And even though it happens, it is not a given. The forum does not police itself, it has a fluid process run by humans largely left up to human discretion on methods of discipline. To suggest that Arivia not getting infracted/banned is proof positive that she wasn't doing anything wrong is so silly it makes my head spin.
To suggest that Arivia not getting infracted/banned is proof positive that she wasn't doing anything wrong is so silly it makes my head spin.
To assume that she is doing something wrong without any evidence, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, and hold it against her is what the issue is here.
0
Options
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
If the person refused and then shit all over the thread, then maybe I would reconsider, but it's not like Arivia shit all over thread, she sewed some confusion.
In your defense, I was voting and pushing bandwagons and making a ton of game-state/role commentary. If I hadn't been actually playing, that definitely would have been shitting up the game.
And even though it happens, it is not a given. The forum does not police itself, it has a fluid process run by humans largely left up to human discretion on methods of discipline. To suggest that Arivia not getting infracted/banned is proof positive that she wasn't doing anything wrong is so silly it makes my head spin.
But I don't do anything wrong.
Ever? You listen to metal.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
And even though it happens, it is not a given. The forum does not police itself, it has a fluid process run by humans largely left up to human discretion on methods of discipline. To suggest that Arivia not getting infracted/banned is proof positive that she wasn't doing anything wrong is so silly it makes my head spin.
@Infidel: I'm done debating this with you because it's stupid. I don't even fault Arivia or the host for any of this. I just take issue with your insistence that it's soooooooooooo stuuuuuuuuuuuuuupid to have come to some of the conclusions we came to. You're trying to defend someone against being regarded negatively, and that's fine, but you're doing it in an indefensible way, because the things the host said and the events of the thread all reasonably lead to a variety of possible conclusions, not just the one you concluded. If you want to have a discussion about good faith and why we should assume that in each other before leaping to "TROLL" then that's fine. But arguing that our conclusions are logically indefensible is not fine.
People say there isn't a way to come to the conclusion that she is alive. I show a way to come to that conclusion and it is pretty straight forward. I ask if anyone can explain how they'd come up with a different conclusion to show it's not just ignoring the facts.
People say there isn't a way to come to the conclusion that she is alive. I show a way to come to that conclusion and it is pretty straight forward. I ask if anyone can explain how they'd come up with a different conclusion to show it's not just ignoring the facts.
Was pretty generous for me really.
I didn't say that your perspective is invalid. I said that the evidence and rationale - which MANY of us already supplied, including me - can also support a conclusion of Arivia being dead.
Hence the widespread confusion. Because there were two possible conclusions given the evidence at hand.
You are coming here saying that the confusion is indefensible. You ask for explanations. We give them. You brush them aside and say that our confusion is indefensible.
That's condescending and obnoxious. It's great that you don't care about not being condescending or obnoxious, so I won't lose any sleep over telling you that you are being condescending and obnoxious either.
People say there isn't a way to come to the conclusion that she is alive. I show a way to come to that conclusion and it is pretty straight forward. I ask if anyone can explain how they'd come up with a different conclusion to show it's not just ignoring the facts.
Was pretty generous for me really.
I didn't say that your perspective is invalid. I said that the evidence and rationale - which MANY of us already supplied, including me - can also support a conclusion of Arivia being dead.
Hence the widespread confusions.
You are coming here saying that the confusion is indefensible. You ask for explanations. We give them. You brush them aside and say that our confusion is indefensible.
That's condescending and obnoxious. It's great that you don't care about not being condescending or obnoxious, so I won't lose any sleep over telling you that you are being condescending and obnoxious either.
No, I'm coming here saying show me the defense for the confusion and you are offering none.
"It can support an alternate conclusion because it can" is not an argument.
People say there isn't a way to come to the conclusion that she is alive. I show a way to come to that conclusion and it is pretty straight forward. I ask if anyone can explain how they'd come up with a different conclusion to show it's not just ignoring the facts.
Was pretty generous for me really.
I didn't say that your perspective is invalid. I said that the evidence and rationale - which MANY of us already supplied, including me - can also support a conclusion of Arivia being dead.
Hence the widespread confusions.
You are coming here saying that the confusion is indefensible. You ask for explanations. We give them. You brush them aside and say that our confusion is indefensible.
That's condescending and obnoxious. It's great that you don't care about not being condescending or obnoxious, so I won't lose any sleep over telling you that you are being condescending and obnoxious either.
No, I'm coming here saying show me the defense for the confusion and you are offering none.
"It can support an alternate conclusion because it can" is not an argument.
