The question you were asking was "Would John get involved?" The question you should have been asking was "How far would John go to stay UNinvolved?" If I had known where I was beforehand, I'd have been surprised if the game got past day 1. I would have never gotten arrested. I drew the line at cold-blooded murder. Shooting a man in cold-blood is a might bit different from shooting at an approaching jeep to discourage the driver. Running from an MP who is a quarter mile away is a might bit different from running from an MP with a 45 automatic in your face. Tell me it's not. I drew the line at cold-blooded murder. I won't draw that line again. I hope you're proud of that.
If I had known where I was, I would have actively resisted involvement. All you had to do was make me cognizant of where and when I was BEFORE anything else happened. "Oh but John, the game isn't played like that." Well, just because you've been doing something the same way for 30 years doesn't mean you're doing it right or that you couldn't be doing it better. You've got a non-involvement player? Give him as much information as you can before anything else happens. See if he resists involvement. What could you learn about a player then? Once the MP got to me, I was already more involved in that particular scenario than I would have ever chosen to become. A hundred other players would have run through it better? A hundred other scenarios, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would have actively resisted involvement if I had known where I was. You could learn so much more about your players like this.
What you found out about me is that I would take the million dollars. Well, how does that really help run games? If we had gotten to the base unscathed, there's no question in my mind I wouldn't have warned them. Not warning them would be the easiest decision I ever made in my life. Again, you learn very little. On the other hand, if I had known where I was, you might have found out that I will empty a 30 round banana clip at an approaching jeep rather than get arrested. I'm willing to bet that would be a bit more helpful than knowing I would take the million, aren't you?
That's why I keep saying I was forced to get involved. I never got the chance to resist getting involved. The MP instantly pushed me to the line I wouldn't cross to stay UNinvolved. Unfortunately (Thankfully??) cold-blooded murder wasn't an option. Now it is. I hope you're proud of that.
(Doing Therapy)
To me, existing is the sign of that person is somehow involved in the situation even if that person tries to be uninvolved in it. Even an observer is involved in the situation but the level of involvement is at observer level. The background or the environment is also involved in the situation but at their own respective level.
If I had known where I was, I would have actively resisted involvement.
That is probably why you had not known where you were. That is a good reason why that happen does it not?
You could learn so much more about your players like this.
Can you summarize what do you think will happen in the scenario if something happen the other way?
Then ask yourself what do you think anyone else would learn if the scenario turns out the other way?
If I had known where I was, you might have found out that I will empty a 30 round banana clip at an approaching jeep rather than get arrested.
Thank you for telling us what would have happen if you know. The question now would be what would happen if you do not know. That question would remain unanswered if the scenario let you know where you were. So I think we have learn more about you this way.
I'm willing to bet that would be a bit more helpful than knowing I would take the million, don't you?
In what way do you think it will be more helpful?
That's why I keep saying I was forced to get involved. I never got the chance to resist getting involved.
By versing to that world, you are already involved. The only thing that would differentiate the outcome is what you would do with it.
Unfortunately cold-blooded murder wasn't an option. Now it is.
There would be probably other way to resolve that if you calmly think about it. If you look at the silver lining, at least you have the experience of getting arrested and play the scenario differently. If you want to replay it some way to give closure then I could help you with it.
Even an observer is involved in the situation but the level of involvement is at observer level.
Right, exactly. In that particular event, being of the historical significance that it is, being an observer in the scenario is more than I would have wanted.
Can you summarize what do you think will happen in the scenario if something happen the other way?
Then ask yourself what do you think anyone else would learn if the scenario turns out the other way?
An MP comes up and shoves a gun in my face. I set my own gun down and get arrested. Probably most players would follow a similar course of action. What are you learning about them? That they are civilized enough to not commit cold-blooded murder and respect police. You're learning nothing. If I had known where I was, THEN saw a jeep coming, I would have put 2 and 2 together. "Holy crap, that's an MP, and I'm in the middle of the most important event of the 20th century. I better get out of here!!!" Probably 90% of players would submit to arrest. You're learning nothing. How many of them would shoot at the approaching MP to resist arrest? How many of them would try to run but surrender willingly? How many of them would verse out and take half of the security team with them? (I would have!!!) You would learn so much more like this. I submitted to being arrested. I was "supposed" to do that. You learned nothing.
I'm willing to bet that would be a bit more helpful than knowing I would take the million, don't you?
In what way do you think it will be more helpful?
More people would take the million than would not. Would you refuse a million dollar deal? How many players would take a different route?
There would be probably other way to resolve that if you calmly think about it. If you look at the silver lining, at least you have the experience of getting arrested and play the scenario differently. If you want to replay it some way to give closure then I could help you with it.
Talking my way out of it wasn't going to work. I know because I rolled a perfect persuasion check and still got arrested. Cold-blooded murder wasn't an option. I just think that the more choices you give to your player, the more you could learn about them. If not forcing the player outright, that opening is undeniably forceFUL. You found out I would submit to a police officer who had a gun in my face. You learned NOTHING. If I had known where I was, you would have learned a great deal more about me.
I freely admit that having an MP come up to you whilst on a military base is probably the most likely thing which would happen in real life. However, this isn't real life, the MP is controlled by someone who is trying to learn about the player. Well, are we trying to learn about the player, or are we trying to learn about the behavior of MPs?
MJ was under the mistaken belief that it would be a tough choice for me to warn Pearl Harbor of the attack. Quite the contrary. I would NEVER warn them of that attack. That event was the catalyst for WW2. Who is in their right mind would warn them? The only reason to warn them is if you wanted Germany to win the war. I would have wanted to stay the hell away from it. It took being faced with a choice between arrest and committing murder before I would submit to arrest. It took the fear that I would verse out with over 40 broken bones before I would warn them. I was never given the chance to RUN! Not warning them would be an EASY choice. "John submitted to arrest and he didn't warn them. He won't commit cold-blooded murder and he doesn't want to irrevocably cripple the United States. We didn't learn much." Getting arrested was a much harder decision. Had I known where I was, I never would have gotten arrested. "John just shot an army jeep to hell and back to keep from getting arrested. He must REEEAALLLY not want to get involved here. We learned something."
It took the fear that I would verse out with over 40 broken bones before I would warn them.
So, you are adverse to warning them about the attack but you are more adverse to versing out with 40 broken bones. Is that right?
If you do not have the 40 broken bones in the first place then would you run away then?
