I can answer that with certainty: since the notion of starting you with an encounter with an MP was not part of my vision, it is irrelevant to the issue. I wanted to send you to Pearl Harbor to see whether you would get involved voluntarily or make an effort to avoid being involved, or how you would handle it. Adam decided how to begin the scenario.
I can't guess how I would have begun; you do have the problem that you arrived in a vehicle from the far future, and that would certainly have raised questions. It would also mean that I couldn't drop you in an empty booth in the enlisted club or something like that. So I would have had to give a lot more thought to where and how to start you. I'm not going to second-guess Adam. I do start some worlds with the verser already "caught" by the indigs. I gave you to Adam particularly because I had insufficient background in this world to run it myself, so I've never thought about how I would run it.
--M. J. Young
To try to put it in perspective, I think that's a bit like asking me, if I knew you didn't like clam chowder, would I have suggested we eat at a Friendly's Restaurant.
--M. J. Young
Mistake, sorry.
Mistake, Sorry
MJ, the two previous posts, as well as this one, were all filled with ranting and raving about how I was forced into the story. As you can see, I edited them and they're gone. It makes more sense to me. It really does. I've said this before, but I'm really going to try to let it go.
If you could spend just one hour inside my head, I assure you, you would be amazed that I manage to talk about it as little as I do.
Multiple Posts
I could so see myself doing exactly what I said. I know those psionics made him feel invulnerable. If I had known that TK pulse was the ONLY thing that worked in a flatline world, I never would have done it. (Just so you know, I'm laughing myself silly right now) Having those psionics, then running into a cop first thing, and thinking that the psionics are still working..... That was a recipe for a disaster. I know you say that players should not be allowed to know the rules prior to playing, but I think I should have been. In my first world, I met The Architect. I know for a fact that my character would have been pumping him for information about versing. After spending 2 months with The Architect, I probably would have known more about versing than MJ does. Just my two cents.
I'm a firm believer that the greatest school in the world is listening to your grandfather talk about his life. What kinds of stories did The Architect tell? What kinds of questions would I have asked? Not during "Play Time" but when we were just sitting around doing nothing. I'm sure I would have made sure I was 100% clear about how the bias system worked. Or at least his understanding of it. I would have known what a flatline world was.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm writing a paper, so I'm leaving most of your post alone, but - it occurred to me that if the Architect is anything like MJ, it's highly unlikely that you could catch him "sitting around doing nothing" for more than about five minutes a week. If you were lucky.
Scott, I would certainly agree with you there, and MJ, of course, correct me if I'm wrong, however, my understanding is that the reason our MJ doesn't "Sit around doing nothing" is because he's using almost all of that time to take care of his family and friends. That would have been us Newbie versers in that world. In other words, we would have gotten that time. Just my opinion. I could, of course, be wrong.
(Doing Therapy)
Multiple Posts, more than 13 hours later.
I don't think you or anyone else has told me what you think of my "Announcement over the PA system" opener. I'm trying to imagine how I would have run myself in that world. I think that's the opener that I would use.
I would not have been arrested had I known beforehand where I was. Perhaps Osevens would try to run, but surrender willingly if he was caught. Bob Thomas would probably disregard the fact that he was at Pearl Harbor at all, and just attack the MPs for the fun of it.
My point is that you could learn a great deal about the player that way, and they could not possibly accuse you of trying to force them into the story. They were given a warning and a chance to escape. I really think that would be the best opener for that world. I'm trying to get an idea for my refereeing style, which is the entire point of the board in the first place.
If the dice cooperated, me refereeing myself there would have gone something like:
Announcement "You're at Pearl Harbor 2 days before the bombing"
Character, run back to van and get out of there in a hurry
MPs dispatched.
Character, stop, don't get out. Ask the MPs to point me the way out. They try to arrest me. I floor it, giving me a 10 second head start.
MPs pursue.
Character, Search for exit, or hiding spot. Defendable position with hostages or a place that they would be reluctant to destroy (Ammunition storehouse, a monument, etc.)
Fight MPs until after the attack. Then go out in a blaze of glory.
Tell me that wouldn't have been a lot more fun!!!!!!
That PA system announcement opener is looking better all the time.
(Doing Therapy)
John wrote to ask me to respond to this thread.
