drakemarshallow

Members
  • Content count

    2,580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by drakemarshallow

  1. Ekard strolled into the group of assembled Brightlords and Brightladies. He yawned. It felt like he had been asleep for quite some time. "Ello friends. What'd I miss?" Terribly sorry, I've been busy and not putting the amount of effort into the game that I wanted to I'll commit to making a comprehensive post during the next day cycle with the best of my analysis in it. In the least, we are far enough into the game that I am reasonably confident I will be able to narrow the playing field. I don't especially appreciate apparently being voted up, but I'll withhold my judgement until I read through the reasoning behind it. For now, that is all.
  2. Kind of? I'm fairly optimistic about finding a better lead this cycle, but for now, you may consider it a vote in retaliation to a vote in retaliation to my vote, yes. Right now I'm mostly just concerned with progressing the D1 lynch past choosing people at complete random.
  3. See, this is where I would have removed my vote because you explained yourself, but then you voted on me Edit: I thought it was an exact rerun of LG20(?) so I doubt there would be secret roles.
  4. Interesting. I had figured it would be a survivor-type role with gravy, but this puts it more in SK territory. Something to watch out for. I could see the thief win con sneaking up on us and ending the game if we aren't careful. You are pretty much right. I wasn't drawing conclusions about the individual chances of either Araris or El being elims, just that they almost definitely aren't both elims. Which, I feel is still a useful takeaway. "It is sadly a well-documented fact that the best way for Alethi nobility to get to know each other is by plotting to kill each other," Lord Ekard commented dryly. Very good, join the dark side Anyways, I am voting/poking/stabbing/whateverit'scallednow Butt Ad Venture (@Butt Ad Venture) at least until they elaborate upon their vote a bit more.
  5. When was the last time you've seen two eliminators vote in rapid succession of each other? Especially when those votes lead the lynch and are placed less than three hours into the game.
  6. It's good to be in the game. It feels like it's been a while. Unusual, for a vote to develop in such rapid succession. I'm going to rule out Araris and Elbereth being on the same team, because eliminators are usually more cautious about that sort of thing. I have no intention of placing a third vote on Elandera though, so Sart, consider yourself poked.
  7. Something like that. Simurgh and Khonsu would not be threatened by his power at all. He would probably be more helpful against the others. I would expect the Endbringer cores to be immune to the time slowing, since Behemoth's core was able to nullify Chevalier's power, so what would most likely happen is it would force them to shed a bunch of layers to escape the time bubble, heavily damaging them but still being a little ways off from permanently dealing with them.
  8. Some Shaker powers (Labrynth comes to mind, also Nursery, if you've read any of Ward) could be described as localized reality warping. Usually with some restrictions and nuances to how it operates, like needing to stay put in one place to let the area of effect become very intense, and being unable to affect themselves so that they are basically ordinary and vulnerable humans in the center of the area of effect, but yeah.
  9. I pick option 3 More seriously, I don’t mind if signups are extended or not; I say do whichever you would prefer / works better for your schedule, and I’m sure you’ll put on a good game either way.
  10. Hm, I feel like playing an SE game. Please sign me up as Brightlord Ekard, who is fully at the mercy of the vengeful gods. Whatever your description is I'll RP it
