Jump to content

Anniversary Game 7/Anonymous Game 9: From Embers, A Flame


Elbereth

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Violet Axolotl said:

@Azure Mouse, what's FotS mean? :ph34r: I feel like to really understand what you're saying I should know that.

[OOC: Personally I like to call it 'Fist of the Sun' because I imagine a huge fist burning like the sun emerging from nowhere and falcon-punching away one vote from one person on the world.

...or maybe my autowrong refuses to accept there's such a Shardworld as 'First of the Sun.' Think about it. Have any of ye ever been there? It's clearly a conspiracy. A conspiracy of cartographers! No one knows anyone who's actually been there.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Azure Mouse said:

[OOC: Personally I like to call it 'Fist of the Sun' because I imagine a huge fist burning like the sun emerging from nowhere and falcon-punching away one vote from one person on the world.

...or maybe my autowrong refuses to accept there's such a Shardworld as 'First of the Sun.' Think about it. Have any of ye ever been there? It's clearly a conspiracy. A conspiracy of cartographers! No one knows anyone who's actually been there.]

Ah right, thank you :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@little wilson Not that it really matters, but I'd like to confirm that the vote tally is correct, since I moved my vote from Iguana to Gecko halfway through the cycle:

Quote

Iguana. That makes a lot of sense. Normally I'd be uncomfortable with just redoing the vote, but since Mercy can't retarget, I'm okay with a Gecko train. It'll at least quiet things down on my planet so I can finally get these blasted highstorm calculations right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Melon Dingo said:

I don’t think I’ve ever seen that many people vote on one person... it’s quite funny. Would’ve been less funny if they weren’t an elim.

Pfffft I've seen a vote with 16 people before. Quite entertaining :P 

(Of course, they were an outed elim, so perhaps the situation was different...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems I've forgotten to actually comment on the day's events,
Despite my memory of having done so.
This is quite strange, and I'm saddened to see that my modus operandi
Has been done already, so perhaps I should just go.

Possibility the first becomes more reasonable
When one postulates that the Lightweaver is out of Light.
This outcome is perfectly possible
And extricates us from the odd sight
Of plentiful vote manipulation, which is awful
For our execution security in the time after night.

Perhaps now is the time to elaborate on suspicions,
Since we are left bereft after Gecko's execution.
I believe Rhino was batted about.
Of the reasons why, do shout.
This useful time we must not shun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Violet Axolotl said:

Pfffft I've seen a vote with 16 people before. Quite entertaining :P 

(Of course, they were an outed elim, so perhaps the situation was different...)

[OOC: Is this the one of which you speak? :P 

22 people voting, just so we could execute the outed Elim and save our scanner from getting Hoed. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last highstorm occurred only 23 hours from my prediction! I think I'm finally working out these calculations.

Autonomy has been having a bit of a tantr on FotS, so I'm relaying a message for them. They voted on Albatross last cycle and Gecko this one.

Edit: I'm as bad at messages as I am at highstorms I guess. It was Albatross this cycle and Gecko last.

Edited by Quartz Zebra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Quartz Zebra said:

The last highstorm occurred only 23 hours from my prediction! I think I'm finally working out these calculations.

Autonomy has been having a bit of a tantr on FotS, so I'm relaying a message for them. They voted on Albatross last cycle and Gecko this one.

And Tuatara and Elephant left the planet last turn, right? Or are they still there? 

Edited by Saffron Iguana
Hoho! My tinkering has revealed I can write text here too!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Chartreuse Penguin said:

Honour is correct

*looks up from tinkering* I am not sure if I should interpret this as a claim to be Honor or a confirmation of the appropriate way to address judges, but either way, I'll note the British spelling of the word. :biggereyesandahmmmMMMm:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait if Honor is a name instead of a concept is honour actually in that instance incorrect? Or what if they aren't talking about. The shard at all then. They can't be right? You can honour Honor but Honor isn't honour, it's like if you call Sean Shawn, yeah it sounds the same but like your friend Mr S is gonna have words over your spelling. Would Honor be the same??? Wait... Hm. But then if you call Sean Shawn they'll still know you are talking about Sean but it's just a language barrier of the spells do different things. But it's only a problem in writing. Wait how do people know which Sean/Shawn you're talking about if you have friends with the different spellings if you only speak it??.... 

Please ignore me

I've never considered this before in regards to Honor/Honour and this fascinates me.  Cause it's a proper noun! or is it!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ivory Dragonfly said:

Wait if Honor is a name instead of a concept is honour actually in that instance incorrect?

[OOC - OOC

If we postulate that in this instance that 'Honour' serves as a proper name, then the real question is whether 'Honour' and 'Honor' are considered to pick out the same objects, or referents. This goes back to Kripke (1980) in Naming and Necessity where certain kinds of proper names are considered to be 'rigid designators', or to use modal language as a way of expressing possibility, that these names are considered to have the same referent in all possible worlds where the entity exists. This is a stipulative, by the way, not a descriptive definition.

Of course the causal theory of reference has its issues. But it's a useful framework in this case IMO because it really boils down to whether there is a causal history connecting the proper name 'Honour' to the referent X in a community of speakers. Now, suppose there is a causal history as well connecting the proper name 'Honor' to the referent Y. Then yes, it would be incorrect - because you cannot substitute 'Honour' for 'Honor' but mean referent Y. But suppose both have been causally connected to the referent Y. Then yeah, probably not incorrect. 

It's a fascinating topic in the philosophy of language :) Disclaimer that it's not my specialisation and I spent more time writing on the apparent contingency of scientific naming in chemical facts.

tldr; does it mean the same thing/point to the same person or entity? if yes it's fine, if not, it's incorrect]

Edited by Azure Mouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Azure Mouse said:

[OOC - OOC

If we postulate that in this instance that 'Honour' serves as a proper name, then the real question is whether 'Honour' and 'Honor' are considered to pick out the same objects, or referents. This goes back to Kripke (1980) in Naming and Necessity where certain kinds of proper names are considered to be 'rigid designators', or to use modal language as a way of expressing possibility, that these names are considered to have the same referent in all possible worlds where the entity exists. This is a stipulative, by the way, not a descriptive definition.

Of course the causal theory of reference has its issues. But it's a useful framework in this case IMO because it really boils down to whether there is a causal history connecting the proper name 'Honour' to the referent X in a community of speakers. Now, suppose there is a causal history as well connecting the proper name 'Honor' to the referent Y. Then yes, it would be incorrect - because you cannot substitute 'Honour' for 'Honor' but mean referent Y. But suppose both have been causally connected to the referent Y. Then yeah, probably not incorrect. 

It's a fascinating topic in the philosophy of language :) Disclaimer that it's not my specialisation and I spent more time writing on the apparent contingency of scientific naming in chemical facts.

tldr; does it mean the same thing/point to the same person or entity? if yes it's fine, if not, it's incorrect]

Ngl it took me having to consciously force my brain to stop and read each individual word before I understood a word of what that said. The tldr was appreciated greatly :P many thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...