John, you're assuming that having warned them of Pearl Harbor I would do nothing else.
I have enough of a basic understanding of how an atomic bomb works that I think I could push for development; I also have a pretty good start on rocket technology, and I know that Germany's work is all based on Goddard's stuff, already published in the United States. Sure, Von Braun made great strides with it, but when the Germans were questioned about their rocketry they pointed at Goddard's stuff.
I probably would have spun an explanation of myself that gave me some credibility--not merely that I knew that Japan was going to attack but that I knew more aspects of the future that were going to matter. I think I could give the United States stuff that would turn the tide sooner.
And that's not counting what I might have in my gear. Looking at your gear, you've got weapons that are far enough ahead of what we used in World War II that they could probably make a big difference on the ground, but not so difficult to build that they could not have been mass produced in that time if they'd had the designs. Even if only the special forces had them, your gun designs would have given our troops an edge they did not have, and when we mass produced them and provided them to the British that would have done even more.
So the way I would have handled the German development of the hydrogen bomb is I would have nipped it in the bud. They never would have gotten that far, because they would not have won the war.
--M. J. Young
John, you're assuming that having warned them of Pearl Harbor I would do nothing else.
And you're (very arrogantly) assuming that anyone would listen to you. How did I know you were going to completely ignore what I said and give me (yet another) pseudo-rational explanation? You completely avoided my question, and for God's sake, I want a straight answer. I'm going to say it one more time. Answer the question I ask.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THE UNITED STATES LOST WORLD WAR TWO AS A DIRECT RESULT OF YOUR INTERVENTION AT PEARL HARBOR?????????????
All you've done is tell me why it wouldn't happen. You never answered what you would do IF IT DID!!!!
Don't give me any more pseudo-rational bullshit. JUST ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION I ASKED!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THE UNITED STATES LOST WORLD WAR TWO AS A DIRECT RESULT OF YOUR INTERVENTION AT PEARL HARBOR?????????????
Join or create the underground resistance movement. As far as I'm concerned, the war isn't over until we win.
--M. J. Young
Join or create the underground resistance movement. As far as I'm concerned, the war isn't over until we win.
I bet you would also be wishing, at least on some level, that you had just let Pearl Harbor be destroyed, wouldn't you? That would have made things so much easier on everyone.
And when you versed out (because, let's face it, not even The Architect is completely invincible) you would spend the rest of your (very long) verser career living with the knowledge that you caused the United States to lose.
I on the other hand, who just let it be destroyed (under normal circumstances) wouldn't have to worry about it, because I know the US would win. I know because it's already happened.
You said you sent me there because "I was eager to see, if given a situation in which you already knew the possible outcomes, would you maintain your policy of non-involvement?"
You didn't anticipate that I would see "The US loses WW2" as a possible outcome. Frankly, I find that moderately offensive, if understandable.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I still considered that I was a rookie gamer until the Pearl Harbor jeep crash. That was quite a wake-up call, I will admit. You can say "John, you were hardly a rookie. You played online for a year before you went to Pearl Harbor." if it helps you sleep at night. However, I would like to point out that, a year playing online might be the equivalent of 6 weekends of playing live. It's one move at a time online. How many moves would you make in a 5 hour gaming session? Wouldn't you still consider a player with 6 weekends' experience in the same world to be a rookie? I would.
Not trying to be argumentative, no matter how it may sound. I'm just trying to explain that. It was a wake-up call. I consider that the end of my rookiedom.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
And this is something that demonstrates my rookiehood. I still didn't fully comprehend that I could state actions in between Adam's narrations. Adam refereed something like "Normally you grab the steering wheel, but with your hands pinned behind you, you can't move" (or something) No, what I would have done would be to assume crash position. Lay down on the floor of the jeep, or otherwise try to brace myself so I didn't get thrown out. I'm not arguing, I'm just wondering about how the mechanics of such an action would have worked. Would that have improved the GE roll? Getting slammed against the back of the front seat at 50 MPH wouldn't hurt nearly as much as getting thrown out. How would the mechanics of that have worked?
(Doing Therapy)
Last things first:
- Had you indicated before the car went out of control that you were taking certain steps to protect yourself in the event of a crash (or that you were taking safety precautions of a certain type which incidentally might have done so), the referee would have considered how those precautions might mitigate the nature of the accident, such that you might not have been as badly hurt by it. On the other hand, if he were using the bod botch injury chart, the best you could hope would be that he would use a modified GE roll (e.g., 2d10+5, which eliminates the best and worst results).
