Book 2 – Page 110

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Kreistor » Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:56 am

Oberon wrote:
Kreistor wrote:Changing your opinion in the face of new information is not flip-flopping. It is the only rational choice.
If the change was based upon normal, rational information, I'd agree. Your change was based upon your sudden conclusion that foolamancy was somehow involved,


Despite the fact that's a myopic viewpoint, there's a simple counter. Prove that it wasn't Foolamancy. If you can't do that, then it's just more spin, spin, spin.

That doesn't prove that you're a "normal, reasonable, rational human being",


Ah, but continuing this argument proves you're rational, I suppose?

The first step in the Scientific method is to Observe. That is what I did. I observed the bracer had reported the wrong information. The next step is to Hypothesize. Which I did. The one know way to hide the truth that had been in the room was Foolamancy, which tricks vision into seeing falsehood. This leads to the suggestion that Jack may have remained alive.

I am not going to take any criticism for using the Scientific Method, Oberon. And that I did so proves my rationality. Ignoring new Observations and stubbornly sticking to a no-longer supportable belief? Nobody views that as rational.

And only later, after something (who knows what...) triggered your sanity routine, did you manage to flip back again to your original conclusion.


Wow, you know, you could actually read my first post this thread and find out. It's right there for all to read. But, again, you fail to do your homework, operate on pure memory, and kick your own teeth in.

Kreistor wrote:To flip-flop, you need to respond to peer pressure (the politician's method), or as in your case, switch back and forth between two conflicting viewpoints. (Which is also double-speak, by the way, in the classic Orwellian sense, since you maintain two mutually exclusive facts as true.)
Bullshit. To flip-flop you only need to change your mind. The motives behind that change are irrelevant. They could be political, sure, but they could also be for any one of a number of other reasons. You do not get to define the term by your limited scope. It surpasses you, just as does logic.


Then I gladly accept your accusation of "flip-flop", and proudly hold it up for all to see, for it is the only rational choice for the reasonable human. The alternative -- stubbornly clinging to a belief that has new counter-evidence -- is irrational and vile. But, the thing is, you have redefined it as a neutral character trait, removing the negative connotations. And now you're saying to yourself, "No, I didn't!" Yep, you just did. Thanks.

"The motives behind that change are irrelevant." And with that, you just ripped all connotation from "flip-flop". It is now synonymous with all forms of change of opinion, not just the negatives ones, which require a negative motivation behind the change to create a negative connotation. You've made Einstein a "flip-flop" for switching from a Newtonian universe to Relative one. And FDR is a "flip-flop" for allowing the USA into WW2. Their motives are irrelevant according to you. I can now proudly stand beside all the "flip-flops" in the world, because we have no motivation for you to vilify us for. Thus, there is no negative connotation behind my switching from thinking Jack was dead to alive and back to dead. Now, since that's perfectly motivationless, what's your justification for even pointing it out to start with and provoking this wretched argument?

You can't have it both ways. If you think "flip-flop" is a negative character trait, you're going to have to explain exactly what the negative component is, since you have removed the typical "wishy-washiness" associated with it. Good luck with that.

Kreistor wrote:But just as you have attacked others for citing only the most common causes of volcanism by citing the least common (all the while ignoring other very valid causes), I call bullshit on your choice of words. Vilify is "To make vicious and defamatory statements about", I only call attention to your false statements and your attempts to avoid being assigned responsibility for your own words.


You have not once pointed to a single false statement of mine. I have never failed to take responsibility for my words.

I simply do not accept your interpretation of events, which is proven by citation, and I refuse to accept your redefinition of words to suit your needs, which anyone that has been reading can see is your modus operandi.

I note that you avoided dealing with the double-speak, which demonstrates that you are incapable of taking responsibility for your own words. And I clearly pointed out that the very first statement about my conclusions (Re: Jack's death) was plainly false. You are, in fact, accusing me of what you cannot avoid guilt for.

Dig that hole.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Sir_Dr_D » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:01 pm

I think we have been using to much earth logic when talking about the beam that fell on Parson`s head. He would not have become unconscious because he was standing in the wrong spot.