  11. Hmmm... I think I'd better spectate this time. I am willing to be a pinch hitter if you are using them, however.
  12. quest

    Another entertaining chapter It is a rather large pity that Songbearer stepped on Brightweave's and Coinspender's toes, but alas. We had been rolling well for a while there, it was hardly going to last forever. The limerick seems fun. Maybe a way to strike a balance being seen as spiritual but also still down-to-earth and not too stuffy. I could definitely get behind that. The statue stands for scholarship which is something we want to lean into, but I confess I have some reservations about Songbearer choosing a statue of himself But I really like the [x] dancing dolls, for some reason. Maybe partially because that just sounds like an amazingly intricate and artful work of awakening, to command dolls to dance perfectly in time to an unseen rhythm. You need to create a song to dance to, and create dolls to dance, and perform an incredibly complex awakening on them, which is a remarkable degree of effort. Maybe it is also because Songbearer is dwelling on the sacrifice of breaths to the Returned, and choosing this work to preserve is maybe a way to honor that. Given the time, I would want to make amends to both Coinspender and Brightweave, ride through the city and actually talk to people, and do more scholarship about the Returned to master the innate abilities of the Returned. But since there is only so much time in a day, the ones I would favor: [x] Visit Coinspender because he is the one we most gravely offended, and I would rather put in the effort to avoid having enemies (yeah, you can't have everyone agree with you, and we certainly don't agree with Coinspender about everything, but being enemies and disagreeing are two entirely different things, and I suspect Coinspender actually gets that). The way I see it, visiting him will either let us find common ground like I was kind of hoping for, or solidify Coinspender as one of Songbearer's enemies, and I would kind of prefer to just cut to one or the other. As things stand, inaction will most likely result in Coinspender eventually ending up being opposed to us, so it's not like there is much to lose in trying to make amends. [x] Ride through the city because I don't want to keep putting off actually talking to the people we are kind of ruling over.
  13. quest

    That's an interesting WoB, thank you for pulling that up. The difference between aging and disease is that, aging is a chronic thing that will happen if something is not actively preventing it, but diseases are often acute conditions (not always: long-term conditions and genetic disabilities behave differently, as you have already pointed out). An acute, temporary condition like a cut or being temporarily intoxicated is not nearly as much a spiritual fixture as things like your literal age or a slave brand you have lived with for years. I would expect a more temporary ailment to exist mostly on a physical level, with some impact on the cognitive level and very little spiritual footprint. Physically speaking, the most obvious way the fifth heightening would make somebody immune to disease and toxins is by bolstering the body's natural ability to combat infections and break down toxic substances. But if that is the case, than even after temporarily having the fifth heightening, the offending microbes/chemicals are already gone. So you would stay healed of certain types of conditions, including a hazardous virus or something (you would probably revert to being physically drained from having been sick, and any symptoms like rashes or scarring or whatever wouldn't disappear, but the underlying disease would still be cured). Incidentally, I would expect the energy required to cure the disease to come not from the breath itself (which would necessarily deplete them over time) but from the body of the host. Another possible interpretation is that the heightening lets you somehow ignore the symptoms of poison/disease without actually curing the problem: either by physically allowing your biology to ignore those symptoms (effectively making you a disease carrier that can still transmit diseases to other people), or through some process vaguely reminiscent of transubstantiation (or, perhaps, forgery?) by which you fundamentally and spiritually are still sick but the physical reality is somehow suppressed by the heightening. In this case, you would revert to being sick again, exactly like with aging, as you have suggested. Even if it does work, yes, it isn't necessarily economically or socially viable: Most infections can be cured for far less. It does weaken the political structure (although, less so if it is one of the Returned who is organizing this system). It does require some pretty ruthless enforcement to guarantee that people return the breaths they are given. It is, however, an interesting thought experiment for what biochromatics is theoretically capable of doing, especially since whether this is possible or not suggests a lot of things about the nitty gritty of how heightenings work. Even if finding an Edgedancer or healing fabrial would be far less hassle to cure a disease.
  14. quest

    Interesting. The plot is thickening. Sorry if this seems like I am trying to break things, but what if you established a fund of breaths, enough to reach the fifth heightening? I am assuming that even temporarily attaining the fifth heightening would cure most poisons and acute diseases, meaning that you could loan it to certain types of petitioners as a way to cure them. Of course, this does require that every recipient of breath is willing to return the breath after being healed, but you can create steep disincentives for attempting to keep them. Anyhow, I vote: [X] Prepare to propose our motion regarding a 'insurance-system' for injured dockworkers [X] Play a game of Tarachin with a few of the gods Feels bad to not do anything for the petitioners, though.
