Friendship is Dragons
Updates Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays
Page 268 - Double Dirty Work
Author Notes:
Newbiespud
6th Apr 2013, 6:00 AM
edit
delete
Notice: Guest comic submissions are open! Guidelines here. Deadline: February 20th.
(Pop-out)
139 Comments:
It always makes me laugh when someone says "rouge" instead of "rogue". It makes me feel less dyslexic.
After playing Sonic Advanced 2 battles and Rogue Trooper for a while, I ended up making that mistake so much... I will never live down the Rouge Trooper... Survivor of the Quartz Zone massacre and base to base cosmetics salesman.
¡Do not touch or let Rogue touch you! Contact with Rogue can be fatal. Rogue is an allegory for all of the teenaged boys feeling that they will never touch a girl but genderswapped so that it will not be so obvious:
Teenaged boys, like all human beings, get lonely. In addition to loneliness, teenaged boys also have a burning desire to reproduce. Every teenaged boy who never touched a girl empathizes with Rogue.
Teenaged boys, like all human beings, get lonely. In addition to loneliness, teenaged boys also have a burning desire to reproduce. Every teenaged boy who never touched a girl empathizes with Rogue.
What exactly is your definition of "touch"? Because I have many ideas to deal with that problem...
If any living tissue of Rogue touches any living tissue of anything living, she will drain lifeforce (it does not exist, but this is comics) from the one touching her. This can easily be fatal. Direct physical contact is not safe.
actually, she's managed to get control of her powers now- she can take your powers w/o turning you unconscious. She can, however. CHOOSE to.
from what I understand, she lost the ability to control it because more modern marvel hates the good things of the past
Rarity might too... Though only if ponies use rouge at all.
I am, however, surprised that Newbiespud went to the effort of making that poster to clarify that point.
I'll gladly volunteer to jump on other mistakes, if you're bothered by the unequal treatment.
It really, really, really doesn't take long to look up a word you're unsure of.
It really, really, really doesn't take long to look up a word you're unsure of.
So being wrong entitles you to keep on being wrong, darkwulf23?
We have every right to be irritated at the innumerable rouge angles of satin that besiege us in our daily reads.
What gets me is when this sort of thing shows up in publications, in store signs, and in other places where professionalism is _expected_. I've seen far, far too many cases where people think you use an apostrophe when pluralizing a date (1940s) or an acronym (DVDs).
Bob the Angry Flower put this very nicely:
[url="http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif"](comic, also available as a poster)[/url]
Bob the Angry Flower put this very nicely:
[url="http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif"](comic, also available as a poster)[/url]
Aaand, I fail at bbcode, again (this time due to quotation marks).
(this should work)
(this should work)
That's funny, I actually named a Pandaren rogue on WoW Rougepanda for the fun of it. There's also someone on my server on the other side named Roguepanda.
ye ke ke ke! You mad! You mad at me! I can see it in your face!
--> JohnTron, Game Grumps
--> JohnTron, Game Grumps
Stop confusing lovable, dashing thieves with
What a twist.
Story time, characters with speech impediments.
Story time, characters with speech impediments.
Sorry, Guest, you snuck in while I was reading the comic; didn't mean to tromp on your idea.
I once ran a short campaign based off the TV show "Lost". One of the NPC plane crash survivors was a migrant worker who could not pronounce the letter 'T'. So I wrote specific dialog for the character to remove that letter from all his words.
Sadly this proved his undoing when he couldn't convey a danger to the players. XD
Sadly this proved his undoing when he couldn't convey a danger to the players. XD
I'm not sure it counts as an impediment, but I was in an online text based game where my character spoke with a super-thick cockney accent. I didn't use a translator, I changed it myself. It read just like Super thick cockney, but I had to give a translation at least 80% of the time.
In a lot of cartoons, cockney is a pretty bad impediment. :)
In my Saturday 5e Playtest, one of my players decided that he wanted to play a Barbarian with a lisp, a-la Mike Tyson.
Turned into the 'sassy-gay' stereotype of lisp because apparently the player has a hard time doing a Mike Tyson impression.
As a character I played? I had a mute. Couldn't speak at all, because complications from life-saving neck surgery destroyed his vocal cords. So I spent most of my sessions writing my responses on notebook paper, and gesturing wildly. It was way less annoying than one might think, and that character probably had more development than most others I've played.
Turned into the 'sassy-gay' stereotype of lisp because apparently the player has a hard time doing a Mike Tyson impression.
As a character I played? I had a mute. Couldn't speak at all, because complications from life-saving neck surgery destroyed his vocal cords. So I spent most of my sessions writing my responses on notebook paper, and gesturing wildly. It was way less annoying than one might think, and that character probably had more development than most others I've played.
I saw someone else play a mute, only to be crossed up the night he had to rely on someone else for his attmepts at diplomacy with a bunch of fey. The other guy kept deliberately misconstruing attempts to convey desire for parley and negotation as a series of crude and sadistic threats of violence. Not cool, though I admit I don't know the full story. (It could be that the player had been using his character's condition to monopolize the table. Perhaps that wasn't so, but just how the other player perceived it.) In any case, that was the misinterpreter's last session with the group and the only time other players tripped him up.
I seem to recall it got him in trouble in one fight afterward, however, when he lost sight of the rest of the group in a fight and lacked any way to effectively communicate to the rest of them just how badly he needed assistance after a particular complication. It worked out in the end and the players enjoyed the added tension in the meantime.
I seem to recall it got him in trouble in one fight afterward, however, when he lost sight of the rest of the group in a fight and lacked any way to effectively communicate to the rest of them just how badly he needed assistance after a particular complication. It worked out in the end and the players enjoyed the added tension in the meantime.
Never really played one myself. Have a friend who does... not necessarily speech impediments, but different vocal registers very well. Especially an NPC he had in one game who spoke like a computer speech synthesizer - not in actual sounds, but he did a really good job of making the tone sound disjointed, like the words had nothing to do with each other.
Didn't help that this particular NPC also talked exclusively in riddles. The guy does fairly low-key crazy very well.
Didn't help that this particular NPC also talked exclusively in riddles. The guy does fairly low-key crazy very well.
Are you using your character from that game as your avatar?
In one pathfinder campaign I played two characters: one, a mute med-tech who had gotten his chin blown off in a complicated enough way he hadn't gotten replacement cybernetics, and his 10 year old or so sister, a demolitions lover and expery. They both worked for their uncle, an aspiring mob boss plaued by one of my friends. Most of the time it wasn't too bad as the mute med tech used sign language and his sister translated.
Of course, there was onee time our netrunner called us and we realized my mute was the one with a cellphone. Very one sided conversation.
Oh, two more quick characters:
Once I played a penguin. He was a cleric. Specifically, a wanna-be televangelist for Loki. Unfortunately, being a penguin made him unable to speak common. Fortunately, basee off the template we had homebrewed for penguins, he got about 5 levels.
Another time, in one of the games with my brothers there was one dwarf who was too stupid to speak common. The other dwarf translated.... well, mistranslated. Kind of viciously too. That game also had the phrase, "DO YOU SPEAK COMMON!?!?"
Once I played a penguin. He was a cleric. Specifically, a wanna-be televangelist for Loki. Unfortunately, being a penguin made him unable to speak common. Fortunately, basee off the template we had homebrewed for penguins, he got about 5 levels.
Another time, in one of the games with my brothers there was one dwarf who was too stupid to speak common. The other dwarf translated.... well, mistranslated. Kind of viciously too. That game also had the phrase, "DO YOU SPEAK COMMON!?!?"
(originally iambic pentameter but that's hard to keep up)
Of course, said character also had the highest Charisma and diplomacy so he usually had to deal with important NPC's. Quite fun. Especially if you convert common phrases/memes to Ye Olde English/Shakespearian.
One such conversation happened with an ambassador from another species who, in spite of translation spells, refused to talk our language and insisted that we should speak his. That resulted in this gem:
"William Shakespeare, dost thou speaketh, wench?"
Not so much "impediment" as "complete inability to speak or understand the local language." One player in a campaign I ran played a critter we'd made up for another campaign--it was a cute little winged lizard that was superintelligent, had vast magical power, and physical strength and endurance slightly inferior to a housecat. Also it would die of exposure in a light rain on a 70 degree day and had a high enough metabolism to starve to death in 12 hours without food.
In the setting of the previous campaign this worked out to balanced, but in the new campaign it was OP, so we added that, being a traveler from the other setting, he couldn't speak the local language.
Fortunately for him, one of the other characters was psychic and translated for him. Unfortunately for him, said character was a massive prankster. Did I mention he'd never seen a human or humanoid before the start of the campaign?
"Why do half your people have those strange protrusions on their fronts?"
"Plague scars. It's impolite to discuss them."
"What's that stuff that comes out of the top of your head?"
