MJ, I just want to make sure I understand something. Your only "normal" comprehension of time passing is if you remember it or not. And you're not likely to ever forget this. So, I could not mention this for 2 years, then make a comment, and for you, it might as well have happened a week ago? I hope that makes enough sense for you to follow. I just want to make sure I understand.
(Doing Therapy)
If somehow you were able not to mention it for so long that I forgot it entirely, then if you mentioned it again I would realize it had been a while. Unfortunately you have two points going against you. One is you have made this, and through it yourself, so notorious that lurkers contact me privately and comment on it. The other is that you have so totally identified yourself with the issue that anytime you post anything I approach with trepidation fearing that it might be more about your complaints about games, and particularly Pearl Harbor, Adam Keller, and Terminator. Thus even when you do not mention those subjects, your very appearance is a reminder of them.
So it will be quite a while before I feel as if you have not reminded me of them recently.
--M. J. Young
Now I'm sorry I asked.
Did you ever watch that show Early Edition? Fisher Stevens (AKA Ben from Short Circuit) Plays a guy named Chuck. Chuck meets this Asian lady that works in a fish market. Chuck's thinking "Great, I know what she likes to eat!!!" and thus takes her out for fish. A lot. In the end, she tries to break up with him. "Why?" Chuck says. She says "I'm so SICK of FISH!!! I eat it all the time!!! Take me out for STEAK!!!!!"
That just seemed an apt comparison for sending a time travel fan to a historical world.
(Doing Therapy)
Yes, I watched that show from time to time; I didn't catch it until it was in reruns, unfortunately, because I enjoyed it very much; it was also complicated by the fact that one of the news stations had a show of the same name, and that's probably why I didn't realize it was there for a while--the name sounded like a news show. I get the joke, but it wasn't what I expected.
But John, you began in a historical world. You seem to overlook that.
--M. J. Young
But John, you began in a historical world. You seem to overlook that.
Stop splitting hairs. You said "If given a situation in which you already knew the possible outcomes, would you maintain your policy of non-involvement?" You seem to overlook that I knew the outcomes of the destruction of Pearl Harbor were that The United States won WW2 and became the greatest country in the world. Why would I want to do anything to change that?
You didn't /know/ that I knew anything about Pearl Harbor. You /did/ know that I was interested in Time Travel. "Anything you do can have serious repercussions on future events." Doc Brown.
I just can't help but think that if you had thought about the Time Travel, you would have known better than to send me there.
BTW, if not for that last sentence, I would not have replied to this at all. You challenged me there. You are responsible for this.
You know what I think is ironic as all hell? When I found out where I was, you said "Based on comments you made at the time, I decided that this would be a perfect world for you"
If by "perfect" you meant "The one and only scenario that will screw with your psychosis" then you were right on the money. I think that's ironic as all hell.
I know you still check this forum. Watch the counter on this thread. That will tell you how long it's been. My record is 2 months. Let me break it.
(Doing Therapy)
I promised myself I was going to wait 2 weeks before I said anything else. MJ, this will be verifiable by the thread date stamp. What I'm saying is, I'm trying to let it go. Bear with me just a little bit longer.
But you're right: I told you to be yourself, and you revealed who you were. I'm not so much annoyed at what you did as I am at who you turned out to be.
MJ said this in Random Chat, and if you like I'll provide a link. You said this in response to me saying "What right do you have to get annoyed with me for playing myself, which is exactly what you told me to do?" (Paraphrased) I realize you were probably in a bad mood when you typed it, so I'm not holding it against you as much as you might be thinking. This bothers me though. It bothers me because, with me, you told truly unique stories. All of the others went exactly the same. Pearl Harbor (Get arrested by an MP, get to the base, warn Pearl Harbor or don't) Dancing Princess (Hear about the problem, go fix it) All exactly the same. (Let's not argue semantics, I'd like to think you understand the analogy I'm making.) How many players ended up in traction and did what they swore they'd never do? How many players learned to blacksmith, then engaged the demons at the last possible moment? I told truly unique stories. And you found it annoying...... That bothers me.
Reply Requested.
(Doing Therapy)
In fairness to all the other players, no, they did not tell exactly the same stories. They did very creative things with the adventures they pursued. I remember that Chris had failed, the princesses were lost, and he was about to be executed, when he managed to escape into the castle, barricaded himself in their bedroom, stole their engraved silver goblets off the mantelpiece and stuffed them in his travel bag, then found the magic door and escaped into the demon dimension. Then he managed to dupe two demons into giving him the magic cloak and magic boots, and then he managed to rescue the princesses.