  15. quest

    Yep, pretty much. And for people who are unable to work in this position for the foreseeable future, they just receive the maximum temporary injury payment amount. This is a good point. Neither worker is fully being repaid for their injury (I'm not sure that mandating this would be practical, or even that employers should be held 100% responsible for a workplace injury). But, especially in a job that people are typically only going to take because they have to, there is a pretty big difference between being able to support yourself and others and not being able to do that. Pragmatically speaking, one of those workers is still able to get their feet under them, and the other is pretty badly screwed over. Giving the second one some semblance of a chance to get their feet back under them takes priority, to me, plus I think it is more clear-cut that employers should be held responsible for that. This distinction might be hard to explain to people, but, then again, maybe it won't be. Remember that we are proposing implementing a security system where there was likely nothing or very little before. Even for those people who will think it isn't enough, who maybe aren't wrong, their first thought will still be that it's better than nothing and a step in the right direction. This is, of course, assuming that it actually is better than nothing. If the system completely doesn't follow through on what it is supposed to do and/or can be easily exploited, then that will instead be people's first thought. This is part of why I am shooting for something simple and robust, even though in theory something more complicated might address the problem with slightly more coverage. Generally pretty good Two things: It's hard to say if 60% pay would realistically be enough for a laborer, although it might be, and is certainly better than nothing. Who knows exactly how Hallandren economy works, so this is maybe one of those details we can gloss over I really like the idea of employers and employees partnering together to find the injured employee a suitable means of supporting themselves. However, I am worried that employers would resent being forced to accept certain employees without a choice. If people are not acting in good faith, some ways this might break down: What constitutes an "equivalent" position is a thorny issue. It's easy enough to claim two things are equivalent when in practice they really aren't. Also, if employers are required to accept injured workers back into the fold, but need somebody to be doing that work in the meantime, we are indirectly encouraging them to hire and fire temporary workers in the six week interim. Seasonal labor by short-term contract can be a pretty raw deal compared to something more stable, and not necessarily something we want to inadvertently encourage beyond the scope of what would naturally occur. It wouldn't be difficult for the workers forced into that niche to resent the state for it. What are the requirements for helping people find a new kind of position, if their old one is no longer possible? This is something that would require fairly involved and dedicated help, and it would be easy enough for an unwilling employer to check the boxes without actually helping the injured employee, fostering bad feelings on both sides of the interaction and leaving the employee without the support they were meant to receive. In general, when you are requiring an employer to accept an employee, is the employer still generally free to fire that employee? I don't think there is an easy answer to this: If they are allowed to fire them from the get go, then the employer can abuse that to avoid being obligated to offer injured people a position. If they aren't allowed to fire them for some period of time, then the employee can abuse that to draw pay regardless of anything they do. If the law states that they can't fire them for reasons related to the injury that gets quite messy legally speaking because how can the law judge a person's intent. It can try, and that is sometimes a thing in the real world, maybe even it is justified in some of those cases idk, but it's something to avoid if possible. You are probably right that it should be invested, if Hallandren actually has an investment market worth speaking of. Otherwise I guess a bank would be the way to go? Either finding one willing to hold these funds or (?)creating one. Hm. I guess it depends on how good the estimation needs to be. Because, for the average person with a broken bone or something, giving a decent estimation for recovery time takes like a few minutes. We could ask the examiners to err slightly in the favor of the worker. As it is, this kind of basic examination could be provided by the state on the cheap (I am making a somewhat perilous assumption that public officials could administer this efficiently, which doesn't always happen in the real world), and this sidesteps the issue that a regular doctor is beholden to the party who is paying them. However, what I am proposing may not be scale-able in the long run. It is also likely to allow some weird cases to not get adequately handled, although that was probably inevitable. On another note, I'm still really interested in how the existence of lifeless might affect labor in Hallandren. They cost a dead body plus one breath, which isn't really that much for a supernaturally tenacious worker that requires neither sleep nor pay nor moral consideration, does exactly as it is told, and retains some of the manual skills of its past life. Even in a modern and automated economy that would probably revolutionize things, let alone in one that is primarily based on human labor. How common exactly is it for regular humans to be doing manual labor? (this is another something we can decide not to think about ) ...this is getting pretty far afield, isn't it XD Well, perhaps Songbearer has more of a part to play in the council affairs than we thought.