I cannot imagine that I would ever use such an opening for such a world. It strikes me as tacky in the extreme, for one thing. Perhaps more on point, I expect my players to work a bit to figure out where they are, what their circumstances.
In fact, you can almost lay money on it that were I to have opened a Pearl Harbor scenario with such an announcement, it would have been bait to draw the player into a stupid mistake. I do have a world scenario, a variant history, that runs something like this, in sketch:
- Following the American Revolution, the United States adopt as their official language German, not English, due to anti-British sentiments. This is not far-fetched. American feelings were strong enough that we adopted the Dutch Santa Claus instead of the entirely different British Father Christmas (who comes through the French Pere Noel, not from Saint Nicholas). The possibility of adopting either Dutch or German as our native languages was very strong.
- It is not easy to name a party at fault for World War I. The decision by America to support British rather than German interests was largely based on an irrational connection to other English-speaking peoples. Thus it is entirely possible that the United States would have entered World War I, late of course, on the side of Germany. This would have meant the defeat of England and France.
- Following World War I, the winning side imposed impossible war debts on the losers. This led to severe economic hardship and depression in the losing side--which in our history was Germany, but in the altered history was England.
- The Nationalist Socialism which rose to power in Germany was not stranger in other countries; it simply did not have as much support because the economic situations were worse in Germany where the war debt was still crushing the economy. It would then be in England where the Nationalist party would have gained ascendancy, and an equivalent dictator would have come to power there.
- Just as Germany had seemingly legitimate claims to territory outside its recognized borders, so too England could argue that Brittany, D'Anjou, and Normandy were originally possessions of the British Royal Family, and therefore British territory. Just as England's rulers were happy to cede territory in Poland and elsewhere to avoid another war, so too the German powers would be happy to cede French lands to England for the same reason.
- Once England has its military bases on the continent, it begins the conquest of Europe. Alliances form, and World War II happens with the parties reversed.
- Although I've never considered it, it might be possible to flip the Japan/China conflict at the same time. Japan and China had been trying to conquer each other for centuries. If China is allied with England against Germany and Japan, and Germany and Japan are the good guys, Pearl Harbor either does not happen or happens because the Chinese decide that the United States poses a threat to their expansionist designs on Japan and the South Pacific.
--M. J. Young
And none of that tells me anything about what you think of it as a whole. You would use it as a misdirection. I would use it to let them know where they are and see how they react. If such an opener had been used, the scenario would have played out radically differently, and it most likely would have avoided 90% of the arguments that have been going on.
Announcement "This is corporeal Cross with the Pearl Harbor daily news report. The date is December 5th, the weather is a balmy 73 degrees....." Lets the player know where they are, puts them in no danger, and they cannot accuse you of forcing them into the story.
My reaction "Holy crap, I better get out of here." I start running.
THEN send the MPs after me, and see how I react to that. I really think this would work a lot better, and in fact be a lot more realistic than some roving robot MP out in the middle of nowhere.
You gave me a lesson in alternate history. You DID NOT say a word about how this would work in play, which was really more what I was going after.
I did tell you what I thought of it. I would never use it because it's tacky and gives the player much too much information--unless that information would mislead him in some significant way.
I can just see you trying to explain to the base commander that the reason you killed five of his MPs trying to escape is because the Japanese are going to strike his base tomorrow and you want to be as far away as possible--when the Japanese are struggling to stop the attacking Chinese, who are allied with the British National Socialist government in a bid to conquer the world. Then maybe the next day the Chinese attack, or maybe no one attacks, and you're either locked up for military trial for murder, or locked up in a padded room as completely insane, completely out of touch with reality.
So yeah, that might be more interesting. But it certainly would not be interesting to tell you exactly where and when you are in history if it's the history you already know. I want you to figure that out for yourself.
And I think if I landed in a world where such an announcement happened, I would think either the referee is an inept amateur, or this world is not what it appears.
--M. J. Young
I can just see you trying to explain to the base commander that the reason you killed five of his MPs trying to escape is because the Japanese are going to strike his base tomorrow and you want to be as far away as possible--when the Japanese are struggling to stop the attacking Chinese, who are allied with the British National Socialist government in a bid to conquer the world.
