Remove ads

Marked for Death: A Rational Naruto Quest

Reader mode
Sir Stompy said:
Going forward I am going to be putting that time towards notes/FOOM. Probably notes first until we've finished Oro's Sealing Notes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's worth noting that we are becoming increasingly stagnant, and thus the value of FOOM blocks is becoming increasingly less.

Hopefully we unstagate our Combat domain soon, but if we don't, it may be worth it to slightly focus more on research over training until our rate increases.
 
_The_Bomb said:
It's worth noting that we are becoming increasingly stagnant, and thus the value of FOOM blocks is becoming increasingly less.

Hopefully we unstagate our Combat domain soon, but if we don't, it may be worth it to slightly focus more on research over training until our rate increases.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think we want to stay laser focused on Sealing until we softlock PS at 30, after that we can dump 100% of our FOOM time into TH notes. At 15 blocks a day I think we can finish them in like... 2 weeks. Each set is 25 blocks, so 200/15 = 14ish days.
 
[X] Action Plan: Yet More Runes, Yay

Now that the research I didn't like has been removed I'm willing to vote for this.
 
RandomOTP said:
I know that promises and oaths are A Thing^tm for you, so I'll try to clarify my statements. I do not mean this in a rude way, or in a passive aggressive sense. I'm simply trying to clarify my stance as much as possible, using neutral language, to minimize potential future strife.

I am currently at a point where Goo Bomb runes/seals would repel my vote. I would vote against plans that have such in it.

I am not precommiting to voting for Goo Bomb runes/seals. If Hazou-pilot (plus Kei or Kagome) think it's a viable option, then I will no longer vote against the idea, but that alone would not actively earn my vote.

I am very, very leery of precommiting votes with regard to research.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

_The_Bomb said:
And are you going to be doing this for all prep days that you view as useless (what merit do you think MS10 will give us by-the-by) or just the one that I proposed?
There are many, many research-slots available each day and attempting to strangle using one of them for a single day (in a twenty two day plan!) that you view, at worst, as a waste of time instead of actively harmful comes across as very anti-collaborative.
You are generally a very lovely person, so it greatly saddens me to read a message from you that reads at best as uncivil and at worst as a game-theoretic coercion of the kind that is strictly forbidden here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Alright, since we're seeking to litigate intent, let's take this from the top, I suppose.

_The_Bomb said:
And are you going to be doing this for all prep days that you view as useless (what merit do you think MS10 will give us by-the-by) or just the one that I proposed?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
  1. Yup, we only have 10-12 prep days per update, as per EJ's Author's Note.
  2. MS10 is a separate topic that's irrelevant to your post regarding Goo Bomb research. Litigate it elsewhere.
  3. This isn't personal to you, and my clarifying post takes great effort to clarify that. I preface it with a statement that I'm not trying to be "rude or passive-aggressive." I then conclude my post with the reaffirmation that I'm "I am very, very leery of precomitting votes with regard to research, [in general]."
    1. To read why, skip ahead to 3.3 of the last list in this post.
_The_Bomb said:
There are many, many research-slots available each day and attempting to strangle using one of them for a single day (in a twenty two day plan!) that you view, at worst, as a waste of time instead of actively harmful comes across as very anti-collaborative.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

  1. We have less research slots than you state. See #1 in the first list of this post.
  2. I disagree that it's anti-collaborative. I stated my opinion. I explained why. I then provided the hypothetical situation wherein I'd be more inclined to vote for it. True, I made no precommitments, but I refer you to my "I am very, very leery of precomitting votes with regard to research, [in general]" post.
    1. To read why, skip ahead to 3.3 of the last list in this post.

