Remove ads

Marked for Death: A Rational Naruto Quest

Reader mode
Origami Clock said:
[X] (lethal) No
[X] (speech) Yes

This isn't capitalism. You're not a customer here, you are the state. If you want to have Hazo and co murder genin/all their hopes and dreams so much, just write an Omake. I don't see why you'd be so happy to tempt a quest-killing salt-plosion in the first place?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I disagree that I'm the state, but leave that aside.

I think y'all have a very different view from mine of how insanely stupid the other contestants are. I try not to promise that things will or won't happen, so I won't definitively state that no one would mulch themselves on your lethal traps or that there would be no political consequences. Still, if an enemy team stands up at dinner and says "I'm a sealmaster, these three sides are lethal" and then goes to a huge amount of trouble to notify everyone -- including the Kage -- then how stupid do you have to be to send your physical body into the blender? It's a Darwin Award waiting to happen.
 
Last edited:
eaglejarl said:
I disagree that I'm the state, but leave that aside.

I think y'all have a very different view from mine of how insanely stupid the other contestants are. I try not to promise that things will or won't happen, so I won't definitively state that no one would mulch themselves on your lethal traps it that there would be no political consequences. Still, if an enemy team stands up at dinner and says "I'm a sealmaster, these three sides are lethal" and then goes to a huge amount of trouble to notify everyone -- including the Kage -- then how stupid do you have to be to send your physical body into the blender? It's a Darwin Award waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, side note: Round starts at sunset, right? If we made the safe entryway opposite the sun, could we get an aspect for "Sun in My Eyes" for those attacking into us?
 
eaglejarl said:
I disagree that I'm the state, but leave that aside.

I think y'all have a very different view from mine of how insanely stupid the other contestants are. I try not to promise that things will or won't happen, so I won't definitively state that no one would mulch themselves on your lethal traps it that there would be no political consequences. Still, if an enemy team stands up at dinner and says "I'm a sealmaster, these three sides are lethal" and then goes to a huge amount of trouble to notify everyone -- including the Kage -- then how stupid do you have to be to send your physical body into the blender? It's a Darwin Award waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I will observe, and state for the record, that you did not at any point state that nobody would attempt to call the bluff.
 
faflec said:
Questione me: Why y do you think Ino will support this?

Other Question: Why is Ino being there to support this sufficient justification for your vote?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let's back up a step and address why I think using lethal traps and announcing it is a good idea. First it's just good sense to limit enemy options. Secondly it helps create a reputation for ruthlessness while at the same time time letting people know we don't want to kill. Third it reinforces the fact that we are willing to follow through on our threats which is hugely beneficial in negotiations

As to why do I think Ino will support it is I think this is in line with normal ninja operations.

The reason I'll vote for it is because Ino will be the only social spec up and she can sell it
 
@eaglejarl

I'm a tad confused. Is the (Lethal:Yes) option going with the intent that we'll announce the lethality of the traps, or that we will do that and actually use lethal traps? It seems to me that the actual content of the minefield is meaningless. (Perhaps they check with clones or something-is the argument against that?)


Regardless: This seems sort of counterproducitve? As per the previous plan, we should already be cooperating with Shikamaru on the exact attack vectors that will avoid the traps and cause a bottleneck for our defensive fire to exploit. He will presumably justify this with "Obviously we will not go into the Obvious Minefield of Doom." What is the point then? Did Shika not agree to do this or something for some reason, only for us to have to do this gambit anyway? Doesnt make sense to me.



Vecht said:
We have two options:
​
  1. Use our advantages to the fullest, all-but ensuring attackers are funnelled into a bottleneck, thus gaining a massive tactical advantage.
  2. Don't do that and risk losing out on a massive tactical advantage due to a naieve and misguided sense of idealism.
Let's reframe slightly:



Negaverse Thread​

Team Uplift has put is a clearly labeled and active meat grinder lit with floodlights and surrounded by warning klaxons in your path. They have also sent written notification to 99.8% of everyone in Mist to be aware of this, including every Kage, contestant, and proctor, and also loudly announced it's presence at dinner.

Do you step through, or go around?