"Decorative plants. A fine head-garden is considered a mark of status."
On initiating Operation Sneak Into the Castle and Kill the King (yes, the players called it that): "So... what are we doing?"
"We've been hired as walrus inspectors."
"Oh. What's a walrus?"
"A sort of sandwich."
In the setting of the previous campaign this worked out to balanced, but in the new campaign it was OP, so we added that, being a traveler from the other setting, he couldn't speak the local language.
Fortunately for him, one of the other characters was psychic and translated for him. Unfortunately for him, said character was a massive prankster. Did I mention he'd never seen a human or humanoid before the start of the campaign?
"Why do half your people have those strange protrusions on their fronts?"
"Plague scars. It's impolite to discuss them."
"What's that stuff that comes out of the top of your head?"
"Decorative plants. A fine head-garden is considered a mark of status."
On initiating Operation Sneak Into the Castle and Kill the King (yes, the players called it that): "So... what are we doing?"
"We've been hired as walrus inspectors."
"Oh. What's a walrus?"
"A sort of sandwich."
Story time! Tell a story of "impossible" tasks, ridiculous time frames optional.
Remember, this is about gaming, not an excuse to talk about your job! <g>
Remember, this is about gaming, not an excuse to talk about your job! <g>
Well I don't have any from tabletop games, but I lost track of the number of times this happened in Mount & Blade.
>Quest Log updated: Save [Village] from marauding bandits.
>[Village] has been looted by [Lord]'s party.
>Quest Log updated: Save [Village] from marauding bandits.
>[Village] has been looted by [Lord]'s party.
Do self-imposed tasks count?
Our current GM has been putting this Mary Sue NPC in the background that is basically a robocop cyborg with a religious bent.
The GM keeps fanwanking how powerful it is and reminds us every time we watch the news feeds.
So our team is plotting to get a hold of some high explosives to take it out. We managed to research some of it's abilities too so we're about 25% there.
Our current GM has been putting this Mary Sue NPC in the background that is basically a robocop cyborg with a religious bent.
The GM keeps fanwanking how powerful it is and reminds us every time we watch the news feeds.
So our team is plotting to get a hold of some high explosives to take it out. We managed to research some of it's abilities too so we're about 25% there.
If your characters are unscrupulous enough, lure the NPC into a fertilizer warehouse.
Everyone keeps forgetting about the old-fashioned way to get a 20 kT explosion (20,000 tonnes of explosives).
Everyone keeps forgetting about the old-fashioned way to get a 20 kT explosion (20,000 tonnes of explosives).
The idea is on the table, though the nearest such facility is a way out of town. :)
A train car, or better yet, cargo ship full also works. There's actually quite a bit in transit at any given time, as the factories that make it and the farms that use it (and the warehouses that store it) aren't in the same place.
I've given this sort of scenario a possibly-disturbing amount of thought over the years. The only reason why we (probably!) don't have to worry about an extremist group setting up a front organization to move/sell enough to fill a train without suspicion is that by the time they got big enough to do that, they'd be seeing enough money to not want to. Corruption working for the greater good (Celestianari would be proud).
I've given this sort of scenario a possibly-disturbing amount of thought over the years. The only reason why we (probably!) don't have to worry about an extremist group setting up a front organization to move/sell enough to fill a train without suspicion is that by the time they got big enough to do that, they'd be seeing enough money to not want to. Corruption working for the greater good (Celestianari would be proud).
First D&D game I was ever in, our DM had Tiamat glass our plane using superheated dragonfire. We spent the rest of the game trying to un-glass it. Ended up kidnapping some ents and stealing water from the elemental plane, etc. It was arduous.
I had a character who spoke in a very heavy accent and had trouble enunciating the pause between words. So his speeches often simply turnes into breathless rambling that no one else understood.
Killing a creature that resurrects and regenerates if not killed by gods. Self imposed by party as they chased ot after it ran away.
...They beat it by continuously pummeling its corpse ane then bringing it to Princess Celestia, who made it a statue and put it in her garden.
...They beat it by continuously pummeling its corpse ane then bringing it to Princess Celestia, who made it a statue and put it in her garden.
The usual workaround for that sort of thing is "stick a really big sharp thing in it, and don't remove it". At least one television show used something like this against a villain that went intangible (briefly) when struck.
Game-mechanics-wise, you'd end up with an embedded weapon doing constant damage/round, with them hitting zero/minus-ten each time, regenerating, and repeating the following round.
Ironically, your approach was probably more humane.
Game-mechanics-wise, you'd end up with an embedded weapon doing constant damage/round, with them hitting zero/minus-ten each time, regenerating, and repeating the following round.
Ironically, your approach was probably more humane.
My halfling Paladin once decided he wanted to intimidate the king of the Fomorians (a huge creature) in his own court, for personal reasons that had absolutely no impact on the campaign at all.
He succeeded.
He succeeded.
In order to pay for mercenaries to help the dwarves wage the war to retake their home the party agrees to seek out and slay a black dragon in the Demon Swamps ("Don't worry, there aren't any demons there anymore. They all got eaten.") and return with the hoard in less than a week. In order to save time they decided to go through the Beu Trappé Hills, an area marked as extremely dangerous on a DWARVEN map. The encounter there almost resulted in a TPK, despite the party outnumbering the enemy 4:3. And then they got to the really dangerous area.
On the bright side, it was a nice distraction from hunting for a piece of an armagedic artifact in The Archipelago of Doom! *kraka thoom!*
Not exactly traversing the entire continent in a trade sequence for the one perfect hammer or whatever, but it'll do.
Yo dawg I heard you like story time...
Well, this one time, Destrustor asked us to tell a story about story time. So, I told him about the time that he asked us to tell a story about story time.
"Yields a story I gave for story time when preceded by its own quotation" yields a story I gave for story time when preceded by its own quotation.
One time, there was a really cool prompt for a story, but I didn't have one. I felt sad. The end!
Once upon a time...
...you did something that was extremely f***ed up, and then you forgot about it.
You never said sorry and at the time you pretended that you did nothing wrong.
It's years later now, and you can't say sorry. The person you hurt is gone. You can't say anything to them. You can't do anything for them. You can't decide against the thing you did.
But you could've.
Once upon a time.
Isn't story-time fun, kids?
...you did something that was extremely f***ed up, and then you forgot about it.
You never said sorry and at the time you pretended that you did nothing wrong.
It's years later now, and you can't say sorry. The person you hurt is gone. You can't say anything to them. You can't do anything for them. You can't decide against the thing you did.
But you could've.
Once upon a time.
Isn't story-time fun, kids?
Story time! C'mon grabs your friends!
We're to talk 'bout distant lands!
With Newb the Spud and Lynt the Mas,
the tales will never end, it's Story Time!
We're to talk 'bout distant lands!
With Newb the Spud and Lynt the Mas,
the tales will never end, it's Story Time!
Fetch quest, wooo!
Once in a sci-fi adventure I played in, we hard to go on a particularly large and important fetch quest to retrieve several shards of this important gemstone that could stop a bunch of rampant space zombies. At the end of the game we were given a chance to throw the pieces back in a portal to another universe, and with the space zombies on our heels naturally everyone agreed with it. Except for my rouge, unfortunately. She had swallowed one of the shards prior because she was secretly working for an organization that wanted to weaponize the space zombies. The party's response to this predicament?
Throw my rouge through the portal and never look back.
Once in a sci-fi adventure I played in, we hard to go on a particularly large and important fetch quest to retrieve several shards of this important gemstone that could stop a bunch of rampant space zombies. At the end of the game we were given a chance to throw the pieces back in a portal to another universe, and with the space zombies on our heels naturally everyone agreed with it. Except for my rouge, unfortunately. She had swallowed one of the shards prior because she was secretly working for an organization that wanted to weaponize the space zombies. The party's response to this predicament?
Throw my rouge through the portal and never look back.
No more make-up then? You do look a little plainer than normal...
I wonder if the comic will ever acknowledge the part about dragons eating gems...
I always just kinda assumed gems are common Equestria - and why wouldn't they be? The world wasn't made by chance, it was made with an intention.
I always just kinda assumed gems are common Equestria - and why wouldn't they be? The world wasn't made by chance, it was made with an intention.
Obviously so dragons wouldnt depopulate the rest of the planet.
Given that Equestrian gems are all over the place, eaten as food by some creatures, still common despite the land being settled for a long time, and "farmed" inside geodes, my money is on them being some kind of mineral-based plant life rather than the type of gems we have on Earth.
Behold, by popular demand, here is Too Many Pinkies, Part 3. To read the earlier parts (and other alt-scripts), check out my official Alt-Script Compendium.
¡S03E03 “Too Many Pinkies” endorses genocide! The Writer, Dave Polsky also opposes science in the episode S01E15 "Feeling Pinky Keen".
