, you should think about why what you just did was childish. You are obviously aware of that you have power, and that you can force me to shut up if you want to. So when you choose an approach to debating someone that solely consists of "my opinion is better than your opinion", and add your moderator credentials on top as extra leverage - then you don't get to say "I don't want to stop people from discussing this" afterwards.
What you get then is the right to keep quiet and change your approach.
Zombra wrote: You seem to think that the context was a handful of forum posts. I am inclined to believe that the context was months of internal and external testing and full time development work. I guess we'll never know unless they decide to spend the man-hours to research, format, and publicly post full details of their development process in deference to one complainer's sense of entitlement. Hold your breath.
You know I'm not asking for that, and the HP bar has been questioned regularly since it was mentioned on the forum. And what I want to hear is that the crisis encounter design wasn't separated out of the rulesystem with it's own buffer for balancing purposes. I want to hear that inXile doesn't think that is a satisfying way to design a game.
Zombra wrote: Still waiting for those citations.
I don't go around compiling sourced lists of internet comments, but it is from the same thread on this forum. Other than that, I chatted with someone here when the beta first came out, they felt the first encounter may have been a bit difficult. They went on to do the encounter again, cleared it, thought it was fine. My interpretation of the chatter elsewhere, and some people I spoke with privately, was that the presentation of the system seemed a bit weird, that the AI was a bit too good at seeing your weaknesses. But that it fundamentally made sense.
Later, my impression was that the testers who still post here, as well as inxile "balancing" folks have decided that the crisis system is fundamentally broken, cannot be balanced, and needed a new variable so they could be scaled properly in a linear fashion.
That surprised me, because this is the identical approach Obsidian chose when they scrapped Josh Sawyer's absolutely brilliant rule-system fro PoE, and spent 6 months at replacing it with a linear and incredibly boring system.
And the reason I thought of that was because they also cited "balancing issues". So, just so it's been said - I've been beta-testing "professionally", I've been handling focus-groups for an IT project in person. I know what "balancing" really means. So when I say I suspect that InXile is dumbing down the rule-system and replacing it with something that can be incrementally completed and documented easily as having been "objectively" balanced to perfection, with math, etc. Then the reason for that is that I recognise the approach from projects I've been part of, where instead of choosing the clever option, we end up deliberately choosing the dumb option - because both users and managers are able to see the progress and milestones specifically as we work.
It is of course still the dumb option, and it's never going to be anything else than that. And we would never have went that route in our project if we didn't have to answer to people who don't understand programming, logic, or anything but a bright folder with snappy slides in it.
So consider that there may be more people than me who will be surprised to learn that inXile - without being pressured by a large an evil corporation or publisher, or something like that - still chose the dumb option here. This reflects incredibly badly on you.
Zombra wrote: The impression I get is that they are not in the habit of exhaustively explaining, or groveling for approval for, every decision they make - nor should they be.
Really. So why has inXile become more and more skittish about saying they want an intelligent game for clever players. Where is the emphasis on long dialogues, deep character development, slow and thoughtful puzzle-like combat, and huge discussions on the way the tides interfere in different parts of the game's design?
You can't have it both ways, Zombra. Either they emphasize and drive the sell of the game on being complex underneath, but satisfying and narratively unexhausting on top. Or else they keep their mouths shut and suddenly go mum about the decisions that go completely against that design-philosophy - that we were sold on the kickstarter with.
And frankly this kind of pointless and public deference to inxile is beneath you. Really, "they probably have control". "I believe this out of being a community moderator on their public forums, where they do not post any more, because they are so confident in all their decisions now". It's pathetic.
retroquark wrote: And what I want to hear is that the crisis encounter design wasn't separated out of the rulesystem with it's own buffer for balancing purposes. I want to hear that inXile doesn't think that is a satisfying way to design a game.
You are aware that health bar in particular, and more generally having some different resources (health bar, mana pool, health potions, arrows, ...) within the combat parts and within the exploration/dialogue part is the case in _every_ CRPG (including PST), right ? So no CRPG ever was designed in a "satisfying way", until _tabletop_ Numénera came out, and the only "satisfying" CRPG ever would be to blindly apply tabletop Numénera rules ?