Infidel, I posted my rationale like 3 or 4 times now. So did other people.
Are you saying that you literally did not see these posts (even though you directly quoted and replied to them) or that you disagree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence provided in these posts? Because providing a defense you don't agree with his still providing a defense. So saying that nobody defended their position is yet another obnoxious thing you are saying here.
Are you just trolling me here? If my neck starts spewing blood I'm going to tell them to send you my hospital bill.
*snip* I don't even want to acknowledge this stupid little spat anymore.
Moving on: Good game. I wish I had been more useful but I found it hard to follow (of no fault on the part of 38thDoe who I think did an excellent job here). I signed up because Planescape: Torment is one of my favorite RPGs and it was cool to see an RPG-ish blend of mechanics in this phalla. A bland phalla based on Planescape would have been boring. I guess the only person I directed my attacks at that deserved them was jdarksun. Ah well. Fun game despite the really annoying thread breaking issue.
Vote closed.
Since I've received numerous private clarification requests on the ghost post policy, you are allowed one ghost post when you die, that cannot contain game info. One person was breaking this and spoke to and it has not happened since. Inactivus I let go an extra day in case I missed people with the threads breaking. Also my power just flickered, so hopefully I don't lose power before narration goes up.
Said person who was corrected was not Arivia. (And yes I originally thought he was referring to her).
I mean I get the confusion with this and the later quotes but when she continued, when she started voting each day, everyday, when 38thdoe repeated the above clarification about how many ghost posts a dead person can make it should have been obvious. It wasn't obvious because she had annoyed so many people into not listening to her with her attitude, well done on her part. I was so infuriated by rivs that I didn't see the plain evidence, even. But apparently some people managed because she was voted out! (See Bedlam's reasoning on the last day especially).
That was a fun one too, but at least he wasn't on the player list and then he just began posting.
I think it took a bit to figure out how to vote for him as well (if it was even possible at any point).
Going to drive me nuts until I remember/ask Kay.
I distinctly remember the "is Kay in the game?" shit that this was from and so knew you were talking about it, but I can't seem to remember ANYTHING at all about the game itself. Theme/host.
It should have been obvious that Arivia was not breaking the rules and had some ability that let her do what she was doing. It was NOT obvious that she was still alive, and not just able to ghost-post and -vote or something. So I don't blame you for not voting her out earlier or whatnot, but reporting her posts would have been way over the line, as is getting upset with either her or the host. Luckily no one reported it and we are all going to not be upset (or I will burn and kill you all in all following games :P).
Anyways.
@38thDoe: Bravo. Fantastic game, creative powers, lasted for a while and was rather close at the end, interesting narrations. You did everything very well, was lots of fun!
It was NOT obvious that she was still alive, and not just able to ghost-post and -vote or something.
"Dead players are allowed to make one ghost post with no game information."
Unless you want to entertain the notion that there is more in this game than simply Dead or Alive, in which case feel free to show where it was introduced.
@Drez I am never upset or angry like I might appear.
The point of it all was that when people are angry at others for what are irrational/emotional reasons but purporting there to be rationale behind it, the only tool we have for separating the rhetoric and irrational parts are to construct a formal argument that is impartial to them.
I don't view that as condescending, I view that as offering the opportunity to make a case.
It was NOT obvious that she was still alive, and not just able to ghost-post and -vote or something.
"Dead players are allowed to make one ghost post with no game information."
Unless you want to entertain the notion that there is more in this game than simply Dead or Alive, in which case feel free to show where it was introduced.
You can be an exception to the rule with a specific ability. "Dead players [in general] are allowed to make one ghost post with no game information[, but certain abilities may allow players to post more than once]." or something. Having some sort of ability that changes the general situation is kind of what most abilities do, yes?
It was NOT obvious that she was still alive, and not just able to ghost-post and -vote or something.
"Dead players are allowed to make one ghost post with no game information."
Unless you want to entertain the notion that there is more in this game than simply Dead or Alive, in which case feel free to show where it was introduced.
You can be an exception to the rule with a specific ability. "Dead players [in general] are allowed to make one ghost post with no game information[, but certain abilities may allow players to post more than once]." or something. Having some sort of ability that changes the general situation is kind of what most abilities do, yes?
If you take any clarification and write your own "except ..." to it then you are doing nothing but ignoring the clarification.
If you cannot trust the clarification, then there is no helping anything. You can't say anything about anything really and it is chaos. Which is why it is frowned upon for hosts to be unreliable in their clarifications and to use CD appropriately.
