I also have to ask where the idea that the Wolf is worse than the Master comes from. Last I checked an RA will be worse than the last RA not worse than all permutations of the other options.
I'm not calling him either of those things nor that he stop arguing his point, all I'm asking is that he change the manner he is doing it. The manner he is writing it. It screams condescension and an appeal to emotion/base emotional manipulation to me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels so but I still felt it had to be said.
Also, answering this now because I was not keeping up with the thread while writing my previous response (fake edit: now there's another response of mine, but you should get an idea).
Er, kind of? Like, I am not saying I am
not arguing to change how voters feel, that would be lies.
But significant part of the voterbase, from what I observe, are
already voting based on emotion, because one option feels
wrong.
More wrong than the other - there are no real
good options, I hope everyone agrees on that. The only one where it is vaguely plausible, though, is Wolf, and I hope no one will get wrong expectation from it - more on later, and resuming. People are voting based on feeling. It is fine! The writing like these is
meant to inspire emotion, it means that Bird did a great job this time, even compared to an average update, or at least finished a great job started earlier.
And there were plenty of posts that show that some people feel they
must respond, which, as far as I see, do sway at least some of the votes.
I definitely have that
impression, at very least.
But that means that if I hope to change the mind of that part of the voterbase, I must show that emotionally, it is not vaguely grey and black.
It is black and black. You are not obligated to vote one way or another.
Like, I don't believe
anyone, in
any vote should be obligated to vote one way or another, it is just a story, but I am not going to police your feeling. They are yours, yours to have, and yours to act upon.
I try to provide both rational and irrational arguments. Not cost-benefit analysis per se, although I do periodically note that Accept option that actually
rewards us, directly and explicitly, because I don't believe anyone who cares about it is voting for anything else
anyway - in the rest of them we do lose, after all, save sometimes the Wolf (which I will try to argue later, if I'll find good argument).
Anyway, I do not
inherently consider emotion-based argument to be invalid in the voting discussion, for or against me. Deceptive, intentionally deceptive emotion based argument - that is invalid, trying to involve in situations that aren't already emotionally charged, that is at least iffy and I try not to do that, trying to show that one
already emotionally charged option is better/worse I don't inherently consider bad. There are a war of against people's biases as much as logic, after all.
It is not the same thing that people being wrong. People are irrational, and that's what makes us us, or at least
a thing that makes us us.
Anyway, the writing like this is meant to evoke emotion, obviously go for what you feel is best. Sometimes that means the safest, the most calculated plans, because you are securing the long term emotion, and sometimes the given scene is what drives engagement.
It's not like
winning is actual goal of any quest,
playing them is. And going for the victory is a nice direction to have, don't get me wrong!
But fundamentally, we read, and engage, and vote, because we like it.
And we vote for a specific option because we like it
most.
I don't
care about long term projections in some votes. That's ok! And if my preferred option, and the winning option disagrees. Likewise, fundamentally, I am
happy if someone can show that my option is not meaningfully better than the winning one, or that it is, in fact, worse.
Or, in general, when the space of options I consider approximately equal grows, I am happier.
I would be happy now if anyone managed to convince me Wolf is not going to be that bad, or that Offer is not that bad. I will genuinely will be!
Finally, I will touch on the topic I've promised earlier. I consider that people, when they vote, should understand what they are voting for, and - this may be important for your judgement of your character, and maybe my position - primary in regards to feelings.
Like, there's plenty of problems with miscommunications in general, and miscommunications between a GM and players in general, but the relevant one is regarding emotions.
It is my current, honest belief that there's none insignificant portion of the voterbase because they feel they are morally obligated, either IC and as themselves, to eliminate the evil and make the world better. It is also my current, honest belief, that Bird is good enough writer that Wolf option
won't feel like that.
Because, fundamentally - unless someone finds some super clever loophole in the next two days - we have lost. Not the game, but certainly this specific battle. All of this options suck. If there would be an easy way out, it would be out of theme for the quest, and I do believe in Bird's ability and willingness to do it. I can be wrong, I am not omniscient! But this is what I believe will happen.
And fundamentally, it is also my current, honest belief that in the vote with stakes like these, voting Wolf and then getting unexpected feelings in your face won't feel great. It will feel worse than normal.
As I've already said, repeatedly, in fact - I am 100% if you are voting for the Wolf simply because you want to kill him, and I only slightly disagree with you if you think that reward is not worth Mareinette/that the Wolf's debuffs on our enemies will be more useful. I don't share that opinion, but I have precisely 0% problems with that.