It's not your "truly unique stories" that bother me; it's the fact that out-of-game you complain about what the referee is doing and in-game your character reflects those complaints.
In Columbus, I considered the Architect's exit strategy for several weeks. I knew that what really held the group together was that he had the money and so was providing a place to live; I did not want the group to break up because gathers are so much more difficult to run when the characters get themselves on multiple timelines, so as much as possible I wanted to keep it together. I thought about it a lot, and decided that he would give the rest of the cash (which would be useless to him once he left the planet, and easily replaced given his stash of valuables if he returned) to the character he most trusted, and that was Nikolaj. There were reasons individually why he would not trust the others as much. (He would have trusted Graeme, but the way the early part of play had gone Graeme was independent and I wasn't going to change that.)
Then Nikolaj dropped out of the game, sending me a letter explaining why, and we parted amicably; but his character was still there, and the more I thought about it the more certain I was that the fact that he had gone from a player character to a non-player character made no difference to what the Architect would do--it only meant that I wasn't going to be able to withdraw my influence within the character party as easily. So I had the Architect give the money to Nikolaj, fully intending to use that as a means of holding the group together after I pulled the supercharacter out.
You didn't like it. You did not like the fact that I thought my character would leave all the money with Nikolaj, and you fought with me about it; but then, your character fought with their characters about it, insisting that the money ought to be divided among you so you could each go your own way. I was controlling Nikolaj's character, and I said what I hoped he would say, that that obviously was not what the Architect intended or he would have done that, and that the Architect said nothing about making it a democracy but simply told Nikolaj to use the money to meet the needs of the group. So you put an imaginary bullet in the imaginary wall of an imaginary hotel, and you let the argument spill into the out-of-game discussions.
That's what I don't like. It isn't that you create original scenarios--I had no complaints about you apprenticing to be a blacksmith, and in fact it's envisioned in the scenario and you're not the first person to have done that. It's the fact that you fight and argue about what the referee ought to have done or ought to be doing or ought to do next, instead of accepting that this is what the referee is doing. There is a level in this in which the referee is a facilitator trying to get you into position to win; there is also a level in which he is your opponent trying to defeat you. Neither of those roles gives you the right to dictate what he does, nor to insult him if you disagree with what he decides.
--M. J. Young
Well, in fairness to me, I'm not the same person I was when I started playing. I can honestly say I feel just a little bit better each and every time I (Do Therapy). Also, running the games for Glantri has opened my eyes a lot to the trials of being a referee. It's not as easy as I thought. To be honest, I would probably be balking at some of the stuff I'm putting his character through, if the ref was doing it to me. I'm improving. I'm getting better. Thanks for tolerating me. I feel like God has told me part of the reason I am the way I am is to test the reactions of others. How do they react to this person who isn't quite normal? That's part of why I exist.
Two
Oh yeah, the non-involvement philosophy has gone straight out the door. I've decided that I'm going to make the worlds better for me. If that advances their technology and medicine a hundred years, it's a good side-effect. Screw non-involvement. I'm not the same person I was when I started playing. I think you were right. We are a mismatch. You're good, but you're no match for me. Eric is a better match.
(Doing Therapy)
Ya know, I'm really wondering something. I wonder about how many other players did you jump to incorrect conclusions? How many other players did you "know" about, only to be completely wrong? Was I just the only one who called you out on it? I feel like God told me that, as old as your soul (spirit, whatever) is, that's a lesson it stubbornly refuses to learn. That's why I was in this lifetime for you. To try to teach you not to do that. In our next lifetime together, it's martial arts and not guns that I'm really into, and you'll have the chance to jump to a similar mistaken conclusion about me. Let's hope you've learned from this.
Maybe the game is real life, and this is the game. Who would be teaching who then? The other MJ, the other you, this MJ, this you?
I'm going to break a rule here and talk about something happening to someone I know who would rather it not be discussed.
He was at work, and something came in at the last minute, so he stayed overtime into the next shift to help, completing not only the part he would have had to do on his shift but part that others would have had to complete. He did part of the paperwork, not his responsibility, but when he'd been there two and a half hours past the end of his shift he left the job in what he thought were the capable hands of his co-workers, unfinished. Part of the job was never finished. The next day he was reprimanded for severe negligence for not finishing the job which, in point of fact, he was not required to finish.
The manager said, "Let's hope you learned something from this."
My friend said, "You bet I did--I learned never to volunteer to help with something that's not my responsibility, and you won't catch me doing it again."
