Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Jyn Ryvia · Mar 7, 2021

Codex said:
[X] The Waystone Project
[X] Loremaster-at-Large of Karak Eight Peaks

I usually don't let other people's opinions affect me enough to approval vote against something that I would normally be fine with, but in this particular case, I'm dissatisfied enough with people's arguments that I'll be pushing exclusively for these two options.

ok, so as this is likely... very likely.. my fault for getting salty.

I'll argue for why Markaf is great instead of why Loremaster is bad.

- i I like Edgelord for the narrative symmetry, the chance to make a lot of anti-vampire enchantments, and just in general the chance to lead armies for a bit (martial advisor.)

- while I can't say in honesty that Markhraf= Waystones after a few comment from BoneyM. any of the high ranks in the Empire would help grease the wheels for stuff in 10 years time for the next job. the same way Lady Wizard can turn get more people to the table then Wizerd. Former Markgarf* will get more people in line then Lady Wizerd.

- For anyone interested in Becoming Matriarch of the Grey order one day. Markgraf of Eastern Stirland
and Bodyguard and Tutor to Prince Mandred would be amazing on the CV.

- Zany cast of Vampire's hunters and one super hunter (Andanti) might be on the table

- one of the things about Markgraf of Eastern Stirland that makes me want it is that... well, just how rare a job opportunity it is.

for one, the title, while being arguably the 3d highest (official) rank in the empire, is only around when needed.

and Mathy being offered the job is the result of: A) Newly retaken land, B) that land needing someone with our skillset (anti-vampire/ anti-necromancy) and not bad at running shit and being a general when needed. C) Having an Elector count, the only ones allowed to give the title, trusting Mathy enough to give the title most likely to create a rivel job to her.

there is a lot of elements to the opportunity that won't be there in 10 years time. (unless the guy/gal that Roseia picks after us bites it. pun intended)

and yes, that can be said for some of the other jobs, but there will be opportunities of 'similar' level in the future.

the rank only lower then elector? we aren't seeing that level of a job until we start eyeing
Matriarchs of the grey order/ Supreme Matriarchs.

D.Rockstar · Mar 7, 2021

Updating my vote to remove some options.

[x] Loremaster-at-Large of Karak Eight Peaks

Prompt Critical · Mar 7, 2021

CeBrudras said:
What can still be feasibly done to alleviate the issue is vote trading. It runs the risk of turning the thread into a weird bazaar, however. (and I hope there isn't already some ban on it hidden away in the ~100 pages this vote has so far generated )

I'm super against this. This feels like it could easily turn into some kind of vote-brigading thing. Heck, I'm even a bit leery of how posters have been pinging others to help them strategically vote.

Voters are smart. If they want it enough, they can figure out a strategic vote by themselves. This coordination of others' votes, feels like it is too much.

Erandil · Mar 7, 2021

[X] Markgraf of Eastern Stirland
[X] The Waystone Project

Byzantine · Mar 7, 2021

Please no vote trading. It's horrifically demotivating to me.

torac · Mar 7, 2021

Rafin said:
"What option is most people's favorite" is not the only metric that matters though. "What option has the most people being generally okay with it" could be considered just as valuable.

Yeah, which is why I typically like approval voting more. It's dead simple and works well to find a common denominator. I also was of one mind with Boney, when they first chose this method for this vote. It is perhaps one of the most reliable systems, after all.

The issue arises when "generally okay with" encompasses most of the options, and when there are 4 choices which an almost equal amount of players vote for. This has only become apparent as of half a day ago. If it remains that way until the end, I'd like there to be some better form of tiebreaker than "one vote happens to have 5 more votes when the vote was called".

Though honestly, I'm fine with anything. Whether going with whatever happens to be at the top at some arbitrary point in time, rolling a die between the top options, or having a run-off vote. I'm confident that I'll enjoy whichever wins.

Ericwinter said:
Poor Mathilde. She's going to be so conflicted in the next update.

That she will be. The world is her oyster, but she cannot eat it all or however that saying is supposed to go…

Speaking of votes, I think I'll go with this for the time being:

[X] Markgraf of Eastern Stirland
[X] Bodyguard and Tutor to Prince Mandred
[X] Spymaster of Wissenland
[X] Border Princess of the Howling River

CeBrudras said:
What can still be feasibly done to alleviate the issue is vote trading. It runs the risk of turning the thread into a weird bazaar, however. (and I hope there isn't already some ban on it hidden away in the ~100 pages this vote has so far generated )

Like, in your particular situation you could find a Markgraf/Tutor>Loremaster>>>Waystone voter and then make a deal with them to both only vote for the first two. Which I, coincitentally, would be totally willing to do btw.

