38:07
(+3)
Samwell Tarly:
Samwell's letter is the final straw that convinces Jon Snow to ally with Daenerys Targaryen.
"This message was sent to me by Samwell Tarly. He was my brother at the Night's Watch. A man I trust as much as anyone in this world. He's discovered proof that Dragonstone sits on a mountain of dragonglass." (Convincing Argument)
"This message was sent to me by Samwell Tarly. He was my brother at the Night's Watch. A man I trust as much as anyone in this world. He's discovered proof that Dragonstone sits on a mountain of dragonglass." (Convincing Argument)
jgiuliano, taylorreneegoodrich, kimbo like this
-
-ssantise
jedjackoway likes this -
Jon had received the raven from Dragonstone "a few days ago" according to his speech and had not decided to go to Dragonstone. It was only after receiving the raven from Sam that was the deciding factor in his final decision. He mentions that he trusts Sam more than anyone else. This seems like a convincing argument. -hkeseyan
nyan likes this -
I contend that the letter from Sam was deciding factor that someone had to go to Dragonstone. In that same conversation Sansa herself asked Jon why not send someone else and his response was "Daenerys is a Queen and only a King can convince her" not "But Sam says there's dragonglass there". Anyone of Jon's council could go get the dragon glass but only he could convince her to join his army. -ssantise
nyan likes this -
Does it matter who goes to Dragonstone, the claim is that "Samwell's letter is the final straw that convinces Jon Snow to ally with Daenerys Targaryen." Whether Sam convinced Jon to go or someone else, he still convinced Jon to take someone down to Dragonstone to broker an alliance with Daenerys for some dragonglass through his dioscovery. -hkeseyan
-
Thats an interesting point but, when did Jon decide that he was never going to ally with Daenerys. I thought his only apprehension was physically going to Dragonstone because it might be a trap, but he always knew that he needed her army and dragons to defeat the white walkers. -ssantise
-
He received the first raven a fews days ago, as admitted by him. He did not act on that for a few days. But when he received Sam's raven, he immediately was convinced - the audio of him announcing this decision started playing while Jon was still in the room where he received the raven, showing that he called the meeting as a result of Sam's raven. I'd say that's a very convincing argument, at the very least, that Sam's letter was the straw that broke the camel's back. Without Sam's letter, we have no indication that Jon would have decided to go to Dragonstone. He didn't call a meeting after Tyrion's request, and his argument for going down there would have been much weaker without the knowledge that there is a mountain of dragonglass there. -hkeseyan
-
yes but the rule book clearly states that "A character can only "change minds" after they had initially decided in the opposite decision."
Just because Jon hadn't made a formal decision on whether to ally with Daenerys or not yet, and then finally makes his decision when he receives the raven is not enough. In order for it to get points as a "convincing argument" as defined in the rulebook then Jon must first have made the opposite decision that he would never become allies with Daeynerys, but since this never happened then this does not count. -ssantise
-
@ssantise is most technically correct on this one. ? but perhaps we should consider tweaking the text, there are a lot more decisions lately that have come out of debating advisors and no firm decision until the end. Originally the idea was for Robert making a proclamation and someone reasonable like Ned or Varys talking him out of it. Needless to say Jon is not quite a Robert-like ruler. -nyan
-
Didn't really convince him of anything, especially as it was a one-way message. Can't count for an argument if there is no dialogue, can it? -xdwxrd
-
Of course there can, you're thinking of an argument in terms of a heated exchange of opposing views, like a debate. An argument is also defined as a statement of reason(s) made to prove a point, it does not require dialog, the word is used in mathematics, law, and many other fields, like the central argument of an article/essay/paper, or a mathematical argument, or when someone is asked to "present their argument"
Either way, we'd be arguing semantics here, as if the ruleset for this game has been refined throughout history to best reflect the intentions of its creator. I think the intentions of this rule are pretty clear - if a character makes a statement that plays a major part in convincing a person in a position of power to make a certain decision that they likely would not have made without that statement, then the character should receive points. We shouldn't get technical and pick apart something that is very clear:
Jon had not decided to go to Dragonstone even a few days after receiving a raven from Tyrion, and Sam's raven immediately caused him to call the lords to order and state his decision, citing Sam's letter and how much he trusts Sam. The show writers even support this by having the audio of Jon speaking to the lords play while Jon is still shown in the room reading Sam's letter. Sam's actions convinced Jon to make a decision that he otherwise had not made up his mind on, give the man his points and be done with it. -hkeseyan
-
Also the category was convincing 'argument' considerimg the correspondence was one way you cant really say it was an arguement.
-hindsight44
-
I don't like the idea of tweaking the rulebook constantly so that everyone can get as many points of possible. I think its important to have a concrete set of rules that we can all rely on. I agree that there must be room for changes as the show evolves but I feel there should be a bit more formality around making substantial changes to the rulebook. -ssantise
-
@hindsight44 one definition of the word argument is a two-way debate that involves dialogue. but a "convincing argument" is just a one-way statement. if people exchange convincing arguments, that entire dialogue can be considered an argument. if an attorney presents an argument at a case, they are the only ones speaking, until the other side present their argument(s). if someone writes a critical essay (or like in this case, a letter), they are making a single argument to persuade the reader of something. these are all one-way arguments -hkeseyan
-
@ssantise and @hkeseyan, basically you are both on the sides that I'm trying to balance when refining the scorekeeping. As @ssantise says, for consistency and fairness, the rules shouldn't change drastically. And definitely not for reasons like "we want there to be as many scores as possible". But as @hkeseyan and I'm sure lots of people realized, there are lots of areas to improve on the scoring rules, and that's especially true since the original rules were just what I could think of on my own when I started the game - each year lots of players are bringing in new ideas and are continually making the game better, and we still haven't quite reached the point where everything if fully stabilized.
For this convincing argument case, I think @hkeseyan gets at a better spirit of the rules for scoring, which isn't strictly about the decision by a character being reversed, but simply a character effectively convincing another to go with their plan of action (but with some real effort needed to convince, not simply "Hey man you wanna kill some Lannisters? Sure let's do it.").
In hindsight it was a mistake on my part to word it concretely around a decision being already made - I had been thinking too narrowly about examples like Robert and his Small Council, and it doesn't cover things like a brooding, indecisive Jon even though that was the intention.
So given that, I'll change that rulebook line to the following:
A character can be "convinced" only after they had initially decided in the opposite decision, or shown some resistance or indecision to the arguments.
Definitely it's not taken lightly and I understand each of these changes affects the scoring expectations negatively. For the most part I hope all of these tweaks are getting closer in line with the spirit of what deserves scoring. And I believe, is not inconsistent with what we've scored before (if anyone is finding examples of rejected scores because a character was simply indecisive vs. fully decided in the opposite direction, let me know. But otherwise I think this is the first time it's come up.) -nyan
ssantise likes this
©
Warning: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /var/www/html/fantasora.com/public_html/templates/footer.php on line 2
2025 Nathan Yan
Warning: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /var/www/html/fantasora.com/public_html/templates/footer.php on line 2
2025 Nathan Yan