And exactly why would using the opener of an MP arresting you prevent the referee from doing that anyway? Besides, if I had known where I was, I would not have been captured alive, so the only explaining to the base commander would have been the coroner explaining the MPs bullet wounds.
What you're talking about could have happened anyway. What happens when I am forced to go to the base, get banged up in a jeep crash, then warn them of an attack for which they go on Red Alert to prepare for, and it never comes? How would the opener of the MP forcing me into the story change that as a possibility?
But it certainly would not be interesting to tell you exactly where and when you are in history if it's the history you already know. I want you to figure that out for yourself.
Well, isn't that pretty much what the MP did? Tell me exactly where and when I was? What's the difference? Ah yes, the difference is that if it's an announcement, I CAN RUN FROM IT!!!!!!!! That seems to be about the only difference that I can see in the two ways. Unless you DON'T want to know what the player will do when they find out where they are.... And don't give me that "You could run from the MP" crap either, you know what I mean.
The MP tells you where and when you are and forces you into the story. The announcement tells you where you are, and in no way forces you into the story. You wanted to see if I would get involved voluntarily How better to do that than to let me know where and when I am without forcing me into the story? (Forcing, semantics, let it go, unless you WANT to start that all over again)
And I think if I landed in a world where such an announcement happened, I would think either the referee is an inept amateur, or this world is not what it appears.
Well, considering that I AM an inept amateur, then I'd say it goes right along with it. If I were running the scenario, you would be trying to second guess something that didn't need it. I take things at face value. You're saying that, as a player, you would second guess an announcement, when it could be that there is nothing to second guess. Really, the ONLY difference that I can see between the two openers is that the announcement gives the player an unobstructed chance to run away. I think perhaps YOU might be thinking like the inept amateur.
And of course, I want you to reply with your thoughts. That's kind of the entire point, ya know?
Multiple Posts
I did tell you what I thought of it. I would never use it because it's tacky and gives the player much too much information--unless that information would mislead him in some significant way.
Ya know MJ, I just realized what you're doing. You're saying that things are "supposed" to go a certain way. Peanut butter is "supposed" to go with jelly. Grapefruit is "supposed" to be cut in half. An announcement over the PA system is "supposed" to be misleading to the player. No, it's completely impossible to eat peanut butter by itself, no one ever peels a grapefruit, and an announcement over the PA system can't possibly mean that you really are at Pearl Harbor the day before the bombing. Who is the inept amateur? You're still thinking INSIDE the box.
Really, John, that kind of announcement right after showing up in a world is awfully convenient. How often is real life that convenient? Also, consider how vast the multiverse is; at any given place called Pearl Harbor, what are the chances that it's your Pearl Harbor from back home? I, personally, would be suspicious with only that much information to go on, particularly if the timing were that convenient. I would investigate.
Also, if that sort of thing happened a lot - PA announcements as I wake up, signs on the road saying "This way to Nottingham," etc. - I would start to get paranoid, possibly modifying my theory of the verse. The chances are just too low; maybe I'm being intentionally placed in these places by some kind of powerful entity for some sort of experimental purpose.
(And since that's kind of what's happening in real life, because you're playing a role-playing game, you don't want it to look like that inside the game. One of the referee's jobs is to make what's happening in the game not look like a game - and that's why MJ's saying it's an amateur move.)
Really, John, that kind of announcement right after showing up in a world is awfully convenient.
And an MP pulling up out of nowhere 10 seconds after I showed up wasn't??? Yeah, you're right, I'd say that was awfully INconvenient. What you're talking about was actually why I didn't try to run. I figured it was like Why Spy, and someone knew a verser was coming.
I hate to say this, but until someone can show me the point at which I was allowed to walk away and pretend like I was never there, I was forced into the Pearl Harbor scenario. (Getting shot and versing out doesn't count) Talk until you're blue in the face, you won't change my mind. The announcement over the PA system would have given me just such an opportunity. I would know where I was, and have a chance to run away. I don't think it's any more convenient than a roving robot MP pulling up out of nowhere, EXCEPT for the fact that I would be allowed to run from the announcement.
You might as well complain that you were forced into the world by versing into it, and say the same thing about every world you ever enter. Not everything is under your control - that's part of the game.
