Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 050

[0beron]

If you were speaking of mechanics and not a subjective feeling about an experience, I'd agree with you. But you're not. You're using a subjective description and attempting to translate that into a mechanic. This is not science, it's philosophy.
Did you have any opportunity to find your citation of Vanna's "fuzzy memory"?

It's NOT a subjective thing, it's a black-and-white. Either you remember the spell or you don't. There is no room for philosophy in an issue like this, links are a concrete mechanic that obey certain rules. The casters can express it in different ways, but either it's one or the other, and you're being obtuse.
The exact wording on Page 22 was "Yeah, [I'm ok now], that was like, woah. Intense, you know?" I seem to remember another point when Vanna was asked about the spell, so I'm still trying to find that in a text update somewhere.

However now that I re-read Kingworld, I have another idea to support it being a tri-link. Vanna has been around for a while, so the RCC is not totally clueless about Turnamancy. But Kingworld totally surprised everyone, and is on the same scale as the Volcano Uncroaking and the Eyemancer Table. By sheer power alone we can argue for this being a Tri-link.

[bladestorm]

Technically we have seen a caster-ruler, as Wanda was briefly Overlord of Goodminton before (during) its fall.

An excellent point, and one I had forgotten. So Charley can be a thinkamancer.

Charlie could also be a Carnymancer that sufficiently rigged the game of Erfworld so that he set himself up with his own side that has a lot of characteristics of someone using a cheat code. It also fits in with Carnymancy to play all other sides against each other while making a profit. The Arkendish, with its ability to grant unmatched Thinkamancy, is just a serious diversion.

[effataigus]

It also fits in with Carnymancy to play all other sides against each other while making a profit.

I'm beginning to believe that I'm alone among humanity in having enjoyed my carnival-going experiences.

[0beron]

I'm beginning to believe that I'm alone among humanity in having enjoyed my carnival-going experiences.

That's because you ARE a Carny!!!! Everyone change ur passwords and check for "kick-me" signs! Call the Predictamancers to check for whoopie cushion traps!

[effataigus]

I'm beginning to believe that I'm alone among humanity in having enjoyed my carnival-going experiences.

That's because you ARE a Carny!!!! Everyone change ur passwords and check for "kick-me" signs! Call the Predictamancers to check for whoopie cushion traps!

I'd advise against consulting the predictamancers on this one. They'll just be able to tell you that you WILL fall victim to my whoopie traps... then you'll spend your panicked hours wondering exactly what lies in store for those that choose the "hard way."

[Housellama]

Charlie can do some impressive stuff, including Thinkamancy, because he has the Arkendish, but that doesn't make him a Thinkamancer. Keep that in mind. It makes a difference.

What is that difference? Charlie has "unmatched" powers of thinkamancy, granted by the 'dish. So much so that there is a coalition of powerful thinkamancers allied against him. Whether he was a thinkamancer or not prior to gaining these "unmatched" powers, I see no practical difference. The only real difference that I see is that if the 'dish can be removed from Charlie's possession, then he'll either have reduced thinkamancy capabilities if he was already a thinkamancer, or he'll have no thinkamancy capabilities if he was not a thinkamancer.

It does make a difference. As someone who is not a Thinkamancer, he doesn't have the innate knowledge of Thinkamancy that the Thinkamancers do. This includes the knowledge and use of G-Strings. Just because he can use Thinkamancy doesn't mean he knows how it works, and that's important. Maggie says that the Arkendish gives Charlie "a command of Thinkamancy (she) cannot match." Notice she doesn't say knowledge. The Arkendish lets him use Thinkamancy, but it doesn't let him understand it.

Just because you can swing a sword doesn't make you a swordsman. Even if you can swing that sword really fast and really hard, raw strength will be beaten by knowledge and skill. Likewise, just because Charlie can use Thinkamancy doesn't make him a Thinkamancer. That's why the Thinkamancers have an advantage over him. Charlie's the bully on the playground, but they are smarter than he is. They know how things work. Look at what Parson can do by knowing exactly how things work. Look at how Maggie communicated with Isaac in a secure fashion, one that she knows Charlie cannot intercept. Why? Because he's not a Thinkamancer.