You think I overinflate the wolf. I... Disagree, but it is your right to think so, we all are judging on incomplete information. Although I think definitely stating that the Third Son will not do - just like definitively stating he will do - any given thing is a little premature. Still, there's an argument to be made how bad it is, and I base my position, in my last post, on Baldomare's reaction and that hypothetical that Bird has shared with us, as well as that old statement on the nature of Wolf. Feel free to dispute it!
If you will show me how I am wrong, I will be
delighted. 100% serious here. Whether it will mean showing me some other evidence, or showing me how I might misinterpreted it, everything sounds great. It means one option is closer to others, that's great. The best votes are when you don't know what to decide, at least in my experience.
That post just rehashes everything I said it doesn't address any of it hell it ends with my dig at utilitarianism.
As for the two rapes thing, I wasn't talking about that example I'm talking about how when this entire thing began you started, and ran with, the assumption that the RA/Wolf Son would cause more rapes. Hell you quoted rape statistics. Your tag line was that Accept has only one rape while the RA has more of them out of sight.
Ok, I will address it again.
First. Rape and utilitarianism. In the post I've quoted, I've identified two wrong things with rapes:
Violation that causes trauma - this one is absent in Accept, I hope we do agree on that.
Violation of trust that, well, perhaps I could formulate it better, but just a little latter jelloloaf put it quite nicely, now that I reread that bit: Violation of autonomy, and of trust that everyone will protect everyone else's autonomy. This is also wrong with rape, and this is not absent.
Therefore, Accept is not
as bad as "convention" rape.
...I would also say that I consider it a sliding scale: if I could not prevent trauma, but the rapist says (for some god forsaken reason, the scenario is not
intended to be realistic, merely to show a possibility) that I can choose how hard he will be with the victim - well, I will choose the least traumatic "setting", because such rape is
better. Not
good, important, but
better.
It doesn't really matter for the discussion on hand, really. Binary will do fine for the this purpose.
Second, rape statistics. Here's my exact post:
To implore how horrific Wolf option is, here's some actual statistics.
As it deals with a heavy subject, spoilered.
SPOILER="Statistics"
Let's take some middle of the road European country. Let's take, I don't know, Finland. According to Statista Research Department, in 2021 there was 1785 reported rape cases there. I can't find precise population of Finland in 2021, let take safe value of 5.6 million. This is rate of 0.031875% annually, or 318.75 per year, per million.
Assuming that the population of Equestria is 100 000 (given that has cities like Manehatten, it is likely much bigger, in the million, but let's be conservative), it is 31.875 per year. Assuming 5% increase - in reality it will be worse, because we are substracting 5 from a hundred, but from something less - it will be an additional 1.6 per yer.
If there's 5 million in population of Equestria? Almost 80 a year, >6.6 a turn.
Like, don't get me wrong. This a statistic from a random Earth county, it won't be followed.
But something like it just might. Maybe there's 10 times lower rate! Only 1 every 2 turns!
...But given how rotten the whole aristocracy thing has become, unlikely. Honestly, remember Cantrip? She was lucky.
Many others, is all but spelled, aren't.
Next one will be worse.
Maybe not in raw numbers, but in impact.
/SPOILER
And if you think that the next Son won't target our dear ones specifically... Why, again? Because it just might. Because once, a Wolf has already paid us a visit.
Well, Selene.
You can split hairs and say it wasn't Evil, but some other Wolf-splinter, but honestly? Splitting hairs. Even if that one wasn't, it is still a precedent that our family is not protected from what we bring.
Spoiler broken and underline added by me, right now.
As you can see, my argument was:
"See, assuming the Third Son is as bad as the Second Son, what is realistic impact of such an entity, in regards to rape alone? Therefore - and we know the Third Son will be worse somehow - we can conclude that the impact will be worse than that.
Under some metric we don't know of, of course, but it does informs us how
bad bad we can expect it."
If you think I am missing some, can you point it out? Because I certainly did not intent to say the next Wolf will rape anybody; rather, what we should expect, measured in rapes on some arcane calculator of evil.
It is not precise, because Bird is not actually a god of evil; he doesn't
have an arcane calculator of evil, but he will try. He's a good writer. We can still try to measure lower bound on "how bad it is", even if it is a bit fuzzy.
Anyway, I hope it cleared any misunderstanding we might have. I won't respond anymore today, most likely, but have a good time, and next time I will be free I will try to respond to any other questions you might have.