I don't really like vote-trading. I fear that will make everything even more of a mess.

Rocky111 · Mar 7, 2021

[X] Markgraf of Eastern Stirland
[X] Bodyguard and Tutor to Prince Mandred

ReImagined · Mar 7, 2021

Kliden said:
I'm super against this. This feels like it could easily turn into some kind of vote-brigading thing. Heck, I'm even a bit leery of how posters have been pinging others to help them strategically vote.

Voters are smart. If they want it enough, they can figure out a strategic vote by themselves. This coordination of others' votes, feels like it is too much.

Adding onto this, BoneyM is explicitly against vote trading.

BoneyM said:
Please don't do this kind of thing. Compromise dockets are a great way for nobody to get what they actually want.

Jyn Ryvia · Mar 7, 2021

pinging, arguing, lobbying etc etc is fair game as i see it in a vote quest. (its just part of the metagame)

but vote trading is gross. ( example: with something this popular its totally possible that someone could offer real money to buy votes) shutters.

Valmond · Mar 7, 2021

Thomasfoolery said:
Indeed he didn't and there were options that were clearly called out as being clear breaks, those weren't among them. I distinctly also remember it being mentioned that other holds do this as well but I don't have time to hunt down a specific quote.

This you could say is relatively solid evidence for it though.

He has a fully functional clan, that means he has access to loremasters.

It is indeed not infinite. You can decide that the value add of Mathilde bringing in massive prestige to his hold isn't worth the time cost it imposes in other areas. But that is by no means a straightforward argument to make.

That is not a decision i have made, as i pointed in another post, we don't actually know if he needs a more legally minded loremaster.
The amount of effort thread has done to argue about trying to get a loremaster to help with that part of the job, only to be told no, leads me to believe there is a cost, i just don't know how big the cost is, and as i said earlier, Belegar would be unwilling to disclose that information.
All i know is that Belegar starts from "Mathilde remains a loremaster as long as she wants" and works backwards from there to find ways to make that a useful decision.
But while i find Belegars judgement on this a suspect, he is not stupid, and he is perfectly capable of finding useful work for someone of Mathile's talents.

Thomasfoolery said:
@Valmond, ah actually did manage to find a clear example of what I was thinking of.

Thank you, that is much appreciated.

PseudoLurker · Mar 7, 2021

[x] The Waystone Project
[x] Loremaster-at-Large of Karak Eight Peaks

inirlan · Mar 7, 2021

Oh no, since I last checked the vote turned from a 3 way head to head race to a 4 way head to head race.

Which is great for suspense and engagement, a vote winning by a handful of votes against multiple close contenders... I can practically taste the salt.

BeepSmile · Mar 7, 2021

inirlan said:
Which is great for suspense and engagement, a vote winning by a handful of votes against multiple close contenders... I can practically taste the salt.

Stating assumptions that people will act in a salty manner wrt votes actually makes it more likely that people will act in said immature and shitty manner. My guess is that these statements will register to some people as a form of "societal permission" to do so.

Regardless of the why this occurs, BoneyM has asked repeatedly for people to not do the thing you are doing here.

Rafin · Mar 7, 2021

Codex said:
I can choose to vote however I like. Those two options are my favorite anyway, I just happened to be fine with the others until I read the thread.

Sure you can vote however you like. You're probably not the only spite voter among the 500+ voters. The others just don't advertise the fact.
I can still call it ugly behavior though.

If what you read in the thread made you think that those options are less to your liking than you thought then that's completely fine and the whole point of discussion. If you just realized that voting for your top two options is what you want to do because you're more or less equally okay with any of the other frontrunners winning or because you don't feel like voting for anything but your true top choices then that's just as fine.
But if your motivation for changing your vote is literally just "I don't think that those assholes should be rewarded so I'm going to collectively oppose anyone with the same preferences as them", well, I don't see any way to spin that into anything but petty behavior.

Thomasfoolery said:
I mean, if an argument turns someone off an option, that's just the other side of the coin to an argument convincing someone to vote for it no?

If that's what it is, then yes. But I read it as them being consciously aware that the argument didn't actually affect the probable content of the option itself. Like, if I scream "Dwarves are all backwards and staying with them will make Mathilde's brain rot away" at the top of my lungs repeatedly, then I may be an asshole, but that doesn't make the Empire jobs as written by BoneyM any better or worse.