OK Scott, well tell me, what's the difference? I actually have a friend who was stationed at Pearl Harbor when he was in the navy 10 years ago. I described the set up to him, and he said that was unrealistic. They don't patrol the area like that. The only way the MP would show up right after I versed in is if he actually saw me verse in. And then I'm sure I would have to explain a lot more than just why I was there.
I really don't think it's any different.
I'm no longer arguing that you weren't forced in (according to what you mean by "forced"), because you've indicated that you won't be convinced. Now what I'm arguing is that it's silly to complain about being "forced into" a scenario when you're playing Multiverser: the penalty for dying is that you verse into a new world, and you have no control over where you end up or when.
OK Point Made Scott, however, you didn't tell me why the MP pulling up was different from the announcement.
I'm not arguing the point of if I was forced either. I now understand why the force was needed, but understanding why something happened doesn't change the fact that it did happen. What I'm wanting to know now is why is the MP different from an announcement, in terms of realism and what you call "convenience."
Two Posts
After thinking about it, I might be wrong about the MPs not patrolling Pearl Harbor. I described the setup to my friend, and he said it was completely wrong. I don't remember what all he said was wrong about it, just that a lot was wrong. That and I had just woken up 10 minutes before typing that, I'm not sure if that was something he said was wrong with the setup.
I don't know anything about the activity of MPs in Pearl Harbor, so I can't really speak to that either. I figure that the announcement would be a thing that happens maybe once or twice a day, if at all. So, if a person walking by the spot where you woke up happens less often than that, you might have a point. I'd point out that he didn't have to be patrolling; my impression was that you were already inside the military base, so he could have just been walking to lunch.
Once again, you have COMPLETELY missed what I was saying. In terms of realism and convenience, what's the difference between an MP pulling up 10 seconds after I arrive, and an announcement over the PA system 10 seconds after I arrive?
As far as being forced, I understand why the force was needed, and I'm going to try really hard not to argue that point anymore. It's pointless. I know I'm right. You know you're right. When that happens, wars often begin. Since, in a war, the only time both parties are right is when they both know they are losing, it's not worth fighting over anymore.
Two Posts
So, if a person walking by the spot where you woke up happens less often than that, you might have a point.
Well, that's the irony. According to my friend Rob, NO ONE would walk past the spot where I woke up. I versed in on the beach. He said you're either on the beach or you're on the base, not both. If you're on the beach, you're not on the base, so you couldn't possibly be arrested for trespassing at all. I wish I would have known that then.....
Once again, you have COMPLETELY missed what I was saying.
I have not. I admitted that I could not answer your question, as I don't know how often an MP would walk by your position, and I don't actually remember what your position was.
Well, if you do a bit of digging, the old games are still there. Every Behind the Screens thread has a link to the previous one. Eventually, it links back to the old site archives. I've reread this a couple of times.
The point I was making though was that I really don't think it's any more convenient to verse in right before morning announcements than it would be to verse in right in the path of an MP. You said that if it happened TOO OFTEN you would wonder what was going on. However, it is BOUND to happen every once in a while. Out of 4 worlds, that was the ONLY world where it could have happened at all, so I don't think 1 out of 4 is unrealistic.
Two Posts
The other thing is do you necessarily always want realism, or do you want to learn about the players and have a good time? Say whatever you want about it, the opener that I suggest would have been a heap more fun for all involved. The player can't possibly accuse you of trying to force them into the story, and you would learn quite a lot about them. The question was "Would I get involved voluntarily" What better way to answer that question than by telling them where they are with absolutely no other influences, and seeing what they do with that knowledge? If I had wanted to try to stop the bombing, I'd start heading to the base. That seems pretty voluntary to me.
Maybe part of the problem is in this:
You wanted to see if I would get involved voluntarily How better to do that than to let me know where and when I am without forcing me into the story?What does any of us mean by "voluntarily" in this scenario?
I'm not certain I ever said that's what I wanted to know; but even if I did, it would not have occurred to me to drop you in Washington or California or Osaka a month before the attack and give you sufficient information to know that it was coming, with the hope that I would discover whether you would "voluntarily" struggle and fight to bring your information to someone who could use it.