Erfworld probably has some rule that everyone in an inferno has a chance to become incapacitated, each round. Parson failed that roll. Erfworld then personifies this incapacitation by having the beam fall on his head. If he was standing a bit to the left, the beam would have fallen there, or a wall would have fallen on him, or he got unconscious due to smoke inhalation, or something. That wouldn`t have had to do with fate, just Erf and fire rules.

Fate if it was involved would just have ensured he failed the incapacitation role. I don`t think it could have done that if he was not in an inferno. It can only subtly affect things by loading dice. I think Charlie was very close in this instance to defeating fate, and getting Parson out of Erfworld.
Sir_Dr_D
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby multilis » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:06 pm

If new comic takes a while we can switch to discuss new exciting theories and facts about erfworld.

Ok, here is a most believable and shocking theory, I am going to spoiler it as otherwise may ruin the rest of the books because you will KNOW TOO MUCH!

Spoiler: show
Bogroll, Jack and Ace are avatars of the 3 Titans who made Erfworld. They each take a turn being best friend with Parson only to "die tragically" afterwards. Each one really represents an aspect of the world, "Erf, Numbers, Fate".

And of course you can see the problem. They are all men. So there is a secret counter plot by a secret organisation known as Woman that pretends to help fate but secretly plots to cheat fate and overthrow them and bring about a new era of supposed "Peace" under female rule.

Of course as all men secretly know females are too illogical and unstable to rule to world an this will only end in tragedy and "peace" at cost of everyone dead.
multilis
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby multilis » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:08 pm

Sir_Dr_D wrote:Fate if it was involved would just have ensured he failed the incapacitation role. I don`t think it could have done that if he was not in an inferno. It can only subtly affect things by loading dice. I think Charlie was very close in this instance to defeating fate, and getting Parson out of Erfworld.

Parson would not have tried to use the scroll without the inferno. (Or some other similar threat)
multilis
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Sir_Dr_D » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:25 pm

Yes, without the inferno Parson would not have tried to use the scroll. I was just pointing out that I do not think fate can just randomly drop things on peoples heads.

I think the hole in Charlies plan is he underestimated the Tool. I do think fate helped the Tool make some will save, or used the equivalent of some suggestion spell. But if the Tool did not like Parson as much as he did, it wouldn't have worked. It only hasted what would have happened eventually. If Parson had not done the right thing in contacting the Tool, or Charlie cut out the communication earlier, or the Tool did not want to save Parson, Charlies plan would have worked. There was nothing fate could have done in that scenario.
Sir_Dr_D
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby MarbitChow » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:36 pm

Kreistor wrote:Despite the fact that's a myopic viewpoint, there's a simple counter. Prove that it wasn't Foolamancy. If you can't do that, then it's just more spin, spin, spin.
Seeing as how Foolamancy is the Magic of deceiving the senses, it's not actually possible to prove that anything in the story isn't foolamancy. For that matter, seeing as it's a work of fiction, it's not actually possible to prove *anything*.

Kreistor wrote:The first step in the Scientific method is to Observe. I am not going to take any criticism for using the Scientific Method, Oberon.
You're applying the Scientific Method to a literary work. For your next trick, can you please apply Deconstructive Criticism to the Theory of Relativity?
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lipkin » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:19 pm

Marbitchow, I've decided I like you best.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:54 pm

Sir_Dr_D wrote:I do think fate helped the Tool make some will save, or used the equivalent of some suggestion spell.
But you say that Fate works in subtle ways so that we can never be sure of its existence. So the fact that you think Fate is meddling can only be because you want to believe in it. Do you really think that Erfworld becomes a better story when Parson has a guardian angel rigging things to help him? He got a bit lucky with Stanley this time, but I wouldn't want to believe a theory that would have Parson winning by that sort of help every time something dangerous happens. I won't believe that as long as there is a possibility that it's not true.

Can't you let Stanley have his character growth without it being mind control?
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby blargfoot » Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:59 pm

I didn't realize that Jannis's spell was so powerful that she'd stop the comic updates for almost 2 weeks.