When the host is unreliable, well you can't trust anything and all bets are off, so your best course of action is to assume the host is reliable. Because you can't know the host is unreliable until post-game, where you can reasonably get annoyed.
Fair enough, I suppose. In my limited experience narrations have almost always been reliable (although sometimes deliberately vague), so I had assumed that any reliable host would provide accurate narrations.
Fair enough, I suppose. In my limited experience narrations have almost always been reliable (although sometimes deliberately vague), so I had assumed that any reliable host would provide accurate narrations.
That's what you should assume. This sort of thing doesn't happen often, which is what makes it interested :P.
It's not an easy distinction to make without some experience or so a lot of hosts try to avoid it to avoid drama.
But there is a fairly clear line once you get used to it. There is the narrator and the host. When you receive fluff, results, narrations, etc. That all comes from the narrator. He is possibly subject to the rules of the game that the host set forth. This is how thralls work. The narrator tells you the truth, it is only a seen as a lie since the host knows the truth and is conflated with the narrator.
They are two different roles played by one person (usually, lol cohosts).
There isn't really a difference between the narrator telling you someone is dead when they aren't than them telling you they are a villager when they are not. It was just in a format you are not familiar with yet. There are roles that can insert/modify the narration, that is their entire power, and it is not infrequent. Many veterans know this.
When you get the host misinforming players, then all bets are off, and this is why it is strongly discouraged.
An example of the duality is look at 38th Doe telling you that Arivia is dead and then having to put on his host hat and tell you that she is alive. It is only confusing if you don't see the two roles in play.
An example of the duality is look at 38th Doe telling you that Arivia is dead and then having to put on his host hat and tell you that she is alive. It is only confusing if you don't see the two roles in play.
A lot about phalla is learning.
He didn't put on his host hat and say she was alive.
I think that it was a cool mechanic, well played by Arivia. I also think that we were all suspicious that there was something funky going on, but until the last couple of days we were killing a mafia or two a day, so it never seemed like a good use of resources to look for more exotic possibilities.
- Explicit clarification of B and C which could lead someone to conclude A
That's the problem here. Infidel thinks that B and C together can only obviously lead to conclusion A and obviously a lot of people didn't come to conclusion A for a few extra days. I think coming to NOT A was just as valid as coming to A in the midst of the game. And it was worth testing both out, which is what the village did, and they won. Which makes all of this a little stupid.
If things were so obvious in Phalla then playing it would be boring. You had some facts and some plausible conclusions you could derive from those facts. The village tested them out. Game over. What more could you want?
Posts
But I don't do anything wrong.
To assume that she is doing something wrong without any evidence, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, and hold it against her is what the issue is here.
In your defense, I was voting and pushing bandwagons and making a ton of game-state/role commentary. If I hadn't been actually playing, that definitely would have been shitting up the game.
Ever? You listen to metal.
Ever. At all. Ever.
People say there isn't a way to come to the conclusion that she is alive. I show a way to come to that conclusion and it is pretty straight forward. I ask if anyone can explain how they'd come up with a different conclusion to show it's not just ignoring the facts.
Was pretty generous for me really.
I didn't say that your perspective is invalid. I said that the evidence and rationale - which MANY of us already supplied, including me - can also support a conclusion of Arivia being dead.
Hence the widespread confusion. Because there were two possible conclusions given the evidence at hand.
You are coming here saying that the confusion is indefensible. You ask for explanations. We give them. You brush them aside and say that our confusion is indefensible.
That's condescending and obnoxious. It's great that you don't care about not being condescending or obnoxious, so I won't lose any sleep over telling you that you are being condescending and obnoxious either.
No, I'm coming here saying show me the defense for the confusion and you are offering none.
"It can support an alternate conclusion because it can" is not an argument.
Infidel, I posted my rationale like 3 or 4 times now. So did other people.
Are you saying that you literally did not see these posts (even though you directly quoted and replied to them) or that you disagree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence provided in these posts? Because providing a defense you don't agree with his still providing a defense. So saying that nobody defended their position is yet another obnoxious thing you are saying here.
Are you just trolling me here? If my neck starts spewing blood I'm going to tell them to send you my hospital bill.
Moving on: Good game. I wish I had been more useful but I found it hard to follow (of no fault on the part of 38thDoe who I think did an excellent job here). I signed up because Planescape: Torment is one of my favorite RPGs and it was cool to see an RPG-ish blend of mechanics in this phalla. A bland phalla based on Planescape would have been boring. I guess the only person I directed my attacks at that deserved them was jdarksun. Ah well. Fun game despite the really annoying thread breaking issue.