_The_Bomb said:
You are generally a very lovely person, so it greatly saddens me to read a message from you that reads at best as uncivil and at worst as a game-theoretic coercion of the kind that is strictly forbidden here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
  1. The inclusion of a compliment in your last sentence does not erase the accusatory tone in the first half of your post, nor does it soften the threatening tone in the rest of that selfsame sentence, achieved through the implied reference to the staff post.
    1. This is now your second post (that I have observed) which, consciously or unconsciously, seems to manipulate the conversation by referencing QM/Staff statements. Please be more direct when referencing such posts in the future.
  2. Please reread the tonal indicators within the preface. It's not uncivil. Is it because the post's verbiage is curt? If you do, then I admit that I made the post while I was at work, lacking the time to pad a sentence with fluff. Hence the inclusion tonal indicators within the preface of that post.
  3. It's not game-theoretic coercion. People refrain from voting for things all the time. People vote for plans against other votes all the time (See: the near-miss with regard to the Shipping Chart Meme Vote.)
    1. You have previously admitted that you hold keeping one's promises as a moral absolute. Even if someone takes advantage of that fact. I'm trying to respect your feelings about that by clarifying "no, I'm not unilaterally precommiting to this seal, even under those conditions."
    2. I explicitly made no promises about voting for Goo Bomb research. At most, I outlined the conditions in which I would "no longer vote against [the research]," and that I would be "more inclined" to vote for it, should Hazou-pilot think it merits research. I then add more detail onto that, stating that, with additional narrative weight in the form of "Kagome and Kei agreeing with the assessment," I would be "even moreso [inclined to vote for it.]"
      1. When you began to operate under the assumption that I was "pledging" my vote for Goo Bomb research, I quickly sought to provide clarification.
    3. I don't want to see the story achieve the aforementioned states, only for someone (perhaps an outright bad actor, perhaps merely someone who desires to push through something that I may find intolerable) to add on a Goo Bomb research segment to a plan I would find undesirous, and then try to socially pressure me into voting for it, simply for the Goo Bomb segment.
      1. I've mentioned in the past that I "I agree with the sentiment of 'I would like to keep my word and am very reluctant to break it,' but I also won't allow myself to be unjustly taken advantage of by binding my honor like a noose around my neck." At the time, your response to my statement was "That's a fine stance to have, so long as you put actual effort into not giving your word freely."
        1. I am trying to clearly and openly state my opinion, making "actual effort" into not giving my word freely, while also respecting your strict beliefs regarding promises --an opinion that you, yourself, have admitted is an "unpopular" one.
 
RandomOTP said:
Yup, we only have 10-12 prep days per update, as per EJ's Author's Note.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
RandomOTP said:
We have less research slots than you state. See #1 in the first list of this post.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This would not apply.

_The_Bomb said:
I didn't ask for a prep-day. I asked for a single day of research which takes the same amount of time as a prep-day.

It is genin difficulty, so there is zero risk and zero FP spent. I will have to spend my vote to buy another research day next cycle and maybe another after that, but I'm willing to do that to finish this particular seal.

(Though maybe we can get it done sooner if @T_of_A is still interested in voting for it!)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Also, even if it was a prep day instead of a research day, it is still a straightforward variation of a previous seal. Very minimal spoon cost.

eaglejarl said:
(except perhaps in circumstances where a lot of the prepped seals are straightforward variations of each other)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
_The_Bomb said:
[snip]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
RandomOTP said:
Yup, we only have 10-12 prep days per update, as per EJ's Author's Note.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If I understand the rules correctly, the QM-spoons prep day limit is actually irrelevant in this case. A full runic cycle goes:
  1. Prep
  2. Prep
  3. Infuse
  4. SSA rest
  5. SSA rest
Hazō can't do sealing work on SSA rest days, so that leaves three days when he can do research (regardless of whether that research is prep days or no-prep infusions). Both of the major plans this cycle are doing three tracks of rune research for two runic research cycles. Hazō can only sustain five tracks, so that leaves him two tracks free for two cycles to do miscellaneous other research. At three days per track per cycle, that's a total of twelve days - the exact upper limit for spoons that the QMs specified - and Sir Stompy's plan is currently using all of them.

_The_Bomb said:
There are many, many research-slots available each day and attempting to strangle using one of them for a single day (in a twenty two day plan!)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think this might be where your confusion is coming from, @_The_Bomb. Two full sealing cycles would be twenty-two days, in which case it would still be sensible to subject prep days to scrutiny (given the QM spoon limit) but it would be completely reasonable to throw research days at pre-existing or variant genin-level seals that don't take much work to actualize for the QMs. However, the two runic cycles in the leading plans are only ten days, and as above this means that days for miscellaneous research are highly limited.

(Also, it says the desired plan duration at the top of both plans.)
 
Kyreneryk said:
[snip]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What a nicely detailed, accurate, well composed, explainer this is.

You are completely correct on all counts. I don't mind researching genin seals on off tracks when we have extra time, we do not have extra time this cycle.

As long as the prep day meta continues to be this tight I don't see myself doing much more than 10 day plans to maximize QM spoons.
 
Last edited:
That's very helpful, thank you @Kyreneryk!

You're right, I was under the impression that we had nearly a hundred research slots available. Not, like, a dozen max. That really does change how I interpret ROTP's comment.
 
Last edited:
This seems to have mostly died out but I want to make sure it doesn't re-ignite.