[(name here)]

I have to say I'm a bit dubious that the Overlord is really as far gone as her appearance indicates. Given how Jillian has been reacting to the flowers, being together enough to tell Jillian must be a prisoner while under their effects is pretty impressive. The flowers must not effect her nearly as strongly. I suspect she's somewhat influenced by Olive, but more like Wanda's influence over Stanley than simply being a drugged-out puppet.

I kind of doubt the effectiveness of the field of suspiciously monochromatic flowers outside the capital of a Hippiemancy-centric side as a trap. You'd think that people would know better than to attack without leading with a curtain of fire. Then again, IPTSF seems to have a running theme that people on Erfworld don't really know much about the magic systems, something you can see shades of in the other books as well. I mean, Jillian fell for the poisoned apples, Goodminton didn't bother integrating their casters into their battleplans before Wanda, Tommy got suckered by the poison kiss, etc. Presumably the somewhat higher competence of Modern Erfworld is a reaction to this whole incident, but only Olive, Parson and Charlie seem to be able to use them as tactical game-changers. It's like watching complete newbies playing Dominions 3: magic is a heavily dominant force, but they only use it to supplement their mundane stuff.

[Oberon]

It's NOT a subjective thing, it's a black-and-white. Either you remember the spell or you don't. There is no room for philosophy in an issue like this, links are a concrete mechanic that obey certain rules. The casters can express it in different ways, but either it's one or the other, and you're being obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? No, I'm laughing at you. Here, watch the emoticon: You're using the flimsiest shred of a subjective statement to try to extrapolate a hard and fast rule or mechanic. And you fail. "My memory is fuzzy" is a subjective statement, no matter how much you deny it. Or I'll await your proof that it is not. Here, I'll help: Did the person who said that remember 99% of the experience? Or was it 1% of the experience? Or does that number lie somewhere in between? SUBJECTIVE. Look up the word, you might learn something. If a second person were to say those exact same words, would you insist that their amount of memory of the experience must therefore be exactly equal? Pshaaa...

Here's an example for you, in case you think more clearly if you see an example:
Person 1: "Dude, I was so wasted last night!" <They had 4 beers>
Person 2: "Dude, I was so wasted last night!" <They shot heroin>
Since both people used the same words, were they therefore equally "wasted"? What exactly does "wasted" mean to each of those people? What exactly does "wasted" mean to the person they said it to? And how is the state of being "wasted" measured objectively, so that an outside observer can see that both were either equally wasted or not as equally wasted?


I'll eagerly await that Vanna citation from you, because without that you don't even have any consistency for your "fuzzy memory" house of cards to even try to stand on. If you can't find it will you then claim that "Intense" must obviously mean the exact same words that Sizemore and/or Maggie spoke about their recollection of the volcano?

But I'll say this: I hope that you're right that Kingworld (*Ptui!*) was a trimancer link. You've got zero evidence for that conclusion, but I still hope you're right. The volcano was a one-time, very situational effect. Kingworld (*Ptui!*) is infinitely repeatable, devastatingly effective in multiple situations, and is so broken that I cannot believe it was imagined by the author. Even if it can be done with only three casters it still would need other limiting factors to keep it from being terribly broken. As a bimancer link, since we know that Charlie has found it advantageous in the past to hire a turnamancer just to speed archon production, his opportunity cost for recasting this monstrosity is very, very cheap.

[Oberon]

It does make a difference. As someone who is not a Thinkamancer, he doesn't have the innate knowledge of Thinkamancy that the Thinkamancers do. This includes the knowledge and use of G-Strings. Just because he can use Thinkamancy doesn't mean he knows how it works, and that's important. Maggie says that the Arkendish gives Charlie "a command of Thinkamancy (she) cannot match." Notice she doesn't say knowledge. The Arkendish lets him use Thinkamancy, but it doesn't let him understand it.

That's completely conjecture. Notice that Maggie also didn't say Charlie has no real knowledge of thinkamancy. Without wanting to get too deep into linguistics, when you say that someone has a "command" of a subject, that implies not just brute natural power, it also implies knowledge and skill. My point is that you're reading far too much into what Maggie didn't say.

Just because you can swing a sword doesn't make you a swordsman. Even if you can swing that sword really fast and really hard, raw strength will be beaten by knowledge and skill.