Said person who was corrected was not Arivia. (And yes I originally thought he was referring to her).
I mean I get the confusion with this and the later quotes but when she continued, when she started voting each day, everyday, when 38thdoe repeated the above clarification about how many ghost posts a dead person can make it should have been obvious. It wasn't obvious because she had annoyed so many people into not listening to her with her attitude, well done on her part. I was so infuriated by rivs that I didn't see the plain evidence, even. But apparently some people managed because she was voted out! (See Bedlam's reasoning on the last day especially).
That was a fun one too, but at least he wasn't on the player list and then he just began posting.
I think it took a bit to figure out how to vote for him as well (if it was even possible at any point).
Going to drive me nuts until I remember/ask Kay.
I distinctly remember the "is Kay in the game?" shit that this was from and so knew you were talking about it, but I can't seem to remember ANYTHING at all about the game itself. Theme/host.
Anyone remember which this was?
Thrallvigs.
<Kay>: They didn't like my upside down posts.
<Kay>: Or my absence from the player list.
My computer died during the middle of it!
Anyways.
@38thDoe: Bravo. Fantastic game, creative powers, lasted for a while and was rather close at the end, interesting narrations. You did everything very well, was lots of fun!
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
"Dead players are allowed to make one ghost post with no game information."
Unless you want to entertain the notion that there is more in this game than simply Dead or Alive, in which case feel free to show where it was introduced.
@Drez I am never upset or angry like I might appear.
The point of it all was that when people are angry at others for what are irrational/emotional reasons but purporting there to be rationale behind it, the only tool we have for separating the rhetoric and irrational parts are to construct a formal argument that is impartial to them.
I don't view that as condescending, I view that as offering the opportunity to make a case.
You can be an exception to the rule with a specific ability. "Dead players [in general] are allowed to make one ghost post with no game information[, but certain abilities may allow players to post more than once]." or something. Having some sort of ability that changes the general situation is kind of what most abilities do, yes?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
If you take any clarification and write your own "except ..." to it then you are doing nothing but ignoring the clarification.
If you cannot trust the clarification, then there is no helping anything. You can't say anything about anything really and it is chaos. Which is why it is frowned upon for hosts to be unreliable in their clarifications and to use CD appropriately.
When the host is unreliable, well you can't trust anything and all bets are off, so your best course of action is to assume the host is reliable. Because you can't know the host is unreliable until post-game, where you can reasonably get annoyed.
Right, that's a good point too.
It's silly to disapprove,
people's disapproval of a person breaking,
what the host makes perceived to be a rule.
It is not an unreliable host when I get a seer result back on a thrall.
It is the context where you get the information. Narrations and action results are not guaranteed to be truthful. Everyone knows that.
Lying in a clarification is another matter. This has happened intentionally. It is called an unreliable host. It makes the game pretty much meh.
What is the correct course of action if there is an unreliable host? Keep in mind that you can't know until post-game almost always.
That's what you should assume. This sort of thing doesn't happen often, which is what makes it interested :P.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
But there is a fairly clear line once you get used to it. There is the narrator and the host. When you receive fluff, results, narrations, etc. That all comes from the narrator. He is possibly subject to the rules of the game that the host set forth. This is how thralls work. The narrator tells you the truth, it is only a seen as a lie since the host knows the truth and is conflated with the narrator.
They are two different roles played by one person (usually, lol cohosts).
There isn't really a difference between the narrator telling you someone is dead when they aren't than them telling you they are a villager when they are not. It was just in a format you are not familiar with yet. There are roles that can insert/modify the narration, that is their entire power, and it is not infrequent. Many veterans know this.
When you get the host misinforming players, then all bets are off, and this is why it is strongly discouraged.
A lot about phalla is learning.
He didn't put on his host hat and say she was alive.
And he shouldn't have and didn't do that (literally said arivia was alive, that is).
- Explicit clarification of A
and
- Explicit clarification of B and C which could lead someone to conclude A
That's the problem here. Infidel thinks that B and C together can only obviously lead to conclusion A and obviously a lot of people didn't come to conclusion A for a few extra days. I think coming to NOT A was just as valid as coming to A in the midst of the game. And it was worth testing both out, which is what the village did, and they won. Which makes all of this a little stupid.
If things were so obvious in Phalla then playing it would be boring. You had some facts and some plausible conclusions you could derive from those facts. The village tested them out. Game over. What more could you want?