I had a rule that people who were mentally unstable were not good candidates for role playing games. I knew that you had a serious psychiatric diagnosis, but I allowed our friendship to lull me into overlooking obvious problems and inviting you to play. I will be much more careful about allowing people to play such games in the future if there is any doubt concerning their psychiatric state.
--M. J. Young
I will be much more careful about allowing people to play such games in the future if there is any doubt concerning their psychiatric state.
Then you better stop playing them yourself. Aren't you clinically depressed? Just because you haven't yet found the scenario that would drive you to suicide doesn't mean no such scenario exists. Better to be on the safe side and stop playing yourself. Lead by example MJ. You wouldn't want to put some poor referee through you killing yourself over a game, now would you? You keep saying if someone is dedicated to something, they will make sacrifices for it. Aren't you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Until you stop playing these games yourself, you're just setting a double standard with talk like that.
Ya know, I just had a thought. I would think being a referee would be bad for a person with depression. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your depression ever go into overdrive when the story starts going badly? Maybe you should stop refereeing...... I mean, if you're gonna talk about the effects of games like this on metal illness.
(Doing Therapy)
As soon as I mentioned that this could affect your own mental illnesses, you clammed up. That tells me that it must mess with your own mental problems. You, being the master of reading things in that don't belong, should understand that as infallible logic. It messes with you, doesn't it? You just won't admit it. I mean, seriously. If you're gonna say people with mental problems shouldn't play, perhaps you should be taking a long, hard look in the mirror when you say it.
You never get depressed when a story is going really well, and the player gets killed unexpectedly? Maybe you should stop playing....... At least I have the gumption to seek help instead of internalizing it and letting it fester.
John, I stopped discussing this because I know that the logical conclusion of the train of thought you've started is that I should not do anything but should shut down and die.
And since I already think that, I don't need your help to push me in that direction.
So I'm gracefully bowing out of the conversation. There is nothing I can do that does not at some point feed my depression, but what I really need to avoid is conversations about my depression.
--M. J. Young
Well, why didn't you say so 3 posts ago? You should know by now, if you want me to drop something, the worst thing you can do is ignore me.
John, I stopped discussing this because I know that the logical conclusion of the train of thought you've started is that I should not do anything but should shut down and die.
Actually, the logical conclusion was that despite the fact that it screws with you, you obviously still think it's worth playing. I would hope you don't expect me to think any less. You just happened to pick The One World. And I probably would have picked it too. That stuff about maybe you shouldn't play, I was calling you on your double standard.
Now you can ignore me.
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, I do want to apologize for something huge. Some years ago, you may recall a thread labeled "Sorry Guys" where I was complaining about being "Forced into the story." Running that game for Glantri like totally head tripped me there. I brought my character, Magehammer, hundreds of verses from his present state, into the scenario. It's where I see the character going. An amateur with an AK-47 (me) would stand a decent chance against a professional with a 45 auto (the MP) Actually, the amateur with an AK-47 would probably stand a fair chance against 3 or 4 professionals with 45 autos. Glantri wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell if he tried to resist Magehammer. (Speaking hypothetically, of course) That just totally blew my mind when I thought about it. I am SO sorry about that entire thread!!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
A professional with a .45 would get double the amount of shots that a amateur with an AK-47 would have. All things being equal, the professional would get a damage category bonus, making the damage values the same, meaning that the professional would more than likely beat the amateur. The only advantage the AK-47 would have is ammo capacity.
And range. If I saw them coming, they'd never get close enough to shoot at me.
Don't you remember a few years back? Two guys with AK-47s took on the entire San Diego police department.
I will grant you this though. Immediate arrest by an MP is probably the only way to get the player in and out with minimal risk of setting the base on alert. I mean, if they really want to not prevent the destruction. Shooting it out with the MPs would undoubtedly make the base go on at least some kind of heightened alert. What I'm saying though is that I think you should let the player off the chain when they first arrive. See how they react, unimpeded, to their situation. If you can't (eventually) take them into custody with the resources of a 20th century military base, you have no business running the game. But you can always take them into custody. You only get one chance to see their initial reaction. I think you would learn more that way. The way it ran for me, I would have done my best to abide by my right to remain silent, and either die or try to escape in the attack. You wouldn't have learned much.