Hasbro freaks out when Ditzy Doo gets lines but opposes science and endorses genocide. I do not understand Hasbro. Ditzy Doo can summarize my feelings about Hasbro endorsing genocide and opposing science with a simple 1-liner:
“¡I just don’t know what went wrong!”
——
Ditzy Doo
Hasbro freaks out when Ditzy Doo gets lines but opposes science and endorses genocide. I do not understand Hasbro. Ditzy Doo can summarize my feelings about Hasbro endorsing genocide and opposing science with a simple 1-liner:
“¡I just don’t know what went wrong!”
——
Ditzy Doo
I just reread the first 2 parts of the altscript and read the third part too. It completely ignores the more and ethical problems of creating sentient beings. I completely ignores the ethical and more problems of genocide.
Yeah, it does more resemble an attempt at trolling than a serious concern.
It is a serious concern. I have serious ethical problems with the creation and destruction of thinking feeling beings. In neither the episode nor the altscript, does anypony try to determine whether these mares have personhood. Pinkamena Diane Pie casually creates them. Twilight Sparkle casually murders them.
Twilight Sparkle should have tried to determine whether these mares have personhood or are automatons. Even if she would be certain that these mare are automatons, she should have consulted with the Princesses Luna & Celestia before proceeding.
In the real world, it someone would create a few scores of clones from a random person and raise them into adulthood, and them someone else would murder the clones, both the cloner and the murderer as well as the donor, if the donor knew what transpired, would face many felony charges, if the authorities discover what transpired.
Twilight Sparkle should have tried to determine whether these mares have personhood or are automatons. Even if she would be certain that these mare are automatons, she should have consulted with the Princesses Luna & Celestia before proceeding.
In the real world, it someone would create a few scores of clones from a random person and raise them into adulthood, and them someone else would murder the clones, both the cloner and the murderer as well as the donor, if the donor knew what transpired, would face many felony charges, if the authorities discover what transpired.
Before the argument can be made that Twilight committed murder, it is necessary to demonstrate a) that the products of the mirror pool are people, rather than reflections of such, and b) that they cease to exist. The duplicates couldn't pass Twilight's variation of a Turing test, but she did express concern about trapping the real Pinkie in the pool by mistake. Trapping, not killing.
Notice also that no Pinkie, original or duplicate, ever raised an objection to Twilight's goal or action. If they weren't worried about being killed, even once the room started to clear, which is more likely: that no one in the room cared about the possibility of death, or that no one was dying?
Notice also that no Pinkie, original or duplicate, ever raised an objection to Twilight's goal or action. If they weren't worried about being killed, even once the room started to clear, which is more likely: that no one in the room cared about the possibility of death, or that no one was dying?
There basically children, so I don't think that the Pinkie clones were even AWARE of what death is.
Malbutorius:
> “There basically children, so I don’t think that the Pinkie clones were even AWARE of what death is.”
Yes, they are foallike. They do not know what death is and they have a short attentionspan. Consider that they are only hours old. ¿What else should one expect? Let us examine the first duplicate:
The duplicates come into existence with limited knowledge and a compulsion to do what their creator wants them to do. Pinkamena Diane Pie wants the duplicates to have fun, so they want to have fun. After creating the first duplicate, Pinkamena Diane Pie sends the duplicate to Sweet AppleAcres, but en route, encounters FlutterShy. The duplicate has a conflict. She tries to figure out a solution, but cannot. She returns to Pinkamena Diane Pie with clear symptoms of depression and anxiety. In mine humble opinion, she is sentient but naïve.
* ¿Does anypony deny that the first duplicate tries to figure out a solution using her mind?
* ¿Does anypony deny that the duplicates express the emotions of joy, boredom depression, anxiety, et al?
> “There basically children, so I don’t think that the Pinkie clones were even AWARE of what death is.”
Yes, they are foallike. They do not know what death is and they have a short attentionspan. Consider that they are only hours old. ¿What else should one expect? Let us examine the first duplicate:
The duplicates come into existence with limited knowledge and a compulsion to do what their creator wants them to do. Pinkamena Diane Pie wants the duplicates to have fun, so they want to have fun. After creating the first duplicate, Pinkamena Diane Pie sends the duplicate to Sweet AppleAcres, but en route, encounters FlutterShy. The duplicate has a conflict. She tries to figure out a solution, but cannot. She returns to Pinkamena Diane Pie with clear symptoms of depression and anxiety. In mine humble opinion, she is sentient but naïve.
* ¿Does anypony deny that the first duplicate tries to figure out a solution using her mind?
* ¿Does anypony deny that the duplicates express the emotions of joy, boredom depression, anxiety, et al?
6th Apr 2013, 5:26 PM
So, as long as one does not try to determine whether something has personhood, itis okay to kill it.
edit
⇗
delete
reply
⇗
Zuche:
> “Before the argument can be made that Twilight committed murder, it is necessary to demonstrate:”
> “a) that the products of the mirror pool are people, rather than reflections of such,”
So, as long as one never tries to determine whether something is sentient, it is okay to kill it.
> “b) that they cease to exist. The duplicates couldn’t pass Twilight’s variation of a Turing test, but she did express concern about trapping the real Pinkie in the pool by mistake. Trapping, not killing.”
For all be know returning them to the MirrorPool destroys their consciousness.
I have more to say, but Malbutorius partially addresses my next point so I shall reply to Malbutorius and elaborate there.
> “Before the argument can be made that Twilight committed murder, it is necessary to demonstrate:”
> “a) that the products of the mirror pool are people, rather than reflections of such,”
So, as long as one never tries to determine whether something is sentient, it is okay to kill it.
> “b) that they cease to exist. The duplicates couldn’t pass Twilight’s variation of a Turing test, but she did express concern about trapping the real Pinkie in the pool by mistake. Trapping, not killing.”
For all be know returning them to the MirrorPool destroys their consciousness.
I have more to say, but Malbutorius partially addresses my next point so I shall reply to Malbutorius and elaborate there.
Walabio, dodging the first point doesn't help your case. You're the one claiming murder without proof. It can be an amusing assertion (you yourself even started this discussion by trying to make a joke out of it), but it's not supported by the show.
In mine humble opinion, she is sentient but naïve.
An opinion isn't proof. Not one character in the show raises objections to Twilight's solution. None of them have demonstrated murderous tendencies previously, not even when dealing with a swarm of parasprites, an invasion of changelings, or Discord. Therefore, your position maintains that they must have broken character. As the show did not demonstrate that the duplicates were anything more than programs designed to seek one goal. The reaction to Fluttershy's offer demonstrated a poor version of the Buridan's ass paradox. Where Pinkie did not want to choose and you'd expect a child to take the most immediate option (which is why this is not a proper demonstration of the paradox), her duplicate was unable to choose. That does not demonstrate sentience.
For all be know returning them to the MirrorPool destroys their consciousness.
When "For all we know," contradicts what the characters in the show know and what we know of said characters, "For all we know" is not an argument so much as it is an attempt to duck around inconvenient facts. If the duplicates had been children or the equivalent of such, the Pinkie we know would not have allowed them to come to harm. None of the other characters would have either. The story didn't require them to act out of character. The argument that Twilight committed murder does, seeking to introduce an ethical conflict into the program where none exists.
In mine humble opinion, she is sentient but naïve.
An opinion isn't proof. Not one character in the show raises objections to Twilight's solution. None of them have demonstrated murderous tendencies previously, not even when dealing with a swarm of parasprites, an invasion of changelings, or Discord. Therefore, your position maintains that they must have broken character. As the show did not demonstrate that the duplicates were anything more than programs designed to seek one goal. The reaction to Fluttershy's offer demonstrated a poor version of the Buridan's ass paradox. Where Pinkie did not want to choose and you'd expect a child to take the most immediate option (which is why this is not a proper demonstration of the paradox), her duplicate was unable to choose. That does not demonstrate sentience.
For all be know returning them to the MirrorPool destroys their consciousness.
When "For all we know," contradicts what the characters in the show know and what we know of said characters, "For all we know" is not an argument so much as it is an attempt to duck around inconvenient facts. If the duplicates had been children or the equivalent of such, the Pinkie we know would not have allowed them to come to harm. None of the other characters would have either. The story didn't require them to act out of character. The argument that Twilight committed murder does, seeking to introduce an ethical conflict into the program where none exists.
6th Apr 2013, 11:07 PM
Ask a lawyer whether a jury is likely to aquit on the grounds that one did not prove the victim sentient.
edit
⇗
delete
reply
⇗
Zuche 6th Apr 2013, 7:53 PM:
> “Walabio, dodging the first point doesn’t help your case.”
I do not dodge:
When it comes to homicide, humans are legally assumed to have personhood. Ask a lawyer ¿whether a jury is likely to acquit one of murder of a random stranger if one argues that none demonstrated that the victim has sentience? Your argument is special pleading:
The rules for homicide and equicide should be different.