  16. quest

    Hm. That does sound rather complicated. Well, I've already started in on this, no sense in turning back now Again, I preface this with the fact that I don't actually know what I'm talking about. My knowledge of the history of this kind of thing is kind of fuzzy at best, and I'm doing this because I enjoy following rabbit-holes and extrapolating the necessary consequences First of all, yes, to clarify, the definition I am going for of an "injury" under this system is something that 1) occurred as a result of your job and 2) prevents you from working. Also note that employers also are not being required to pay for medical expenses, just for a period of recovery time. This is a system of narrow scope, designed to serve as a (relatively) simpler and more agreeable stand-in for a truly comprehensive set of labor regulations. The narrowness of scope is part of what should make it hypothetically doable. Second of all... On the ability to finance this system: Well, you raise a pretty good point. I'm not sure I would frame it as a lack of money though, per se. In the grand scheme of things, it is highly doable to provide for the small percentage of the population that is temporarily disabled by workplace injury, and the state pitching in would be more a cost sharing mechanism than anything else (however, a rudimentary cost-sharing mechanism is arguably necessary, for reasons I will describe later). The thing is, it requires people to adapt. This is the logical consequence of both wanting employers to modify their behavior and not wanting to impinge on their freedom. It requires actually learning, which isn't a bad thing. I have faith that people could adapt to a system like this, just like Brightweave pointed out that they could very well adapt to new regulations, and just like humans have done historically for stricter cultural expectations than this. In short, I think it could work, but at a cost, because adaptation takes time: you could reasonably expect a calibration period during which the economy takes a hit for a couple years before equalizing again (which, pragmatically speaking, would seriously risk making this proposal non-viable in a democratic society, as in Bismarck's case, but you have a much better chance of pulling it off in a theocratic Returned-ocracy ). Like you have said, the major problem arises in that in the case of a large-scale disaster, it isn't unthinkable for a company to fold under the cost. And, from what you are saying, it sounds like trying to go around that monster leads to conclusions that are not satisfying. So, if we want to tackle the monster head-on, and we still want to keep thing simple, there are two ways I can think of to do that: Let the cards fall as they may. Employers will still be held responsible to pay their workers as much as they are able, and if a building collapses in an earthquake or something, injuring a bunch of workers all at once, then the employer will probably go bankrupt, unless the company is large enough and has a good enough track record overall that they can tank the losses. The workers caught in this accident will maybe not receive their full compensation of injury pay, which is a shame, but you kind of expect natural disasters to suck. No government policy is going to successfully prevent natural disasters from sucking. Or in the least, such a policy falls well outside the scope of a labor payment system, and if it is to exist it should be a standalone thing with broader applications, and the subject of a completely different proposal. Create a specialized fund to guarantee injury pay to workers in the event that a company folds for any reason. This is a mandatory (hence why it is administered by the state) insurance system that every employer pays a small head tax towards, which only is withdrawn from infrequently in the event disaster, when an employer doesn't have the money for injury pay. If the fund is managed competently, the damages incurred by any disaster is spread across many more people and over much greater timespans, so this tax could theoretically be rather modest. Unfortunately, I doubt this could work effectively unless we also exempted businesses under a certain size from this entire system. Because, it takes far less than a large-scale disaster to fold a small business, even just a single worker getting injured at a bad time could do it, and that would drain the fund a lot faster. On the bright side, there are actually pretty legitimate reasons to make small businesses exempt, in addition to our ulterior motives: Workers have a much greater degree of choice to decline a job offer from a small company they believe has unsafe work conditions, so it isn't quite as necessary to regulate them. Giving businesses under a certain size makes it easier on startups, which is generally a positive thing. /shrug that is what I can come up with right now
  17. quest

    Right, fair point. There are limits for each type of injury, but the fact that the duration can’t be lifetime should be explicit. Lets say that there is a maximum payment duration (it being a duration, and not an amount, means that this system automatically scales with inflation and cost of living and what have you). Lets also say this maximum is the same amount that families receive if a worker is killed in a workplace accident. You are selling yourself short. In any case, I don’t really feel like I know what I’m talking about, but I’m glad it sounds interesting anyhow Not intentionally Are you from the UK?