[] Poll: Go around the meatgrinder

[] Poll: Step through the meatgrinder
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You are assuming the opponent is going to make intelligent choices.

Also as Ive pointed out: bottleneck should happen regardless of what traps are in the actual minefield. The actual content of the trapfield is meaningless.


Vecht said:
No, this is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Write me a proof to this effect that does not include the assumption you are dealing with an intelligent opponent and I will believe you.
 
Last edited:
MMKII said:
Prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

MMKII said:
Write me a proof to this effect that does not include the assumption you are dealing with an intelligent opponent and I will believe you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I too like to place my goalposts for evidence on the Moon when claiming to be amenable to changing my mind. Very clever strategy; you get to signal your willingness to update while also being assured you won't have to!
 
Last edited:
Vecht said:
I too place my goalposts for evidence on the Moon when claiming to be amenable to changing my mind. Very clever strategy; you get to signal your willingness to update while also being assured you won't have to!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean it's not like we are dealing with people who have gone through multiple rounds of testing and made good decisions in each of them. Clearly they are idiots
 
faflec said:
@eaglejarl @Velorien @OliWhail Any chance we could get some information regarding the other R1 Blue Team members that weren't mentioned thus far (e.g., are Team Mugiwara/Chinin/Gensō R1 Blue Team members?)? That and general abilities would be awesome.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lemme see what I can do

eaglejarl said:
I was at Walgreens yesterday, trying to buy some Adrafinil.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm confused; it sounds like you *expected* Walgreens to have it?

Cariyaga said:
Actually, side note: Round starts at sunset, right? If we made the safe entryway opposite the sun, could we get an aspect for "Sun in My Eyes" for those attacking into us?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Round starts at sunset but there are two hours of prep, during which the sun will have thoroughly set.
 
Vecht said:
I too like to place my goalposts for evidence on the Moon when claiming to be amenable to changing my mind. Very clever strategy; you get to signal your willingness to update while also being assured you won't have to!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hardly.

Read as:

I consider this assumption (which you are implicitly making by my understanding) invalid.Yet, I do not deny the possibility of being convinced by an argument that doesnt invoke it.
 
Oneiros said:
First it's just good sense to limit enemy options.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This isn't an argument for using lethal traps. This is an argument for using traps in general, which we can do without them being lethal.

To be clear: I agree that it's good sense to limit enemy options, but do not agree that this means we can/should use lethal traps when non-lethal traps work just as well without the...well, the lethality.
Oneiros said:
Secondly it helps create a reputation for ruthlessness
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1. We already have a reputation for ruthlessness since we used Earbusters on defeated/unconscious enemies to give us advantage in the next Round, as well as having Noburi slice their heels for the same purpose.
2. Why do we need a reputation for ruthlessness?
3. How does using lethal traps give us a reputation for ruthlessness, as opposed to giving us a reputation for nonsensical violence?
Oneiros said:
while at the same time time letting people know we don't want to kill.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No it doesn't. We do not need to use lethal traps at all. Us using lethal traps at any point means that we are willing to kill.
Oneiros said:
Third it reinforces the fact that we are willing to follow through on our threats which is hugely beneficial in negotiations
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This isn't an argument for using lethal traps. This is an argument for keeping our promises/threats, which we can do without using lethal traps.

To be clear: I agree that it's good sense to follow through with any promises or threats we make, but do not agree that this means we can/should use lethal traps when we can make/follow through on other threats that do not risk the lives of other people. For example, we could threaten to burn word-halves, and then follow through on them.
Oneiros said:
As to why do I think Ino will support it is I think this is in line with normal ninja operations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Normal ninja operations. Normal ninja operations. The Chūnin Exams are not normal ninja operations. They have a literal DO NOT KILL rule which, if broken, gets the entire village kicked out of the Exams completely. How are normal ninja operations valid in a situation where such a key thing is counteracted with massive punishment?
 
Vecht said:
I too like to place my goalposts for evidence on the Moon when claiming to be amenable to changing my mind. Very clever strategy; you get to signal your willingness to update while also being assured you won't have to!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Dude, I know you're frustrated. I am going to ask you to avoid framing things like this in spite of that frustration. Responding this way isn't going to lead to anything productive.