Maybe what I wanted to know is more like this: if you were trapped in a historic situation which you knew was going to be a disaster in which a lot of people were going to die, and you might be one of them, would you voluntarily attempt to inform people so as to prevent or mitigate the disaster, or would you voluntarily stick by your stated non-interference policy and weather the crisis, knowing that even if you die it won't kill you? Would you attempt to prevent the Titanic from sinking? Would you assassinate Hitler? Would you warn Custer that the indians were coming? You had stated a policy of non-involvement, that it was not your business to interfere in the worlds you visited and you were not going to do so. I wanted to know how serious you were about this. How hard would you fight to avoid being involved? It would have made no sense to test whether you would knowingly walk into the trouble--you had already given that answer. Sure, I could have put you outside the main gate of the base, with a big calendar and clock on the guard shack, and watched you turn around and walk away--but you'd already told me that this is what you would do. What you are saying I should have tested is complete nonsense. I did not need to know whether you would make an effort to get involved. I needed to know how much effort you would make to be uninvolved. Your version of the scenario gives me the part I already knew. Adam's gave me much more of what I wanted: yes, if pressed hard enough, you would get involved. You were not really devoted to non-involvement.
Yeah, well, apparently you didn't, and Adam didn't, and I didn't, and if anyone on this forum knew what you wish you had known they didn't mention it.Well, that's the irony. According to my friend Rob, NO ONE would walk past the spot where I woke up. I versed in on the beach. He said you're either on the beach or you're on the base, not both. If you're on the beach, you're not on the base, so you couldn't possibly be arrested for trespassing at all. I wish I would have known that then.....
So what's the point?
The point is, in the world you visited Rob's information is invalid. The fact that the MP patroled the beach area of the base tells us that there is a beach area within the base that is patroled by the MPs. Even had you known it then, that would have told you only that either what you knew was wrong or the man accosting you was giving you bad information.
For comparison, if I told you in TerraNova that they had trinary biocomputers running error checks on all onboard systems, and that they used microcircuit inverted kinetic energy generators in all the floors to create artificial gravity, and that their spaceships travel interstellar distances by using hyperspace, you might argue with me that trinary biocomputers are not faster than binary optical systems, gravity cannot be generated as inverted kinetic energy, and hyperspace does not exist, and therefore the world is wrong; but it does not really matter whether any of those things are possible, because in that world, they are real.
Similarly, you can argue that it is not plausible for Robin Hood to be expert in both the long bow and the long sword, because the long bow is a peasant weapon not yet invented and the long sword is a weapon of wealthy nobles not peasant robbers, but it does not matter because Robin Hood himself is a fictional character and the fact that I say he's real means that he is whatever I make him to be--and that does not have to be the Errol Flynn version, nor the Kevin Costner version nor even the Carey Elwes version.
If you landed on the Mary Piper and I told you that she was both square and lateen rigged, you would accept that. If you landed on the Titanic and I told you that she was both square and lateen rigged, and the fastest sailing vessel in her class, you would realize that the world was different from what you knew. If you landed on the Titanic, and in the stern were giant steam-driven fans blowing air into the sails to propel her through the skies on unfolded wings stretching out to either side, you can argue all you want that it's impossible, but that's the way it is in that world.
The fact that you landed on the beach inside the base means that in that world there was a beach inside the base. The fact that neither you nor anyone else knew that in our world there is no beach inside the base means neither you nor anyone else had any reason to think this was not our world, and therefore it might have been. The fact that you warned the Americans of the Japanese attack such that they were prepared also means this was not our world, because you changed history. The issue of the beach doesn't matter in the least, because no one knew that it might be significant, and therefore it was not significant.
In any given episode of, say, Law & Order, there might be a pistol in the bedside table in the room where the victim was killed. If the victim pulled the pistol out of the drawer and attempted to use it, it mattered. If the victim was killed with that pistol, it mattered. If the police find the pistol in the drawer and wonder why it was not used, it mattered. But if no pistol is ever mentioned, that does not prove it was not in the drawer, any more than the fact that no one mentions the bathroom proves the apartment didn't have one. The only things that matter are those which within the context of play matter. The fact that the beach was not a realistic location based on information subsequently gathered is immaterial. We all accepted that the beach was a normal part of the base facility, and therefore it was.