Honestly... I can understand you liked the Numénera Pool system and common resource between combat and Effort usage outside of combat. It's a neat idea that can be nice if done well (even if I do understand it makes balancing much harder in a computer game, so probably not worth the huge trouble). But come on. Your superlative and ridiculous claims, your accusations against inXile's intent not backed by any evidence, your over-inflating of a relatively minor issue... that just discredits your initial, understandable, point. You're not helping your own cause that way, quite the opposite.
I agree that computers can take on and do a lot of the processing, so they should make use of this to make determination of mechanical events much more complex. Ie instead of just an RNG, you have an RNG that is modified by skill, stat, difficulty of test, light levels, weather, pressure, morale, some small annoying child standing nearby wailing in your ear etc etc. That is the easy stuff though.
The hard stuff is replacing the GM with "algorithms". You have to try and cover as many options as possible, where a gm would just work with whatever the player tries to do, the computer to do that must know all the options in advance.
It is never as easy as it seems. You will go one way, thinking "easy as bro", then some annoying player says, I want to do it that way instead. At which point all your careful designs and plans start to unravel because that way just happens to not be easy, and it causes all the easy stuff you have done to unravel, and become not easy.
I don't know. Let say that you wanted to make a CRPG based off a tabletop game that has over 50 specific rules for combat. This game is strictly all about miniature combat for instance and has tons of rules for lots of situations. When you go to convert those rules into a video game some of them won't work. You've got to add a few sometimes, change a few of them, or remove some all together. The fact that so many rules exist increases the likelihood that some will need to be adjusted to work in a video game.
I don't know if you've actually ever used the Cypher system rules or not, but they are very easy to transition into a videogame. I think that it is pretty obvious that it was possible for Inxile to have kept the core rules. They did in fact build the game for, what, 3-4 years using just the core rules! The alpha and beta functioned using the core rules. Did inxile add a lot of additional rules to those core rules, I'm pretty sure they did. However, they managed to build the game using those handful of core rules that make up the Cypher System. Having to follow 50 rules is much more difficult than having to follow 5. The Cypher System is more of a drama system than a combat simulator.
All you've pointed out as far as I see is the fact that a videogame has lots of additional mechanics that are necessary, not that it must use a health bar. The proof already exist that Inxile could of made the game without having to alter the handful of rules that exist in the Cypher system. It may have been a pretty terrible game without the addition of a health bar, I'm not saying otherwise. I personally think Inxile is doing what they can to make this game as good as possible and i believe that their reasons are well founded. However, I don't believe that less rules makes it somehow more likely that they will need to be broken. In fact I think it obvious that it is the exact opposite case.
If I told you that I needed you to build me a house. I told you that I only had 5 rules for how I wanted it built. You agreed and started building it. Later, I came to you and said "I want this place bigger, taller, with all the bells & whistles!!" and dumped five times the amount of money into your hands that you'd started with. Now, you start building the structure taller and taller. Eventually it gets so tall that you realize that in order to complete it and still achieve your own vision you need to "break" one of the rules that I'd given you. You tell me that the building would just be too unstable if you continued to follow the rules. I agree and allow you to change the rules so that you can achieve what you believe is the best result. You could of finished it without breaking the rules, but you'd convinced me that it was more important to have a safe and beautiful home than to stick to my ideals alone.
The best example I can think of would be the GM intrusions. Fairly simple for humans to comprehend, but pretty much impossible for a computer.
Really anything that requires human interpretation and on-the-fly judgement calls needs to be nailed down and specified in advance (with all possible outcomes and circumstances) in order for a computer to act on it.
It's not the number of rules, but the amount of human interpretation that the rules require.
Okay. I'll agree with that. GM Intrusions are a clear cut example. I still think as a rule of thumb less rules are easier to follow than more rules, but what those rules are is much more important than how many rules exist. So I'll concede for now. Even with only a handful of rules something like GM intrusions do present a serious problem for videogame developers.
I still don't know if it was really necessary that they include a Health bar, but I feel confident that Inxile is doing their best.
Thank you for your invaluable contribution to the debate, moderator person. You sure set a great example, and you're so respectful to others as well. Good boy!
Now please just go away. Seriously, wtf guy? Can I report you and get your crap off the board? It's a serious question - will you automatically respond and ban yourself if "most people" seem to want it to happen, for example? Or would this be a difficult decision to make that your highness would need to contemplate for a longer period of time?