The erfworld alphabet is fun and all but I'd like to find out what happens next now please.
blargfoot
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:54 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Somna » Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:36 pm

MarbitChow wrote:
Kreistor wrote:Despite the fact that's a myopic viewpoint, there's a simple counter. Prove that it wasn't Foolamancy. If you can't do that, then it's just more spin, spin, spin.
Seeing as how Foolamancy is the Magic of deceiving the senses, it's not actually possible to prove that anything in the story isn't foolamancy. For that matter, seeing as it's a work of fiction, it's not actually possible to prove *anything*.
[...]


Well, there's a couple of factors that puts "It's Foolamancy at work" and "It's Carnymancy at work" in the "Asspull" territory.

1) Can't cast hostile (i.e. affecting enemy units or their equipment) spells across hexes. The only ones we know that work across hexes are non-hostile spells like Thinkagrams, Thinkspace (with Arkendish help), and Lookamancy's scouting magic.

2) All other possible casters in the Hex are either corpses (Jack), captured/toast (Ace), or no longer in the hex (Cubbins). We know Ace is either captured or toast because casters are Commanders, you cannot take over a city if there's an enemy commander in the city still, and they were able to take over the city, so Cubbins, who was incapacitated with the autopilot jetpack, couldn't be in the hex either.

3) The bracer information ended up being correct, as Parson got clue-by-floored by the burning beam, so someone calling it the "incorrect" result is actually throwing away results that don't support a viewpoint, despite the results existing.

If a proof needs to be made, the actual proof that is required is that there exists Foolamancy or Carnymancy that can work across hexes to affect a hostile unit's equipment, since the current existing information supports it being unlikely, and it would be trying to contradict already established information (and thus being Asspull). So the least unlikely solution is that Parson's bracer is doing the Mathamancy calculations, and then adding in the Fate factor (x 0) as a Mathamancy calculation last.
Somna
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby MarbitChow » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:30 pm

Somna wrote:Well, there's a couple of factors that puts "It's Foolamancy at work" and "It's Carnymancy at work" in the "Asspull" territory.

Jack smiled and put his hand upon the table, claiming the discussion. “I see, Sister. And how do you know it isn’t the reverse? Couldn’t Life itself be the illusion? Perhaps, then, injury gradually weakens our ability to fool ourselves into believing we exist at all!” (Book 0, Episode 31)
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:46 pm

Somna wrote:If a proof needs to be made, the actual proof that is required is that there exists Foolamancy or Carnymancy that can work across hexes to affect a hostile unit's equipment, since the current existing information supports it being unlikely, and it would be trying to contradict already established information (and thus being Asspull).
Technically we do have proof of that for Carnymancy, since we know that hostile arrows can be affected by Carnymancy that was cast long ago in a distant hex, as demonstrated by Sylvia. That is no proof that it actually was Carnymancy at work on the bracer, but I notice that using the bracer against a Carnymancy scroll has a striking parallel to using an arrow against Sylvia. It is a possibility at least.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Somna » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:53 pm

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:If a proof needs to be made, the actual proof that is required is that there exists Foolamancy or Carnymancy that can work across hexes to affect a hostile unit's equipment, since the current existing information supports it being unlikely, and it would be trying to contradict already established information (and thus being Asspull).
Technically we do have proof of that for Carnymancy, since we know that hostile arrows can be affected by Carnymancy that was cast long ago in a distant hex, as demonstrated by Sylvia. That is no proof that it actually was Carnymancy at work on the bracer, but I notice that using the bracer against a Carnymancy scroll has a striking parallel to using an arrow against Sylvia. It is a possibility at least.


No, that's not even close to technically being proof. We have proof that Sylvia had a Carnymancy effect on her, and the arrows and tiles were in the same hex as her (or they wouldn't be able to hit her or block for her anyway).