No. Raw strength can be beaten by knowledge and skill, but there is no absolute here. Or, by your logic, Charlie has excellent knowledge and skill of thinkamancy, since he has beaten the thinkamancers using his knowledge and skill many times: He can't be prevented from tapping into the "real" thinkamancer's thinkagrams; he has hacked the eyebooks (crafted in a link with a thinkamancer); and he has forced the GMtTA to create a secret cipher to communicate without his being able to intercept their conversations. Also note that they use this code even while utilizing gstrings, which indicates that they aren't sure he isn't listening there as well.

Likewise, just because Charlie can use Thinkamancy doesn't make him a Thinkamancer. That's why the Thinkamancers have an advantage over him. [...] Look at how Maggie communicated with Isaac in a secure fashion, one that she knows Charlie cannot intercept. Why? Because he's not a Thinkamancer.

This is fairly baseless. If the thinkamancers had an advantage over Charlie, they wouldn't need a secret conspiracy to summon a perfect warlord to combat him. If they had a secure manner of communication, they wouldn't worry about encrypting it because the poor stooge who just happens to be able to run circles around them in every other way couldn't possibly intercept those messages. And, we don't know for a fact that Charlie isn't a thinkamancer.

[0beron]

You're using the flimsiest shred of a subjective statement to try to extrapolate a hard and fast rule or mechanic. And you fail. "My memory is fuzzy" is a subjective statement, no matter how much you deny it.

And that is where you are failing, because as is the fault of many poor arguments in the past, you are applying our world's logic to A GAME. There isn't an "in between", there is "X or Y" and the reason is always the same. We have been provided with 2 instances that concretely support the "participants in tri-links can't remember the spells they cast" mechanic, and it has even been explained in detail as to "why" this happens by Jack and Maggie. So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
All that remains is to figure out if Vanna experienced the same thing. The quote I already provided, in my opinion, does that because as I say above, there isn't a "middle ground" so her lack of ability to describe it clearly indicates poor memory. But if I find a more "clear cut" quote I'll be sure to let you know.

[effataigus]

I think this conversation has run its course until someone digs up a quote that implies that Vanna was unable to remember the spell. The only quote we have so far implies that she does remember it and that it was intense. To use Oberon's examples, we have this:

Person 1: "Dude, I was so wasted last night!" <They had 4 beers>
Person 2: "Dude, I was so wasted last night!" <They shot heroin>

... but our smoking gun would be this:
Person 3: "Dude, how wasted was I last night? <They have no idea how they ended up in Cambodia>

Ever on the side of caution (except with Charlie-speculation), I agree with Oberon here in that there are no solid arguments that Kingworld was necessarily a tri-link (or a bi-link) that aren't meta arguments.

And that is where you are failing, because as is the fault of many poor arguments in the past, you are applying our world's logic to A GAME. There isn't an "in between", there is "X or Y" and the reason is always the same. We have been provided with 2 instances that concretely support the "participants in tri-links can't remember the spells they cast" mechanic, and it has even been explained in detail as to "why" this happens by Jack and Maggie. So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
All that remains is to figure out if Vanna experienced the same thing. The quote I already provided, in my opinion, does that because as I say above, there isn't a "middle ground" so her lack of ability to describe it clearly indicates poor memory. But if I find a more "clear cut" quote I'll be sure to let you know.

Strawman alert! Also, inability to describe the intensity of an experience well =/= inability to remember.

In conclusion, I'm going to do something I accused you of doing earlier, 0beron, and resolve this issue by applying "Calm-the-hell-down's" Razor... which states "given two explanations for a phenomenon that both fit all available facts, the one where Erfworld's story holds together better is more likely to be the correct one." For the reasons Oberon already mentioned, this story works better in my mind if Kingworld was a tri-link so, until otherwise proven, it will remain a tri*-link in my thinking.

*indicates words with inherent uncertainty.

[drachefly]

I think you got your 0 and your O switched there - but yes, I agree. We don't have strong evidence Vanna forgot, merely a hint... but in terms of balance, this smells a lot more like Tri-link.

[0beron]

I agree. We don't have strong evidence Vanna forgot, merely a hint... but in terms of balance, this smells a lot more like Tri-link.

That's a fair analysis Drache, one I concede to. "Hint" is a better term.

