- Location
- Festering in a vat of acid
From Stone to the Stars
- Thread starter Redium
- Start date
- Original Alt. History
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Why are we suddenly all framing this as an issue of morality and fairness in regards to Pritt? There were no major moral arguments made in the previous voting phase. We tried to limit FAO, and fucked up, an issue made worse by the early war rolls being bad. Should have seen it coming, but no use crying over spilt milk. We all need to calm down, stop insulting eachother, and plan out the next turn.
Anyway, my vote is for either the informal truce or the party, leaning towards party for stability. As for the second issue, i'm for either kicking it down the road or doing trial reform, leaning towards the kicking option.
The one thing we MUST NOT DO is paper over the cracks with a temple. We are at 2 temples right now, one of which gives 1 religious authority, the other of which will give 1.5 when it is done. we need to build at least 1 more over the next 2 turns to keep the knowledge. However, if we start the temple this turn, then well have to finish it next turn and start a fourth temple on the third turn. With Supernal symphony boosting 3 of them, that fourth temple will bring us to 5.5 religious authority, and our current government has a cap of very low ( aka 3, which we know from the specialization debate) +1 from that legacy.
Anyway, my vote is for either the informal truce or the party, leaning towards party for stability. As for the second issue, i'm for either kicking it down the road or doing trial reform, leaning towards the kicking option.
The one thing we MUST NOT DO is paper over the cracks with a temple. We are at 2 temples right now, one of which gives 1 religious authority, the other of which will give 1.5 when it is done. we need to build at least 1 more over the next 2 turns to keep the knowledge. However, if we start the temple this turn, then well have to finish it next turn and start a fourth temple on the third turn. With Supernal symphony boosting 3 of them, that fourth temple will bring us to 5.5 religious authority, and our current government has a cap of very low ( aka 3, which we know from the specialization debate) +1 from that legacy.
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
He all but called me a biased asshole for disliking Pritt, his attitude, how he does things, and everything about him. I am allowed to make judgements on people based on how they behave.
That he called me an asshole for not liking Priit, means I get to be an asshole back.
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
Making a joke at someone when they are upset usually has the result of making them even more upset. I am not sure how you were expecting me to react.
- Location
- a
He was just thought that your view of him is biased and incorrect, and he also clearly show the proofs of them.
If you want to argue otherwise, then show your counter arguments. Instead of being no offense, totally rude and salty.
Ahh what a funny coincidence
Which is a good indicator that you should chill out a bit. As being upset will not result in a productive and healthy discussion usually.
No ill intents man, but from my own experience, it is better to relax and chill out when you are upset instead of continuing the discussion in a unhealthy state.
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
I don't mind the motherhood option but I think it shouldn't be the only way to be recognized as an adult. It also wouldn't hurt to add some more options for the men's trials too.
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
He was just thought that your view of him is biased and incorrect, and he also clearly show the proofs of them.
If you want to argue otherwise, then show your counter arguments. Instead of being no offense, totally rude and salty.
Ahh the irony
I am not arguing against anything. I am making a subjective view that Priit is acting like an asshole who shouldn't be in charge. I am not saying that the Fingers Big Man was justified in his actions, but despite the injustice done to Priit, I would not trust him with a piece of string. I am allowed to hold my opinions, I am allowed to act on my opinions.
He was just thought that your view of him is biased and incorrect, and he also clearly show the proofs of them.
If you want to argue otherwise, then show your counter arguments. Instead of being no offense, totally rude and salty.
Ahh what a funny coincidence
Which is a good indicator that you should chill out a bit. As being upset will not result in a productive and healthy discussion usually.
No ill intents man, but from my own experience, it is better to relax and chill out when you are upset instead of continuing the discussion in a unhealthy state.
In my experience, telling someone to chill out just makes them angrier. In fact, I feel I have been very restrained as you have done a wonderful job of pushing all of my angry buttons.
Last edited:
- Location
- a
No one said you weren't? So is he and everyone else tho.
No one hold the right to anyone's opinion, especially on the Internet.
He was just saying his opinion was that you were biased and he discussed it since he was interested in providing an objective view of the events by discussing it with other person who hold different opinions.
That said, isn't the purpose of discussions to atleast attempting articulate an objective truth by providing, affirming and disproving each one of our subjective views.
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
Yes, but not in such a provocative accusatory tone. Which was what made me upset in the first place, and then it would have been left at that were it not for everyone jumping in to try to tell me to calm down.
I am sorry, but I feel I have exercised incredible restraint in this conversation, considering how many angry buttons people seem to falling over themselves to push.
- Location
- USA
Where exactly in that post was I provocative?
While I will admit my post was accusatory in tone, in the sense that I was trying to disprove your claim, that was because of the fact that I was trying to prove that your assertions were in fact one sided and not wholly supported by the text. I am perfectly willing to admit fault if you can show me where exactly I was being provocative or accusatory, and apologize if justifiably so.