MJ, you'd definitely believe I was dedicated to non-involvement if that had gone the way it was "supposed" to go. I won't talk to authority figures if I'm in trouble. I've been through 2 professional interrogations, and that, coupled with my strong dislike of authority, I'd like to think I have at least an amateur skill at resisting interrogations. I wouldn't talk if I could help it. "Wow, he's not telling them anything he must really be dedicated!!!" That would be what you'd probably be thinking. And all it was is a hatred of police and a desire to not change history as I know it.
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, I wonder if you're still reading this at all. This is something I'm genuinely curious about. You, better than most people, understand the effects of altering the events of history. Granted, it isn't technically changing the past, but all of the evidence you have suggests that the United States will recover from the destruction of Pearl Harbor. You have absolutely no example for the end result of saving the place. You save the fleet. Great. So now we go after Japan first, giving Germany the time they need to perfect the V-2 rocket and the hydrogen bomb. You do know what those are when combined, right? Are you willing to take that risk over a single base? I mean, what would you do if saving the place resulted in the United States losing? If I do nothing, whatever happens, it's not my fault. The evidence I had said it was a pretty safe bet they'd recover from it. Oh well, maybe Germany deserves their place in the spotlight after all. Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest cannot be completely ignored.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
After the attack, Pearl Harbor became a symbol for everything from enlistment to the sales of war bonds. Which is more valuable? A few ships that can be repaired, or the symbol that those wrecked ships became? They weren't just heroes, they were martyrs. And yeah, I warned them to save myself. Shows you how scared I must have been.
(Doing Therapy)
Yes, I still read.
--M. J. Young
But you didn't touch anything I said. You've stated many times that you would save the fleet. All of the evidence you have says the US will survive the destruction, so why would you save the fleet? Do you become an interdimensional babysitter when you become a verser? Let them handle their own problems. Especially when the evidence you have says everything will turn out fine.
Seriously. That's why I find that so confusing. You have solid evidence that everything will be fine if you just leave well enough alone and let the bombs fall. So why not just do that? And from someone who understands the dangers of changing history. What would you do if saving the place resulted in Germany firing nuclear missiles at the US? That was entirely your fault. I, who did nothing, am in no way responsible, no matter what happens. The evidence I had said it would turn out OK.
- I am under no obligation to answer anything in any thread, except those of the games of players I am running and those which ask specific questions about the Multiverser game system or published materials. I'm not interested in this subject, and am annoyed that you keep prodding me to respond.
- Perhaps my approach might be called a bit short-sighted, but even given that kind of information I think that the best thing I can do is deal with the immediate problem immediately and then deal with the potential long-term complications. I am of a mind to believe that I could use what knowledge I have of the expected attack on Pearl Harbor to save lives there and then to press for U.S. involvement in the war and for the Manhattan Project. I know the names of some of the scientists--Oppenheimer and Dyson were both there--and I know that it works and can explain roughly how, and I know that Germany is working on a deuterium-based system which would be more powerful but is apparently a bit more difficult (the heavy metals are less stable, I think, and in any case history suggests that they were easier to use). I can also point them to Goddard's rocketry work and tell them that the Germans are already working on missiles based on that which will carry explosives long distances in unmanned craft. So I would be prepared to deal with the next step once I saved the lives of as many as possible. I do not consider lives I could easily have saved to be expendable.
- Your argument appears to be that your inaction absolves you of responsibility when you have reason to believe that if you do not interfere things will work in a way that you find satisfactory. I disagree. Once you have been injected into a world, anything that happens that might have been different had you done something different is your fault, and thus to some degree your responsibility. We know that John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln at Ford Theater very soon after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. We know that the slaves were freed, and thanks to the civil rights movement four score years later blacks became genuinely equal in this country. We also know that Lincoln wanted to heal the rift between north and south as quickly as possible, but upon his death his Vice President Johnson, a southerner put on the ticket to soften the north/south relationship, was ignored by a Congress that wanted revenge for the war. So if you could save Lincoln, you would certainly have saved him and probably made reconstruction run better--but you also would have derailed the known history of the late nineteenth century. So, would you save Lincoln, or is the fact that the twentieth century turned out all right and blacks eventually were integrated into society three or four generations later sufficient for you?
--M. J. Young
Perhaps my approach might be called a bit short-sighted, but even given that kind of information I think that the best thing I can do is deal with the immediate problem immediately and then deal with the potential long-term complications.
I choose not to be an interdimensional babysitter.
Once you have been injected into a world, anything that happens that might have been different had you done something different is your fault, and thus to some degree your responsibility.
So let me get this straight. You're saying those homeless people living downtown are your responsibility? You could let a bunch of them move in with you. Hell, you could probably let 20 of them sleep on the floor in the living room. Go get them. You just said they were your responsibility. Or are you going to draw the line there?
