A Hypothetical Involving Three

[Forsher]

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.

The problem with this is that you assume too much of the rules.

The rules in this hypothetical can be bent, because it is a hypothetical, and it is a debate forum. If I just state an answer we wouldn't be having the discussion we have right now. In other words, as it pertains to the context in which this hypothetical is made I don't have to give an answer you like for the consistency of the hypothetical. All I have to do is give an answer.

Not all answers are consistent. Consider:

I would kill Felicie, I would kill Annie and I would marry the Mafia Queen to my brother.

That's inconsistent, entirely, with the hypothetical. Now, let's say that I think it's quite unfair to kill Felicie since she's a not a nice person but not, you know, evil or criminal... just not a nice person. Now let's say that I also think Annie is irredeemable and the Mafia Queen, well, maybe she's not actually all that obvious with her evilness. And thus I might marry Felicie, kill Annie and date the Mafia Queen. Now let's say that you... and I know you didn't say this... propose to:

• kill Felicie because she's a misandrist, gender Nazi
• marry Annie because you're an actual Nazi and don't care about consistency, and
• date the Mafia Queen because Mars is in its Red Phase

This is a consistent set of answers to the hypothetical that I happen to disagree with. I don't, in fact, like this set of answers. As in, outside of the example discussion here, I disagree strongly with killing Felicie.

Now, as it happens you said:

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....

And it's definitely true that IM had included your starting observation. You've removed it from context to give it a different meaning but he said it. He'd have been better off, I think, if he just said something like, "Ol' Queenie doesn't care what your job is and is willing to help you out"... hell, maybe even just describing her character would be better. Mind you, I do think the usual FMK reasoning involves something like, "I kill Hitler since he's evil, sleep with Pol Pot since his name alliterates and marry Donald Trump since this way I know he won't touch me"... and IM clearly wants the marriage to be a commitment. So, if this was as far as you went... but you're avoiding the killing part, so your answer to the hypothetical ("game") is inconsistent with its premises.

Now, compare:

I kill the mafia queen. She's the type to die a nasty death anyway. I marry the genocidal witch queen. She's about to be either executed or thrown in jail, after her powers are drained, and that means I'll be rid of her soon enough.

Ignores the canon of this thread and instead chooses a different canon from, iirc, a past thread... we'll ignore that for now. This meets the premises of the thread. It's a consistent answer except for the canon thing. It doesn't even really "find a way out" which is partially what I took issue with over the last few pages. Fundamentally, the choices... and this is a game entirely about choices... are made.

Which probably brings us back to that first paragraph of yours... assuming too much of the rules. That's probably the source problem here. I see a thread where everything is clear and doesn't really need the clarifications. And this choice just here? Well, it's against the rules. It's cheating. Critically if the first thread's canon was still relevant, it does dodge the moral of the game because it makes one of the choices meaningless. Sure, it tries to rationalise the Mafia Queen's death but that's part of the game. Trying skirt the actual "being married" part is to dodge the unsavoury part of the FMK unsavoury choice game.

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?

Well, the problem with using Xero's stuff as a comparison is that Xero was offering (a) a blank slate rather than a known game and (b) this is just silly whereas Xero's ideas are seriously dumb. Also, Xero wanted to make a real world point so, in theory, his restrictions have to simulate reality, thus placing bounds on what is and isn't available as a restriction.

If I'm mistaken and IM's got some sort of wider point here, beyond just the nature of the game as a test of moral courage or something of that nature, then my arguments probably collapse. But I don't think I am. Where Xero wanted to demonstrate, as I recall, was that Jordan Peterson should talk about bees rather than lobsters the superiority of expenditure for preference revelation, IM wants to expose the thinking behind the choices, their morality. To this end, we should assume we're not idiots, that IM isn't an idiot and acknowledge that the rules exist in order to expose the raw choice. And following that point of view, my arguments don't collapse.

To take it back to the President example which I hopefully didn't delete in my kerfuffle. I happen to think the moral lesson interpretation is bloody stupid. I think less of people who enjoy playing President with such a design. Instead, I see President as a game with attached moral lessons and between my friends and I we have developed several rules with this interpretation in mind. We're currently in a bit of a Schism, in fact, about a proposed new rule, with one side questioning its gameplay value and the other saying that it's in theme and balanced. But our rules aren't are product of us, per se, but rather obvious and partially inevitable developments from the nature of what we think the game is. That, in some sense, every contrived situation has natural laws, as it were.