[Oberon]

And that is where you are failing, because as is the fault of many poor arguments in the past, you are applying our world's logic to A GAME.

No, I'm just applying logic. The fact that this is a game doesn't suddenly mean that the words "fuzzy memory" are somehow tied to your made up mechanic that whomever speaks it has lost some precise amount of memory.

I notice you dodged all of my questions on the subject. I'll repost them for your convenience:
"My memory is fuzzy" is a subjective statement, no matter how much you deny it. Or I'll await your proof that it is not. Here, I'll help: Did the person who said that remember 99% of the experience? Or was it 1% of the experience? Or does that number lie somewhere in between? SUBJECTIVE. Look up the word, you might learn something. If a second person were to say those exact same words, would you insist that their amount of memory of the experience must therefore be exactly equal?

We have been provided with 2 instances that concretely support the "participants in tri-links can't remember the spells they cast" mechanic, [...]

Actually, only you have provided two instances of this. But you haven't cited your source for Vanna. Still waiting!

All that remains is to figure out if Vanna experienced the same thing.

So what we have here is you deciding that Vanna experienced the same thing, and then using a LOT OF CAPS to insist that this translates into a game mechanic. You are classic!

The quote I already provided, in my opinion, does that because as I say above, there isn't a "middle ground" so her lack of ability to describe it clearly indicates poor memory.

And here is where you've decided what the outcome has to be, and then interpreted the evidence to make it support your conclusion. Even your use of the word "opinion" should tell you something here: This is how you want it to be, not how any evidence proves it to be.

Vanna had a fuzzy memory of Kingworld, therefore we know she was tri-linked to perform it. THIS is hard evidence.

Both of those sentences are untrue statements. You think that a trimancer link has to involve memory loss always, and so when Vanna said "That was like, whoa. Intense. You know?" you decided it had to mean that she suffered from memory loss. This is not "hard evidence", it's you trying to make the facts fit your preconceptions. Could it perhaps mean that it was an intense experience which did not involve memory loss? Could it perhaps mean that it was something she hadn't experienced before, and therefore had trouble finding the words to describe it? Could it perhaps mean that she is a bit of a space cadet, and just talks like that all the time? Not to you, to you this is conclusive evidence of memory loss. HIIII-larious.

Don't ever become a researcher. You have no capability to separate the facts as you see them from the facts as you want them to appear. You remind me of the pair of researchers who developed an ingenious test to prove the existence of "ether", who after their experiment disproved it instead, decided that they must have done something wrong. They refused (for a while) to believe the facts they had collected because they didn't fit in with their preconceptions of what the test results would show.

You have an opinion about how trimancer links work with regards to memory loss, and another opinion about the Kingworld (*Ptui!*) link being a trimancer link. That's all. And you're welcome to your own opinions. But don't try to claim that there is "hard evidence" which supports either of those opinions. You could be proven correct in the future, or you could be proven incorrect, or these things could remain unrevealed forever. But right now all you have is a pair of opinions.

[effataigus]

But right now all you have is a pair

To be fair, that's all a real man needs.

In other news, it's real!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether

[0beron]

Rampant trolling wall of text I won't even bother to read in it's entirety.

I've provided you with everything necessary, and Drache summed up the situation nicely.

[Shai_hulud]

http://namesakecomic.com/comic/a-flower-for-your-hair/
http://namesakecomic.com/comic/dont-forget-your-hat/

[Oberon]

Rampant trolling wall of text I won't even bother to read in it's entirety.

Continues to insist that his opinion makes things so, and avoids answering questions which would discredit his theory.

Guess we'll leave it here, since you refuse to address the points I've made and questions I've asked which invalidate your pet theories. Your ultimate defense of the indefensible is to cover your ears and go "Lalalala, I can't hear you!"

And really, trolling? I'm astounded how you can turn the utter destruction of your so-called evidence into "trolling." But when you've got no case, I guess ad hominem is your only option.

[drachefly]

Umm, Oberon, I was with you entirely until that last bit. He already conceded when I summarized your argument and he realized it made sense after all.

[Oberon]

It's not a concession when he still holds out with "I've provided you with everything necessary". Necessary for what? Necessary to prove his point is the implication, since he was responding to my request that he answers my questions and not just dodge them.