Advertisement
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:01 am
by Page » Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:54 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:She comes across as too despicable?
by The Two Jerseys » Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:11 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
Point of this thread isn’t: “how can I try to get 2 and 3 of the girls or kill all of them”
This isn’t some exercise in rule lawyering
That's where your wrong. That may not have been the point you intended, but if you haven't noticed, most people want nothing to do with any of these women. When you give a hypothetical where we have to end up associated with at 2 of them, people are going to think of ways out. It's natural.
by Forsher » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:17 am
The Two Jerseys wrote:Aggicificicerous wrote:
That's where your wrong. That may not have been the point you intended, but if you haven't noticed, most people want nothing to do with any of these women. When you give a hypothetical where we have to end up associated with at 2 of them, people are going to think of ways out. It's natural.
Something something changing the rules halfway through the thought exercise completely invalidates it something something complete.
by Aggicificicerous » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:33 am
Forsher wrote:One can wheedle and whine and plead and whatever but the point remains: by trying to not stay permanently married to one woman exclusively, permanently kill another and have a brief fling with a third woman out of a defined set of three women. You can't, to make a movie reference, cut the wire... you've got to lie on top of it or you're not playing the game (and since this is a voluntary thread, if you're not playing the game or complaining about how people are trying to cheat at it, why are you here at all?).
Forsher wrote:Actually while we're at it... would you rather:
- not be able to understand people
- be incapable of perceiving that there is a genre of "unsavoury choice" games where the whole point is being forced to make a choice whilst regularly frequenting a forum hosted by a game that uses this precise mechanic
- have the inability to understand hypotheticals
- be in the habit of willingly volunteering your own participation in activities you know that you won't like that literally no-one other than yourself can tell you participated in
?
Aw, crap, I hate all these options. You know what I'll do? I'll decline to answer this question... and you'll never even know I read it.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:55 am
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:58 am
Forsher wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote:Something something changing the rules halfway through the thought exercise completely invalidates it something something complete.
Anyone who honestly thinks they're being true to the spirit of the exercise by trying to have their cake and eat it, understands none of the following:
- people (specifically the inability of one person to completely close off all ideas that other people have)
- this kind of game, which is literally built around having to make specific choices
- hypotheticals in general
One can wheedle and whine and plead and whatever but the point remains: by trying to not stay permanently married to one woman exclusively, permanently kill another and have a brief fling with a third woman out of a defined set of three women. You can't, to make a movie reference, cut the wire... you've got to lie on top of it or you're not playing the game (and since this is a voluntary thread, if you're not playing the game or complaining about how people are trying to cheat at it, why are you here at all?).
Actually while we're at it... would you rather:
- not be able to understand people
- be incapable of perceiving that there is a genre of "unsavoury choice" games where the whole point is being forced to make a choice whilst regularly frequenting a forum hosted by a game that uses this precise mechanic
- have the inability to understand hypotheticals
- be in the habit of willingly volunteering your own participation in activities you know that you won't like that literally no-one other than yourself can tell you participated in
?
Aw, crap, I hate all these options. You know what I'll do? I'll decline to answer this question... and you'll never even know I read it.
by Forsher » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:05 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:Forsher wrote:One can wheedle and whine and plead and whatever but the point remains: by trying to not stay permanently married to one woman exclusively, permanently kill another and have a brief fling with a third woman out of a defined set of three women. You can't, to make a movie reference, cut the wire... you've got to lie on top of it or you're not playing the game (and since this is a voluntary thread, if you're not playing the game or complaining about how people are trying to cheat at it, why are you here at all?).
Believe it or not, we don't all like the same things as you. I enjoy examining a scenario to see how I create the best possible outcome.
(specifically the inability of one person to completely close off all ideas that other people have)
Forsher wrote:Actually while we're at it... would you rather:
- not be able to understand people
- be incapable of perceiving that there is a genre of "unsavoury choice" games where the whole point is being forced to make a choice whilst regularly frequenting a forum hosted by a game that uses this precise mechanic
- have the inability to understand hypotheticals
- be in the habit of willingly volunteering your own participation in activities you know that you won't like that literally no-one other than yourself can tell you participated in
?
Aw, crap, I hate all these options. You know what I'll do? I'll decline to answer this question... and you'll never even know I read it.
Well, since we've developed into snark, I'll choose the fifth option: sneer at how unnecessarily rude and uptight you are.
by Aggicificicerous » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:24 am
Forsher wrote:(specifically the inability of one person to completely close off all ideas that other people have)
This, of course, does not alter the fundamental reality of the situation... you are cheating. You have chosen to participate in an exercise where the sole point is that "creating the best possible outcome" is defined within very obvious parameters and you are moving beyond those boundaries. You are either not acting in your own interest or you've missed something very fundamental. Maybe it's the spirit of the game's details. Maybe it's the nature of the game. Regardless, you're trying to play rounders when IM asked you to play baseball.