That's the whole bit about shared imagined space: the reality in the game world is whatever we all imagine in agreement. At the time that you were on the beach inside the Pearl Harbor military base, everyone was in agreement that you were on the beach inside the Pearl Harbor military base, and therefore such a beach did exist and that's where you were. The fact that we all agreed that the MP patroling the area spotted you and detained you for questioning also makes that part of the reality. Now, if at the time it happened you had said, "I'm sorry, but I happen to know that there's no beach inside the Pearl Harbor military base, and therefore this is unrealistic," Adam would have had one of two answers. Either he would have been accommodating and said, "All right, you are in the parking lot outside the officers club," or he would have been firm and said, "Well, in this world there is such a beach, and you're on it." Or maybe he would simply have said, "That's interesting," and left you to wonder whether that means that you weren't really on the base but were being detained by some nutcase who was pretending to patrol what he was pretending was Pearl Harbor, or that you were on the base in a different reality and should keep your head up and your eyes open for other anomalies.
--M. J. Young
What you are saying I should have tested is complete nonsense. I did not need to know whether you would make an effort to get involved. I needed to know how much effort you would make to be uninvolved.
And finding out where I am, watching me try to run, and then gunfighting the entire Pearl Harbor security team wouldn't tell you how far I'd go to stay uninvolved? I'll tell you right now, if I had known where I was, there's no way in HELL that I would have gotten arrested.
You guys seem to have some strange definitions. Voluntarily means you're forced at gunpoint, having someone point a gun at you doesn't mean you were forced, and if you're at the base, you're not involved at all. I imagine many a linguistics professor would find these definitions quite contrary to standard usage.
Two Posts
As far as my "non-involvement policy" it isn't a non-involvement policy, it's a "Why should I get involved?" policy. Using Dancing Princess as an example. If the governor of New Jersey came on the news and said that his daughters were having the same kind of problems that are described in Dancing Princess, and he would give a million dollars to the person who could fix it, would you hop in your car and head to the governor's mansion, or would you just say "That's nice." and go about your day? Sure you could use the money, sure you might even be able to figure out what's wrong with them, but would you REALLY get involved in it? I really wonder how many players get involved in Dancing Princess because it's what they are "supposed" to do, and not because it's really what they really feel they would really do in that situation. I did what I felt I would really do. I would wager that at least half of the players in that world get involved because it's what they are "supposed" to do.
Three Posts, and no more
And ya know what else MJ? I find it quite ironic that you were saying the reason you wanted Adam to run the world is because you didn't know enough about it to make it realistic, but when I prove that it wasn't realistic as run, you didn't have a problem with it. I find that amazingly funny.
As far as my "non-involvement policy" it isn't a non-involvement policy, it's a "Why should I get involved?" policy.
And we know that now. Because we tested it.
I find it quite ironic that you were saying the reason you wanted Adam to run the world is because you didn't know enough about it to make it realistic, but when I prove that it wasn't realistic as run, you didn't have a problem with it.
Realism is not binary. It was likely more realistic under Adam than it would have been under MJ. The goal is never perfect realism, only getting close. The fact that Adam's Pearl Harbor wasn't as close to the real Pearl Harbor as it could have been does not mean he failed, nor does it invalidate MJ's arguments.
Edit: And, I'm graduating in a couple of weeks with a bachelor of arts in linguistics; trust me that you don't want to appeal to a linguist in this case.
Realism is not binary. It was likely more realistic under Adam than it would have been under MJ. The goal is never perfect realism, only getting close. The fact that Adam's Pearl Harbor wasn't as close to the real Pearl Harbor as it could have been does not mean he failed, nor does it invalidate MJ's arguments.
Well, considering that nothing about the actual battle came into play, we will never know, now will we? (Just so you know I'm laughing as I type this) I wonder sometimes why I warned them. As MJ keeps pointing out, it wasn't our earth. I had no reason whatsoever to think that the place was going to get attacked at all. I really think I can mostly let this go now. I know it's been annoying to all of you, but look at it from my point of view. You only had to hear about it on the board. I have to live inside my head all the time. I wonder if MJ ever regrets sending me there.....
I wonder sometimes why I warned them. As MJ keeps pointing out, it wasn't our earth. I had no reason whatsoever to think that the place was going to get attacked at all.
