What's the difference beyond the particular word being used?
One assumes particular individuals have advantages or disadvantages. The other says that individual options have advantages or disadvantages in the voting.

It is the same difference as there is between noting that doctors get paid more than teachers, and saying that some people are discriminated against in their pay.
 
One assumes particular individuals have advantages or disadvantages. The other says that individual options have advantages or disadvantages in the voting.

It is the same difference as there is between noting that doctors get paid more than teachers, and saying that some people are discriminated against in their pay.

Except that is false comparison because doctors and teachers have different skill sets and job requirements while there is no such thing for an SV voter. Why should one voter get treated as being superior to another voter?

Edit: A proper comparison would be civil rights not pay.
 
Last edited:
Except that is false comparison because doctors and teachers have different skill sets and job requirements while there is no such thing for an SV voter. Why should one voter get treated as being superior to another voter?
They aren't because they can always switch their votes... The votes are being counted differently, not the voters...
 
So, AN has been (well, had by the time this post goes up) quite active in Discord on answering some miscellaneous questions. Assume these informations only working so far as this current Second Lightning Round, except those that can be considered as more 'permanent'.

What is this discord you speak of?
 
They aren't because they can always switch their votes... The votes are being counted differently, not the voters...

And so? Why shouldn't you be allowed to fairly vote for the option that you want to pick? It is discriminating so say that you count as much as another voter, but only if you want for a certain option that the other voter is also voting for.
 
And that particular mechanic means some kind of discrimination is going on, especially when the votes are weighted that one voter can matters more than nine other voters. Those two possibilities you presented aren't mutually exclusive.
No, it means that some options are more likely to occur, due to one thing or other, which means there's a need for consensus to choose the less likely option.
 
No, it means that some options are more likely to occur, due to one thing or other, which means there's a need for consensus to choose the less likely option.

And that is the in-universe explanation. How does that make it so that in the out-of-universe certain players aren't being discriminated against? Again, just because you have an in-universe explanation doesn't mean that you get to ignore the out of universe effects.
 
Except that is false comparison because doctors and teachers have different skill sets and job requirements while there is no such thing for an SV voter.
Different jobs have different skill requirements and job descriptions. Similarly, different votes have different support among layers of Ymaryn society and vote effects. It is a perfectly valid comparison.

Lemmie give you another real life comparison. Passing an amendment to the U.S. constitution is a difficult process that requires a superiority supporting it to actual go through. Representatives voting for that IRL don't have their own votes counted equally: you need multiple "yes" votes to overcome one "no" vote. Do you think that is wrong, too?
 
And so? Why shouldn't you be allowed to fairly vote for the option that you want to pick? It is discriminating so say that you count as much as another voter, but only if you want for a certain option that the other voter is also voting for.
The premise of a weighted vote is that votes are guiding forces acting upon a society pushing a chaotic machine in one direction or another. The inertia of that machine means that it requires more or less force in order to get it to do one thing as opposed to another. It is thus the choice of what you want it to do that is penalized or promoted.
 
How does that make it so that in the out-of-universe certain players aren't being discriminated against?
Players aren't discriminated against; choices are. Some things are easier or more likely to succeed; that is a fact of life. A weighted vote merely simulates that. Hell, there are some choices that aren't even offered at all; those effectively have weight x0, and are infinitely more uneven than what we have now. I don't see you complaining against that.
 
Lightning Round III
[X][GP] A review of recipes is in order (x2)

Going over their various recipes and principles, the People found that they had encountered such things in the past, but the components were most easily obtained through improper waste disposal, and significant usage would cut into black soil production. While limited production was taken up in order to remind outsiders that the magic of the People was powerful and to be feared, there was little need seen for doing much other than pyrotechnic displays. The People had no need of barbarian toys, and suggestions for potential weapon usage were scoffed at. The fear of Ymaryn steel and the rain of crossbow bolts was more than sufficient to send barbarian raiders running, flashes of smoke and thunder were wholly unnecessary and in fact less productive than raising more children with well fertilized fields.

The world around them changed, but the Ymaryn remained a rock in a stormy sea. As they had for generations, the peasants tilled the fields under the careful administration of the nobility, who were the fountain of all worth knowing in the world, while the merchants and craftsmen turned the raw materials gathered by barbarians into the wonderful tools that kept the People fed and safe. However, while their more civilized neighbours had long learned to essentially ignore them - the People had no need to go out into the world, anything of value would come to them in time - the truly barbarous savages of the northern steppes remained an eternal issue. Sometimes they fought with the tribes, sometimes they bribed them into going away, sometimes they married the more successful figures into their noble lines or inducted them into their forces of knights. As such, when a new warlord arose whose offers for trade seemed a bit too much like demanding tribute rather than the proper channels, many feathers were ruffled by the affair.

The People's response to this upstart barbarian
[] [Steppe] The steppes are clearly in need of their generational cleaning up (x10)
[] [Steppe] Ignore the upstart, he will dash his forces against the People if he dares further action (x8)
[] [Steppe] Send the traditionally determined bribes (x2)
[] [Steppe] Acquiesce to the larger than usual demands (x0.8)
[] [Steppe] Reach out to further relations with this successful warlord (x0.1)
 
And that is the in-universe explanation. How does that make it so that in the out-of-universe certain players aren't being discriminated against? Again, just because you have an in-universe explanation doesn't mean that you get to ignore the out of universe effects.
Because their votes weight less not because it's their opinion or because it's their votes, but because they push against the tide. It's harder for a angry character to calm down, and it's harder for an elitist society to not be elitist.
 
Different jobs have different skill requirements and job descriptions. Similarly, different votes have different support among layers of Ymaryn society and vote effects. It is a perfectly valid comparison.

Lemmie give you another real life comparison. Passing an amendment to the U.S. constitution is a difficult process that requires a superiority supporting it to actual go through. Representatives voting for that IRL don't have their own votes counted equally: you need multiple "yes" votes to overcome one "no" vote. Do you think that is wrong, too?

Except this quest has always used direct democracy so that RL comparison doesn't work because it is uses representative democracy. The scenarios are fundamentally different.

The premise of a weighted vote is that votes are guiding forces acting upon a society pushing a chaotic machine in one direction or another. The inertia of that machine means that it requires more or less force in order to get it to do one thing as opposed to another. It is thus the choice of what you want it to do that is penalized or promoted.

Does anybody have an argument that doesn't reply upon justifying it in-universe or comparing to examples where the participtions aren't equal in those scenarios or an argument that SV voters aren't equal to each other?
 
[X] [Steppe] Reach out to further relations with this successful warlord (x0.1)
 
[] [Steppe] The steppes are clearly inneed of their generational cleaning up (x10)

[X] [Steppe] Reach out to further relations with this successful warlord (x0.1)

Either or are acceptable. :V
 
Last edited:
Does anybody have an argument that doesn't reply upon justifying it in-universe or comparing to examples where the participtions aren't equal in those scenarios or an argument that SV voters aren't equal to each other?
Do you have an argument that isn't fundamentally "I'm unhappy with this system and don't understand the rationale behind it"?
 
[X] [Steppe] The steppes are clearly inneed of their generational cleaning up (x10)
This is the easiest option.
 
Back
Top