[GET] Effortless Influence — How to Master the Art of The Sales Story

Effortless Influence — How to Master the Art of The Sales Story

Sales Page:


This is another gem of a book for copy writers / sales people – I have just started started reading it and to quote Voodoo1: "Daniel L is…

[GET] Effortless Influence — How to Master the Art of The Sales Story

Is “Reject Someone’s Influence” allowed against “Take Advantage Of Your Influence Over Someone”?

There are three normal ways to use existing Influence over someone,

  • +1 ongoing for all moves targeting them
  • “Telling them who they are or how the world works” to shift their Labels
  • “Taking advantage of your influence,” which expends the Influence, but gives you either another +1 after your roll, them a -2 after their roll, or gives them a Condition.

In the book (p80 (original edition?)) it says that you can Reject Someone’s Influence either “on your own, unprompted, or you might do it in response to a move of theirs.”

If that were all it said anywhere, I’d assume one could risk a Reject Someone’s Influence roll against any of those three—after all, it’s an option both “unprompted” or after “a move of theirs.” But the (p78 & Basic Moves sheet) description of “When someone with Infuence over you tells you who you are or how the world works” says, (emphasis mine):

accept what they say or reject their Influence. If you accept what they say, the GM will adjust your Labels accordingly; if you want to keep your Labels as they are, you must reject their Influence.

So it is spelled out there, whereas Rejecting Their Influence is not mentioned attached to the descriptions of the other two common uses of Influence, +1 ongoing and Taking Advantage.

Anything I missed in The Book that would cover this? Any outside sources? I don’t know any related games; are there clues from related Powered by the Apocalypse games, their own Epyllion or Urban Shadows, etc.?

I’m new to TTRPGs overall, but have a vague understanding there’s some unwritten rule resembling, “if it’s not in the rules, it’s not in the rules” —which would apply here if all else fails.

How do bitcoin double-spend influence on omni asssets?

I have a question about omni layer and bitcoin double-spend. I’d be very grateful if someone answered on it.

Assume that I performed a transaction tx_1 in bitcoin network from address X to adress Y and one of the outputs and its amount(546 satoshi) of bitcoin were bound with N amount of omni asset(for example Tether). So I just send possession of omni asset from address X to address Y. Then I rebound this N amount of asset with another amount of satoshi, which I had had before I sent omni bound with 546 satoshi in tx_1 to this adress. And then I sent this amount of omni asset to another adress Z by performing transaction tx_2. Then due to any reason transaction tx_1 were cancelled(double-spend). And I have a question in this case omni assets will belong adress Z or X?

Lucky Feat: How can “more than one creature spend a luck point to influence the outcome of a roll”?

Lucky is a feat that only targets either you or something that’s attacking you. How would there be more than one creature that can manipulate the outcome of the roll?

Is this only referring to if you try to alter an attacker’s roll, but they also have Lucky, and they try to change their own roll?

Does buying bitcoins and not spending them have negative influence of the bitcoin price?

I’m curios whether stock investing behavior have negative infect on the price of the bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Since popular delusion is that the crypto is like a stock where you buy coins and wait for the right time to exchange it. What if most of the people don’t wanna spend there bitcoins will that make them unpractical for use?

Does a cyberattack influence the occurrence of faults?

I am looking for opinions and point of view of experimented people on this question, as I am not able to find a lot of resources. Let me define the terms first, such that we all talk about the same things.

What I call a fault is an unintentional problem that may occur in a software or an hardware, because of a computation resources problem, a bad implementation, a natural event … A cyber-attack is an intentional, malicious action to compromise a system (steal data, tampers data, modify system behaviour …).

My question is simple: is there a chance that, when an attacker attacks a system, the occurrence of faults of this system increase? If yes, is there any sources to justify this claim?

In my opinion, it is the case. If an attacker upload a script on a resource-constrained execution platform, this script may cause the platform to not have enough available resources to execute its expected tasks. Hence, the fault probability is higher than when the script is not their.

Does the interview for a US B1/B2 visa actually influence the decision?

Amongst the many questions on TSE about US visa refusals, there are several where the interview (as described by the applicant) appears so cursory that it seems possible that the refusal decision had already been made and the interview was just going through the motions. For example, this recent question B2 US Visa rejected

The online application guidance says relatively little about what to expect at the interview https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visitor.html Does the interview actually make any difference to the outcome of an application? And if it does, how best to prepare?