Mm. There are a few different approaches to that.
a) make everything ambiguous in the sense that when you use a stat for a check somewhere, it's dynamic enough that it makes narrative sense.
b) map out everything you do in a very detailed and specific way, but only use the ruleset in those specific situations it applies (think type.. world of darkness - very detailed and intricate, but you only pull out very specific stats once in a while for very specific purposes).
c) attempt to tie the actual stats and mechanics into the flow of the game more holistically, so that you always refer to the rules indirectly, and it's easy as gm and as a player to figure out situations to actually use the ruleset.
And.. usually you get some sort of mix between the three, so you end up with creating sort of familiar situations and improvising over how you're going to use the ruleset, etc. Right? That's how your average game goes - you figure something out based on familiar rules, and the GM adjusts a couple of things on the fly based on some criteria in a rule-book. The actual role-playing happens semi-connected to this, usually through a good stab at an indirectly relevant character sheet.
Thing is that there's nothing in that process specifically that a computer can't do. The only failures you get is when you don't structure the event on beforehand properly, so the player won't understand what you're expecting in more weird role-playing type checks. Which is the exact same problem you have with a computer as a human GM. A human gm might recover more gracefully from a problem like that, but it's the same fundamental problem: you want to structure the event, but not so much you don't have any choices.
Anyway. Problem is this: this spehere of the playing session isn't even involved here. What we're really talking about is only the combat, or the crisis. The use of the stat-sheet and so on in the entire rest of the game is tied to the narrative and writing, where the HP bar likely isn't used at all.
And what inXile tells you here is that their combat/crisis "balancers" are not clever enough to balance the combat into the same ruleset that the rest of the world is governed by. So instead they needed a second "HP bar" element, so they could tweak the crisis encounters to a ruleset that has very little to do with numenera, or how the stat-sheet is used in the entire rest of the game.
So congratulations, inXile. Mission accomplished, and all that. But it doesn't make me want to buy your next games, regardless of what you're trying to convince me you want to make. Because this shows me that you're just taking the easy route if you can, and that your sell is just utter claptrap. Not because you don't have the talent to make something better - after all, I have played the first iteration of the system, so I know you can do it if you wanted. But because inXile demonstrates it will choose the easy route, given any excuse; you just don't believe that your audience can deal with anything more thoughtful than button-mashing and potion spam. As simple as possible! But also should be tedious and complex from a user-perspective. Etc.
And then you have the rest of the game and the story on the back that doesn't fit with this approach at all. Until you get something that is worse than an improvised GM-session with an entirely new and made-up ruleset you invented 10 minutes before the game starts. If you want me to pay you to make stuff like that, you're going to be disappointed.
retroquark wrote: And what inXile tells you here is that their combat/crisis "balancers" are not clever enough to balance the combat into the same ruleset that the rest of the world is governed by. So instead they needed a second "HP bar" element, so they could tweak the crisis encounters to a ruleset that has very little to do with numenera, or how the stat-sheet is used in the entire rest of the game.
I always love seeing outsiders giving lessons to professionals not being "smart", it usually just speaks about their own ignorance of what they're speaking about.
But that aside, what you are saying is factually wrong. Crisis encounters _still_ have lots of to do with Numénera and with the stat sheet of the rest of the game. You _still_ spend points from your Pools, helped by your Edge, limited by your Effort to apply Effort during combat, be it to increase your chance of hitting, increasing damage, avoid blows, ... Or to "power" esoteries, moves and tricks of the trade. The rules are still the same, with difficulty level, assets, skills, Effort and a d20 roll. You still rely on limited carry, one-use Cyphers for varied effects.
The only difference, relative minor one, is that damages are taken from an additional pool. Not the end of the world. It makes balancing easier since it adds a buffer that is mostly used only during Crisis, but while leaving lots of ties between Crisis and exploration mode. Partially decoupling problems, enough to make them tractable, not enough so it feels like two different games in one, that's a _smart_ way to solve problems, from an engineering pov. As from a gameplay pov, none of us can tell until the game is released.
retroquark wrote: Thing is that there's nothing in that process specifically that a computer can't do.
But it can only do them specifically, which is to say; it can't improvise - neither the content nor the context. Hence all the writers and programmers.
To build in even a portion of what a GM can do, even the basic rule following stuff, is massively complex. It is as simple as 1s and 0s, but several hundred million 1s and 0s, that all work in conjunction with each other, and changing one my have an effect on others, and you need to know what effect it is going to have, in order to account for the next change as well.