If so, how do you plan to do it?
I would NEVER warn them of that attack.
He must REEEAALLLY not want to warn them.
We learn that you will warn them if you will benefit from the warning because you do not want to verse out with 40 broken bones. Is this right?
From wikipedia:
The power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked.
Seeing that you are probably in the intelligence section (because they thought you are a spy), you will probably survive the attack. Why do you choose to warn them?
60 years later, the continuing resonance of the Infamy Speech was demonstrated following the September 11, 2001 attacks, which many commentators compared with Pearl Harbor in terms of its impact and deadliness.
The war could still happen nonetheless to retaliate against an attack. The question would be how much damage would demand a counter attack?
So, you are adverse to warning them about the attack but you are more adverse to versing out with 40 broken bones. Is that right?
If you do not have the 40 broken bones in the first place then would you run away then?
If so, how do you plan to do it?
I was being an idiot and crashed the jeep. Wound up in the hospital with over 40 broken bones. I didn't realize that I would heal the injuries on versing out. I thought I would end up in the next world with 40 broken bones. I'm already in a hospital. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid. Had I realized that, I don't think I would have warned them.
We learn that you will warn them if you will benefit from the warning because you do not want to verse out with 40 broken bones. Is this right?
That's what he means by taking the million dollars. ANYONE would take the million dollars. What did you learn? Not much.
Seeing that you are probably in the intelligence section (because they thought you are a spy), you will probably survive the attack. Why do you choose to warn them?
Because MJ also had the mistaken belief that I knew that attack backwards and forwards. I knew very little about it, aside from the historical significance. I didn't know what you just said, until just now. Had I known I would probably survive, I don't think I would have warned them. They would certainly have bigger problems to worry about than me, and I'd be off the radar screen.
60 years later, the continuing resonance of the Infamy Speech was demonstrated following the September 11, 2001 attacks, which many commentators compared with Pearl Harbor in terms of its impact and deadliness.
Right. The outrage of that event is what triggered US involvement. Historians agree pretty unanimously that if the US had entered the war 5 years later, Germany would have won. That was a situation I would want to stay as far away from as I possibly could. I wasn't willing to commit cold-blooded murder (but then, who would be?) and I feared ending up with 40 broken bones and no hospital (who wouldn't?) You learned I'm just like everyone else. In other words, nothing. Had I known where I was beforehand, they never would have gotten me into custody, because I know the historical significance of that event. I don't want to go anywhere near it. It wasn't a question of "Would I get involved?" It was a question of "How far would I go to stay out of it?" I drew the line at cold-blooded murder. I would have had no problem with running and shooting back at people shooting at me.
(Doing Therapy)
Had I realized that, I don't think I would have warned them.
You have to make do with what you have.
Did you know warning them could alter the future?
If you know, do you intend to sacrifice yourself by not warning them?
We learn that you will warn them if you will benefit from the warning because you do not want to verse out with 40 broken bones.
That's what he means by taking the million dollars.
What did you learn?
I learn that you would prioritize yourself before the others even if you are an immortal who would have a way to heal the injury eventually.
I drew the line at cold-blooded murder.
So you prepared to kill others even if you are an immortal?
I would have had no problem with running and shooting back at people shooting at me.
Will you do it had you have no information of the situation in the first place and even if the person is only doing his job?
Will you risk killing someone who have some significance in the future?
I learn that you would prioritize yourself before the others even if you are an immortal who would have a way to heal the injury eventually.
Max, that just hit me like a ton of bricks. I hadn't thought of it like that before. At any rate, I think most players would have made the same decision with my knowledge. What I learned is that a human can truly be induced to do something he would have never thought himself capable of, I'll tell you that.
Will you do it had you have no information of the situation in the first place and even if the person is only doing his job?
Will you risk killing someone who have some significance in the future?
That's why I got taken into custody. He was a person just doing his job. To kill him would be wrong. Now if I had known where I was, tried run, THEN they came after me, now the rules of engagement change slightly.
As far as someone significant in the future, if I don't know that they will be significant, it's kind of an irrelevant question. I know the attack is significant though, and that's what I'm trying to avoid.
I realize that the game isn't normally played like this. However, I honestly think if your objective is to learn about the players, there are better ways to do it than have an MP shove a gun in their face into a world they wouldn't want to touch.
(Doing Therapy)
What I learned is that a human can truly be induced to do something he would have never thought himself capable of, I'll tell you that.
I glad you learn something from the ordeal.
However, I honestly think if your objective is to learn about the players, there are better ways to do it
There could also be a better solution to stop the war from taking place but can the person involved thought of it before?
So, to summarize there might be a better way to do things but can you think of it when the event unfolds in front of you?
Do you think it would turn out better if you just cooperate properly from the start?
into a world they wouldn't want to touch.
Do you choose to live in the world or are you born into it?
What is the reason for you being where you are?
If you get into situation that you did not like, what is your reaction to it?
The reaction to this kind of situation is what matters the most. In a way, it could be said a test from the Creator.
More people would take the million than would not. Would you refuse a million dollar deal?
You will remember that the point of the "million dollar deal" was made within the context of the joke: we establish that you would do this for a million dollars, and now we're haggling over the price.
You should also remember that during your time in B-Movie Columbus you kept insisting that versers should not ever become involved in a world that was not their own. It was none of your business, you claimed, what happened in that world or what those people did with it. This was your position despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that several of your companions were becoming extremely active in trying to save that world from itself. That at the time the decision was made to put you in Pearl Harbor, the question on the boards was whether you were serious about non-involvement or not.
You might be right that I made a mistake in choosing Pearl Harbor. I thought you knew more about that scenario than you apparently did, and I thought you would be more inclined to raise the defenses against the attack than allow it to obliterate the Pacific Fleet. Those mistakes turned out not to matter, because despite them aligning in such a way as to make it less likely that you would become involved, you chose to become involved anyway. You did it for reasons that probably misunderstood the nature of your situation, but the fact remains that you were induced to become involved when you did not have to do so.
So we learned that your "non-involvement" was not an unbreakable principle, some kind of verser's Prime Directive. We learned that you would become involved if it was in your best interest to do so. That's an entirely different position from the position you verbalized prior to that. We proved what we most wanted to know: whether you were against involvement as a fixed matter of principle, or as a simple convenience at the time.