If the Princesses agree with you that the prosecution must prove personhood of the victim before even inditing a pony for equicide, then nopony will be safe.
> “You’re the one claiming murder without proof.”
I follow precedents from the human world:
Where I live, in the State of California, in the United States of America, If I kill my neighbors just for watching them die, the DA does not have to prove that my neighbors have personhood in order to charge me with murder.
> “It can be an amusing assertion (you yourself even started this discussion by trying to make a joke out of it), but it’s not supported by the show.”
I did not make a joke.
> > “In mine humble opinion, she is sentient but naïve.”
> “An opinion isn’t proof.”
Your assertion that the duplicates do not have personhood is also an opinion. Legally one assumes that humans have personhood. Otherwise, we would effectively decriminalize homicide.
> “Not one character in the show raises objections to Twilight’s solution.”
Dave Polsky wrote the episode. He turned the prosciencestance of the show on its head:
If Twilight Sparkle would live in our world, she would be a graduatestudent. In S01E15 "Feeling Pinkie Kee", she does cargocultscience, then gives up and proclaims stat one cannot study or understand the natural world. If we humand had an attitude like that, we would still live in caves. The character of Twilight Sparkle in S01E15 "Feeling Pinkie Keen" is not like that in other episodes, so Dave Polsky is not good at writing for the characters of MLP:FIM.
> “None of them have demonstrated murderous tendencies previously, not even when dealing with a swarm of parasprites, an invasion of changelings, or Discord. Therefore, your position maintains that they must have broken character.”
Yes, Dave Polsky wrote them.
> “As the show did not demonstrate that the duplicates were anything more than programs designed to seek one goal. The reaction to Fluttershy’s offer demonstrated a poor version of the Buridan’s ass paradox. Where Pinkie did not want to choose and you’d expect a child to take the most immediate option (which is why this is not a proper demonstration of the paradox), her duplicate was unable to choose. That does not demonstrate sentience.”
Yes, she was caught in analysisparalysis, but she tried to think a solution and experience anxiety and depression. She did not just stand there saying “¡Fun! ¡Fun! ¡Fun!” or choose randomly (interestingly, choosing randomly would have been an adequate solution). She tried to think and experience emotions other than joy.
> > “For all be know returning them to the MirrorPool destroys their consciousness.”
> “When ’For all we know,’ contradicts what the characters in the show know and what we know of said characters, ’For all we know’ is not an argument so much as it is an attempt to duck around inconvenient facts. If the duplicates had been children or the equivalent of such, the Pinkie we know would not have allowed them to come to harm. None of the other characters would have either. The story didn’t require them to act out of character. The argument that Twilight committed murder does, seeking to introduce an ethical conflict into the program where none exists.”
I do not go on faith that the duplicates are automatons. I want evidence. Indeed, this is the problem with the episode:
Dave Polsky, a writer showing a contempt for science in S01E15 “Feeling Pinkie Keen”, refuses to demonstrate that the duplicates are not sentient, and although he could have wrote a scene lasting only 5 to 10 seconds showing the duplicates partying in the MirrorPool at the end of the episode, he did not do so.
I wonder what Tara Strong and AndrAIa Eva Libman think about the antiscientific attitude of Dave Polsky:
Tara Strong is an inventor and AndrAIa Eva Libman in an Engineer.
> “Walabio, dodging the first point doesn’t help your case.”
I do not dodge:
When it comes to homicide, humans are legally assumed to have personhood. Ask a lawyer ¿whether a jury is likely to acquit one of murder of a random stranger if one argues that none demonstrated that the victim has sentience? Your argument is special pleading:
The rules for homicide and equicide should be different.
If the Princesses agree with you that the prosecution must prove personhood of the victim before even inditing a pony for equicide, then nopony will be safe.
> “You’re the one claiming murder without proof.”
I follow precedents from the human world:
Where I live, in the State of California, in the United States of America, If I kill my neighbors just for watching them die, the DA does not have to prove that my neighbors have personhood in order to charge me with murder.
> “It can be an amusing assertion (you yourself even started this discussion by trying to make a joke out of it), but it’s not supported by the show.”
I did not make a joke.
> > “In mine humble opinion, she is sentient but naïve.”
> “An opinion isn’t proof.”
Your assertion that the duplicates do not have personhood is also an opinion. Legally one assumes that humans have personhood. Otherwise, we would effectively decriminalize homicide.
> “Not one character in the show raises objections to Twilight’s solution.”
Dave Polsky wrote the episode. He turned the prosciencestance of the show on its head:
If Twilight Sparkle would live in our world, she would be a graduatestudent. In S01E15 "Feeling Pinkie Kee", she does cargocultscience, then gives up and proclaims stat one cannot study or understand the natural world. If we humand had an attitude like that, we would still live in caves. The character of Twilight Sparkle in S01E15 "Feeling Pinkie Keen" is not like that in other episodes, so Dave Polsky is not good at writing for the characters of MLP:FIM.
> “None of them have demonstrated murderous tendencies previously, not even when dealing with a swarm of parasprites, an invasion of changelings, or Discord. Therefore, your position maintains that they must have broken character.”
Yes, Dave Polsky wrote them.
> “As the show did not demonstrate that the duplicates were anything more than programs designed to seek one goal. The reaction to Fluttershy’s offer demonstrated a poor version of the Buridan’s ass paradox. Where Pinkie did not want to choose and you’d expect a child to take the most immediate option (which is why this is not a proper demonstration of the paradox), her duplicate was unable to choose. That does not demonstrate sentience.”
Yes, she was caught in analysisparalysis, but she tried to think a solution and experience anxiety and depression. She did not just stand there saying “¡Fun! ¡Fun! ¡Fun!” or choose randomly (interestingly, choosing randomly would have been an adequate solution). She tried to think and experience emotions other than joy.
> > “For all be know returning them to the MirrorPool destroys their consciousness.”
> “When ’For all we know,’ contradicts what the characters in the show know and what we know of said characters, ’For all we know’ is not an argument so much as it is an attempt to duck around inconvenient facts. If the duplicates had been children or the equivalent of such, the Pinkie we know would not have allowed them to come to harm. None of the other characters would have either. The story didn’t require them to act out of character. The argument that Twilight committed murder does, seeking to introduce an ethical conflict into the program where none exists.”
I do not go on faith that the duplicates are automatons. I want evidence. Indeed, this is the problem with the episode:
Dave Polsky, a writer showing a contempt for science in S01E15 “Feeling Pinkie Keen”, refuses to demonstrate that the duplicates are not sentient, and although he could have wrote a scene lasting only 5 to 10 seconds showing the duplicates partying in the MirrorPool at the end of the episode, he did not do so.
I wonder what Tara Strong and AndrAIa Eva Libman think about the antiscientific attitude of Dave Polsky:
Tara Strong is an inventor and AndrAIa Eva Libman in an Engineer.
Walabio, you are dodging because you haven't demonstrated that a magical reflection of a person must also be a person. We are given no reason to assume that. You write off the differences between Pinkie and her reflections as them being only hours old, conveniently ignoring the fact that this does not prevent them from being able to talk better than the month old Cake twins. Since we do not see them use this ability for any purpose other than to fulfill the fun directive, we have no reason to assume sentience. The show and its characters treat them as programs. Your attempts to argue otherwise is concern trolling. Asking what Tara Strong and Andrea Libman must have thought of another episode is more of the same.
Time to follow the example of more sensible people in the comments section.
Time to follow the example of more sensible people in the comments section.
Personally I would have spread the Pinkie clones across equestria and the world to every city in the world, and now every city in the world has a party pony, PLOT SOLVED! (Also, they have shown learning ability to a limited extent, so that means they are an extremely intelligent animal at worst and sentient at best)
Malbutorius 7th Apr 2013, 1:15 AM:
> “Personally I would have spread the Pinkie clones across equestria and the world to every city in the world, and now every city in the world has a party pony, PLOT SOLVED!”
I agree.
> “(Also, they have shown learning ability to a limited extent, so that means they are an extremely intelligent animal at worst and sentient at best)”
I could not have said it better myself.
> “Personally I would have spread the Pinkie clones across equestria and the world to every city in the world, and now every city in the world has a party pony, PLOT SOLVED!”
I agree.
> “(Also, they have shown learning ability to a limited extent, so that means they are an extremely intelligent animal at worst and sentient at best)”
I could not have said it better myself.
That's like trying to clear up a venereal disease by spreading it. Computer programs have applied data to simulate learning without demonstrating artificial intelligence, so the argument that the reflections can retain information does not demonstrate intelligence. Notice that none of them ever applied the information they were given for any reason other than to participate in what amounts to a quiz game.