Edit: If you're trying to imply that using magic on a scroll with a spell on it does something, I call shenanigans. If that did something, no one would be willing to touch the scroll, let alone have Parson open the scroll and let them read it.
Somna
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:07 pm

Somna wrote:We have proof that Sylvia had a Carnymancy effect on her, and the arrows and tiles were in the same hex as her (or they wouldn't be able to hit her or block for her anyway).
And Parson's bracer was in the same hex as the scroll. I'm saying that Carnymancy could have been cast on the scroll in some way similar to how it was cast on Sylvia. I don't know if that's true or not, but Sylvia forces us to be open to the possibility of those sorts of things.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Somna » Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:23 pm

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:We have proof that Sylvia had a Carnymancy effect on her, and the arrows and tiles were in the same hex as her (or they wouldn't be able to hit her or block for her anyway).
And Parson's bracer was in the same hex as the scroll. I'm saying that Carnymancy could have been cast on the scroll in some way similar to how it was cast on Sylvia. I don't know if that's true or not, but Sylvia forces us to be open to the possibility of those sorts of things.


No, it doesn't.

You're confusing the act of actually casting something with an ongoing effect. That's like stating because Wanda uncroaked some soldiers and sent them into a hex, she cast Croakamancy into that hex.

And if the scroll had an effect on top of the spell scribed in it, you really think Sizemore, Maggie, Janis, Issac, Marie, and the rest of the Predictamancers wouldn't have noticed?
Somna
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby ftl » Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:35 pm

blargfoot wrote:I didn't realize that Jannis's spell was so powerful that she'd stop the comic updates for almost 2 weeks.

The erfworld alphabet is fun and all but I'd like to find out what happens next now please.


Hah! I do like that the comic paused when a character shouted TIME OUT!!!!
ftl
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby multilis » Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:52 pm

Sylvia and Carnymancy... we only really have opinion of crazy Sylvia on conman mage Jojo about this so likely but not certain. It is possible that Jojo hated her and instead she was helped by same sort of "hand of fate" as Wanda supposedly is.
multilis
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:07 pm

Somna wrote:You're confusing the act of actually casting something with an ongoing effect.
No, I'm saying that the scroll might have an ongoing effect on it created by Carnymancy, an effect specifically designed to encourage Parson to cast it.

Somna wrote:And if the scroll had an effect on top of the spell scribed in it, you really think Sizemore, Maggie, Janis, Issac, Marie, and the rest of the Predictamancers wouldn't have noticed?
I'm open to the possibility that they might not notice. On Page 65 Marie made it clear that Parson shouldn't trust Carnymancers, and that implies that Carnymancers are tricky, which in turn implies that not everything they do is out in the open and obvious, and if a caster thinks that then we should take it as possible that Carnymancers might be capable of doing things that casters can't always see.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Turtlewing » Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:38 pm

By far the simplest explanation for the bracer's behavior is that it's attempting to display both correct answers to the question it was asked.

Those answers being: the chance Parson could cast the spell successfully (refers to his ability to cast), and the chance he will cast the spell successfully (refers to ability, opportunity, and will to cast). Since it was asked to calculate the odds of casting the spell under present conditions, both answers are correct but the slightly more correct one is 0% because in the end he won't cast due to being interrupted (loosing the opportunity) even though he can cast the spell.
Turtlewing
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:46 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Pokota » Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:40 pm

Prove that it wasn't Foolamancy. If you can't do that, then it's just more spin, spin, spin.

The only known Foolamancer in the hex was incapacitated at best and croaked at worst at the time of the alleged foolamancy, and therefore cannot cast. Any other foolamancy-capable units in the hex would were Decrypted Archons, and it's been implied that all of them were dusted by Cloneley. To compound that issue, none of the Decrypted Archons were in the Portal Room. Furthermore, we have no evidence of caster magic working when the caster is unable to make it work, and we have no evidence of casters being able to prepare spells in such a way that would be required of your foolamancy explanation.

The ball, as it were, is in your court.
zyxophoj wrote:Also, it depends rather heavily on Wanda ... not being Wanda.
User avatar
Pokota
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: crex90, drachefly, noname_hero, Uradd and 10 guests