Point!
Edit: And, I'm graduating in a couple of weeks with a bachelor of arts in linguistics; trust me that you don't want to appeal to a linguist in this case.
Actually Scott, now that you mention it, I wouldn't mind having a linguist's opinion here. How is being forced at gunpoint getting involved "voluntarily"? How is having a cop pull a gun on you NOT being forced? How is being at the base against my will NOT being involved?
Seriously, I'm not trying to argue with you. You are the one who said I wouldn't want a linguist's opinion. Actually, I do. Might help me clear some things up. And none of that "If you're shot you verse out, so you can't be forced" BS either. Just because you know you will verse out is no reason to WANT to get killed.
The question asked was "Would I get involved, or just watch the world go up in smoke?" To me, "Not Getting Involved" would be leaving. It's like in the Karate Kid, after Miyagi saves Daniel by the fence. Miyagi says "Not want to get involved." Daniel says "Mr. Miyagi, you're ALREADY involved!!!" I didn't want to get involved. Getting arrested, I was ALREADY involved. (Not yelling, just trying to be clear)
I'm probably only an amateur linguist, but it strikes me that you pulled a gun on Nikolaj and he was not forced to give you the money.How is having a cop pull a gun on you NOT being forced?
--M. J. Young
That's probably because Scott took the gun away from me, remember?
I did remember that Scott took the gun away from you. It is not certain that Nikolaj would have given you the money. What were your options? You could threaten him, but he had pretty much made up his mind. You could kill him, and that would mean the money would go with him (maybe you would not have realized that, but the Architect gave the money to one person, and that made it his money). You could wound him, and maybe steal the money from him. You could not have forced him to give you the money, even had you held onto the gun.
--M. J. Young
Ya know, no one has yet answered me on this question. That question is Why wouldn't gunfighting the entire Pearl Harbor security force NOT show you how far I would go to NOT get involved? If I had known where I was, there's no way in hell I would have gotten arrested. The opener of the PA system announcement would have told me where I was without forcing me into the story, and you would have seen just how far I would go to NOT get involved. How would that have NOT told you what you wanted to know?
That whole thing about misleading the player doesn't have a thing to do with what I'm asking. The MP could be sent to mislead the player, the announcement could be telling the truth. In any event, the announcement would have been the better way to go in my case. If nothing else, it would have avoided 90% of the arguments that have resulted.
John, at this point the answer seems to be that every alternative you suggest is certainly possible, but it's not what happened.
I could have stopped for a sandwich on my way home from the hospital tonight, but I didn't. Had I done so, I would now have eaten, and would not be hungry. On the other hand, I have to go back to the hospital to pick up someone I left there, and she will be hungry when she is released, so it will be better that I have not eaten--unless of course she is more tired than hungry and does not want to stop for food, in which case I won't eat.
Sometimes you can't know what the "best" possibility is. Sometimes you don't want to do whatever is "best".
Even then, the Founding Fathers were wrong: there is no single best answer to every discreet problem. There are complications such as resource management, meta-objectives, political philosophies, moral arguments, and more. When it comes to it, Republicans and Democrats do not disagree because one is right about the best way to solve a problem and the other isn't; they disagree because their views about what are the problems and what constitutes "solved" for each differs.
I could survey our participants here on this point: is it better to increase taxes and/or government debt in order to spend money meeting the needs of the unemployed and homeless, or is it better to reduce taxes and debt to stimulate the economy so that there will be more jobs and more homes? The objective in both cases is to make sure that people are fed and housed; the answers are incompatible with each other.
In the same way, you seem to think that "best" here means "that which provides you with the most accurate information most quickly". I think that "best" means "that which requires you to think and pay attention to detail in reaching your decisions". Your solution brings about what you think is the best result, but it's not a result I find at all desireable: I don't want you to know where you are until you've figured it out for yourself. I want you to have to touch the world enough to discover it, so that your effort to become non-involved requires real effort.
There is nothing "wrong" with your solution, except that it brings about a version of the setting that does not in the least interest me. There is nothing "right" about it, either, except that it gives you what you think in retrospect you would have wanted in that sort of world. Further, you did not experience what you think you would have wanted, so you can't really know that it would have been better.
--M. J. Young