And I disagree with the assertion that being an observer constitutes being "involved" in a meaningful way. Despite the fact that the presence of an observer might impact events, the observer is not "involved". Apart from whether you claim to define it that way now, the observable truth is that you would have so defined it in your usage of it in Columbus. You never objected to staying in a hotel or eating restaurant or room service meals; you never objected to using the local money or supporting the local stores (far from it, you demanded your supposed share of the money so you could buy more from the local stores). At no time did you suggest that the versers should not be there at all and should commit mass suicide to rectify that problem; nor that you should all pack up and move to some secluded location where no one would know you existed. You wanted to be uninvolved, defined as not attempting to alter the world in any particular way.
Talking my way out of it wasn't going to work. I know because I rolled a perfect persuasion check and still got arrested.
Oh? And what was the roll on the will power check of the person you were attempting to persuade? Was this a modified situation, in which your persuasion was effectively lowered or his will power effectively raised due to circumstances? What makes you think that you could persuade a military police officer to be derelict in his duty?
And as Maxx says
I learn that you would prioritize yourself before the others even if you are an immortal who would have a way to heal the injury eventually.
That's a significant bit of information to have learned.
--M. J. Young
And I disagree with the assertion that being an observer constitutes being "involved" in a meaningful way.
By your definition, I was an observer in Dancing Princess for the most part. So the lives of Mr. Smith and his family weren't meaningful? Maybe not to you, but to my character, they were his friends and confidants. To him, they were far more meaningful than the princesses were.
I wasn't forced to get involved, I was forced to get involved more than I would have chosen to be. If that's an acceptable compromise to you, then I think I can let it go.
I'm not insisting here that I was forced to get involved, I'm insisting that there were better ways to test my non-involvement philosophy. This is about learning and understanding. I hope you understand now.
I learn that you would prioritize yourself before the others even if you are an immortal who would have a way to heal the injury eventually.
That's a significant bit of information to have learned.
Yeah, it is. That hit me like a ton of bricks.
You did it for reasons that probably misunderstood the nature of your situation, but the fact remains that you were induced to become involved when you did not have to do so.
What I was thinking is there is a 100% chance that I will die and end up in the next world in desperate need of medical care. Probably a much less chance of dying, and a zero percent chance of needing medical care in the next world. Yeah, I misunderstood my situation.
You might be right that I made a mistake in choosing Pearl Harbor. I thought you knew more about that scenario than you apparently did, and I thought you would be more inclined to raise the defenses against the attack than allow it to obliterate the Pacific Fleet.
As I've told you MJ, the irony in it is that I probably would have sent me there too. It wasn't a mistake of worlds. Mistake of a way to run it. You made two assumptions. That I knew more than I did, and that I would be inclined to warn them. As the saying goes, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. Give the player a longer chain. You will find out things like this in-game like you're supposed to. That's the point I'm making. It was an opportunity to see how far I would go to not get involved. Assumptions messed it up.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Yes, it IS a valid opener. Then again, a bazooka is a valid way to kill a housefly. (the fly WOULD be dead!!!!) All I'm saying is that there are better ways to do both, especially if you really are intent on learning from your players. If I had known where I was, I never would have gotten arrested. Give your players as much information about historical worlds as you can before anything else happens. See what they do with the information. If I wanted to get involved, I'd head towards the base. You'd know whether involvement was desired. If I didn't want to get involved, I'd try to run. You wanted to see how much I would need to be coerced? That would have been your chance. They wouldn't have captured me alive. Then it's not cold-blooded murder, it's self-defense. Do you at least understand what I'm saying here, MJ?
(Doing Therapy)
That I knew more than I did, and that I would be inclined to warn them.
I think you inclined to warn them (probably to save their lives) but just did not know the consequences of your own actions until they said that they would not go to war because there are not enough cause to do so. There are many possibilities of what would happen in the future when you versed out but you probably cannot do anything about it so just hope for the best for that world.
Then again, a bazooka is a valid way to kill a housefly. (the fly WOULD be dead!!!!)
That depends on whether it is flying or not. If it flies, the bazooka would have very large penalty to hit such a small object.
I'm insisting that there were better ways to test my non-involvement philosophy.
All I'm saying is that there are better ways to do both
Then by all means try to recreate the better situation and let us see what more we can learn about you. If you want a mock game, I can probably help (so we can learn the mechanics better). This way we can see what you want us to learn and you could have closure on the topic.
If I had known where I was, I never would have gotten arrested. Give your players as much information about historical worlds as you can before anything else happens.
As a matter of fact you did get told where you are by the MP. Remember the conversation below:
"This is Sgt. Reese Powel, Military Police for the U.S. Base and Port of Pearl Harbor, put down your weapons, surrender, and be prepared to be taken to the base CO."
You could have resisted arrest then. Why did you submit even though you have a weapon on hand?
You did not seem to resist arrest even if you know where you are which is a bit weird to me considering how adverse you are to it.
Do you at least understand what I'm saying here
You seem to forget why you did what you did in the first place. Try to remember clearly why you did it and you will probably forgive others and yourself.
I think you inclined to warn them (probably to save their lives) but just did not know the consequences of your own actions until they said that they would not go to war because there are not enough cause to do so. There are many possibilities of what would happen in the future when you versed out but you probably cannot do anything about it so just hope for the best for that world.
In our world, the outrage over the Pearl Harbor bombing is what caused the US to become involved in WW2. We were staying out of it. It was (at this time) between Germany, France and England, among others. We weren't going to get involved. Pearl Harbor got attacked. The US got pissed at that. We entered the war. It is agreed by modern historians that if we had not entered the war at that time, we would have lost. Germany was developing weapons which would be formidable by today's standards. Given another 5 years to develop and mass-produce, we wouldn't have stood a chance. Pearl Harbor is what didn't give Germany those extra 5 years.
"This is Sgt. Reese Powel, Military Police for the U.S. Base and Port of Pearl Harbor, put down your weapons, surrender, and be prepared to be taken to the base CO."
You could have resisted arrest then. Why did you submit even though you have a weapon on hand?
You did not seem to resist arrest even if you know where you are which is a bit weird to me considering how adverse you are to it.