Programming is not simple(though some make it look so), and whilst technically there is nothing in the process that a computer can't do. To make if be able to do everything would mean you would never move on to the next decision, and development time would be .. well.. forever.
I got to thinking about this some more and I'm going to have to backtrack on my quick verdict. Perhaps something like GM intrusion actually exist in lots of video games, we just call them "lives". Inxile had to change several esoteries in the game in order for them to make sense. Scan is an ability that is supposed to give you some basic info on anything and everything. Obviously inxile couldn't write dialogue for every single asset in the game. Instead they made the esotery into a mind reading ability essentially. Coming back to GM intrusions, you have to wonder if it couldn't of been done the same way. During the game the player accrued XP points. These XP points could be used to revert back to a prior save point. If you didn't spend the XP points you could use them for immediate and short term benefits later in the game. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but i know that a few old arcade games used to exist that had similar features. You could spend lives to make your character stronger temporarily for example. So to be honest I'm really not sure if Inxile couldn't of found a way to take every rule in the Cypher System and make it work. I'm not saying that they should have done it. I'm just saying that it seems possible. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting way of incorporating something like GM intrusions into a video game.
kilobug wrote: But that aside, what you are saying is factually wrong. Crisis encounters _still_ have lots of to do with Numénera and with the stat sheet of the rest of the game. You _still_ spend points from your Pools, helped by your Edge, limited by your Effort to apply Effort during combat, be it to increase your chance of hitting, increasing damage, avoid blows, ... Or to "power" esoteries, moves and tricks of the trade. The rules are still the same, with difficulty level, assets, skills, Effort and a d20 roll. You still rely on limited carry, one-use Cyphers for varied effects.
Thank you, false equivalence man, for pointing out that I should have /further/ specified how I meant the ruleset would not be relevant to the domains and the strength of each in the character building sense. Rather than using the phrase in - what seemed like the obvious reading, of course - in a way where I tried to suggest the ruleset had no narrative connection to the game's context at all. Thank you also, for taking this specification on board for future reference, false equivalence man.
Anyway. people can still look at this in the beta version right now and see for themselves. The point being that adding HP has two very obvious purposes: 1. avoid people from overextending and dying when their defenses are spent. 2. make the character building process about picking the attack spells you want to bash people with.
The game has then been tweaked and "balanced" into that mode, just like Pillars of Eternity. Where the difference between "normal" and "hard" is the amount of flat damage you need to be able to give and take over the first two exchanges, before the fight (or the game) is over.
What this does is to sideline your character's role, purpose of focus on the three domains, and edge in either or all types of skill in any role-playing aspect, strategic aspect, or tactical combat aspect. And instead, like in Pillars of Eternity, makes your character sheet an almost completely cosmetic set of things you are allowed to fidde around with. That has no bearing on specific abilities, strength of any attack against particular defenses, weakness against others, etc. You just have a pool of points to spend before your HP is used up.
Once you level up a bit, you also get the same situation as in Pillars of Eternity. You simply have a truckload of ability points - that you spend for increasingly less signficant upgrades. That in any case never actually save you from the need to have some ultimate attack ability you need to save up to beat the "toughest" bosses.
And all the way through the game, if you read the rules and take the descriptors in the ruleset seriously, you will think that there are other approaches here. And you end up with a "trap build", in the sense that any other build than a min-max build is going to make you weaker against the bosses. Because you have spent points on something else than the one ultimate attack that saves the day.
This the "balance" folks then, going by experience with Obsidian, don't understand until release. Which is the point where they find out that why, not everyone else will purposely create a might-maxed character for a mage, and put them behind a tower-shield because big numbers. And then ends up merely reducing the difficulty (read: magical all-purpose defense that only bosses have) of all the "most difficult" encounters in the game, to account for "sub-optimal" builds.
And the product you get in the end is not merely boring, you've actually just hired a team to balance one variable of the game up and down until no one died in the boss-battles.
In short: you haven't gone across the stream for water here. You've made a business out of leading people 10km upstream, across the bridge, down to the point you started again. And then have them pay for your guidance along the way.
Where I come from, that's not a good business-strategy. It just wouldn't work, because no one is going to be impressed by the sparkling spring-water that only materialize on the other side of the stream after a 10km trek.