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
You saying I was 'biased' against him. That specifically was what upset me. In a good convincing post, you dont accuse your audience, and it was completely unnecessary to get your point across. If you accuse your audience, they become defensive, and dig in and become resistant to being swayed. It doesn't matter if I am or am not biased. Doing so will cause them to tune out your message.
And me specifically it upsets me. I had simply forgotten what the original judgement post said, but then you jumped in and accused me of being biased. This made me upset, and then everyone jumped over each other to tell me to calm down. That made me angry.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
IMO, both vesca and Japanime have been fairly rude.
In which case, FULL PAPER AHEAD.
Well fuck. Looks like The People went back and brought the Cave Of Stars Temple up to supernal code. We're gonna exceed our limit in the next 2 turns no matter what we do, unless we want knowledge of building temples to fade.
In which case, FULL PAPER AHEAD.
You quite literally called him petty.
- Location
- Anchorage, Alaska
We need the temples but god damn the stability is shit...we're doomed.
- Location
- a
I do find your argument do have the feeling of "come, prove me wrong" kind of feeling. Which isn't exactly a bad provocation, but can be seen as such.
I think you might wanted him to continue the discussion further, probably due to how immersed you are in the discussion. That isn't offensively provocative in my book, but others can see it differently.
-2 why
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
Alright I apologize for accusing you of being biased.
I was wrong for doing so and I admit I was getting heated due to the fact that I felt that the current arguments at the time were being hard more on feelings rather than say objective fact.
Yes, and I apologize for that. Except that was not the post I was referring to. I was referring o the other post before that one.
That was what I was trying to do, and I admittedly shot myself in the foot by accusing him of bias.
However, I still stand by the rest of my proof and arguments in regards to Priits justification.
The point I was trying to make was to see things through Priits point of view and to argue that if we were in the same situation we would've acted no different.
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
I accept your apology. I am sorry for jumping out and biting your face off over it.
And you have a good point. For all we know, Priit will be an awesome leader. I still think he needs to mellow out a bit first. My big concern is he will use his position among the warriors to have his way, and it will be fine because he can literally fight anyone who disagrees with him, and they will most certainly all die. However, once he dies...
Any grudges that develop will all explode at once.
He is rocking the applecart, we cant have that.
Ah okay so basically:
-Trade - Will 100% maintain the locked trade action with the Northlands to reach a lasting peace(well as lasting as anything in this era gets *recalls when the Highland Kingdom were considered the Ymaryn's friends once upon a time*)
-Festival - May or may not maintain the locked trade action. It depends on how well the Northlands take it and how well our own warriors take it.
-Holy Orders - Definitely will not maintain the locked trade action. Settle out in expectation of a rematch later once everyone stopped bleeding.
-Raid - WAAGH!
Well, we could if we wanted to annihilate them as a people, but we can't really project effective force that far for long, so theres that.
That would have been the Backstage Debate solution?
Still not really sure why we just found him guilty, since that would have brought our stability and legitimacy to critical zones regardless of what punishment won AND that Prik was in the right as far as all our laws were concerned.
As in, if we had executed him we'd be at Stability -3, the Warriors might well revolt.
Well, we needed trials for more trades anyway as our specialization rises. I think we can agree that giving a Mason the same trials as a Hunter would be grievously wrong, and likewise a Shaman shouldn't be expected to do so.
Good timing for Aeva to get those set up. Going to be expensive in actions though.
Note that we have a few outcomes already visible here:
-Civil war goes through, Prik likely wins. Transition to Warrior ruling class.
-Temples expand past ability to tolerate religious influence. Transition to Theocracy under Aeva.
-We find a middle ground, maintain and evolve council of Big Men.
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
Can we afford to go middle ground though?
- Location
- a
We do need to find a permanent issue to the warrior problem or this will indeed repeat. Not to mention, fix our laws and administration so the big man are more accountable.
Another way is to go full religious mode, but does the thread want that?
I think had we execute him, the northland would still be winning right now. We might collapse from that with the warrior revolting.
Last edited:
His only contribution was killing the hero.
If we had executed him we would probably still be fighting the Northmen with the war swinging in our favor instead of basically winning. But we would not be lossing. It was picking the brotherhood trait that changed the course of the war in our favor.
If we had executed him we would probably still be fighting the Northmen with the war swinging in our favor instead of basically winning. But we would not be lossing. It was picking the brotherhood trait that changed the course of the war in our favor.
- Location
- United States
A lot of the problems that Priit can cause seem to come from this trait:
Flat Arrow Outlook (Maxed Development)
When the People hunt beasts, their arrows are set vertically; when they hunt other tribes, their arrows are set horizontally — all the better to spear through an unsuspecting target's ribs. Violence is a fact of life to the People. The question is not: "Why use violence?", but "When can violence be used?" It is another tool within their arsenal to respond to the world and among all the tools they wield, it is a keen one indeed.
Pros: The consequences of violence are more tolerable; increased martial skill, especially among specialists; People are seen as intimidating
Cons: Martial skill is desirable; violence is an acceptable solution to problem-solving
When violence becomes an acceptable, even encouraged problem solver, then the person who wields the most violence can do almost whatever they want.