  18. quest

    This continues to be an interesting read Also we appear to have gotten reasonably lucky so far. Tax on clothes dyed a Returned’s colours - Coinspender On one hand, with Coinspender’s clarification about shades and priesthood exemption, it’s not an unreasonable proposal. It would realistically only impact those wealthy individuals who wish to wear the specific shades of heraldry for a Returned. Similar issues of branding definitely do exist in the real world. But while it isn’t a bad idea, I’m not convinced it’s a good idea either. There’s an opportunity cost, since unrestricted access to our heraldry earns us both goodwill and free publicity. As a brand new Returned, I think publicity is probably more valuable to us than a small amount of tax revenue. I would actually consider supporting a proposal that allows each Returned to tax their own colors if they want to, but I think Songbearer should still choose to allow free access to his colors. [X] Abstain. Impose new safety regulations on dockworkers – Firesoul Wheeeeee polarization. It comes part and parcel with any legislative body. I am a little curious how the structure of labor works in Hallandren. I would expect the existence of lifeless to make kind of a big difference. The existence of the type of hired labor described herein also suggests a rather different system of labor compared to pre-industrial earth. Judging by Quickfell’s assertion about most dockworkers knowing injured people, and Firesoul's statistics, we have pretty clear confirmation that dockworkers conditions are pretty unsafe. We should do something about that. This seems like a close vote. But, I am also not eager to get embroiled in taking sides. Moreover, I don’t think we have to. Lets try and play the part of peacemaker, and come up with a policy that the Returned can actually agree upon (see my proposal at the bottom). [X] Abstain. Build a new library near the slums – Brightweave I like Brightweave. Also, this proposal agrees with Songbearer’s bookish inclinations, is relatively inoffensive to anyone but Coinspender, and is in the very long term all but guaranteed to be a good investment. I am assuming from the context of the discussion that Hallandren is financially able to build this library. [X] Support. [X] Peacemaker Proposal At the risk of throwing Songbearer headlong into a situation he doesn’t adequately understand, I have an idea that should help dockworkers while being something the Court might actually be able to agree upon. I will disclaim my proposal with the statement that I have very little actual knowledge in the field of labor regulations: A potential way of increasing dockworkers safety is that you could just require employers to continue paying their injured workers the same amount for a duration after they have been injured, more or less equal to the expected recovery time of the injury, as determined by a third party within a window of discretion based on the general type of injury. I’m pretty sure this can sometimes be a thing IRL anyhow. This system is not a substitute for a basic body of regulations to illegalize the most egregious cases of negligence. However, I would be surprised if such a barebones system were not already in place, since Firesoul’s discussion was more about the correct degree of regulation than about whether regulation should exist or not. The benefits of this proposal are as follows: It gives workers who do get injured the opportunity to recover and get back on their feet. Even if you reduced the frequency of injuries with conventional regulations, this would have still been a concern. It gives employers a fairly hefty incentive to create safer working conditions, without prescribing exactly how they should do it. Because, while they may sometimes lack the morals to create safe conditions in the first place, they likely have much more expertise about the best way to do that, once they are properly motivated to do so. Compared to a comprehensive set of regulations, it’s simple. There aren’t really any obscure details or footnotes that the average person wouldn’t know about. There also aren’t a lot of failure points. The only decent one I can think of is bribing the third party, and discouraging that is much more doable when it is one of the only failure points to cover. Randomly auditing officials (or better yet just doing some light statistical analysis on their past rulings to determine who needs auditing) and requiring multiple opinions in borderline/contested cases should do the trick in most cases. Last and most importantly, it addresses the foremost concern of the Returned who were against it. Namely, that people ought to be free to choose to take a risk if they want to (all three voices of opposition brought up this point), which is somewhat valid. By the terms of this proposal, people are still completely free to take those risks. All this is doing is creating fair accountability for the consequences. It’s hardly perfect, but the point is it’s a compromise that the council might be less divided over, while still addressing the problem.