[Infected Mushroom]

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

It's not a breach of loyalty if she consents to it. Like I said, if I managed to convince her then I could keep all three.

It's not common sense that she will or will not accept to be in an open relationship, so long as you can convince her that open relationships are a boon both for her and the person offering it.

Also, it is an exercise in rules lawyering, you yourself keep commenting on the choices other people make as if we have to give justification for our choices, so let's stop pretending this isn't what it is.

It’s been edited as clarification (no open relationships)

Originally, i assumed everyone would understand that by the nature of the type of scenario this is open relationships would be out. Also, the bios assumed a normal, straightforward conventional view of marriage which is exclusive.

I also considered any sort of cheating to be a breach of a broad generalized duty of loyalty (foreseeable causing emotional harm). The marriage must be a commitment, even when the going gets tough.

My apologies if this was unclear

[Caracasus]

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.

In this scenario she won the war though

It was changed so you can have a complete marriage

Well in that scenario I'm dead so there's that.

[Forsher]

In this scenario she won the war though

It was changed so you can have a complete marriage

Well in that scenario I'm dead so there's that.

Undead Zombie Spouses are very in vogue these days.

[Aggicificicerous]

Playing the game is against your own interest.

Once you are in the game, your interests are conditionally defined. You are either to find the best scenario within the game's parameters or you are to ignore those parameters... and, in which case, you cannot (by definition) find the best scenario (since you arise at scenarios that do not exist). [/quote]

Yep. Finding the best scenario within the game's parameters is what I did. That's what most people in the thread are doing. Maybe my reasoning could have been better, but do you disagree with my intent?

Your complete inability to spot humour is a large part of the reason we're still talking.

Have fun defining cheating so that you're not.

Tell me then: how am I cheating?

How so?

And, obviously, I think you're describing your own behaviour. I'm just, much like IM, trying to close off avenues that disingenuous rogues might choose to pursue.

You just answered your own question. There's something about the circuitous way you reason yourself into things that are either absurd or very obvious that reminds me of Clouseau. Then again, I haven't seen the movie in some time, so maybe I'm imagining it. Clouseau at least makes it funny.

Technically, I said that I could be of a mind to accuse NSG as a whole of being bullies towards IM. I've done it before. Possibly on several occasions. And do you know why I do? Because that's what the evidence bears.

To imply that you, personally, are bullying IM wasn't my intent. My intention was twofold:

• to allude to my longstanding criticism of NSG's open tolerance for bullying campaigns waged against forumites
• to emphasise how badly you'd have to ignore the words on the page to think I was uptight in that first post

I'm not really comfortable, having seen how few posts you have, on the whole, in this thread... and how few of those mention or allude to IM as an entity... with implying that you yourself are among those bullies.

Oh, thanks. Maybe there was a better adjective that uptight, but seeing as how you came in and immediately began accusing people of not following the rules, or rather the rules as you see them, I think it was ok. As for whether NSG bullies Infection Mushroom...I don't think so. Maybe a few individuals, but I think most people just find his scenarios and arguments bizarre at best. Trying to lump the whole forum in is a stretch, but you're in the habit of stretching.

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.

Huh? Maybe I missed something in the jumble of quotes. I wouldn't say that I'm acting in direct contravention to the spirit of the game so much as I'm not concerned with the spirit of the game. I see the rules laid out, and I try to get the best possible outcome considering those rules. Maybe Soldati Senza Confini said it better than I did. This is a forum for discussion and debate. If we didn't try to work the rules in the hypothetical, the hypothetical would be much less interesting. Just because the answer is one that you don't like, or that Infection Mushroom does like, doesn't invalidate that answer.

[Infected Mushroom]

Once you are in the game, your interests are conditionally defined. You are either to find the best scenario within the game's parameters or you are to ignore those parameters... and, in which case, you cannot (by definition) find the best scenario (since you arise at scenarios that do not exist).