Tie this in with the fact that Priit is a victorious "general" against a hated foe, and it gives him leeway to do a lot of really bad shit if he wants to.
Although he hasn't currently done anything that is too egregious by the standards of the People, he also doesn't seem like someone who is particularly moral or far sighted either.
There are perfectly valid concerns about how rolling over to his demands will create a de facto ruling warrior caste to supplant the Big Man system (something that Priit seems to disdain), and how that can lead to the People as a whole being worse off.
Not sure what the solution to this is, but I thought I would commentate on how I believe the current situation is unfolding.
Flat Arrow Outlook (Maxed Development)
When the People hunt beasts, their arrows are set vertically; when they hunt other tribes, their arrows are set horizontally — all the better to spear through an unsuspecting target's ribs. Violence is a fact of life to the People. The question is not: "Why use violence?", but "When can violence be used?" It is another tool within their arsenal to respond to the world and among all the tools they wield, it is a keen one indeed.
Pros: The consequences of violence are more tolerable; increased martial skill, especially among specialists; People are seen as intimidating
Cons: Martial skill is desirable; violence is an acceptable solution to problem-solving
When violence becomes an acceptable, even encouraged problem solver, then the person who wields the most violence can do almost whatever they want.
Tie this in with the fact that Priit is a victorious "general" against a hated foe, and it gives him leeway to do a lot of really bad shit if he wants to.
Although he hasn't currently done anything that is too egregious by the standards of the People, he also doesn't seem like someone who is particularly moral or far sighted either.
There are perfectly valid concerns about how rolling over to his demands will create a de facto ruling warrior caste to supplant the Big Man system (something that Priit seems to disdain), and how that can lead to the People as a whole being worse off.
Not sure what the solution to this is, but I thought I would commentate on how I believe the current situation is unfolding.
He has what a psychologist would identify as PTSD, but that wasn't what I was hinting at.
Priit's basically spent his entire life looking for threats and being validated on every single one of them. There's another trauma he's experienced that wasn't immediately obvious.
Unfortunately, you picked literally the worst pair of options last turn. Any other justification for punishment would have gone over better.
If Aeva hadn't voted to convict, Priit would be a lot less hostile to her. He still would've slaughtered the Big Man of the Fingers, but that would have been the end of his feud. He still would've brought this problem up, but it would've been for significantly more sympathetic reasons. It would've been in the context of ensuring proper representation for the female warriors who fought under his command.
Here:
Is where the updated would've diverged based on if Aeva had or had not voted against him.
Later in the update, he spells out his reasoning thus:
It's the very last thing said in 17.2. He sees a threat (Aeva) and is using a problem/possible weakness that he'd previously identified against her.
Think about Priit's life. He's 21 now, probably no older than many of the posters here. By any conceivable standard, he's lived an incredibly fucked up life.
Age 9-13: Trained as a child soldier
Age 13-15: Sent onto the front lines as a child soldier
Age 15: Suffered a severe concussion in war, received basically no follow up treatment
Age 15: Gets married and eventually finds out he has a kid
Age 15-17: Goes back to being a child soldier, nonstop
Age 17: Returns from war and realizes that his spouse cheated on him and the kid he was fighting for isn't his
Age 17: He gets involved in a riot that ends up getting six people killed, some of those people were his comrades.
Age 17: He's convicted by a family member (+ their known lackey) and a man who hates him in a court of law that's both ex posto facto and unprecedented
Age 17-21: He continues to fight a war while suffering legalized abuse and slow starvation
Age 21: Returns home a war hero, single handedly saving his homeland, and calls out the person who legally starved him only for that person to try and have him arrested, presumably for more punishment
Age 21: He kills the aforementioned person in personal combat and now is suddenly acclaimed responsible for the lives of hundreds of his fellows in the middle of a vicious war that's lasted longer than he's been alive
Age 21: Faces the person who initially convicted him of accessory to murder and allowed his previous four years from hell.
This is someone who has every single reason to suspect that another shoe is going to drop. He sees someone who's lead him to harm in the past and is acting to get them removed from power.
It could blow up in your face, but that's very unlikely. You dealt a lot of damage to the Northlanders and with the Ivory-Blooded Chief dead, their main impetus for war died with him.
No. The Backstage Debate was the best solution to the problem of Priit, but not for reasons that people have yet picked up on. You've would've had future options to elaborate on it, but it was hands down superior to what you got.
This:
Likely would've evolved into a Bride Price given directly to a woman at marriage by her husband, thus giving women lot more independence, the possibility to divorce, and maintain property in their own name.
It could've also evolved various flavours of matriarchy, but that was much less likely. You moved strongly away from matriarchy during the War against South Lake when you voted that children sired on the Island Makers' women should be adopted by their fathers. That made children from a marriage the 'property' of their father's family and thus dealt an extremely slow, but inevitable, blow to women's rights.
If you had Executed or Exiled Priit, you would have collapsed. Maybe not this phase, but definitely by next turn. Priit's Hero rolls single handedly saved you.
I won't be online for much longer, if anyone has any questions to ask, now would be the time.