- Location
- Yes.
Or we can just have two plans?
Personally I don't think us influencing Asuma is necessary. We have Mari for that.
Marked for Death: A Rational Naruto Quest
- Thread starter eaglejarl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- naruto rationalist romance armageddon is looking better and better damn you kishimoto explosions everywhere explosives solve everyone if in doubt surrender to the mercy of zabuza it seemed like a good idea at the time looks like a really bad case of being a jōnin my god. where does the lore end? precommitting is the winning plan screaming in kagome screw the rules i have explosives something bad might still happen sometimes you gotta sociopath stabby zabby subsection c of paragraph 9 should include we can weaponize this so hard open voting
Personally I don't think us influencing Asuma is necessary. We have Mari for that.
- Location
- The state of Paranoia
We can fit 2 scenes in an update, right? How about a scene for both?
If that doesn't work though, I'm all for land clearing. Just as long as we make sure we actually get the land we clear.
Mari is good for interpersonal relationship and negotiation. Here, we are presenting ideas for Asuma to chew on.
Cariyaga
Handsome Gentleperson
- Location
- United States
I would like to suggest when apologizing to Mari that he suggest to her that she arrange for two contracts be delivered to him with regard to the Uchiha: One with the "we vote Asuma" consideration, and one without, giving them the understanding that he will be signing one of them.
Can you explain why we should do that?
Edit: The Uchiha, if I am understanding, will be either signing the vote for Asuma, or the one without. It is my understanding that the vote for Asuma is not a dealbreaker.
Last edited:
Cariyaga
Handsome Gentleperson
- Location
- United States
Uh, because if we don't need their vote for Asuma, I'd rather have 5+5 markers than however many we give up to get them to vote for Asuma.
Hmm. I'll have to think about it.
Cariyaga
Handsome Gentleperson
- Location
- United States
Basically the idea is to commit to the Uchiha that we will back them, but determine how much it costs us both closer to the vote, because we don't actually know how hard up we are for votes right now.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Not at all.
A: Hey, could I talk to you about space exploitation? It's actually really important.
B: Exploitation? Ugh! I would never do that. Go away!
A: Hey, could I talk to you about space development? It's actually really important.
B: I like developing things. Tell me more.
A: Well, NASA has put $7 into the economy for every $1 invested in it, so I think we should boost their budget.
B: Really? Wow! Sign me up! Have all the money!
A: Cool, thanks. Also, large-scale asteroid- and comet-mining could solve all of Earth's resource issues, basically forever if we can get a handle on certain engineering and capital issues. I'm talking things like a single medium-sized M-class asteroid being worth trillions of dollars, and a single comet having enough water to convert some deserts into green paradises.
B: Whoa! Yes! I've already given you all the money, but let me find some more!
I did say that you could do this and replace them with other activities if you so desired.
- Location
- Yes.
Out of curiosity, if we did decide to go this route, what would the conversations entail? Would we just be giving our condolences, xor would we also be exchanging confirmations regarding our political stances?
The plan specifies we do that plus share opinions on how Asuma or Hiashi would behave as kage.
Then we talk about whatever topics that people are normally interested in talking about that isn't shop talk.
Last edited:
- Location
- Yes.
Yup, I'm asking because I'm not sure if that would be included in the social stuff as eaglejarl proposed.
Urban dictionary/google said social call is enjoying someone's company for the sake of hanging out?
Yes, Avianlord. We'll make good deals, great deals, deals like you've never seen. All the deals, friend. It's gonna be great.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Not at all.
You mean this isn't helpful to you?
Unknown said:
Unknown said:
Unknown said:
I can't possibly imagine why not.
- Location
- NY
We will build a great, great wall around Leaf to keep the chakra monsters out
Twice the number wants to keep the interview. So keeping it is.
Information: Official Staff Communication
Alert: Alert
- Pronouns
- He/Him
alert
A recent update and set of votes concerning what appears to be a eugenics program aimed at a group of women has been brought to our attention. Because of the sheer quantity of material posted here it is going to take us some time to properly examine things.
Information: Sufficient Velocity and Dehumanization
- Pronouns
- He/Him
sufficient velocity and dehumanization
If there's anything six thousand and (almost) fifty pages of writing and commentary in this thread proves it's that this is a group that likes to communicate, so I would like to take this time to explain why we have an issue and what we're doing about it.
Our concern arises from the Chapter 271 update and the discussion that resulted from it. This update, among other things, had a proposal involving, effectively, a eugenic breeding program and the sale of the resulting children for future considerations.
Sufficient Velocity is not a neutral platform on issues like human trafficking, racism, sexism, and other evils. We have rules prohibiting their support and, in particular, we have a rule prohibiting something that usually rides alongside it: Dehumanization. That rule is Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful". We expect and require that our users treat any person with the basic respect of recognizing them as a person. Some people have issues with that even with regard to persons who exist in reality; they usually wind up promptly banned.