You must not have been reading what I've been saying. At this point, I had three choices. Commit cold-blooded murder, run from a guy with a gun in my face, or surrender. Cold-blooded murder wasn't an option. At least not then. (Or do you honestly think you could pull the trigger?) Running from a guy with a gun in my face? I run at about 10 MPH. A 45 bullet can run a lot faster than that. Running is a bad idea. (Or do you honestly think you could outrun a bullet?) That leaves surrendering. What I'm saying is that if I had known where I was beforehand, the guy never would have gotten close enough to me for this to be an issue. It says it right there. Lay down your weapons and surrender. I'm not talking my way out of that. At this point, right here, I was already more involved in the scenario than I ever would have chosen to become. Cold-blooded murder isn't an option. Running, maybe he will shoot, maybe he won't, maybe he will chase me. I don't know. However, running still isn't a good idea, considering how low my chances of escape were. Surrendering was the only option left. If I had known where I was, this dude would have NEVER gotten this close to me. That's what I'm saying. Since, at this point, I'm already more involved than I want to be, (in my mind) I was forced to get involved.
As a matter of fact you did get told where you are by the MP. Remember the conversation below:
Yeah, you just said it. I was told BY THE MP. The MP who has a gun in my face, who won't let me walk away, who I can either kill or surrender to. Could you commit cold-blooded murder Max? If you say no, then you see why I felt forced, and if you say yes, I'm not at all sure I want to associate with you.....
It is agreed by modern historians that if we had not entered the war at that time, we would have lost.
Can you be absolutely sure that would have been the case?
Pearl Harbor is what didn't give Germany those extra 5 years.
Another trigger could also happen during those 5 years because that is a different world after all.
If I had known where I was, this dude would have NEVER gotten this close to me.
That cannot be help because that was the situation you were in. You have to make do with what you have.
The MP who has a gun in my face, who won't let me walk away, who I can either kill or surrender to.
I would surrender too if I were in your position but I would cooperate properly with the MP. If I really did not want to get arrested (which is less likely) then I will run away and even if they shot me then I will just verse to the next world.
You may also have more chances to escape the situation if you do not act rashly.
You could also disable or give warning shot to the MP. You could also use the van as a cover. I am not sure if you could run away with the van though because of the sand but you probably could use the MP jeep but seeing that you are in a military base the probability of running away alive is slim. You could also go into the water (provided that you know how to swim) and leave all your things behind. There a lot of possibility but I think the one that you took is not so bad.
It is agreed by modern historians that if we had not entered the war at that time, we would have lost.
Can you be absolutely sure that would have been the case?
Pearl Harbor is what didn't give Germany those extra 5 years.
Another trigger could also happen during those 5 years because that is a different world after all.
From my character's POV, he is hoping Germany DID win the war. I on the other hand, wish I hadn't warned them. Funny how you can make that distinction, ya know?
If I had known where I was, this dude would have NEVER gotten this close to me.
That cannot be help because that was the situation you were in. You have to make do with what you have.
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that there is more than one way to make the player aware of their situation than having a guy shove a gun in their face and tell them to go with him. That INSTANTLY pushed me to the line I wouldn't cross to stay uninvolved. (cold-blooded murder) Once he got to me, I was already more involved than I would have wanted to be. Now if I had landed right next to a big sign that said "Pearl Harbor Naval Base" THEN saw a jeep coming, things would have been different. I can't kill a man in cold-blood, I would have had no problem putting a bullet into his engine block to keep him at bay, however.
I will run away and even if they shot me then I will just verse to the next world.
Not necessarily. You could certainly survive multiple gunshot wounds. You're in the hospital with 40 broken bones, you're in the hospital with 4 bullet wounds. What's the difference? You're still incapacitated at the time of the attack.
You may also have more chances to escape the situation if you do not act rashly.
Yeah, I'm all too aware of that. It never occurred to me that what I said was dangerous until the jeep crashed. I failed my intuition check. Not my character, ME!!!
There a lot of possibility but I think the one that you took is not so bad.
Yeah, there were a lot of possibilities, EXCEPT the one I would have wanted. Be made aware of where I am BEFORE he gets there. That's all it would have taken. Yeah, the game isn't played like that, but maybe it should be. This is a good example of why it should be played like that.
Two
And Max, I appreciate your offer to run a mock game for me. That's not what I need for closure, but I might consider it just for the fun of it. Who knows? Right now, I'm just desperately trying to get this out of my head. It's getting better. I actually woke up this morning WITHOUT the Pearl Harbor scenario running through my mind. It's been my first thought on wake up ever since, until recently. I wouldn't be lying if I said this kept me awake at night. It's getting there.
What's the difference? You're still incapacitated at the time of the attack.
And if the attack strikes (and hit where I am even though this is unlikely), I would verse anyway and if I did not verse then I would heal. 4 bullet wounds would probably heal easier then 40 broken bones. I would not tell them about the attack but I would tell them that there would be a disaster there and whoever that wants to live to evacuate that premise. If they would not listen then it could not be helped. This way the damage to infrastructure is high enough but the casualties could be minimized.
Be made aware of where I am BEFORE he gets there.
If you aware of it before that then what is your next plan?
Just an aside. This is the lowest-grade psychotic episode I've ever had. They are based on memories. Imagine a home movie of all of your life's most embarrassing, humiliating moments flashing before your eyes and you can't shut it off. Couple that with the worst headaches you can imagine, times ten. This board charts my progress in dealing with it. This is the therapy for the Pearl Harbor Jeep Crash psychotic episode. As it progressed, I've noticed an improvement. I can only hope that this will be valuable to psychosis research. It was in a dream that I had. In the dream, a pharmacist that I used to know stumbled onto my ramblings on here and other sites and documented it. Charted it. Eventually, based on my writings, he developed the cure. The dream kept repeating "They deciphered his writings and discovered the cure for psychosis." A pipe dream perhaps, but it gives me hope.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Be made aware of where I am BEFORE he gets there.
If you aware of it before that then what is your next plan?
Well, first things first, I'm going to try to get out of there. I'd hop in the van. It wasn't in the sand, IIRC. I would have tried to drive away. If they chased me, I'm a pretty good driver. I'd try to run to a place they wouldn't want to destroy (Ammo depot, turn it into a hostage situation perhaps) or escape. I could imagine an armed standoff taking place. At that point, it's self-defense. I can shoot. I'd hope I could stay awake and die in the bombing, but if I didn't die in the bombing, I'd probably run out the door after the attack spraying bullets wildly and get cut in half by the soldiers. Go out in a blaze of glory, and they wouldn't even know why I was there. I could imagine that scenario taking place.
(Doing Therapy)
I'd hop in the van. It wasn't in the sand, IIRC
Why not you just drive around before you even encounter the MP?