Look, if you want a story in which a character creates life that the community seeks to have destroyed, I suggest Frankenstein or perhaps the original Short Circuit. "Too Many Pinkie Pies" wasn't it.
Look, if you want a story in which a character creates life that the community seeks to have destroyed, I suggest Frankenstein or perhaps the original Short Circuit. "Too Many Pinkie Pies" wasn't it.
7th Apr 2013, 11:55 AM
Dave Polsky and Merriwether Williams write MLP:FIM too dark.
edit
⇗
delete
reply
⇗
Zuche 7th Apr 2013, 8:13 AM:
> “That’s like trying to clear up a venereal disease by spreading it.”
They cannot reproduce asexually without the MirrorPool. If you are right, then each community will only have to deal with 1 annoying automaton.
If these are real mares, then they will learn. They will discover that their true talent is not partying; thus, their CutieMarks will fade. In time, they will discover their true talents and get their true CutieMarks.
In a decade, we could have fully actualized individual mares. I wonder ¿whether they could reproduce sexually? or ¿wheter duplicates are sterile?
> “Computer programs have applied data to simulate learning without demonstrating artificial intelligence, so the argument that the reflections can retain information does not demonstrate intelligence. Notice that none of them ever applied the information they were given for any reason other than to participate in what amounts to a quiz game.”
It could that they are too naïve to realize that life is not a game.
> “Look, if you want a story in which a character creates life that the community seeks to have destroyed, I suggest Frankenstein or perhaps the original Short Circuit. ’Too Many Pinkie Pies’ wasn’t it.”
I do not want a dark story. That is why I find S03E03 “Too Many Pinkies” so disturbing. Dave Polsky and Merriwether Williams write the show too dark. They do not get the characters right. The problem with those 2 writers is precisely that they write too dark. Let us compare those 2 to Meghan McCarthy:
Meghan McCarthy wrote S02E25 “A CanterlorWedding —— Part # 1” and S02E26 “A CanterlotWedding —— Part # 2”. Those episodes have a ChangelingInvasion, yet are still light. 1 of the things I like about MLP:FIM is its lack of cynicism.
The problems with S03E03 “Too Many Pinkies” could have been fixed with a minor rewrite. The episode did not have to be dark.
> “That’s like trying to clear up a venereal disease by spreading it.”
They cannot reproduce asexually without the MirrorPool. If you are right, then each community will only have to deal with 1 annoying automaton.
If these are real mares, then they will learn. They will discover that their true talent is not partying; thus, their CutieMarks will fade. In time, they will discover their true talents and get their true CutieMarks.
In a decade, we could have fully actualized individual mares. I wonder ¿whether they could reproduce sexually? or ¿wheter duplicates are sterile?
> “Computer programs have applied data to simulate learning without demonstrating artificial intelligence, so the argument that the reflections can retain information does not demonstrate intelligence. Notice that none of them ever applied the information they were given for any reason other than to participate in what amounts to a quiz game.”
It could that they are too naïve to realize that life is not a game.
> “Look, if you want a story in which a character creates life that the community seeks to have destroyed, I suggest Frankenstein or perhaps the original Short Circuit. ’Too Many Pinkie Pies’ wasn’t it.”
I do not want a dark story. That is why I find S03E03 “Too Many Pinkies” so disturbing. Dave Polsky and Merriwether Williams write the show too dark. They do not get the characters right. The problem with those 2 writers is precisely that they write too dark. Let us compare those 2 to Meghan McCarthy:
Meghan McCarthy wrote S02E25 “A CanterlorWedding —— Part # 1” and S02E26 “A CanterlotWedding —— Part # 2”. Those episodes have a ChangelingInvasion, yet are still light. 1 of the things I like about MLP:FIM is its lack of cynicism.
The problems with S03E03 “Too Many Pinkies” could have been fixed with a minor rewrite. The episode did not have to be dark.
Zuche 7th Apr 2013, 12:47 AM:
> “Walabio, you are dodging because you haven’t demonstrated that a magical reflection of a person must also be a person.”
We reached an impasse here:
I err on the side of caution; while, you on the other hand, need proof of personhood.
> “Walabio, you are dodging because you haven’t demonstrated that a magical reflection of a person must also be a person.”
We reached an impasse here:
I err on the side of caution; while, you on the other hand, need proof of personhood.
I error on the side of caution...
No. You claimed that a writer advocated genocide. That is not erring on the side of caution. That's being a jerk, to put it mildly.
If the character in a work of fiction do not treat simulacra as people, the audience cannot assume that they are people. Proof is required. It has yet to be demonstrated.
No. You claimed that a writer advocated genocide. That is not erring on the side of caution. That's being a jerk, to put it mildly.
If the character in a work of fiction do not treat simulacra as people, the audience cannot assume that they are people. Proof is required. It has yet to be demonstrated.
Zuche 7th Apr 2013, 8:31 AM:
> > “I err on the side of caution. … ”
> “No. You claimed that a writer advocated genocide. That is not erring on the side of caution. That’s being a jerk, to put it mildly.”
Dave Polsky wrote the episode in such a way, that genocide is a possible interpretation. Dave polsky could have wrote S03E03 "Too Many Pinkies" too in such a way that it would not be dark:
* Make it obvious that the duplicates are automatons.
* State in dialog that the mares are automatons.
* Have a scene lasting only 5 to 10 seconds at the end of the episode showing the duplicates partying in the MirrorPool.
Dave Polsky brought this on himself.
> > “I err on the side of caution. … ”
> “No. You claimed that a writer advocated genocide. That is not erring on the side of caution. That’s being a jerk, to put it mildly.”
Dave Polsky wrote the episode in such a way, that genocide is a possible interpretation. Dave polsky could have wrote S03E03 "Too Many Pinkies" too in such a way that it would not be dark:
* Make it obvious that the duplicates are automatons.
* State in dialog that the mares are automatons.
* Have a scene lasting only 5 to 10 seconds at the end of the episode showing the duplicates partying in the MirrorPool.
Dave Polsky brought this on himself.
And Honestly, the first message you wrote is just... *Shaking head*
Actually as a note Dave Polsky has never opposed science. As seen in the youtube video with this ending: /watch?v=rWOCGpqLTos
At the 1:32:50 mark a person asks a question about the religious undertones and he states that he didn't even consider it could be interpreted in a religious manner until the audience did. He even stated examples from science that inspiration was taken from and he is a philosophy of science major.
I won't get into the Too Many Pinkie's argument as it seems to have died down, but it is hard to claim "Dave Polsky also opposes science in the episode S01E15 "Feeling Pinky Keen"" As he did not in anyway do so intentionally. You can say that he failed to convey his meaning probably or to look at things from the perspective of people who care about the science vs religion debate. You can't say he opposes science because he frankly doesn't.
I only found this worth mentioning because Walabio seems to reference this as a negative mark against Dave multiple times, which could colour his opinion of Dave unfairly.
I will note however that Pinkie is Best Pony, and that Too Many Pinkie's is my least favourite Pinkie Pie episode, though not for the reasons argued here.
Edit: Actually I think it is pretty clear with his works that Dave Polsky writing style could be one which involves only his interpretations, and does not consider and/or care about the possibility of any interpretation but his own. Also as the interview also revealed, he was very, very late to finding out about Bronies, so I imagine that it is truly possible that he didn't know his episodes have had any controversy put on them until after he was already done Too Many Pinkies, and so didn't realize he had a need to prove the Pinkie copies were not living.
Furthermore, he must not have been the only one who saw the scripts before they were animated so others must have agreed with his interpretations.
(more trying to give an idea of the episodes from the possible perception of the author more than anything here)
At the 1:32:50 mark a person asks a question about the religious undertones and he states that he didn't even consider it could be interpreted in a religious manner until the audience did. He even stated examples from science that inspiration was taken from and he is a philosophy of science major.
I won't get into the Too Many Pinkie's argument as it seems to have died down, but it is hard to claim "Dave Polsky also opposes science in the episode S01E15 "Feeling Pinky Keen"" As he did not in anyway do so intentionally. You can say that he failed to convey his meaning probably or to look at things from the perspective of people who care about the science vs religion debate. You can't say he opposes science because he frankly doesn't.
I only found this worth mentioning because Walabio seems to reference this as a negative mark against Dave multiple times, which could colour his opinion of Dave unfairly.
I will note however that Pinkie is Best Pony, and that Too Many Pinkie's is my least favourite Pinkie Pie episode, though not for the reasons argued here.
Edit: Actually I think it is pretty clear with his works that Dave Polsky writing style could be one which involves only his interpretations, and does not consider and/or care about the possibility of any interpretation but his own. Also as the interview also revealed, he was very, very late to finding out about Bronies, so I imagine that it is truly possible that he didn't know his episodes have had any controversy put on them until after he was already done Too Many Pinkies, and so didn't realize he had a need to prove the Pinkie copies were not living.