But Rule 2, and this often comes as a surprise to people, also covers fictional characters. The reasons for this run back to Sufficient Velocity's founding; originally, to prevent things like revenge fantasies from taking hold. Even directed against fictional persons, the language used in them was often the same hateful language that has been against many real people, including many of our users, and the central idea -- that the person you wish to suffer isn't really a person or worth anything -- is the same. The rules, in various versions, have been drafted to keep that language and that mindset off Sufficient Velocity.
Rule 2s intersection with narrative fiction, such as User Fiction or Quests, becomes more complex. We do not wish to eliminate the ability to write about evil things and it is possible -- common, even -- for a story to include elements that an author does not approve of, either neutrally, as backdrop, or as something which is set up as an antagonist or that the story is used to oppose in reality. Thinking Saving Private Ryan is an endorsement of Naziism would be very peculiar, for example. Or the classic satirical piece, A Modest Proposal, also comes to mind.
So when we have to look at a Rule 2 issue in a story we ask ourselves what the intent behind it was; if the material which Rule 2 would cover is being cast in an approving light. This is purely a decision of the author's. They are God, a fourth-dimensional entity who can alter any event and any rule at any time, including before they thought of it. No word appears on a page without an author's decision to put it there, no matter if it's narration or spoken by a character. No frame appears in a movie without a director's decision to include it. They are the ones responsible.
In this case, we have spoken with @eaglejarl, @OliWhail, and @Velorien, and reviewed the updates and thread discussion. Our conclusion is that the child-sale proposal was, in fact, specifically intended to horrify and offer a moral challenge to the players, and was given to the mouth of a mentally unstable character in order to reinforce that aspect.
We have discussed this heavily, and concluded that we will not be taking action against the story or its writers.
But a quest involves more than just its authors...
If there's anything six thousand and (almost) fifty pages of writing and commentary in this thread proves it's that this is a group that likes to communicate, so I would like to take this time to explain why we have an issue and what we're doing about it.
Our concern arises from the Chapter 271 update and the discussion that resulted from it. This update, among other things, had a proposal involving, effectively, a eugenic breeding program and the sale of the resulting children for future considerations.
Sufficient Velocity is not a neutral platform on issues like human trafficking, racism, sexism, and other evils. We have rules prohibiting their support and, in particular, we have a rule prohibiting something that usually rides alongside it: Dehumanization. That rule is Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful". We expect and require that our users treat any person with the basic respect of recognizing them as a person. Some people have issues with that even with regard to persons who exist in reality; they usually wind up promptly banned.
But Rule 2, and this often comes as a surprise to people, also covers fictional characters. The reasons for this run back to Sufficient Velocity's founding; originally, to prevent things like revenge fantasies from taking hold. Even directed against fictional persons, the language used in them was often the same hateful language that has been against many real people, including many of our users, and the central idea -- that the person you wish to suffer isn't really a person or worth anything -- is the same. The rules, in various versions, have been drafted to keep that language and that mindset off Sufficient Velocity.
Rule 2s intersection with narrative fiction, such as User Fiction or Quests, becomes more complex. We do not wish to eliminate the ability to write about evil things and it is possible -- common, even -- for a story to include elements that an author does not approve of, either neutrally, as backdrop, or as something which is set up as an antagonist or that the story is used to oppose in reality. Thinking Saving Private Ryan is an endorsement of Naziism would be very peculiar, for example. Or the classic satirical piece, A Modest Proposal, also comes to mind.
So when we have to look at a Rule 2 issue in a story we ask ourselves what the intent behind it was; if the material which Rule 2 would cover is being cast in an approving light. This is purely a decision of the author's. They are God, a fourth-dimensional entity who can alter any event and any rule at any time, including before they thought of it. No word appears on a page without an author's decision to put it there, no matter if it's narration or spoken by a character. No frame appears in a movie without a director's decision to include it. They are the ones responsible.
In this case, we have spoken with @eaglejarl, @OliWhail, and @Velorien, and reviewed the updates and thread discussion. Our conclusion is that the child-sale proposal was, in fact, specifically intended to horrify and offer a moral challenge to the players, and was given to the mouth of a mentally unstable character in order to reinforce that aspect.
We have discussed this heavily, and concluded that we will not be taking action against the story or its writers.
But a quest involves more than just its authors...
player problems
... and unfortunately, a number of players ran into problems of their own. We have issued a number of infractions, but the common thread throughout almost all of them is that the players in question were treating the women and children involved in the proposal as if they were... vending machines. Insert nickle, get baby, flip for profit. That will not fly; I wish to be very clear here: if you want to talk how you'd treat women like 'brood mares', you can do it not on our website.