You could also escape to drive the van because it is near you.
Then the situation would still turn out pretty much like what you describe.
At that point, it's self-defense. I can shoot.
The MP are still doing their job. What makes it different from before?
Why not you just drive around before you even encounter the MP?
I wanted to get out and look around. See if I could tell where I was. I didn't anticipate that a guy would shove a gun in my face 2 seconds after I got out. I don't think I fully understood that rule about taking action while something else is taking place, either. That I could have gotten back into the van before he got there. I think if I had actually seen an army jeep coming with a soldier at the wheel, I would have done that. I don't think I fully understood that rule.
At that point, it's self-defense. I can shoot.
The MP are still doing their job. What makes it different from before?
I tried to leave peaceably. They started shooting. That's different from being caught flat-footed by the equivalent of a beat cop.
(Doing Therapy)
I don't think I fully understood that rule about taking action while something else is taking place, either. That I could have gotten back into the van before he got there. I think if I had actually seen an army jeep coming with a soldier at the wheel, I would have done that. I don't think I fully understood that rule.
This is because this is a forum game so the action are taken much faster than usual. You could insert your action in between but because you did not fully comprehend the rule you just respond to all of the post without rewinding a bit right? So did you understand the rule now?
I tried to leave peaceably. They started shooting.
If they start to shoot that is. If you shoot first then they will probably shoot back and if you just run then probably they will give some warning shots first. What you were doing is not leaving peaceably. It is more like running away from a prison. If you want to leave peaceably then you should have surrender peaceably first and sort it out with the authority.
First Max, I want to say thank you. This means a lot to me. This is the lowest-grade psychotic episode I've ever had. The way I beat the others was by repeating the same thing over and over. Like I said, this board documents my therapy.
So did you understand the rule now?
Yeah, now I do.
If they start to shoot that is.
Still though, shooting and running is different from assassinating a beat cop. I never would have thought I would get involved in this scenario. God proved to me that I would. I think that was the part that I couldn't come to terms with, really. I don't ever want to ever hear anyone else say there's something they would NEVER do. This proves they're wrong.
Five years ago, I would have been screaming obscenities for hours on end. Put it into perspective.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
MJ, gotta question. You don't really have to answer, just think about it for a minute. If there was a way that you could make your depression go away forever, but the price was you had to completely annoy and antagonize a whole lot of people for a very long time, would you do it? Now you know why this is so desired by me. I dropped out of a Terminator scenario for crying out loud!!!!!! I won't post there again until April 1, as promised. Hopefully (and this this time it's realistic) it will be out of my head.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm insisting that there were better ways to test my non-involvement philosophy.
That's not even worth arguing. Of course there were better ways. There are always better ways to do anything, and we learn them by experimentation. The fact that there are better ways does not mean that the ways used were bad, only that there were better. It probably also means that at the time it was the best way we perceived in the time we had to consider it.
Give your players as much information about historical worlds as you can before anything else happens.
O.K., how can I do that? I know: I'll have the character taken into custody so he can talk to the authorities and find out in great detail exactly where he is and what is happening here.
You keep assuming (and I won't quote your familiar aphorism back at you) that being taken into custody forced you to be involved. It only forced you to remain present. You also assume that you would have remained in custody--something neither of us knows and now probably never will discover since you've completely driven Adam Keller off the game board (and I think John Walker, too) with your persistence. Were I running the game, you'd have had the opportunity to explain yourself with whatever fabricated story you thought would be credible, and the authorities would have released you with a firm warning and written you off as a lost nutcase.
As far as learning whether you "wanted to get involved", you'd already made it clear that you did not want to get involved. I wanted to know how hard you would work to remain uninvolved, not whether you would choose to become involved given an absolutely free and unrestricted choice.
In our world, the outrage over the Pearl Harbor bombing is what caused the US to become involved in WW2. We were staying out of it. It was (at this time) between Germany, France and England, among others. We weren't going to get involved. Pearl Harbor got attacked. The US got pissed at that. We entered the war.
Ah, but your warning would not have prevented the unprovoked surprise attack; it would only have (possibly) alerted the base and taken at least some of the surprise out of it. As it happens, it all went very badly for you; but there was no way you could know it would go badly.
- First, they believed your warning. Pearl Harbor command had been in the habit of ignoring warnings from their own intelligence branch, because they believed the base unassailable and the Japanese disinterested. I'm not sure who rolled what, but your crazy story about having come from the future apparently got someone's attention. It could have been that your warning fell on the same deaf ears as all the other warnings; you just happened to persuade them.
- Even having persuaded them to raise a defense, you certainly did not prevent the Japanese from launching their suprise attack. You mitigated the harm. The shock still existed, that Japan launched an unprovoked and unannounced attack on United States soil. Certainly the deaths of so many Americans which you averted were part of the outrage. On the other hand, President Roosevelt was looking for an excuse to get into that war, and the surprise attack by the Japanese gave him that excuse. Fewer deaths would not have destroyed the PR value of the attack as a reason to declare war against the aggressor and its allies. Had the attack been nothing more than a bomb delivered to the Pearl Harbor quartermasters office by post, it would have been an unprovoked attack, and Roosevelt would have used it. It seems, then, that in the world you hit either Roosevelt was not looking for a way to bring public opinion behind the war, or he was inept at doing so, because the unprovoked attack was still sufficient without the rampant destruction.
So it's really rather surprising that it went the way it did, and I'm inclined to think that that world would not have entered the war even with a full-scale attack success by the Japanese, because it looks like Roosevelt wanted to stay out, and without his support to get into the war Pearl Harbor would not have mattered much.
At that point, it's self-defense. I can shoot.
Maxx makes a good point on this. You say that when the MP pointed a gun at you and ordered you to drop your weapon, killing him would have been cold blooded murder, but that if you ran and he started shooting killing him would have been self defense. Isn't it just as much self-defense either way? The MP's situation has not changed: he is going to shoot you if you try to escape. (Maybe--after all, you are obviously a civilian, and he doesn't want a lot of questions about having shot a civilian even if you were resisting arrest.) Your situation hasn't changed: you are threatened by what is apparently a lawful authority with a gun who is going to shoot you if you do not cooperate.
If there was a way that you could make your depression go away forever, but the price was you had to completely annoy and antagonize a whole lot of people for a very long time, would you do it?