No, but seriously, though - like I said, in a structured event, the difference between a GM that follows the rules and a program programmed on beforehand is very small. The only difference is that the GM can break the rules if they want to (and a good GM will maybe do that and call it "improvisation". Not that you can't also cheat when you program in the conditions for the events just fine, and I know I would have a much easier time preparing a good rule-breaking lie to the team if I could do it in advance, and make sure the event is completely mapped out on beforehand, like in a computer program).
In an unstructured event, or when mapping out parts of the story as you run along, then a human GM is crucial to not require too much imagination and work for the players. But you're not going to rely on, in any game governed by rules, a human continously reinterpreting every aspect of the rules.
I'm just saying that any good GM will plan, make cheat-notes, and steer an event into a specific situation they've rehearsed on beforehand. And once you choose that structured approach, and wrest that narrative control from the player, there is no fundamental difference between programming a computer and following your notes and your rules. The only difference is that you could stop following the rules at any time you wish. But very few GMs would be able to actually do that without the players noticing; to break the rules in an event where the rules are apparent is usually what will finally break immersion completely.
So from the point of view of a GM who does write stories on beforehand, who always will have prepared a set of dialogues that branch down, etc. To a GM like that, being able to actually write all this stuff down in a structured event is something that allows you to fish out inconsistencies much better. In a computer-game, in a structured event, you also have the opportunity to subtly take away agency from the players at any point - you just allow people choices inside a set event sphere, and that's all they can do. But the player will still think they are making a choice, and typically will help you as a writer to invent the narrative needed to justify the situation. This always shocks me, how easily people will say: "well, there must have been a reason for this arbitrary obstacle here, and it had to be.." such and such depending on something you didn't even consider.
The point is that when you're already talking about planned events like this, structured events, you can program a computer to make seemingly clever and insightful predictions very easily.
Combat, in the same line of reasoning, is a much less dynamic thing altogether. There's also nothing stopping you from inventing small weaknesses on your bosses that directly depend on the abilities of the party, or depending on a narrative element, or as part of a puzzle, or something like that. But here you know the rules, and the choices you make here are just not that far-reaching. The sphere of influence of player agency in combat is basically not there, compared to everything else leading up into the situation.
So when I see a GM who says: you know what, I don't think I can balance this fight without inventing a new absolute variable that grows linearly with the party's level.
Then I'm not going to be extremely impressed. Like I've said, this is lazy design to the point of being a cop-out. And I think Inxile have only done this in the first place because their balancing/community folks practically live on Neogaf and reddit. And therfore are convinced that every person in the world are so dumb, unengaged and so unintelligent, that they not only don't care about reading anything that's written in the game. They also believe that any ruleset more advanced than "level up, get hit points, bash more monsters before potion drink" is going to confuse people.
Because there reallyl is no other explanation for adding elements to the "cypher" ruleset, that specifically is designed to make everything else in it irrelevant from a game-mechanical perspective.
So you're saying it could be done if it was strictly limited to a few options that had all been specified in advance? I agree!
Oh, by all means - the more structured and rigidly defined the events are in the PnP version, the easier the transition to a computer version.
That was pretty much the point I was making. I think you're selling human imagination and interpretative flexibility seriously short, though, which seems a weird thing to do when supposedly defending a system designed for narrative freedom.
You also seem to interpret 'improvisation' as 'breaking the rules', rather than creatively applying the rules to adjust the current context and insert ad hoc content based on subjective judgment. You're right that the computer game can't do the former, but it also can't do the latter.
Dorkboy says it best. These things are "easy"tm when you have absolutely structured and and rigidly defined events.
When you have GM interactions in real life, it is in no way simple, and often they need to make things up on the fly. Could that be programmed. Sure. Will it be done with the resources available to a company trying to make a pc game. Not likely.
Woolfe wrote: When you have GM interactions in real life, it is in no way simple, and often they need to make things up on the fly.
Heh... I used to play Paranoia a bit. Now that was a game where anything could and did happen. It was not unusual for players to die before they left the briefing room. Especially if they were new, and didn't realise that part of the game was that every other player was out to get you as well. I had one game where I was being a little too smooth and sneaky and hadn't lost a single clone, so the GM threw in a raid to find unregistered Psychics. I was registered, however the general theme of the game was shoot now, shoot later, and shoot a bit more just for good measure. So of course everyone including my party members attacked me because I was psychic. When I somehow managed to escape, the GM had an unregistered psychic drop a stone couch that I had been hiding behind on me. He was very impressed that it took almost direct intervention to actually kill me.