We do not like descending on someone's creative work with fire, sword, and cross. If nothing else, it's a great deal of work, but in addition, it is discouraging and disruptive to the people involved, both as authors and as readers. QMs are in a prime position to shape their thread's culture and point their players away from these kinds of troubles, which works out best for everybody. We give significant respect to author requests for thread management, such as booting a trouble-making player, for this reason. They are almost certainly the best-placed and best-informed person available... provided they have an understanding of what the rules stop and, more importantly, why they stop it.
This was also something we spoke to the co-QMs about. From that conversation, they were discomfited as well by some of the posts their players have made, and understand the nature and purpose of Rule 2. They have said they will be taking a more active stance towards preventing this particular failure mode from happening again. Hopefully, the infraction points we're handing out to various people will help drive the point home, too. I don't think anybody here has a desire to see a repeat.
... and unfortunately, a number of players ran into problems of their own. We have issued a number of infractions, but the common thread throughout almost all of them is that the players in question were treating the women and children involved in the proposal as if they were... vending machines. Insert nickle, get baby, flip for profit. That will not fly; I wish to be very clear here: if you want to talk how you'd treat women like 'brood mares', you can do it not on our website.
We do not like descending on someone's creative work with fire, sword, and cross. If nothing else, it's a great deal of work, but in addition, it is discouraging and disruptive to the people involved, both as authors and as readers. QMs are in a prime position to shape their thread's culture and point their players away from these kinds of troubles, which works out best for everybody. We give significant respect to author requests for thread management, such as booting a trouble-making player, for this reason. They are almost certainly the best-placed and best-informed person available... provided they have an understanding of what the rules stop and, more importantly, why they stop it.
This was also something we spoke to the co-QMs about. From that conversation, they were discomfited as well by some of the posts their players have made, and understand the nature and purpose of Rule 2. They have said they will be taking a more active stance towards preventing this particular failure mode from happening again. Hopefully, the infraction points we're handing out to various people will help drive the point home, too. I don't think anybody here has a desire to see a repeat.
infraction time
@Twinnstars has been infracted for 50 points under Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": Do not try to justify treating people like chattel.
@KaGoGoGadgetMe has been infracted for 50 points under Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": Do not advocate for sociopathic decision-making.
@Byzantine279 has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": Do not diminish the impact of human trafficking.
@No-one of Importance has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 2,"Don't be Hateful": Do not treat people like Pokemon.
@JulieK has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": Do not treat people like Pokemon. (*Rescinded. Post was misunderstood)
@huhYeahGoodPoint has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": Do not treat women as objects to be passed around.
@Shadowwarp has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 6, "Acceptable Content": Do not talk about how you'd encourage as many teenage pregnancies as possible.
@Rafin has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 6, "Acceptable Content": Do not use terms like 'whoring out' in reference to teenagers.
In addition, all of the above have been threadbanned for one week.
@Twinnstars has been infracted for 50 points under Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": Do not try to justify treating people like chattel.
@KaGoGoGadgetMe has been infracted for 50 points under Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": Do not advocate for sociopathic decision-making.
@Byzantine279 has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": Do not diminish the impact of human trafficking.
@No-one of Importance has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 2,"Don't be Hateful": Do not treat people like Pokemon.
@huhYeahGoodPoint has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": Do not treat women as objects to be passed around.
@Shadowwarp has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 6, "Acceptable Content": Do not talk about how you'd encourage as many teenage pregnancies as possible.
@Rafin has been infracted for 25 points under Rule 6, "Acceptable Content": Do not use terms like 'whoring out' in reference to teenagers.
In addition, all of the above have been threadbanned for one week.
thread reopened
Thread reopened. If you would like to read our Rules, they may be found here. Please note that debating a Staff decision in the thread where it was made is considered a breach of Rule 5, "Don't Make It Harder To Do Our Jobs"; we have strong processes to allow for the appeal of individual actions or to discuss things in the Staff Communication forum without further disrupting this thread.
Last edited:
- Location
- The Maple Syrup Mountains
Well, glad that's all sorted out without (much) problems. Much thanks for the reasonable handling of such a tense situation!
So, where are we standing with respect to update and plan schedule? I confess I don't remember too well what the QM stated intent was back when this started.
So, where are we standing with respect to update and plan schedule? I confess I don't remember too well what the QM stated intent was back when this started.
- Location
- The Void
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Ej is at a conference right now so at best I would expect an interlude tomorrow or Monday. With regular updates after that
- Location
- NY
You know, the interesting thing about this whole issue is that we have gotten official confirmation that Mari is, in fact, mentally unstable.