Furthermore, he must not have been the only one who saw the scripts before they were animated so others must have agreed with his interpretations.
(more trying to give an idea of the episodes from the possible perception of the author more than anything here)
8th Apr 2013, 1:55 PM
The genocide in Too Many Pinkies and the AntiScience in Feeling Pinkie Keen are separate issues.
edit
⇗
delete
reply
⇗
BornEquestrian 8th Apr 2013, 9:51 AM:
> “Actually as a note Dave Polsky has never opposed science. As seen in the youtube video with this ending: /watch?v=rWOCGpqLTos”
I shall find the time to watch that today, but from your reaction, it is clear that I did not make my points well.
In S01E15 “Feeling Pinkie Keen”, Dave Polsky gives us the sort of StrawMan of Science one would expect from a CreaTard (Flat/Young-Earth Geocentric Creationist). He has Twilight Sparkle perform CargoCultScience (something looking superficially like science, but is not). The first step in investigating a phenomenon is to determine whether it exists. Otherwise one ends up like those stupid ghosthunters running around in the dark yelling “⸘What’s That‽”.
Rather than put a saladbowl on Pinkamena Diane Pie, she should have used a timer, coin, light objects, and a notebook:
Every minute, either drop a light object on Pinkamena Diane Pie or do not. Let the coin decide. Record what the Pinkie-Sense predicts versus the whether the coin told her to drop an object or not. After about an hour, she should have enough data for statistical analysis.
Instead, Twilight Sparkle does CargoCultScience, gives up, and them decides that ponies should turn their backs on science and technology and return to living in caves and defecating in their drinking water.
Merriwether Williams and Dave Polsky write too darkly for the show:
The first episode of Merriwether Williams, S02E08 “The Mysterious Mare Do Well” shows Ponyville as a deathtrap full of flankholes where saving ponies from certain death is a bad thing.
Dave Polsky, in S03E03 “Too Many Pinkies”, shows that it is okay to create and destroy scores of possibly sentient beings on a whim.
Now that I clarified my problems with Dave Polsky, I shall watch the video. After I finish, I shall summarize my take on it in a reply to this post.
> “Actually as a note Dave Polsky has never opposed science. As seen in the youtube video with this ending: /watch?v=rWOCGpqLTos”
I shall find the time to watch that today, but from your reaction, it is clear that I did not make my points well.
In S01E15 “Feeling Pinkie Keen”, Dave Polsky gives us the sort of StrawMan of Science one would expect from a CreaTard (Flat/Young-Earth Geocentric Creationist). He has Twilight Sparkle perform CargoCultScience (something looking superficially like science, but is not). The first step in investigating a phenomenon is to determine whether it exists. Otherwise one ends up like those stupid ghosthunters running around in the dark yelling “⸘What’s That‽”.
Rather than put a saladbowl on Pinkamena Diane Pie, she should have used a timer, coin, light objects, and a notebook:
Every minute, either drop a light object on Pinkamena Diane Pie or do not. Let the coin decide. Record what the Pinkie-Sense predicts versus the whether the coin told her to drop an object or not. After about an hour, she should have enough data for statistical analysis.
Instead, Twilight Sparkle does CargoCultScience, gives up, and them decides that ponies should turn their backs on science and technology and return to living in caves and defecating in their drinking water.
Merriwether Williams and Dave Polsky write too darkly for the show:
The first episode of Merriwether Williams, S02E08 “The Mysterious Mare Do Well” shows Ponyville as a deathtrap full of flankholes where saving ponies from certain death is a bad thing.
Dave Polsky, in S03E03 “Too Many Pinkies”, shows that it is okay to create and destroy scores of possibly sentient beings on a whim.
Now that I clarified my problems with Dave Polsky, I shall watch the video. After I finish, I shall summarize my take on it in a reply to this post.
Thank you for taking such a large time frame out of your day to watch a video as large as that. Honestly I get your critique of Feeling Pinkie Keen, and shared some of it to, and to a large extent (though not quite to your magnitude) still do. However I hope that when he actually explains what he meant to do you see that he himself does not oppose science. That in particular was what I meant.
However, I would still hazard to say that the episode itself, when not taking authorial intent into the situation does oppose science. This is something I should have stated in my first comment to show that I got what you were trying to say, and so apologize for not being clear enough. Observing Pinkie was fine, but in a joke like set-up as the one with the hat downplayed what she was trying to accomplish.
I will say that saying "Instead, Twilight Sparkle does CargoCultScience, gives up, and them decides that ponies should turn their backs on science and technology and return to living in caves and defecating in their drinking water." is an extreme hyperbole to the message even with how it was conveyed. She lost faith in science explaining one thing,with the possibility of other things being unexplainable as well, not everything, and did not start living in a cave rejecting all forms of science and technology after it. While such hyperbole can be used to emphasize a point, I feel that here it is out of place, and accomplishes little. Not trying to be antagonistic forgive me if I sound like I am.
I think that Dave for all the apparent thought he put into his episodes (as I find the interview shows), suffers from very poor execution. Extremely poor in Feeling Pinkie Keen.
My point was more a clarification that it wasn't his intent, not that the message that the episode ended up apparently having was good in any right.
Dave seems to not handle moral implications well, or thinks in a way that is extremely different than those who watch the show, and so misses the implications that are obvious to them (while they in turn miss his implications for the same reason). This includes in Too Many Pinkies, which could have been less morally ambiguous by adding a two second scene where Twilight calls the clones "magical constructs" or some such thing to stop any claims of sentience. It still would not have affected my opinion of the episode because my issue with it is not that scene because my head canon is that magic cannot create truly life. That said it is head canon, and not an established point, so your interpretation is just as valid as mine, and is something that should have been addressed in the episode.
At times it is good to leave moral ambiguity, however, in Too Many Pinkies it directly suffers from it and causes conflict among fans because of it.
I won't disagree on Merriwether's Mysterious Mare Do Well, because I think that it narratively weak, and quite frankly think it was a waste of an episode slot that would have been much better used as a way to introduce Shinning Armor and give the message that the Royal Wedding would be happening soon, so that Twilight's brother didn't seem to be more of a plot point than character when the season 2 finale occurred.
I will say that Merriwether's "Heart's Warming Eve" was redeeming even if it didn't the historical issue of Celestia and Luna, or of Discord. I also find Dave's "Over a Barrel" and "Keep Calm and Flutter on" to be redeeming. Though I wish Keep Calm and Flutter on was allowed to be a two parter, however Discord's redemption being only one episode is not something he could have done anything about as he doesn't control time slots given for the stories he is told to write (which Discord's redemption was one he was given to write under the one episode limit, and not one that was chosen per say). I look forward to your opinion on the video.
However, I would still hazard to say that the episode itself, when not taking authorial intent into the situation does oppose science. This is something I should have stated in my first comment to show that I got what you were trying to say, and so apologize for not being clear enough. Observing Pinkie was fine, but in a joke like set-up as the one with the hat downplayed what she was trying to accomplish.
I will say that saying "Instead, Twilight Sparkle does CargoCultScience, gives up, and them decides that ponies should turn their backs on science and technology and return to living in caves and defecating in their drinking water." is an extreme hyperbole to the message even with how it was conveyed. She lost faith in science explaining one thing,with the possibility of other things being unexplainable as well, not everything, and did not start living in a cave rejecting all forms of science and technology after it. While such hyperbole can be used to emphasize a point, I feel that here it is out of place, and accomplishes little. Not trying to be antagonistic forgive me if I sound like I am.
I think that Dave for all the apparent thought he put into his episodes (as I find the interview shows), suffers from very poor execution. Extremely poor in Feeling Pinkie Keen.
My point was more a clarification that it wasn't his intent, not that the message that the episode ended up apparently having was good in any right.
Dave seems to not handle moral implications well, or thinks in a way that is extremely different than those who watch the show, and so misses the implications that are obvious to them (while they in turn miss his implications for the same reason). This includes in Too Many Pinkies, which could have been less morally ambiguous by adding a two second scene where Twilight calls the clones "magical constructs" or some such thing to stop any claims of sentience. It still would not have affected my opinion of the episode because my issue with it is not that scene because my head canon is that magic cannot create truly life. That said it is head canon, and not an established point, so your interpretation is just as valid as mine, and is something that should have been addressed in the episode.
At times it is good to leave moral ambiguity, however, in Too Many Pinkies it directly suffers from it and causes conflict among fans because of it.
I won't disagree on Merriwether's Mysterious Mare Do Well, because I think that it narratively weak, and quite frankly think it was a waste of an episode slot that would have been much better used as a way to introduce Shinning Armor and give the message that the Royal Wedding would be happening soon, so that Twilight's brother didn't seem to be more of a plot point than character when the season 2 finale occurred.