Forsher wrote:
Uptight? Hah! One of us is making snide remarks at their own expense whilst the other of us is responding to posts talking in general terms with self-defensive bluster.
If I was being uptight I'd accuse you of trying to bully IM. NSG has a problem with bullying, has for a long time, and IM's one of its favourite victims.
by Heloin » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:43 am
But the characters in that specific scenario are based on aspects of myself and other people I have met in real life
It’s still shocking to me though that there is this much dislike of Felicie... I mean I dare say a lot of people (perhaps even the majority), if they choose to play the marriage game irl will end up (consciously or accidentally) with a person of her type
by Forsher » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:58 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:
No, the point is that I am acting in my own interest. And I don't like baseball.
I was mistaken when I called you rude. I should have said long-winded and rude. You love your diatribes, and your metaphors, and so on, but it always seems to serve one purpose: you've already looked at the evidence, come to an unlikely conclusion, and now you're going to go to any length to justify it. I'm not interested in playing. You think an answer that doesn't play by the spirit of the rules (note that I didn't break the rules themselves) is bullying. I'd say that's an interesting conclusion to make, but I'm not going to hijack a thread to discuss it.
Aggicificicerous wrote:
That's where you're wrong. That may not have been the point you intended, but if you haven't noticed, most people want nothing to do with any of these women. When you give a hypothetical where we have to end up associated with at 2 of them, people are going to think of ways out. It's natural.
by Aggicificicerous » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:34 am
Forsher wrote:When people write words, they try, usually, to communicate. This generally requires coherence.
Forsher wrote: "I don't like baseball" is a non-sequitur. If you're trying to make a joke... unfortunately the relevance of your remarks to the subject at hand has been so unclear throughout the entirety of this exchange that it's unreasonable to believe this.
That you are able to articulate a reason why you'd be cheating doesn't alter the reality that you are cheating. Do you understand this?
Forsher wrote:
Well, now, you might claim you're saying other people are trying to wheedle their ways out of it but we can read this in context and we find immediately you are describing your own behaviour.
Forsher wrote:
Now, if you mean to say "bullying" is the unlikely conclusion... you will note that I did not make this argument. I said I could have made it, if I was being uptight. In the meantime, look up Slembana.
Forsher wrote:Which brings us to the remaining (?!) possibility... perhaps you mean the unlikely conclusion is that the "spirit of the game" doesn't preclude your flavour of wheedling.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:35 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Soldati Senza Confini wrote:You know, you made my choice easier too by saying "any lifestyle I wish within reason".
Marry the mafia chick, and have her finance an open relationship marriage and let me be with as many girls as I want to as well as let her be with as many people he wants to. Persuade her to accept this and bam! I can then go bang Ol' Queenie and Delacroix. No need for any of them to die.
Now, as to why would I try to do this? Because why not? I mean, if it was up to me I'd walk away from all three thirsty bitches, but since that is not an option, well....
This would breach the “(within reason)” disclaimer to the finance part
The Mafia Queen is highly vindictive and would definitely take a request or action towards an open relationship as a major slight. You’d embarrass her because word would spread that the young Queen isn’t good enough to hold on to a dude and it would look bad on her; her underlings might snicker
Remember when she decided that a whole family (not just the offender) had to die over the death of her sister? This is who you’re dealing with.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:37 am
by Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:38 am
Forsher wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote:Something something changing the rules halfway through the thought exercise completely invalidates it something something complete.
Anyone who honestly thinks they're being true to the spirit of the exercise by trying to have their cake and eat it, understands none of the following:
- people (specifically the inability of one person to completely close off all ideas that other people have)
- this kind of game, which is literally built around having to make specific choices
- hypotheticals in general
One can wheedle and whine and plead and whatever but the point remains: by trying to not stay permanently married to one woman exclusively, permanently kill another and have a brief fling with a third woman out of a defined set of three women. You can't, to make a movie reference, cut the wire... you've got to lie on top of it or you're not playing the game (and since this is a voluntary thread, if you're not playing the game or complaining about how people are trying to cheat at it, why are you here at all?).
Actually while we're at it... would you rather:
- not be able to understand people
- be incapable of perceiving that there is a genre of "unsavoury choice" games where the whole point is being forced to make a choice whilst regularly frequenting a forum hosted by a game that uses this precise mechanic
- have the inability to understand hypotheticals
- be in the habit of willingly volunteering your own participation in activities you know that you won't like that literally no-one other than yourself can tell you participated in
?