  19. I suppose I do believe past games should impact current ones. I'm glad Anonymous Games are an option, and hope more of them appear if possible, but yeah. This game is a game about lying, and at least to me, a legitimate factor in how lying works is that it can sometimes make things harder when you succeed at it. Agreed. I kind of hope we understand where the other is coming from a bit better now, but I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this.
  20. I am sorry for lynching you. There are signs I should have seen that pointed towards your innocence. I wasn't willing to change my mind, in part in response to your suspicion against me the previous cycle, and I really should have been. But I don't think you're being completely fair here. I clearly do not know the whole of your experience with people taking reputation too far, but speaking as the person whose thought processes largely invoked your recent lynch, are you willing to consider that this may not be the case in this game? Do you believe that in this game, your reputation prevented you from getting a fair chance? You got unlucky and made an understandable mixup, but it resulted in a false claim. Yes, reputation absolutely changes the character of how people respond to the situation, but people without a reputation have certainly been mislynched over lesser misunderstandings. Indeed, by your own reasoning, simply being active and not yet having cleared myself in your eyes was lynchworthy, or at least scanworthy, one cycle prior. You were reasonably close to not getting lynched. Had I not pushed hard for lynching you, other players would have let it be, as they were already doing before I posted. Or had we not both been kind of busy with ongoing other stuff, there is also a reasonable chance your lynch would have been averted. I kind of go out of my way to give you a fair chance. I've never really been one to suggest or agree with a D1 lynch or nightkill on you or anyone in a similar position, for the exact reasons you are stating, because when something like that starts happening one too many times, it's really not alright. I am always a bit reluctant to target you unless I have a reason to target you and you specifically, which really isn't something I do for most players. It's just that I did perceive a reason to target you specifically in this game. Perhaps you believe I should have known better, and you would be right, but I legitimately believed you were evil, and so I acted on it. Regardless, insofar as you have a legitimate grievance, please do not hold it against anyone else here but me. Yeah other people voted for you, but the fault was mainly mine, and not something I would want you to hold against the shard or SE as a whole.
  21. Thank you for running this game, Lum and Coop. I don't think I can overstate my appreciation for GMs for these games. Hopefully I have redeemed my mistakes on D2 by pushing the lynch the right way on D3. It was interesting how this setup dealt with having relatively few players (considering the low-ish player count, the activity was pretty good though). On one hand, the village had a comparatively large number of confirmable roles, and on the other, the eliminators had LyLo by D3. Each of these things is a fairly significant advantage, and it isn't obvious to me that one outweighs the other, but the game was definitely going to be decided one way or the other in the course of only a few cycles. Well, you had come sort of close to actually convincing me, is the thing. If I had known for sure what you were doing, I would have probably played along. But as it was, I was genuinely going through my thought process in the thread, trying to figure out if you were telling the truth or not.
  22. Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that claim. Feels weird, for a few reasons: You are claiming to possess one of Ruin's signature abilities (altering writing) and an alt win con to destroy the planet. That doesn't sound very Hoid-ish to me. There is also the fact that Blind Informant as a title doesn't really jive with your stated win conditions. Wouldn't the death of the inquisitor result in the destruction of all the spikes they are holding? It would be kind of weird if it didn't. Moreover, if the game running its full course would make your win about as inevitable as the village's win, wouldn't the GMs just take that into account when prematurely ending the game? I'm also kind of doubtful that the GMs would agree to claim the game has no secrets. Generally speaking, if you are running secrets, you put a disclaimer for that in signups, or in the least you don't promise that there are no secrets. I don't suppose you are making this up in order to keep the game interesting?
  23. Stick. As for whether the game should end? Well, I personally would be okay with deliberately allowing Stick to choose a convert before lynching her, just for fun. If the other villagers are not interested in doing this, then I agree with Fura that we should let Stick decide to end the game or not.