I will say that Merriwether's "Heart's Warming Eve" was redeeming even if it didn't the historical issue of Celestia and Luna, or of Discord. I also find Dave's "Over a Barrel" and "Keep Calm and Flutter on" to be redeeming. Though I wish Keep Calm and Flutter on was allowed to be a two parter, however Discord's redemption being only one episode is not something he could have done anything about as he doesn't control time slots given for the stories he is told to write (which Discord's redemption was one he was given to write under the one episode limit, and not one that was chosen per say). I look forward to your opinion on the video.
8th Apr 2013, 5:47 PM
My feelings about the interview is that Dave Polsky writes for himself, without considering the audience.
edit
⇗
delete
reply
⇗
BornEquestrian 8th Apr 2013, 4:02 PM:
> “Thank you for taking such a large time frame out of your day to watch a video as large as that. Honestly I get your critique of Feeling Pinkie Keen, and shared some of it to, and to a large extent (though not quite to your magnitude) still do.
I just had an emergencytonsillectomy, so cannot work this week anyway; so, I have the time to watch the video.
> ”However I hope that when he actually explains what he meant to do you see that he himself does not oppose science. That in particular was what I meant.“
Mine impression from the video is that he is oblivious to how others think. He also seems to think that others understand his thinking automatically.
> ”However, I would still hazard to say that the episode itself, when not taking authorial intent into the situation does oppose science. This is something I should have stated in my first comment to show that I got what you were trying to say, and so apologize for not being clear enough. Observing Pinkie was fine, but in a joke like set-up as the one with the hat downplayed what she was trying to accomplish.“
We agree that if we cannot read the mind of Dave Polsky, the episode is anitscientific. Just read its FriendshipReport:
> ”Dear Princess Celestia,“
> ”I am happy to report that I now realize there are wonderful things in this world you just can’t explain, but that doesn’t necessarily make them any less true. It just means you have to choose to believe in them. And sometimes it takes a friend to show you the way.“
> ”Always your faithful student,“
> ”Twilight Sparkle“
Also, in the episode, Twilight Sparkle conveniently forgets that she can teleport, so she has to make a literal leap of faith. This is how I would have wrote the FriendShipRePort:
> ”Dear Princess Celestia,“
> ”Today reminded me that Science is not a body of knowledge, but a way of discovering how the universe works. One must gather data, form hypotheses explaining the data, test the hypotheses, reject falsified hypotheses. That is how we discover truth. Currently, I Scientifically investigate a phenomenon called Pinkie-Sense.“
> ”Always your faithful student,“
> ”Twilight Sparkle“
I believe that my version of the FriendShipRePort is better.
> ”I will say that saying ’Instead, Twilight Sparkle does CargoCultScience, gives up, and them decides that ponies should turn their backs on science and technology and return to living in caves and defecating in their drinking water.’ is an extreme hyperbole to the message even with how it was conveyed. She lost faith in science explaining one thing,with the possibility of other things being unexplainable as well, not everything, and did not start living in a cave rejecting all forms of science and technology after it. While such hyperbole can be used to emphasize a point, I feel that here it is out of place, and accomplishes little. Not trying to be antagonistic forgive me if I sound like I am.“
It is a bit hyperbolic, but one must think about the message the show gives to children:
“I do not need to learn how the world works because cultleader will do all of my thinking for me.”
> ”I think that Dave for all the apparent thought he put into his episodes (as I find the interview shows), suffers from very poor execution. Extremely poor in Feeling Pinkie Keen.“
Indeed.
> ”My point was more a clarification that it wasn’t his intent, not that the message that the episode ended up apparently having was good in any right.“
I agree that his intentions are good, but his execution is terrible. I do not see ¿why he does not get help with his scripts?
> ”Dave seems to not handle moral implications well, or thinks in a way that is extremely different than those who watch the show, and so misses the implications that are obvious to them (while they in turn miss his implications for the same reason). This includes in Too Many Pinkies, which could have been less morally ambiguous by adding a two second scene where Twilight calls the clones “magical constructs” or some such thing to stop any claims of sentience. It still would not have affected my opinion of the episode because my issue with it is not that scene because my head canon is that magic cannot create truly life. That said it is head canon, and not an established point, so your interpretation is just as valid as mine, and is something that should have been addressed in the episode.“
He should ask other writers to help him with this problem. In the interview, he states that he is friends with Meghan McCarthy. Maybe, she could help him.
>” At times it is good to leave moral ambiguity, however, in Too Many Pinkies it directly suffers from it and causes conflict among fans because of it.“
¿How could having one protagonist create scores of sentient beings on a whim and then another protagonist murdering possibly split the fandom?
> ”I won’t disagree on Merriwether’s Mysterious Mare Do Well, because I think that it narratively weak, and quite frankly think it was a waste of an episode slot that would have been much better used as a way to introduce Shinning Armor and give the message that the Royal Wedding would be happening soon, so that Twilight’s brother didn’t seem to be more of a plot point than character when the season 2 finale occurred.“
I agree.
> ”I will say that Merriwether’s “Heart’s Warming Eve” was redeeming even if it didn’t the historical issue of Celestia and Luna, or of Discord. I also find Dave’s “Over a Barrel” and “Keep Calm and Flutter on” to be redeeming. Though I wish Keep Calm and Flutter on was allowed to be a 2-parter, however Discord’s redemption being only one episode is not something he could have done anything about as he doesn’t control time slots given for the stories he is told to write (which Discord’s redemption was one he was given to write under the one episode limit, and not one that was chosen per say). I look forward to your opinion on the video.“
I have to admit that those episodes are not bad.
Mine opinion of the interview is that Dave Polsky writes for himself, without a thought about the audience, at all. That pretty much summarizes my take on Dave Polsky.
> “Thank you for taking such a large time frame out of your day to watch a video as large as that. Honestly I get your critique of Feeling Pinkie Keen, and shared some of it to, and to a large extent (though not quite to your magnitude) still do.
I just had an emergencytonsillectomy, so cannot work this week anyway; so, I have the time to watch the video.
> ”However I hope that when he actually explains what he meant to do you see that he himself does not oppose science. That in particular was what I meant.“
Mine impression from the video is that he is oblivious to how others think. He also seems to think that others understand his thinking automatically.
> ”However, I would still hazard to say that the episode itself, when not taking authorial intent into the situation does oppose science. This is something I should have stated in my first comment to show that I got what you were trying to say, and so apologize for not being clear enough. Observing Pinkie was fine, but in a joke like set-up as the one with the hat downplayed what she was trying to accomplish.“
We agree that if we cannot read the mind of Dave Polsky, the episode is anitscientific. Just read its FriendshipReport:
> ”Dear Princess Celestia,“
> ”I am happy to report that I now realize there are wonderful things in this world you just can’t explain, but that doesn’t necessarily make them any less true. It just means you have to choose to believe in them. And sometimes it takes a friend to show you the way.“
> ”Always your faithful student,“
> ”Twilight Sparkle“
Also, in the episode, Twilight Sparkle conveniently forgets that she can teleport, so she has to make a literal leap of faith. This is how I would have wrote the FriendShipRePort:
> ”Dear Princess Celestia,“
> ”Today reminded me that Science is not a body of knowledge, but a way of discovering how the universe works. One must gather data, form hypotheses explaining the data, test the hypotheses, reject falsified hypotheses. That is how we discover truth. Currently, I Scientifically investigate a phenomenon called Pinkie-Sense.“
> ”Always your faithful student,“
> ”Twilight Sparkle“
I believe that my version of the FriendShipRePort is better.
> ”I will say that saying ’Instead, Twilight Sparkle does CargoCultScience, gives up, and them decides that ponies should turn their backs on science and technology and return to living in caves and defecating in their drinking water.’ is an extreme hyperbole to the message even with how it was conveyed. She lost faith in science explaining one thing,with the possibility of other things being unexplainable as well, not everything, and did not start living in a cave rejecting all forms of science and technology after it. While such hyperbole can be used to emphasize a point, I feel that here it is out of place, and accomplishes little. Not trying to be antagonistic forgive me if I sound like I am.“
It is a bit hyperbolic, but one must think about the message the show gives to children:
“I do not need to learn how the world works because cultleader will do all of my thinking for me.”
> ”I think that Dave for all the apparent thought he put into his episodes (as I find the interview shows), suffers from very poor execution. Extremely poor in Feeling Pinkie Keen.“
Indeed.
> ”My point was more a clarification that it wasn’t his intent, not that the message that the episode ended up apparently having was good in any right.“
I agree that his intentions are good, but his execution is terrible. I do not see ¿why he does not get help with his scripts?
