The inhumanity of the Rings perspective seems greatly exaggerated to me, considering all of its actions thus far. The only real inhumanity in it was that it was able to endure ten thousand years of torture with it's sanity intact. Otherwise all of it's actions seems in line with that of human given similar power; it's even got a sense of humor given the whole Count of Monte Cristo bit. I think it is more human than it has been argued thus far.

lol "empathizing with perspectives"

That it is their opinion is obvious; I just think their opinion is inconsistent. This is a forum meant to discuss things so I'm not going to let them get away with that. If you think there is a valid perspective that validates those choices, then explain it and leave it exposed to criticism.
I literally just explained it and you criticized it right there. You disliking it or feeling it's exaggerated doesn't make it inconsistent. We only have a narrow slice of characterization for the Ring and we have direct word from Rihaku about it not being a human-like mind in ways that are significant and relevant to its recovery.
 
No need to shadowrun this, it's likely just soup. I don't think @Rihaku generally leaves mechanical benefits hidden anyway.

Remember Arisen Again where our build vote choice could influence the result of the action taken above and how Slack Off was a giant mystery box?

Remember how we spent the amount of money we did on the Kaguya vote but later found out that money could be used for things like paying Aeira's Salary?
 
Remember Arisen Again where our build vote choice could influence the result of the action taken above and how Slack Off was a giant mystery box?

Remember how we spent the amount of money we did on the Kaguya vote but later found out that money could be used for things like paying Aeira's Salary?
And he's very clear about when the vote is a mystery box.

There is no mystery box here.

Also at the rate we can gain money the money we spent is worthless. I suspect the cheaper hotel desk staff would have been harder to bribe.
 
This soup battle may be decided by omakes...
The analysis of the soup spiling 393 words

Deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science of soup making have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics. Revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of soup spilling have cast further doubt on its credibility and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western practice that it is the woman and not the man that has to spill the soup.This has revealed the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ``progression''.It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ``reality'', no less than social ``reality'', is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that the power of Letrizia`s Sharpbright reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it – namely the nonlinear dynamics of soup spilling (see appendix 1). The truth claims of Rank are inherently theory-laden and self-referential and consequently, that the discourse of the imperial scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities(like the one in the Temple of the False Moon). These themes can be traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz's analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics in the Voyaging Realm and in Ross' discussion of oppositional discourses in post-quantum science, in Irigaray's and Hayles' exegeses of gender encoding in giant mech`s pilots and in Harding's comprehensive critique of the gender ideology underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in particular. This proves without doubt that the act of spilling is nothing more than a metaphor for our own breaking of boundaries.


Appendix (1)
Nonlinear dynamics deals with cases in which the rates of change of various quantities depend nonlinearly on these quantities. For instance, the rates of change of thepressures, temperatures, and velocities at various points in a soup depend nonlinearly on these pressures, temperatures, and velocities. It has been known for almost a century that the long-term behavior of such systems often exhibits chaos, an exquisite sensitivity to the initial condition of the system. (The classic example is the way that the flapping of a butterfly's wings can change the weather weeks later throughout the world.) For Rank researchers, the current interest in nonlinear dynamical systems stems from the discovery of general features of chaotic behavior that can be precisely predicted.

Bonus points for figuring what bullshit I am referencing (plagiarizing).
 
The argument that the spilling of the soup carries some deeper meaning is triggering some nasty PTSD from high school literary analysis classes.
Oh god. The flashbacks! Everything had to have a meaning! Everything!
I find the internet's scorn for semiotics by way of High School English class to be really tiresome. Yes, it is a little silly to search for meaning by cataloguing every instance of color in the works of Edgar Allan Poe, for example. But most HS curricula are chosen to accomplish multiple learning objectives at once.

Letting students practice searing for meaning in the "classics" serves (at least) two goals: First, it is a relatively innocuous training ground for students to develop the very important skill of noticing subtext that will be deliberately hidden in more adversarial contexts like outright propaganda. Second, it ensures at least passing familiarity with many foundational pieces of fiction that are referenced by contemporary artists.

Like, noticing that Verschlengorge's eyes glow a different color every time he gets angry probably only reveals that Rihaku associates certain colors with various intensity of emotion. But noticing that female TV characters are killed with disproportionate frequency as a component of the male lead's character arc probably reveals something about Hollywood's biases & cultural values.
 
I find the internet's scorn for semiotics by way of High School English class to be really tiresome
One of my teachers was extremely overzealous and demanded multiple pages analysis for a poem that had 4 verses. At some point you stopped caring and just came up with the wildest explanations. He did not care about quality but just quantity.
But noticing that female TV characters are killed with disproportionate frequency as a component of the male lead's character arc probably reveals something about Hollywood's biases & cultural values.
I am pretty sure most deaths on TV shows are male-kills-male but I guess you are talking about talking characters and not NPCs, which reveals something about your lack of care for the mooks/NPCs.

/s

EDIT: Derp, I did not read it correctly. I have shamed my teacher.
 
Last edited:
That it is their opinion is obvious; I just think their opinion is inconsistent. This is a forum meant to discuss things so I'm not going to let them get away with that. If you think there is a valid perspective that validates those choices, then explain it and leave it exposed to criticism.

It's not that hard, my guy.

The Ring: Confirmed to suffer no lasting harm from what happened, is an aeons old piece of jewelry engaged in enslaving and being enslaved for some dumb metaphysical battle royal. The absolute worst we could do to it is still status quo and the currently winning option is significantly kinder than that. Difference in immediate marginal reward (Royal Advancement vs. non-Royal Advancement, rapid scaling vs. meh scaling) is high.

Letrizia: Would feel bad if the first thing she did for us after 2 weeks of feeling mostly helpless and useless got fucked up when she tried to get fancy with her magic, which she is another thing she's excited about. Difference in immediate marginal reward is low.

That you think it's inconsistent is more on you than on the voters. I'd just like Hunger to enjoy some tasty, home cooked soup after this gauntlet.
 
Last edited:
Inserted tally
Adhoc vote count started by LordOfMurder on Jul 8, 2020 at 9:53 PM, finished with 376 posts and 84 votes.
 
[X] Oops, the Soup
[X] The Eminence
[X] Subordination

Holy shit, are we really there? We're about to be done with this place? Thank everything from Christ to the flying fucking spaghetti monster. Temple was Hunger's Namek arc.
 
Look, as far as I'm concerned the Soup vote being so contested is an upside. Trying to explain this quest to people can already get hilarious depending on what details you include, and the Soup thing just makes it even better. "Massive knife-fight vote over whether to spill a bowl of soup" is on par with "Nearly killed ourselves by exhausting ourselves by going fishing right before a major battle" in terms of wackiness.
 
Look, as far as I'm concerned the Soup vote being so contested is an upside. Trying to explain this quest to people can already get hilarious depending on what details you include, and the Soup thing just makes it even better. "Massive knife-fight vote over whether to spill a bowl of soup" is on par with "Nearly killed ourselves by exhausting ourselves by going fishing right before a major battle" in terms of wackiness.

Don't forget when we capped off a hot spring vacation by beating up high schoolers for their lunch money!
 
Back
Top