Aggicificicerous wrote:No, the point is that I am acting in my own interest. And I don't like baseball.
When people write words, they try, usually, to communicate. This generally requires coherence. Your liking baseball has absolutely nothing to do with the point. IM could have asked you to play Solitaire, Fortnite, that random game that #GamerGate was "about". It doesn't matter what's chosen there because the point is that you want to do something entirely different. "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?
I have had to edit this part of the post due to a quote tag kerfuffle. I have taken the opportunity to place in colour two bits.
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.
On the point in blue:
What unlikely conclusion? That you were actively trying to wheedle your way out of the very, very obvious intentions of the exercise? This is an unlikely conclusion? If so, you are doomed by your own hand:
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.
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.
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.
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. Well, if that's the case, I refer you again to the very nature of this genre. I refer you to the many people whose first reactions were to name this genre of game (although, possibly, the thread was edited and it used to go by
the canonical name). But, really, all you need to know about this game to understand that wheedling is problematic is in its premise: marry one, kill another and have a one-night fling with a third. IM's attempts to make sure people don't do what they tried in, say, the death penalty thread* create the source of the wheedling but they're obviously framed in an attempt to avoid them.
On the point in red... that's not really how it works. There are no rules but the spirit of the rules. Otherwise is to presume the capacity of Man to isolate and control every single avenue. You want to hold IM's thread to an unfair standard? And for what? To validate your own behaviour? There's nothing wrong with suggesting improvements. For example, maybe you think it's dumb that in the game of President the Rules that most people play by let players choose whether or not the fourth card in a consecutive run be consecutive. That's fair if the purpose of President is a moral lesson about the unfairness of life... if the spirit of the "exercise" is that teaching. But what if the purpose of President is to be a card game with an unfairness mechanism? Well, then, shifting the strategic choice to the start, before the third card is placed (not after), creates a fairer and more balanced game. Totally different suggestion.
How is this game improved by your wheedling? By anyone's wheedling? Notice how Soldati did it. Tries to contrive a way out of the situation and then mocks the ridiculousness of his plan by... mocking the game's absurdity. I don't (quite plainly) don't agree with the idea but I applaud the spirit... it frames the purpose of this game as an exercise in amusement. We know to what end the wheedling is designed. Your original refusal to play by the rules... much the same. You just ignored them in order to amuse yourself. Okay. Not the point, but we know what it's about. But the abstract case for ignoring the point of the game and finding ways around it? That's about what? What do you want from it? To find the best possible yadda yadda? Well, no, because you're moving deliberately outside of the possible situations. You're creating a different game when the choosing is removed. It's a game about contrived choices. That''s all there is to it. Now that I think about it, this is probably a F7 thread.
Also, by the way, looking at the evidence and formulating an opinion is how it is meant to work. Not really sure what your alternative is. Everyone coming to the same conclusions that you have?
*For instance, IM's being forced to point out here that his absurd scenario isn't about a question of law, a construct that only exists in the non-absurd (differently absurd?) reality that we inhabit. I refuse to believe people are so unworldly so as to have only ever encountered scenarios that are purposely designed to strip out "beside the point" practical considerations so as to order to engage only with the abstract questions that remain in IM's threads. Consider a classic example. No-one actually believes parliament will vote to kill all blue eyed babies so why is that one of the most famous example's in the world? Because its sheer extremity highlights the abstract issue (parliamentary sovereignty/supremacy). Anyone who looks at that and starts to talk about, "Well, no-one's ever going to do this in real life" has completely failed to understand very basic English.