I presume ghoul king won't make Sabrina act stupid within the context of our vote. She'll act according to our vote, with her version of common sense informing the details.
Yeah, I dunno how clearly this comes across to readers, but I take votes less as hard plans and more as a starting point, or general goal, or value statement. I've tended to discourage efforts to make big, detailed plans (Unless an update has given voters a lot of things to vote on) because my organic, character-driven approach to the writing in conjunction with my willingness to have unexpected details come up without necessarily prompting a vote means there's no guarantee that I'll cleave to the letter of a detailed plan -even with the simpler/vaguer votes I prefer, I still sometimes end up operating against the 'spirit' of the vote to some extent. eg last update I didn't actually treat 'Sabrina wants to capture a kidnapper-creature' as a properly-voted for thing: I didn't bold it, and went in expecting to not write such a thing happening. And then instead it got done not only at all, but
sooner than 'get an actual explanation on these things', which I
had treated as a voted-for secondary goal.
So Questors shouldn't worry too much about, like, 'voting wrong' in the sense of 'you put in as one part of the vote Sabrina proposing an idea that seems unlikely to be run with by people, and so Everything Went Horribly Wrong because Sabrina robotically carried forward with other parts of the vote that only really make sense if the proposed idea was run with'. Or any other variation on 'Sabrina tries something, unsure if it will work', really; there's certainly contexts I
can imagine 'punishing' such a vote ("You find a bear trap." "Let's activate it by sticking our hand in it!" "Uh, okay. Sabrina's arm is now really screwed up and it will take months if not years to fully heal..."), but I'll be a bit surprised if such a scenario ever actually
occurs.
I'm aware there's Quests out there where QMs will respond to voters not explicitly saying 'also, our character continues to breath' by going 'your character attempts to execute your complex stratagem, but suffocates and blacks out partway through because you forgot to include breathing in the detailed plan', but that is really
far removed from my style and a far more likely complaint for voters to have is me writing an update that largely disregards something voters wanted because I judge Sabrina can't pursue every goal voted for in context and then make a judgement call on what, given the vote numbers and vote structure and all, should be prioritized, where said judgement could totally be against voter desires. ("We want to hug Caras, and also to tell Virmire he's doing great." "Hmm. Things turn out so I feel Sabrina can only do one of those this update. The vote format makes me think people cared more about hugging Caras, so she does that." "But we wanted to tell Virmire he's great more than we wanted to hug Caras!")
(I have made this an Informational Threadmark because it's occurred to me that voters in general might appreciate having this info instead of having to guess what type of QM I am and hedge against the possibility that I'm the 'you didn't say you keep breathing, so you suffocate' sort of QM. By a similar token, I'm not closing the vote today, so people have an opportunity to take this info into account for their voting preferences)