Yep. Finding the best scenario within the game's parameters is what I did. That's what most people in the thread are doing. Maybe my reasoning could have been better, but do you disagree with my intent?

Your complete inability to spot humour is a large part of the reason we're still talking.

Have fun defining cheating so that you're not.

Tell me then: how am I cheating?

How so?

And, obviously, I think you're describing your own behaviour. I'm just, much like IM, trying to close off avenues that disingenuous rogues might choose to pursue.

You just answered your own question. There's something about the circuitous way you reason yourself into things that are either absurd or very obvious that reminds me of Clouseau. Then again, I haven't seen the movie in some time, so maybe I'm imagining it. Clouseau at least makes it funny.

Technically, I said that I could be of a mind to accuse NSG as a whole of being bullies towards IM. I've done it before. Possibly on several occasions. And do you know why I do? Because that's what the evidence bears.

To imply that you, personally, are bullying IM wasn't my intent. My intention was twofold:

• to allude to my longstanding criticism of NSG's open tolerance for bullying campaigns waged against forumites
• to emphasise how badly you'd have to ignore the words on the page to think I was uptight in that first post

I'm not really comfortable, having seen how few posts you have, on the whole, in this thread... and how few of those mention or allude to IM as an entity... with implying that you yourself are among those bullies.

Oh, thanks. Maybe there was a better adjective that uptight, but seeing as how you came in and immediately began accusing people of not following the rules, or rather the rules as you see them, I think it was ok. As for whether NSG bullies Infection Mushroom...I don't think so. Maybe a few individuals, but I think most people just find his scenarios and arguments bizarre at best. Trying to lump the whole forum in is a stretch, but you're in the habit of stretching.

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.

Huh? Maybe I missed something in the jumble of quotes. I wouldn't say that I'm acting in direct contravention to the spirit of the game so much as I'm not concerned with the spirit of the game. I see the rules laid out, and I try to get the best possible outcome considering those rules. Maybe Soldati Senza Confini said it better than I did. This is a forum for discussion and debate. If we didn't try to work the rules in the hypothetical, the hypothetical would be much less interesting. Just because the answer is one that you don't like, or that Infection Mushroom does like, doesn't invalidate that answer.

Your answer doesn't work because its based on the premise of a previous thread, not the premise of this thread

In this thread, the Mafia Queen killed the Antihero and Annie won the war against the Allies. Its explicitly stated in the OP.

If you said, "well I do X because I HOPE that in the future Annie MIGHT still lose another round of warfare and the Mafia Queen MIGHT eventually get undone/killed by a second Antihero (betting on this possibility)"... then I wouldn't fault your answer whatsoever

but you said, "X happens, therefore I do Y" then X isn't the premise of this thread but that of a previous thread

I'm okay with answers I don't like if they follow the rules of the OP and are not against the spirit of the OP (if they are, then its my obligation to use my powers of clarification otherwise the whole scenario may break down)

[Infected Mushroom]

In this scenario she won the war though

It was changed so you can have a complete marriage

Well in that scenario I'm dead so there's that.

you mean you live in continental Europe?

[Infected Mushroom]

The exact scenario has never happened to me

What, you haven't gone of a revenge quest after you families been murdered?

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

Sounds more like you may be hanging around some shit people.

A very fair point. I HAVE (unfortunately) been victimised and permanently ruined by some very nasty people. I see that this does come across in many of the things I write...

[Infected Mushroom]

This is a very interesting alternate position...

you would be okay with being the 100% economic earner?

I’d probably grumble a bit, knowing myself, but I’d get over it. However, I suspect my salary wouldn’t allow her to live in anything approaching luxury.

I see...

and why do you make very strong objection against marrying a murderer?

Is it just a personal Non-Negotiable Turn Off?

[Heloin]

I’d probably grumble a bit, knowing myself, but I’d get over it. However, I suspect my salary wouldn’t allow her to live in anything approaching luxury.

I see...

and why do you make very strong objection against marrying a murderer?

Is it just a personal Non-Negotiable Turn Off?

That... That really souldn't be a question that needs asking.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You don't have to choose if you're an anime

[Thermodolia]

Someone who only married them as party of a game of fuck, kill, marry.