CeBrudras said:
What can still be feasibly done to alleviate the issue is vote trading. It runs the risk of turning the thread into a weird bazaar, however. (and I hope there isn't already some ban on it hidden away in the ~100 pages this vote has so far generated )

Like, in your particular situation you could find a Markgraf/Tutor>Loremaster>>>Waystone voter and then make a deal with them to both only vote for the first two. Which I, coincitentally, would be totally willing to do btw.

That makes little sense. People who already prefer the first two over Waystones should already be voting for both out of pure self-interest, regardless of whether others do the same. And people who will "trade" with you while their disliked option is in the lead will and should drop you like a hot potato once your respective primary choices are in a head-to-head race.

Broccoliccoli · Mar 7, 2021

Kliden said:
I'm super against this. This feels like it could easily turn into some kind of vote-brigading thing. Heck, I'm even a bit leery of how posters have been pinging others to help them strategically vote.

Voters are smart. If they want it enough, they can figure out a strategic vote by themselves. This coordination of others' votes, feels like it is too much.

We absolutely can figure out something equivalent. The voter I quoted even already mentioned a strategy that is effectively equivalent, assuming one checks the tally without any pause and posts a fresh, updated vote whenever something changes. Communicating just allows a solution that is much less laborous.

ReImagined said:
Adding onto this, BoneyM is explicitly against vote trading.

I am willing to believe that BoneyM has that stance, but not based on that quote. Their reasoning there is quite specific to its context and does not apply here.

Rafin said:
That makes little sense. People who already prefer the first two over Waystones should already be voting for both out of pure self-interest, regardless of whether others do the same. And people who will "trade" with you while their disliked option is in the lead will and should drop you like a hot potato once your respective primary choices are in a head-to-head race.

That is a pretty pessimistic perspective. I personally would not hesitate to trust a fellow fan of this quest as long as the stakes are as low as they are in this situation.

SpaceSloth · Mar 7, 2021

Seeing as the Edgelord is close to catching up to the first place, I thought that lore video about Stirland might help people at deciding if they want to go back to Stirland.

WhiteNights · Mar 7, 2021

Breadnaugt said:
The Sylvania job will likely involve fixing the local waystones. Which will probably involve reaching out to some Jades/others and getting them on the project.

Will it though?

Somebody else already commented about how it wasn't in the job description.

This also ties into my argument that people will over invest into a single geographical location.
People are already arguing "yes Sylvania has it, we don't have to go anywhere else."

The Markgraf job is the one with the least in job options for meddling in anything, which I prefer. It is trading flexibility for more responsibilities.
I also want to see if we can find out more about Dum.

I will also note that we did stuff in Stirland under our role of loremaster, and we can check out pooling dhar under the responsibilities of Bodyguard/Waystones/ probably wing it as loremaster again.

Relevant Quote from BoneyM, because I did ask about meddling in a different situation.

BoneyM said:
Depends, the Loremaster-at-Large and the Bodyguard job explicitly come with a side of getting involved in foreign business, but in general I'd say you should focus on the job you actually take, not the ones you didn't

Also - access to functioning hedges and Waystones would be better for learning how to fix them.

InvaderViceroy · Mar 7, 2021

I'd be fine with either of these
[X] The Waystone Project
[X] Loremaster-at-Large of Karak Eight Peaks

SakSak · Mar 7, 2021

CeBrudras said:
What can still be feasibly done to alleviate the issue is vote trading. It runs the risk of turning the thread into a weird bazaar, however. (and I hope there isn't already some ban on it hidden away in the ~100 pages this vote has so far generated )

Like, in your particular situation you could find a Markgraf/Tutor>Loremaster>>>Waystone voter and then make a deal with them to both only vote for the first two. Which I, coincitentally, would be totally willing to do btw.

This is an absolutely horrid practice.

Not only is it an implicit admission that there are no more arguments to be made on the merits in favour of your position, or against the merits of the positions you do not want selected, but it also actively hides preferences in a voting system by presenting a false dichotomy that radicalizes the positions. "I know you are fine with A, B and C, but since B is currently winning you totally should forgo voting on A and C, so that D doesn't get selected."
All the while the vote is still ongoing, thereby ignoring the fact that neither B or D might end up winning a fair vote.

It is just short of stealing votes, and at best leads to active misrepresentation of the preferences of the voting base.
And then on top of this, it opens the doors of free market to purchase votes on any given vote.

Codex · Mar 7, 2021

Rafin said:
Sure you can vote however you like. You're probably not the only spite voter among the 500+ voters. The others just don't advertise the fact.
I can still call it ugly behavior though.