This goes for the whole thread - if y'all melt down into uncharitable salt, I will be Very Disapointed.
 
Last edited:
[X] (lethal) No
[X] (speech) Yes

I guarantee that there will be some fucking idiot who charges into a lethal trapfield screaming "Leeroy Jenkins!".

Say it with me: "My opponent is terrifyingly competent, but both of us are surrounded by idiots."
 
MMKII said:
There is going to be at least one dumb motherfucker whos going to tempt fate and try to dodge our minefield of explosive hell.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Vecht said:
No, this is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
MMKII said:
Write me a proof to this effect that does not include the assumption you are dealing with an intelligent opponent and I will believe you
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Vecht said:
I too like to place my goalposts for evidence on the Moon when claiming to be amenable to changing my mind. Very clever strategy; you get to signal your willingness to update while also being assured you won't have to!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I will make two observations:

1) Vecht, please do recall the "assume good intent and don't accuse others of dishonesty" rule. You are not treading on that line here, but your last post seemed pretty frustrated so I wanted to make sure to surface the issue.

2) MMKII, you are the one making a positive assertion, and the burden of proof is on you. You have stated that someone will definitely try to test the traps; the rules of debate do not require Vecht to disprove your claim.


Once again, I am not promising anything either way about whether someone will test the traps, I simply want to keep the discussion on the rails.
 
faflec said:
This isn't an argument for using lethal traps. This is an argument for using traps in general, which we can do without them being lethal.

To be clear: I agree that it's good sense to limit enemy options, but do not agree that this means we can/should use lethal traps when non-lethal traps work just as well without the...well, the lethality.

1. We already have a reputation for ruthlessness since we used Earbusters on defeated/unconscious enemies to give us advantage in the next Round, as well as having Noburi slice their heels for the same purpose.
2. Why do we need a reputation for ruthlessness?
3. How does using lethal traps give us a reputation for ruthlessness, as opposed to giving us a reputation for nonsensical violence?

No it doesn't. We do not need to use lethal traps at all. Us using lethal traps at any point means that we are willing to kill.

This isn't an argument for using lethal traps. This is an argument for keeping our promises/threats, which we can do without using lethal traps.

To be clear: I agree that it's good sense to follow through with any promises or threats we make, but do not agree that this means we can/should use lethal traps when we can make/follow through on other threats that do not risk the lives of other people. For example, we could threaten to burn word-halves, and then follow through on them.

Normal ninja operations. Normal ninja operations. The Chūnin Exams are not normal ninja operations. They have a literal DO NOT KILL rule which, if broken, gets the entire village kicked out of the Exams completely. How are normal ninja operations valid in a situation where such a key thing is counteracted with massive punishment?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm sorry I disagree with almost all of your priors. Continuing debate would most likely be frustrating for both of us.

Edit:Ultimately as most debate on the internet both of us have made up our minds

Edit 2: if we do decide to do lethal traps we need to make sure that the zones are clearly marked and illuminated
 
Last edited:
[x] (speech) Yes
[x] (lethal) No

I'd be willing to boast about our extensive trap network on three sides, and how while they're not lethal they will be all but impossible to get around. We can then say that if you're stupid enough to try it anyways, not only will it be very painful (pepper spray to the eyes isn't lethal, right?) but once you're caught we'll 'make sure everyone knows exactly how stupid you were' or something like that.
 
Oneiros said:
I'm sorry I disagree with almost all of your priors. Continuing debate would most likely be frustrating for both of us
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I too am sad that you disagree with my priors, and even more sorry that the two of us seem destined to talk over one another without ever being able to settle an argument.
Adhoc vote count started by faflec on Aug 17, 2018 at 3:10 PM, finished with 100 posts and 15 votes.
Click to expand...

Adhoc vote count started by faflec on Aug 17, 2018 at 3:13 PM, finished with 101 posts and 16 votes.
Click to expand...

Adhoc vote count started by faflec on Aug 17, 2018 at 3:13 PM, finished with 101 posts and 16 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top