I'm giving hellbooks credit for that being a direct comment on how twitters worldview makes little sense and combining it with her words about herself so I'm hoping that's the case.
You should approach all of my posts with a "death of the author" attitude (by which i mean you should read them and think "wow the author of this post should get limmed")
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
In post 3452, hellbooks wrote:
You should approach all of my posts with a "death of the author" attitude (by which i mean you should read them and think "wow the author of this post should get limmed")
a lot of people talk about the death of the artist but not that many talk about the death of the fartist.
I don't feel good about anyone being scum except fire
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
Tossing in this image created by schadd feel free to replace the captions with something that captures the three competing wagons with an adequate amount of humor
If I was clever I could determine something about the gamestate based on there being too many wagons
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
Are you calculating based on my status as confscum
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
It helps to make simplifyibg assumptions for instance I assume ari is town and I assume tris is my scumpartner
"Let us say that you are right and there are two worlds. How much, then, is this 'other world' worth to you? What do you have there that you do not have here? Money? Power? Something worth causing the prince so much pain for?'"
"Well, I..."
"What? Nothing? You would make the prince suffer over... nothing?"
You are asking simply what the wagonomics would say.
If you want to make further assumptions you're free to do so.
For what its worth I think that one of the ways analysis of wagons goes wrong is the person doing said analysis makes heavy assumptions about the game state outside of what is actually know. I think another way it frequently goes wrong is people use it as a determinative measure rather than a probabilistic measure, and a low probability one at that.
I'm answering earnestly because I don't know how else to respond to this bit at this point and I really don't like it.
*outside of what is actually known that should say and should further clarify that I think one of the major assumptions people make is that scum would do x or y in a certain wagon state when in my experience frequently these are percentage calls rather than absolutes which feeds into my second critique of the overall process.