If what you read in the thread made you think that those options are less to your liking than you thought then that's completely fine and the whole point of discussion. If you just realized that voting for your top two options is what you want to do because you're more or less equally okay with any of the other frontrunners winning or because you don't feel like voting for anything but your true top choices then that's just as fine.
But if your motivation for changing your vote is literally just "I don't think that those assholes should be rewarded so I'm going to collectively oppose anyone with the same preferences as them", well, I don't see any way to spin that into anything but petty behavior.

If that's what it is, then yes. But I read it as them being consciously aware that the argument didn't actually affect the probable content of the option itself. Like, if I scream "Dwarves are all backwards and staying with them will make Mathilde's brain rot away" at the top of my lungs repeatedly, then I may be an asshole, but that doesn't make the Empire jobs as written by BoneyM any better or worse.

That makes little sense. People who already prefer the first two over Waystones should already be voting for both out of pure self-interest, regardless of whether others do the same. And people who will "trade" with you while their disliked option is in the lead will and should drop you like a hot potato once your respective primary choices are in a head-to-head race.

Uh sure. I don't get why I even have to justify myself to you, but if it makes you feel better to call my behavior ugly then go ahead.

Redshirt Army · Mar 7, 2021

I will say that having been active in Rihaku quests, which involve active vote trading and selling, has absolutely soured me on the notion, and I strongly encourage all QMs to ban the practice if they see even a whiff of it in their threads.

picklepikkl · Mar 7, 2021

naths said:
Honestly, I do believe that it is still a bit too early for the waystone project. If possible, I would have liked to start it only after the elfcation so we would have contacts with ulthuan that we can reach out to support the project.

FWIW, if we take the Waystone project, I think that a few turns down the line would be an excellent time to go to Nagarythe, flip Protector on, and try to get the attention of someone who can help us out with the Waystones -- it'd represent like 4 AP, 3 for the actual time spend in Nagarythe and 1 for travel to and from Ulthuan. I just profoundly don't want to go to Nagarythe right now, which is why I'm not voting for it.

SakSak said:
As in, the only reasonable way to progress forward on Waystones, is to work on the Waystone Project. What progress can be made as a side-quest, has been achieved. So going to Sylvania wouldn't do anything for the Waystone project, or at least shouldn't be voted on based on expectations of progress.

I just read a lot of these comments as people trying to have their cake, and eat it too.

Let people vote on what they vote. If they want Waystones, they should vote Waystones. If they want Sylvania, vote for Sylvania. If they're fine with both, then vote both. And so on.

Well-said.

BeepSmile said:
Stating assumptions that people will act in a salty manner wrt votes actually makes it more likely that people will act in said immature and shitty manner. My guess is that these statements will register to some people as a form of "societal permission" to do so.

Regardless of the why this occurs, BoneyM has asked repeatedly for people to not do the thing you are doing here.

Also well-said. A socially-normalized belief that certain circumstances will result in bad behavior is going to lead to bad behavior. It is better for us to expect the best of one another.

With regard to vote trading: I think stuff of the form "hey, if you support my priority on this turn's action plan, I'll support your priority on the next" is totally reasonable, healthy, and fine. We've seen a lot of it over the course of the thread, because different people have different pet projects. But coordinating slate voting is something that Boney has expressly said not to do, so don't do it.

Blacknight · Mar 7, 2021

[X] Bodyguard and Tutor to Prince Mandred
[X] Markgraf of Eastern Stirland

TheWiseTomato · Mar 7, 2021

[X] Loremaster-at-Large of Karak Eight Peaks
[X] Ambassador-at-Large to the Karaz Ankor
[X] Bodyguard and Tutor to Prince Mandred
[X] Ranaldian High Priest of Kislev

Byzantine · Mar 7, 2021

Redshirt Army said:
I will say that having been active in Rihaku quests, which involve active vote trading and selling, has absolutely soured me on the notion, and I strongly encourage all QMs to ban the practice if they see even a whiff of it in their threads.

For reference his quests are also what traumatized me away from the practice. It's just... depressing to convince someone and immediately have their vote called by someone else. It makes even trying to debate the options feel pointless when most people are either waiting for someone to buy their vote, or are the ones doing the buying. It isn't healthy for the actual exchange of ideas and thoughts - people will treat it like a damn flea market.

Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Notorious Phoneposter

Would you like to make a gamble~?

Unbound

Fantasy Addict

Cannon Fodder

This isn't even my nerdiest form