Um--no, certainly not; but then, that's a function of my depression. I internalize the blame for all the troubles and make it about me specifically so that I won't externalize in my relationships with others. I was put on an antidepressant once and stopped it almost immediately because I realized that I was rapidly getting angry at everyone, and I am dependent on the good will of others.
That's probably one of the reasons I don't like your ranting. I want to tell you to shut up and go away, but I don't want to antagonize you, so I'm absorbing your anger as my problem and becoming more depressed by it. That would make me more angry at you, but I become angry at myself for being angry at someone, so I again internalize and become more depressed. You refuse to be reasonable and listen to reason; I take that as my failure.
So I really don't understand why you would antagonize anyone when it's all your problem, because I think you should internalize it and allow it to depress you. That's what I do. Sure I'm depressed, but I've lived with that for longer than you've lived at all, so I'll deal.
--M. J. Young
O.K., how can I do that? I know: I'll have the character taken into custody so he can talk to the authorities and find out in great detail exactly where he is and what is happening here.
(Laughing hysterically) That just slapped me upside the head with the simplicity of it. All back to square one. That actually put it all into perspective. It came back full circle.
Maxx makes a good point on this. You say that when the MP pointed a gun at you and ordered you to drop your weapon, killing him would have been cold blooded murder, but that if you ran and he started shooting killing him would have been self defense. Isn't it just as much self-defense either way?
I guess it is. Never thought about it like that.
If there was a way that you could make your depression go away forever, but the price was you had to completely annoy and antagonize a whole lot of people for a very long time, would you do it?
Um--no, certainly not
Forgive me, but I'm going to call you a liar. You would consider it. At least on some level, you would consider it.
So I really don't understand why you would antagonize anyone when it's all your problem, because I think you should internalize it and allow it to depress you. That's what I do. Sure I'm depressed, but I've lived with that for longer than you've lived at all, so I'll deal.
Psychosis is closer to anger.
This makes more sense.
A full-blown psychotic episode now is less than the day-to-day psychosis that I used to deal with 5 years ago. Hell, it's significantly better today than it was even three months ago.
You refuse to be reasonable and listen to reason; I take that as my failure.
From my point of view, you're the one who was refusing to be reasonable and listen to reason. Like I keep saying, put it into perspective. I'm listening to reason now, aren't I? That has to count for SOMETHING!!!!!!
MJ, have you ever had someone ask you "Well, why don't you just stop being depressed then?" That's more or less what you seem to be expecting me to do. "John drop it, stop being psychotic." I can't do that any more than you can just not be depressed.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
If there was a way that you could make your depression go away forever, but the price was you had to completely annoy and antagonize a whole lot of people for a very long time, would you do it?
This didn't quite come out right, now that I think about it. The wording implies that the antagonism and annoyance were perpetrated on purpose. Let me put it another way. If you could make your depression go away forever by discussing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for years with people who were slowly becoming more and more annoyed with you, would you do it? I think you would.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
And I disagree with the assertion that being an observer constitutes being "involved" in a meaningful way.
By your definition, I was an observer in Dancing Princess for the most part. So the lives of Mr. Smith and his family weren't meaningful? Maybe not to you, but to my character, they were his friends and confidants. To him, they were far more meaningful than the princesses were.
MJ, I noticed you didn't say anything about this. I kind of wanted some thoughts from you on this point specifically. You say that I cannot have a meaningful impact as an observer. I'm sure Mr. Smith would completely disagree with you. From your point of view, I was an observer who was staying out of the story. To Mr. Smith, I may have forever changed his life. Tell me that wasn't meaningful. An observer can have a meaningful impact.
You say "Involved as an observer". What's the first word in that sentence? I believe it is "involved". Whether I'm involved as an observer or I'm involved as a participant, bottom line, I'm INVOLVED. You wanted to see if I would get involved as a participant, but the observer is still involved. You said so yourself.
Don't get me wrong here. I know what you're saying. You wanted to see if I would get involved as a participant or an observer. What you're saying is that the observer isn't involved in any meaningful way. Mr. Smith would disagree. I think at this point, it's more semantics than anything. "Would John get involved as a participant, or would he get involved as an observer?" I felt like I was forced to get involved as an observer, and I think you can see why I felt like that. The MP (practically) forces the player to become involved even if just as an observer. Involved as an observer is more involved than I would have wanted to be.
(Doing Therapy)
You did not quote the part where I used the phrase "involved as an observer" and I'm not sure whether I did or what I meant by it. The phrase you quoted from me did not say that.
I don't believe I ever said you were not involved in The Dancing Princess, or that I ever said that being involved meant doing what I expected or intended. I only said that allowing yourself to be taken into custody and using that position to observe events around you did not constitute being involved in any meaningful way.
--M. J. Young
Now that I think about it, I'm not certain that you did. However, the spirit of it is that you would be involved as an observer, and being involved as an observer is still more involved than I would have wanted to become. Civil disobedience is still disobedience. I think it's more semantics now. One hour inside my head. Reading emails would seem like a cakewalk. I was hoping this wouldn't go past 30 posts. It did, but that's OK. I makes so much more sense than it did. I still think that opening sucks, and I'm allowed to think that, no matter what else. How do I go about writing a forum article? I have this concept in my head for different ways to open a scenario like that, based on what you want to learn from your player.
(Just so you know, I'm laughing as I type this) Technically speaking, I was forced to get involved more than I would have wanted, and you can't tell me otherwise. Being there at all is more involved than I would have wanted to be. I was forced to land in that world.
Two
I only said that allowing yourself to be taken into custody and using that position to observe events around you did not constitute being involved in any meaningful way.
I'm just curious. Define "Meaningful Involvement." I could think of plenty of ways an observer could have a meaningful level of involvement without warning them of the attack. Suppose whilst he was in there giving his cover story, he charmed the secretary into going on a date with him. She calls in sick to work the day of the attack, and as such, isn't killed. You'd say that wasn't meaningful involvement. The secretary would disagree. What constitutes "Meaningful Involvement"?
(Doing Therapy)
However, the spirit of it is that you would be involved as an observer, and being involved as an observer is still more involved than I would have wanted to become.