> ”Dave seems to not handle moral implications well, or thinks in a way that is extremely different than those who watch the show, and so misses the implications that are obvious to them (while they in turn miss his implications for the same reason). This includes in Too Many Pinkies, which could have been less morally ambiguous by adding a two second scene where Twilight calls the clones “magical constructs” or some such thing to stop any claims of sentience. It still would not have affected my opinion of the episode because my issue with it is not that scene because my head canon is that magic cannot create truly life. That said it is head canon, and not an established point, so your interpretation is just as valid as mine, and is something that should have been addressed in the episode.“
He should ask other writers to help him with this problem. In the interview, he states that he is friends with Meghan McCarthy. Maybe, she could help him.
>” At times it is good to leave moral ambiguity, however, in Too Many Pinkies it directly suffers from it and causes conflict among fans because of it.“
¿How could having one protagonist create scores of sentient beings on a whim and then another protagonist murdering possibly split the fandom?
> ”I won’t disagree on Merriwether’s Mysterious Mare Do Well, because I think that it narratively weak, and quite frankly think it was a waste of an episode slot that would have been much better used as a way to introduce Shinning Armor and give the message that the Royal Wedding would be happening soon, so that Twilight’s brother didn’t seem to be more of a plot point than character when the season 2 finale occurred.“
I agree.
> ”I will say that Merriwether’s “Heart’s Warming Eve” was redeeming even if it didn’t the historical issue of Celestia and Luna, or of Discord. I also find Dave’s “Over a Barrel” and “Keep Calm and Flutter on” to be redeeming. Though I wish Keep Calm and Flutter on was allowed to be a 2-parter, however Discord’s redemption being only one episode is not something he could have done anything about as he doesn’t control time slots given for the stories he is told to write (which Discord’s redemption was one he was given to write under the one episode limit, and not one that was chosen per say). I look forward to your opinion on the video.“
I have to admit that those episodes are not bad.
Mine opinion of the interview is that Dave Polsky writes for himself, without a thought about the audience, at all. That pretty much summarizes my take on Dave Polsky.
Rereading from the beginning, Lyntermas, as I think I missed earlier chapters. Had to pause just to note that this may be the funniest thing I've read all week:
"Trapped in a body of citrus, tasty and helpless to defend itself or communicate or even perceive the outside world. It has no mouth and it must scream!"
Bonus points for reference to a work by one of Equestria's most infamous speculative writers, Howling Islesong.
"Trapped in a body of citrus, tasty and helpless to defend itself or communicate or even perceive the outside world. It has no mouth and it must scream!"
Bonus points for reference to a work by one of Equestria's most infamous speculative writers, Howling Islesong.
And Zuche in turn gets a bonus point for a name that actually sounds like a pony name, instead of just a horse pun.
Thank you, Nemryn. I wish I'd found a better word that Howling, though.
Lyntermas, thank you for that. Your handling of the paint drying challenge was educational and entertaining. I hope to find productive ways to adapt the lesson to my own games.
Lyntermas, thank you for that. Your handling of the paint drying challenge was educational and entertaining. I hope to find productive ways to adapt the lesson to my own games.
So, any suggestions for which episode I should do next?
He hired DefinitelyNotRaxon to fill in for him, but he too seems to be busy or something.
He should really fire that guy.
DefinitelyNotRaxon fire Raxon? Nah. He's good, but he seems to work better with a writer's support. It's not like God or Carson tells him what to say.
I know I've watched too much Project Runway when 5 outfits in one week sounds easy.
Great, after reading these comments I KNOW I'll be misspelling rogue from now on. Wait which way round is it again? I need to make a motto for this like how to spell grey (with an 'e' if you're 'E'nglish and with an 'a' if you're 'A'merican). Wait that doesn't work for me since I'm Australian but use English spelling, smeg!
Sorry, that's the best I have.
I think that makes sense.
Here's a good one:
Rouge (the Sonic character) is a rogue who wears rouge.
How's that?
Rouge (the Sonic character) is a rogue who wears rouge.
How's that?
Great, now it's just blurring together into this big mess of Ro**e ness, what's worse is now I'm reading rogue as rouge and I'm losing my frame of reference! which way is up?!!! Where's Raxon when you need him/her/it to restore balance
Just remember that "rouge" means "red" in French (and possibly a few other languages). I'm pretty sure that's why the make-up _has_ that name.
Ooh, let me try that little mnemonic thingy: Rogues Obtain Greed Un-Ending and Rouge Obscures Unsightly Grossness Excellently.
I am Grey Pen, The Flawed, The Busy, The Unfortunately-Unavailable-At-Most-Times, and I approve of this mnemonic.
1. "FUGUE" (as in "Toccata and Fugue" by Bach): if you were to shift that "G" into the 4th place (where it is in the cosmetic powder named "rouge"), then you would get "FUUGE," which isn't a word.
Since both Rogue (the class) and Fugue (the music) are pronounced with a hard "G," they're comparable; and the spelling of the one should help you with the spelling of the other. (Last three letters: "G-U-E": "Rogue" ends with "GUE" because "Fugue" does too.)
2. "MORGUE": if you were to shift that "G" into the 5th place (where it is in the word "garage"), then you would get "MORUGE," which isn't a word.
Since both Rogue (the class) and Morgue (the corpse-place) are pronounced with a hard "G," they're comparable; and the spelling of the one should help you with the spelling of the other. (Last three letters: "G-U-E": "Rogue" ends with "GUE" because "Morgue" does too.)
Ok who the heck let Raxon out of their sight! DON'T YOU REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME!
Don't you know, you never split the comments?
Digo in the back to keep the laughter hale and hearty.
Newbiespud in the middle, to keep the comic set up right,
and you never let Raxon get out of sight!
Digo in the back to keep the laughter hale and hearty.
Newbiespud in the middle, to keep the comic set up right,
and you never let Raxon get out of sight!
Best comic ever-
Will continue to read happily waiting for the wedding.
Will continue to read happily waiting for the wedding.
And once again I see the rogue is being called by other rogues to do honest work. Am I the only one who gets disappointed by that?
Normally, you're right, but think about it. Rarity is trying to advance in power. Working through the thieves' guild will get her power. All she has to do is play nicey-nice and then she can either use her contacts with other rogues to help her or she can give them up to Celestia for a whole ton of brownie points.
The fridge-logic here is that if Rarity can pull that many gems out of nowhere on demand, she really doesn't need the Guild's help to make money.
On the other hand, _selling_ that many gems on the legit market might be difficult, especially if they're claim-poached from diamond dog miners.
On the other hand, _selling_ that many gems on the legit market might be difficult, especially if they're claim-poached from diamond dog miners.
Assuming that Friendship is Dragons works roughly the same way scale wise as DnD gems are functionally "worthless"/"worth too much.
What I mean is that the lowest gem that anybody bothers trafficing in is worth 50gp and the average is 200gp (in my experience) That's like carrying around $500 dollar bills and shopping at stores that only care $20 in change. It sounds like you have a lot until you realize you're really just getting ripped off. Unless Rarity is buying castles with armies with them her gem finding ability might just be a case of maximum overkill.
What I mean is that the lowest gem that anybody bothers trafficing in is worth 50gp and the average is 200gp (in my experience) That's like carrying around $500 dollar bills and shopping at stores that only care $20 in change. It sounds like you have a lot until you realize you're really just getting ripped off. Unless Rarity is buying castles with armies with them her gem finding ability might just be a case of maximum overkill.
That just changes who you sell them to. Rather than trying to pay for town-run purchases with gems, you go to the city and sell them to jewellers and nobles for large amounts of gold.
The main constraint there is that there's a limit to how many you can pass without depressing the market (there's only so much gold available for luxuries in any given economy).
Sneaky DMs will also have nobles and merchants highly suspicious of where the gems came from, of course. You're unlikely to have stolen them from a living noble, but if you looted them from somewhere, they probably still technically were some living king's property, and if you'd dug them up in a mine, absolutely everyone will be trying to find that mine and wrest control from you. Fun times.
The main constraint there is that there's a limit to how many you can pass without depressing the market (there's only so much gold available for luxuries in any given economy).
Sneaky DMs will also have nobles and merchants highly suspicious of where the gems came from, of course. You're unlikely to have stolen them from a living noble, but if you looted them from somewhere, they probably still technically were some living king's property, and if you'd dug them up in a mine, absolutely everyone will be trying to find that mine and wrest control from you. Fun times.
It's important to note that the problem works the other way, too: You might have the 20,000 gp to buy a gem for a Really Spiffy imprisonment spell or similar, but nobody's selling one. There might be three in existence; two are crown jewels of living kings, and one is a religious relic belonging to a rather popular and powerful faith...
"From some Diamond Dogs that were being a nuisance."
"Huh. Serves these mutts right."
(and yay for finally having an avatar)
Thus was born Empress Rarity, Mistress of the Underdark.
Actually, considering Underdark lore she would be considered pretty benevolent in comparison to others who have ruled sections of it making Mistress much more apt. :p