Aw, crap, I hate all these options. You know what I'll do? I'll decline to answer this question... and you'll never even know I read it.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:44 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote:OP doesn't state what she finds "reasonable". Open relationships are still in.
It doesn’t have to state it explicitly, the words are already there for me to give official interpretation
It’s common sense that it’s a breach of a duty of loyalty and that it wouldn’t be perceived as reasonable
And if you want, I can edit it in
Point of this thread isn’t: “how can I try to get 2 and 3 of the girls or kill all of them”
This isn’t some exercise in rule lawyering
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Caracasus » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:46 am
by Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:51 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:From the polls it seems that close to 50 percent of NSG wants to marry the Mafia Queen, date Felicie, and kill Annie
This is shocking because it reveals a bit of a contradiction
While most seem to find genocide a non negotiable Turn Off, it seems that the Mafia Queen (who also murders) is preferable to a mean and playful snobbish Canadian girl. At least more marriageable.
Why is this?
Perhaps elegance combined with a calculated degree of murders (but not genocidal level) has stronger appeal... so the objections to murders is not absolute
Was definitely expecting a lot more Marry Felicie (not a killer) votes
She comes across as too despicable?
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Forsher » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:52 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:Forsher wrote:When people write words, they try, usually, to communicate. This generally requires coherence.
Funny you should talk about coherence, so I'll say it again: I'm acting in my own interest. I believe your exact quote was "You are either not acting in your own interest or you've missed something very fundamental." I've missed nothing fundamental. Following the spirit of the game would be acting against my own interest.
Forsher wrote: "I don't like baseball" is a non-sequitur. If you're trying to make a joke... unfortunately the relevance of your remarks to the subject at hand has been so unclear throughout the entirety of this exchange that it's unreasonable to believe this.
That you are able to articulate a reason why you'd be cheating doesn't alter the reality that you are cheating. Do you understand this?
Thank goodness you can spot humour. Apparently you don't understand what cheating is though.
Forsher wrote:
Well, now, you might claim you're saying other people are trying to wheedle their ways out of it but we can read this in context and we find immediately you are describing your own behaviour.
Of course I'm describing my own behaviour. Reading your posts is like watching The Pink Panther.
Forsher wrote:
Now, if you mean to say "bullying" is the unlikely conclusion... you will note that I did not make this argument. I said I could have made it, if I was being uptight. In the meantime, look up Slembana.
My bad. You didn't accuse me of bullying. You only implied it.
"Wheedling" is a possibility in any hypothetical.
by The New California Republic » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:54 am
Caracasus wrote:Welp, I'm out of this one! Looks like the only winning move here is not to play.
by Forsher » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:55 am
Caracasus wrote:Welp, I'm out of this one! Looks like the only winning move here is not to play.
I'd also say that the accepted rules of FMK is that you don't try to wriggle out of it - or find loopholes in the basic premise of the game. Other loopholes though...
by Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:56 am
Forsher wrote:By all means, explain.
My confusion is large because of how "wheedling" isn't the subject under discussion and, indeed, the irrelevance of this comment to the point. I mean, the only way in which it would be relevant is if it's saying, "I confess, I'm acting in contravention of the spirit of the game" which you appear to accept anyway. I also can't see how you might be trying to point out that my sentence doesn't really make sense. What I am trying to say is that "perhaps you think it an unlikely conclusion that the spirit of the game invalidates your flavour of wheedling". Maybe it's too late and I did already say that but I think I've said the opposite.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:59 am
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:Forsher wrote:By all means, explain.
My confusion is large because of how "wheedling" isn't the subject under discussion and, indeed, the irrelevance of this comment to the point. I mean, the only way in which it would be relevant is if it's saying, "I confess, I'm acting in contravention of the spirit of the game" which you appear to accept anyway. I also can't see how you might be trying to point out that my sentence doesn't really make sense. What I am trying to say is that "perhaps you think it an unlikely conclusion that the spirit of the game invalidates your flavour of wheedling". Maybe it's too late and I did already say that but I think I've said the opposite.
Wheedling is usually acceptable as long as you can exploit a loophole.
I've done it before in hypotheticals in this forum, and more explicitly so with my own money against Xerografica with his pragmatarianism bit.
What makes you think I am not going to do it again when a dumb hypothetical shows up? And what is there to stop me? "The rules", which most people who write these hypotheticals do not make as clear as possible until I try to subvert them?
by Caracasus » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:01 am
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:30 am
Caracasus wrote:Well the really obvious answer is to marry Annie. It's been established previously that she'll either be dead or in a maximum security facility for the rest of her natural life. That way your decision would have the least impact on your life.
As for the other two? Flip a coin I guess.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Foxyshire, Gorutimania, ImSaLiA, Kubra, Neanderthaland, Neu California, New haven america, The Jamesian Republic
Advertisement