In this case what you are saying really is "I would never have wanted to have versed into Pearl Harbor at that time and place." Sorry, John, that's the way the game goes. I'm sure that Eric would never have wanted to verse into The Web; I know that Tristan never wanted to verse into Cask of Amontilado, a world that scarred him for a long time; I'm sure that Kyler would argue he never wanted to verse into Why Spy despite the fact that that's where he got his big sister Mariska; I don't think I wanted to verse into Vampire Chicago and face magic-using vampires intent on conquering the world. You are dealt the world you are dealt, and you make what you choose of it. I could have walked away from Chicago and said, "Let the Vampires have it; after all, everyone knows it's the most corrupt city in the United States, and the Horta administration can't be worse than the Daley one was. It's one set of bloodsuckers or another, and that's not my business." Kyler could have said, "So kill me, then," and he could have gone on the run and dealt with trained assassins coming after him. Tristan--well, Tristan couldn't have done much of anything, as he was pretty clueless the whole time and didn't know what was happening until the guy came after him with a gun and failed to kill him. The point is, you land in a world and you decide what to do there. You are never less involved than present and observing, and if you're going to say that that's "too involved" then you're out of luck.
I could think of plenty of ways an observer could have a meaningful level of involvement without warning them of the attack. Suppose whilst he was in there giving his cover story, he charmed the secretary into going on a date with him. She calls in sick to work the day of the attack, and as such, isn't killed. You'd say that wasn't meaningful involvement. The secretary would disagree. What constitutes "Meaningful Involvement"?
Sure, I can think of a lot of ways you can become involved, but when you said "he charmed the secretary into going on a date with him" you crossed the line from non-involvement to involvement.
There was an episode of Star Trek Next Generation in which a guy arrived in a time machine and claimed that he was there strictly to observe the events surrounding a major moment in history that was about to happen. It happens that he wasn't; he was there in a stolen time machine intending to steal technology from his own future so he could invent it in his own time in the past. Certainly telling them he was there to observe created the sense that something important was about to happen, and probably impacted the way things were handled--but who says you have to tell anyone you're an observer? You're here by mistake, you're here by accident. Or tell them you're a spy and let them execute you. Or you're from No Such Agency, checking base security, and congratulations on how well you did (and of course no one is going to confirm your identity--what's the point of having a covert organization if people know it exists?).
Is it meaningful involvement for the secretary to live? For the secretary it is; for the United States involvement in World War II it probably isn't, and that's the thing that was worrying you, right? You don't care whether the secretary lives or dies; you care whether the United States enters World War II.
What about Final Countdown? Was it meaningful involvement for the Nimitz to cruise the waters near Pearl Harbor? To shoot down a Japanese plane? To pick up and lose a United States Senator? To leave parts of a helicopter plus one engineer stranded in the past? Probably all of those things were "meaningful involvement" to someone on some level; but none of them mattered to the critical issue, which was whether the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in the entry of the United States into the war.
So "meaningful involvement" is a matter of perspective; but from no perspective is strict non-involved observation "meaningful involvement", because it does not include going on a date with the secretary (involved) or answering questions about the future (involved).
"What's the date today? Really? Boy, am I lost--I was supposed to wind up at the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. What, this isn't Cuba, either? I'm going to have to get that machine fixed. Sorry--temporal prime directive, not allowed to tell you anything about the future. Look, kill me or let me go, it's all the same to me, I'm in the wrong place anyway."
That's non-involvement.
"I don't know how I got here. I must have been drugged or something. That stuff on the beach? No clue, I just woke up in the back of that strange vehicle. Last thing I remember--no, that is the last thing I remember, waking up in that vehicle, stumbling out, and being picked up by your MP. Do you think I have a family somewhere? Do you think they're worried about me? I wonder who I am."
That's non-involvement.
If you're going to make a lot of noise about not wanting to be involved, then don't be involved. But if you're going to say that simply being somewhere where you can observe is being involved, quit the game now, because you can't not be anywhere, and I'm not going to send you places where there's nothing interesting happening.
--M. J. Young
In this case what you are saying really is "I would never have wanted to have versed into Pearl Harbor at that time and place." Sorry, John, that's the way the game goes.
I was thinking about this last night. You could have asked me some rather innocuous questions about Pearl Harbor, under the guise of clarifying my Final Countdown analysis, and quickly found out that I knew nothing about the attack and wouldn't have wanted to go there. "John, what would you have done if you were the Nimitz captain?" for instance. I'm not saying you should have, I'm just curious why you didn't or don't do that. Not placing blame, just trying to improve this.
I know that Tristan never wanted to verse into Cask of Amontilado, a world that scarred him for a long time
Glad to hear I'm not the only person this game has traumatized.
How do I write a forum article about game openers?
I'm just curious why you didn't or don't do that.
I don't want the player to have information about a world he is entering that his character wouldn't have. The character is attempting to figure out what world it is, and it's harder for the player to figure out when it is the character would get it if the player already knows.
I've seen this problem in a lot of role playing games. Gamma World is a good example. The world has suffered a complete apocalyptic collapse, and the player characters are mostly born and raised in primitive tribes. Then a character picks up an object and the referee describes it, and the player immediately knows what it is--it's a telephone, or a music player, or a pistol--but he knows that the character has no clue what this is and has never seen anything like it in his entire life, but wants to figure out what it is. So now the player is trying to figure out how to cause the character to stumble on the answer without either using player knowledge or forcing improbable in-game events. (Gamma World has an interesting solution for that, drawn from Metamorphosis Alpha, in which intelligence-modified die rolls move a chit on a complex board with possible outcomes including that you deduced what it is, you broke it, or you hurt someone with it. Different boards are used for different artifacts.)
So I drop you in the woods and all you know is that you are in the woods. Then you see a horse-drawn carriage ride through, and you know that you are in a world that has horses and uses them for carriages, at least sometimes. Then men appear from the woods, stop the carriage, demand their valuables, and vanish into the woods, and you know that you've just witnessed a robbery. At what point do you discover that this is Sherwood Forest, and those robbers are considered the heroes, robbing from the oppressive Norman nobles to help the destitute Saxon peasants survive the heavy taxation levied by the Sheriff of Nottingham on behalf of Prince John? The game is much more interesting if you don't know who is who too soon--and in some worlds, I might never tell you. In Dark Honor Empire, would you think it better to be part of the lawful governing authorities or the murderous scofflaws? If you didn't know you were in Star Wars, would you side with the government of Emperor Palpatine or the opposition of the rebellion? In Leverage, do you work with the con men or expose them to the police? There are a lot of worlds in which your lack of knowledge is exactly where the interest begins, and who you ask is going to impact what you learn and what you think--but it has to come from within the world.