_The_Bomb said:
You are generally a very lovely person, so it greatly saddens me to read a message from you that reads at best as uncivil and at worst as a game-theoretic coercion of the kind that is strictly forbidden here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
RandomOTP said:
Alright, since we're seeking to litigate intent, let's take this from the top, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh for heaven's sake.

Bomb, you're way out of line. ROTP went to great lengths to be nice about their post and to make plain what the intended tone was. The fact that you're taking offense says to me (reading charitably) that you're tired/hungry/upset about something else and it's coloring your view. Reading uncharitably, it says that you are intentionally playing the victim card in order to pressure ROTP into backing down. The reference to "game theoretic coercion is banned" supports this idea.

I am choosing to read charitably.

If someone remembers to explicitly tell you what the intended tone is, take them at their word. If they don't remember to, go out of your way to look for a positive reading. Even if you're wrong and they were being an ass, treating them charitably makes you look classy and boosts your social capital with the rest of the thread.

ROTP, kudos for your handling of that, especially for staying cool in the reply.


Everyone: let people vote or not vote as they like, without pressure. If they don't like your pet idea, let them have their preferences. Remember that it's not possible to vote against a plan under approval voting except for the degenerate case of voting for every other plan; given that we typically only have one or two plans per cycle that's not any different from voting.
 
eaglejarl said:
Bomb, you're way out of line. ROTP went to great lengths to be nice about their post and to make plain what the intended tone was. The fact that you're taking offense says to me (reading charitably) that you're tired/hungry/upset about something else and it's coloring your view.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
After stepping back for a bit and reading Kyreneck's explanation, you are completely right about this. I was out of line.

@RandomOTP, I apologize.
 
Last edited:
[X] Training Plan Hazō: Growing Runecraft

So this is just an update to the current winning XP spending plan to remove what we've already bought. Let's all update please !
 
_The_Bomb said:
[X] Training Plan Hazō: Growing Runecraft
Primordial Sealing 18 >>> 19 [-38 XP]
Total: 38 XP spent​
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

T_of_A said:
[X] Training Plan Hazō: Growing Runecraft

So this is just an update to the current winning XP spending plan to remove what we've already bought. Let's all update please !
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Cariyaga said:
I'm sure the other one would be fine, too, but:

[X] Training Plan Hazō: Growing Runecraft
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm going to edit my plan, no need to revote y'all.


Sir Stompy said:
[X] Training Plan Hazou: TH 10



PS 18 -> PS 19 (38 XP)



Spend 38 XP
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's a little misnamed, but it gets the job done, and that's what's important.
 
Last edited:
RandomOTP said:
This is at least the second time you've tried to leverage a QM/Staff ruling for social intimidation. If you want to express remorse or regret, show it by not doing a third.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am sorry for what I said earlier. I misunderstood how long the research cycles were and I misinterpreted your very reasonable objection to using a very limited resouce on something you believed to be a complete waste to be an objection to using one of nearly a hundred available slots that otherwise would not have been used for other research. I felt unfairly targeted by what you said, and responded uncharitably. That was not how I should have responded and I am sorry.

I never attempted to frighten you into doing what I wanted, and it feels very inflammatory to charecterize what I said as "social intimidation." I feel hurt by your insinuation that I am habitually socially agressive, and I would appriecate if you do not say that again.

RandomOTP said:
  1. The inclusion of a compliment in your last sentence does not erase the accusatory tone in the first half of your post, nor does it soften the threatening tone in the rest of that selfsame sentence, achieved through the implied reference to the staff post.
    1. This is now your second post (that I have observed) which, consciously or unconsciously, seems to manipulate the conversation by referencing QM/Staff statements. Please be more direct when referencing such posts in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I looked at the post you linked above. To avoid repeating myself, I am going to quote my original response to it, which was posted directly below what you linked. I feel frustruated that you are disregarding my stated intentions and are continuing to interpret my comment uncharitably.

_The_Bomb said:
RandomOTP said:
I am going to consciously choose to believe otherwise, but this comment of yours reads as an attempt to stifle conversation. You do not have a repeated pattern of behavior of manipulating conversation in that way, so I am going to chalk it up to textual mediums being difficult to read tone
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is not. I just have been personally banned from thread for several days completely unexpectedly for doing something that apparently overlapped with that rule, and am trying to give you warning so you don't accidentally end up having the same happen to you.

I can very easily see a ban from bolding an entire sentence for emphasis in this context, so I thought I'd drop a head's up.

RandomOTP said:
EDIT: I am also aware that I have not had the best month, and therefore may be primed to interpret textual mediums with less charity than they deserve. This is likely a contributing factor to the read of your comment, given your lack of a history with the thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top