- Had you indicated that you were taking such precautions after the car went out of control, that's still true with the caveat that the referee would be perfectly justified in requiring an intuition and/or agility check to determine whether you could see how to do what you wanted and accomplish it in the few seconds between the lost control and the crash.
John, I do not believe that the loss of the war would be inevitable absent the defeat at Pearl. But if you're going to insist, I can as easily reverse it: what would you have done if having not warned them at Pearl Harbor, you remained to see the United States ultimately lose World War II?
The answer is, you do what is best at that moment for the people you can help, and then address the question of how to help the people in the next moment.
--M. J. Young
what would you have done if having not warned them at Pearl Harbor, you remained to see the United States ultimately lose World War II?
At least I could rest assured their defeat wasn't because I messed with history.
Two
Does anyone else find it amazingly ironic that MJ went out of his way to find a referee who knew Pearl Harbor on the mistaken assumption that I knew it, then none of the details of the attack even came into play, and that referee and I have been at odds ever since? It's true. When you assume, you make an Ass out of U and Me.
Oh yeah, and this is supposed to sound kind of funny.
Three
In that post up there with the <SARC></SARC> I was trying to make a point. I didn't realize it until now. The PA announcement, while perhaps not as effective at testing non-involvement, would have avoided 99% of what has since happened. Was learning I wasn't 100% dedicated to non-involvement worth the price you paid? In retrospect, might a different opening that wasn't as effective at testing non-involvement but less likely to enrage your player have been a better choice?
There's a fly on the wall in your house. You want to kill the fly, so (very naturally) you take out a grenade launcher and blow out the side of your house. You're 100% assured to kill the fly, but the collateral damage might have made a flyswatter a much better choice. Not as certain to kill the fly, but won't take out half of your house doing so. Do you get my point?
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, I need to clear something up. If it had been a fictional military base on a fictional earth that I somehow knew was going to get attacked by an enemy, you're damn right I would warn them. Pearl Harbor already happened. We know the end results of that. The reason I wouldn't warn Pearl Harbor is because it is a HISTORICAL WORLD. We know the results of Pearl Harbor being destroyed. Why take the chance, when we already know the outcome was quite favorable for the United States? A couple hundred people died heroes, the US came out of The Great Depression and became a superpower. I can live with that. If I somehow had knowledge of a completely fictional attack on a completely fictional military base, I would warn them in a heartbeat. The fact that it's a HISTORICAL WORLD is the reason to stay away.
From one perspective, I can certainly see why you thought I would be itching to warn them. From another, I can't believe you considered it. How many hundreds of hours did we spend in discussion of why changing history was a bad idea? From that perspective, I can't believe you thought so for a moment.
(Doing Therapy)
John, how could you know that an American base was going to be attacked if it were not a historical world?
I could put you at the Alamo, or at Little Bighorn with Custer, or maybe find another famous battle at which you are likely to know the story, but again they would all be historic worlds. I could put you at Wounded Knee with the Indians, or at Waterloo with Napoleon, but you probably wouldn't be interested in changing the outcomes there.
I could instead invent a place and a battle, say somewhere in Viet Nam or Korea, and put you there; but how would you know what was going to happen?
So you've got a catch twenty-two: the only way you can know to warn them is if you already know what happened in the original history, and the only way you can know what happened in the original history is if it happened.
Unless I put you in a fictional world with which you are familiar, and let you rewrite it. I'm not sure whether there are any such worlds, though, in which I'm sure you would know a battle was coming but you don't know the world better than I.
--M. J. Young
So you've got a catch twenty-two: the only way you can know to warn them is if you already know what happened in the original history, and the only way you can know what happened in the original history is if it happened.
You're right. It's a catch-22. I wouldn't want to stop a historical event, and unless it was a historical event, I wouldn't know to stop it. History is dead. Leave it alone. We know the US survived Pearl Harbor. In my mind, that's more than enough reason to not want to touch it.
I could put you at the Alamo, or at Little Bighorn with Custer, or maybe find another famous battle at which you are likely to know the story, but again they would all be historic worlds.
If you put me at The Alamo, I doubt I could make enough of a difference to change history. It would still be 150 or so against 3,000, even with all of my firepower. Little Big Horn, I'd probably side with the Indians (Assuming of course they didn't kill me for being white) and how many times do I have to tell you? I DON'T KNOW MILITARY HISTORY!!!!!!!!!! You would have been more than capable of running Pearl Harbor for me. I think we've proven more than once that you know that scenario far better than I do. I didn't even know what The Arizona was, or do you not recall?