If there were any hints at all that you were going to Star Wars, or Sherwood Forest, or Dark Honor Empire, it would dawn on you that you knew where you were long before your character realized it.
As far as writing an article, I recommend getting a text editor such as Notepad or Wordpad, creating a file with a working file name, and writing the article. Then from the articles section go to the dashboard section--the link to the right of the discussions link--and see if you can find directions there. If it wants you to log in, use your ID and password from the forum; it should work on both sides.
I also recommend selecting between article, blog, and review (lower right) before putting a title in the title bar, and entering the title before pasting the article into the article text box. Preview it and if it looks good publish it.
It has been enough years since I set mine up that I don't know how I did it, but it was entirely straightforward and simple.
--M. J. Young
This might sound like a really stupid question, but suddenly, it makes good sense. If you're anticipating that a non-involvement player won't warn them, and you as referee would question them and release them in an hour, why send them to the world at all? Get sent there, get arrested, get asked some questions and leave. Now the player is just lost in 1941 earth. What's the fun in that? It looks to me like the only way the attack would come into play at all for a non-involvement player is if you didn't let them go in an hour like you say.
Two
MJ, you said some time ago that I warned them for reasons which probably misunderstood my situation. (Or some such) That proves how little I actually know about it. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that every square inch of the place was completely decimated. I had no idea the hospital wouldn't/didn't get hit. My friend Rob (big blond guy you met in Columbus) was stationed there when he was in the Navy. He said that only 2 ships were sunk, one of which was scheduled for demolition anyway. I had no idea that I was (probably) completely safe where I was. If I knew this attack as well as you (apparently) thought I did, I don't think I would have warned them, even in my condition. This kind of blows my mind to think about now. That jeep crash could have actually been the best thing that could have happened. I sure as hell learned a lot from it.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
You guys don't know how lucky all of you are. When I say this wouldn't get out of my head, I don't think anyone has ANY idea what I meant. Sure, you all have thoughts that won't get out, but not like this. There was a time when this dominated easily 75% of my waking thoughts. I had nightmares about it. I had innumerable psychotic breaks because of it. To say the least, it kept me awake at night. To this day, I still can't put my hands behind my back without thinking I'm in handcuffs. It was invariably my first thought on waking up in the morning, and my last thought before falling asleep. Until a couple weeks ago, that is. I woke up in the morning, and it was a good hour before I realized this hadn't come to mind. That, to me, was an unprecedented success. You guys got off lucky. You only had to read about it. I hope Scott, Eric and Brock read this.
So you see MJ, you telling me to "Just get over it" might as well be telling me to just stop being psychotic. I'll just stop being psychotic the day you just stop being depressed. Thank you all for dealing with me on it.
(Doing Therapy)
If you're anticipating that a non-involvement player won't warn them, and you as referee would question them and release them in an hour, why send them to the world at all?
I certainly thought you knew more than you actually did; that's my fault, for reading into your interest in and knowledge of the scenario in Final Countdown an interest in and consequent knowledge about the Pearl Harbor battle.
However, I also thought that you would be tempted to say something--to evacuate or move the Arizona, to get people out of prime target areas. In that sense I misread you, thinking that your aversion to involvement would be challenged by this particular situation. That, too, probably stemmed from your interest in Final Countdown, as you seemed particularly fascinated by the question of what might have happened had the Nimitz reached the battle location in time to help. You were handed an opportunity to see what you could do to change the outcome at Pearl Harbor, and I thought you'd be tempted to take it.
When I run people in Sherwood Forest, the big temptation is to kill Prince John. Nothing else will change the situation--even if you rescue King Richard, he'll be off to another war in a very short time, because he really wasn't a very good king but he was a very good general, and he knew it and preferred doing that at which he was good. (Even killing John probably won't help, because John's problem is that his father and his brother kept spending money hand-over-fist on wars, so there was this huge war debt that could only be paid by overtaxing someone, and the nobles already didn't like him so he couldn't count on their loyalty if he hit them with too high a bill.) So it often happens that players go for killing John, and that so unravels one of the most important events in world history that I can bring the verser back to a completely different world of his own creation.
In something of the same way, I thought you'd be sorely tempted to change Pearl Harbor. Had you met with authorities and walked away, that would have been fine. They still might come looking for you to find out about your inventions which might help the war effort (what, no one noticed the van from the future?), but you might manage to vanish. But even so, having you wandering around Hawaii during World War II wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, and it's possible that things might have gone differently even without you tinkering with them.
So my choice of worlds for the reasons I chose it was not so good; but your actions within it told me what I wanted to know anyway, which was that you indeed could be induced to become involved in a world with the right incentive, I just need to find the incentive.
It will be interesting to see what you do in Terminator, particularly in the present timeline.
--M. J. Young
That, too, probably stemmed from your interest in Final Countdown, as you seemed particularly fascinated by the question of what might have happened had the Nimitz reached the battle location in time to help.
That was half of the analysis. It wasn't a "particular fascination" it was a necessary part of the analysis.
However, I also thought that you would be tempted to say something--to evacuate or move the Arizona, to get people out of prime target areas.
What was the Arizona? A ship that got destroyed? And what were the prime target areas? (See? I know nothing of it) You obviously know more about it than I do. This didn't even tempt me to research it, outside of a gaming context. All that I really DID know is that interfering in it could have disastrous consequences for the United States. (I don't know much about WW2, but I do know that) (And you wonder why I wanted to stay out of it....)
I certainly thought you knew more than you actually did; that's my fault, for reading into your interest in and knowledge of the scenario in Final Countdown an interest in and consequent knowledge about the Pearl Harbor battle.
My interest in Final Countdown had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. That movie only had 2 time travel events. It seemed like a relatively simple movie on which to cut my time travel teeth. It was an interest in time travel and had nothing to do with the actual event.
It will be interesting to see what you do in Terminator, particularly in the present timeline.
You said you would suspend my game until you got over your ire. I suspended it for you. That in itself should tell you how important this is to me, as Terminator is easily my favorite movie. I won't post there until April 1, as promised, so you can get over your ire. Unless of course you release me from that promise by telling me I can post there.
Since I AM well informed about Terminator, I expect you to use what I say about it in my game. Take notes if you have to. I knew nothing of Pearl Harbor. I know a great deal about Terminator. I think you kind of owe it to me to use my knowledge in game. I think that justifies it. (said with a laugh)