It's reasonable to argue that way, but it's not the case. You can create conditions for when the overall ruleset is broken in a game just fine. It won't involve skynet, it will just break the player's expectations. Which is what you need to do extremely creatively if you GM: "divine intervention! Rocks fall!". Stuff like that doesn't impress many people. My usual crutch is meeting seemingly pointless people at crossroads, for example. Who can be just that. But then sometimes mysteriously morph into extremely significant characters later, as the situation demands. It breaks the rules of the world, it cheats with the consistency of the world I've created. Or invents narrative consistency where that wasn't intended. But to the players, it will appear consistent. And I can plan for that in advance just fine, even if I had to put this down in writing, and create simple dialogue conditions, or raise particular types of flags to create the event, etc. Because these events are structured, and they happen inside a known context.
So I was just making the point that when you make a video-game, you already have this special structured context. You need to know how the elements map out or relate to each other on beforehand. And you need to adjust the player path, knowing where they will go in advance.
It's analogous to a special case for a GM where you somehow have been able to predict absolutely everything the party decided to do on beforehand, while having perfect overview of the party's stats, skills, gear and variables. So from a certain point of view, making games like that is a fairly thankful task, where you can get away with much more complicated systems underneath, to create a system that appears very seamless and simple to the player.
Needless to say, that still requires a lot of work. And I'm.. increasingly less and less surprised to learn that developers, even when specifically paid in advance to do that job, don't really care to do it. Presumably because they are told by the ever brimming fount of wisdom that is the internet, that they are impressed as long as there are blinking lights, Stronghold, and romance options.
I'm not saying there isn't a small market that only cares about romancing in rpgs, and bless you for not actually pursuing romance, or potential children, in real life. But I'm suggesting that this market is probably a little bit smaller than the intertron makes it appear to be. When an obscure comic series from China has a bigger following offline than any online promotion material associated with the literally greatest kickstarter for a video-game ever, for example - this should probably tell you something about how marginal the feedback you get here is.
In the same way, to say that it's the safe option to deliberately lower the bar and make something for people with a single-digit IQ, lower than the lowest possible limit, even lower than the actual IQ of the testers you have - this doesn't actually work for anyone. And you really do not get even movies from Hollywood sold in this way: "So simplistic you won't need to think!". Instead it's a popcorn summer-movie with an easy plot and lots of action and huge effects. And then you go and see this for the special effects and huge screen.
But none of the people who go and see a braindead summer-movie are going to buy a game that literally says: "pointless grinding for hours, with lots and lots of micromanagement! Also has reams and reams of intelligent sounding dialogue that will impress your peers!".
It doesn't work. And it only does appear sensible to you because you've taken feedback from a small group - and then tempered that feedback towards what you assume is something closer to a neutral ground. A little bit like this: "most people under torture seem to prefer blunt trauma over needles under the fingers, except in the case of bone fractures. So to improve our brand appeal for "Torture-buddy", I believe we must strike a careful balance between needles and blunt trauma, as per the suggestions offered by our vict... er.. focus-group".
It sounds reasonable and logical. But you're still offering torture as a product. And no amount of minute restructuring of that product on the specific level - no matter how many times you polish the hammer, or file and bend angles to the needles, or put them in lovely suede covers -- is going to change that. The fact remains that the product is unsellable.
(At least in the private home-entertainment business. Though maybe inXile could be saved by a military contractor, who might see entirely new applications for your product).
A CRPG usually doesn't offer "a few" options but many of them, and through combinatorial explosion, it quickly leads to an intractable situation.
Well, I felt that my example would work because it limits the number of variables by reducing the purpose of GM intrusions. My point was simply that they could find a way to stick to the core rules. Some rules and aspects of the game would need to be simplified of course, but I don't think they have to alter the rules and do things like include a health bar. Doing this could lead to a very tedious and unpleasant game however. The first thing that pops to mind is Temple of Elemental Evil. It is said to be one of the best conversions of table-top to videogame ever made. It is also a poorly rated game because of a number of bugs when the game launched and because of the learning curve required to enjoy the game.
Again, I think its obvious that the health bar could of been left out. They built the game for years and years without including it, all the way to beta in fact. So it is "possible". I just don't think it would of made the game necessarily any better if they did. It would of simply made the developers push out a game with more bugs and a higher learning curve to understand and enjoy.
I'm kind of shocked we are still having this argument. You guys did notice the new update, right?