Someone who lives in a world where cars are constantly tracked, and where dogs and suits are banned, for the Greater Good.

For the greater good

[Thermodolia]

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.

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.

You’re just figuring this out now?

[Infected Mushroom]

I see...

and why do you make very strong objection against marrying a murderer?

Is it just a personal Non-Negotiable Turn Off?

That... That really souldn't be a question that needs asking.

I mean, many have voted to marry murderers in the thread so... just checking

Personally, it’s not necessarily 100 percent a no go

[Infected Mushroom]

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.



Well, since we've developed into snark, I'll choose the fifth option: sneer at how unnecessarily rude and uptight you are.

You’re just figuring this out now?

Honestly, sir Forsher is making a lot of sense

They are 100 percent correct; the analysis is completely on point

[Infected Mushroom]

Should I include a picture of Felicie in my next patch/update to the op?

Scenario feels a bit unbalanced without 3 pictures, could be skewing a few votes

Or do you feel it won’t affect it too much?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Should I include a picture of Felicie in my next patch/update to the op?

Scenario feels a bit unbalanced without 3 pictures, could be skewing a few votes

Or do you feel it won’t affect it too much?

Post a picture damnit.

Don't leave your audience in suspense!

[Heloin]

That... That really souldn't be a question that needs asking.

I mean, many have voted to marry murderers in the thread so... just checking

Well the choices are, genocidel maniac, homocideal maniac, and someone so dickish that being around them for more then twenty minutes a year would be intolerable.

Personally, it’s not necessarily 100 percent a no go

That's a problem.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I mean, many have voted to marry murderers in the thread so... just checking

Well the choices are, genocidel maniac, homocideal maniac, and someone so dickish that being around them for more then twenty minutes a year would be intolerable.

Personally, it’s not necessarily 100 percent a no go

That's a problem.

Nah, you don't understand. Let Felicie use your shower and washing machine and use the moment to gain romance points and roll for a charisma check.

[Infected Mushroom]

I mean, many have voted to marry murderers in the thread so... just checking

Well the choices are, genocidel maniac, homocideal maniac, and someone so dickish that being around them for more then twenty minutes a year would be intolerable.

Personally, it’s not necessarily 100 percent a no go

That's a problem.

I mean, I would look into the reasons for the murder(s) and consider all factors (attractiveness, compatibility etc). It wouldn’t necessarily by itself invalidate possibilities.

Yes the choices are meant to be less than ideal; hence why I find it so interesting how others will justify their choices.

Incidentally, your vote is the same as mine I think

[Heloin]

Well the choices are, genocidel maniac, homocideal maniac, and someone so dickish that being around them for more then twenty minutes a year would be intolerable.

That's a problem.

Nah, you don't understand. Let Felicie use your shower and washing machine and use the moment to gain romance points and roll for a charisma check.

But I'm a wizard. I didn't put in points into charisma!
*rolls dice*
...How does a 2 do?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Nah, you don't understand. Let Felicie use your shower and washing machine and use the moment to gain romance points and roll for a charisma check.

But I'm a wizard. I didn't put in points into charisma!
*rolls dice*
...How does a 2 do?

Rock fall, everyone dies.

[Infected Mushroom]

Well the choices are, genocidel maniac, homocideal maniac, and someone so dickish that being around them for more then twenty minutes a year would be intolerable.

That's a problem.

Nah, you don't understand. Let Felicie use your shower and washing machine and use the moment to gain romance points and roll for a charisma check.

This is definitely a very viable strategy

This is how the game is played

[Valrifell]

Well the choices are, genocidel maniac, homocideal maniac, and someone so dickish that being around them for more then twenty minutes a year would be intolerable.

That's a problem.

Nah, you don't understand. Let Felicie use your shower and washing machine and use the moment to gain romance points and roll for a charisma check.

But I've only rolled nat 1s this entire playthrough!

[Infected Mushroom]

Should I include a picture of Felicie in my next patch/update to the op?

Scenario feels a bit unbalanced without 3 pictures, could be skewing a few votes

Or do you feel it won’t affect it too much?

Post a picture damnit.

Don't leave your audience in suspense!

It may take a bit of time to find/create something suitable