So, would you save Lincoln, or is the fact that the twentieth century turned out all right and blacks eventually were integrated into society three or four generations later sufficient for you?
Let me let you in on a little secret. Not everyone thinks slavery was necessarily a bad thing.
So let me get this straight. You're saying those homeless people living downtown are your responsibility? You could let a bunch of them move in with you. Hell, you could probably let 20 of them sleep on the floor in the living room. Go get them. You just said they were your responsibility. Or are you going to draw the line there?
We have had as many as six otherwise homeless people not related to us living in our house at once since we lived here. We didn't go downtown and collect them--some were friends of friends or of family, some we got from the local drug and alcohol rehab--but I certainly agree that people who have a place to live have a responsibility to help those who don't, at least sometimes by sharing the roof and the heat and the food.
Let me let you in on a little secret. Not everyone thinks slavery was necessarily a bad thing.
Not a secret; take the alignment quiz (or the javascript self-scoring version if you prefer, or if your German is good you can take the CGI version that an MIT student coded and a German role playing site asked permission to translate and post), and you'll see that I don't see slavery per se as a good/evil issue. I actually would be interested in your character's alignment based on the quiz. Mine comes out neutral good, 5 points toward lawful, 19 toward good.
However, it is generally agreed that Lincoln's death was bad for the reintegration of the South into the Union. He wanted to reunite the country as quickly, completely, and painlessly as possible; the northern-controlled congress wanted retribution. Had he lived, we probably would have resolved a lot of civil rights issues a lot sooner.
--M. J. Young
We have had as many as six otherwise homeless people not related to us living in our house at once since we lived here.
And the strange thing is I think I knew that already. Mea Culpa, as you would say.
You want to know what pisses me off the most about you sending me to Pearl Harbor? You thought you already knew how I felt about it. You thought that since I had analyzed a movie about people who wanted to stop the bombing, I would want to stop the bombing. It never once occurred to you that I might not even have known what Final Countdown was about before I did the analysis. It never once occurred to you that the analysis was written completely objectively, as it should have been. It never once occurred to you that I was just doing it as a favor to you and that I might never even have watched that movie at all if not for your prodding. It never once occurred to you that it was just a coincidence that it was about Pearl Harbor. Nope. John has seen a movie about Pearl Harbor, therefore, he must know about it and want to stop the bombing. Don't get me wrong. I probably would have sent me there too. But I would have done it with no assumptions about the player's feelings. You were thinking "He knows it and wants to stop it." I would be thinking "Let's see what happens." That's the difference. That's what pisses me off the most about you sending me there. You thought you already knew how I felt about it from the analysis.
It was also just a coincidence that it was the single worst world you could have possibly picked.
Little Ky's alignment is: Chaotic Neutral
With 22 points towards Chaotic
and 8 points towards Evil
Total Scores
Good 26
Evil 34
Lawful 19
Chaotic 41
Here are your options John:
1) Be crazy, refuse to get a job, mooch off the government, bitch about a game, that you can play, because of your inability to work an honest day's pay and contribute to society.
2) Leave.
3) Drop issues no one but you cares about, while we all pretty much laugh at you, much like a punch line to a joke.
4) Appreciate people still interact with your crazy ass, and be thankful they haven't kicked you to the curb and resolve to not be an annoying me centric asshat.
I would choose #4, but I think if there was a vote most would choose #2 for you, but it would not be enforced since MJ is too nice a guy.
1) Be crazy, refuse to get a job, mooch off the government, bitch about a game, that you can play, because of your inability to work an honest day's pay and contribute to society.
I can't wait until you are reincarnated into my life. That's right Adam. Eventually, you are going to be me. You are going to feel like such an idiot for saying that.
Two
4) Appreciate people still interact with your crazy ass, and be thankful they haven't kicked you to the curb
Oh yeah, and I do appreciate that, and I am thankful.
Hey MJ, I got a thought for you. You're not really as learn-ed at gaming as you might believe yourself to be. I say that because you have said many times that your characters were always very careful. You have no idea what it's like to be a cocky player who gets himself into trouble. I'm sure you would agree, there are some things that can only be learned by by being a very careful player and some things that can only be learned by being a cocky idiot who gets himself into trouble. You know what it's like to always be careful. I know what it's like to be cocky, then much less so. You're not quite as learn-ed as you likely believed. I just thought that was kind of interesting and worthy of note.
(Doing Therapy)
A fool does not learn from the wise; the wise learn by observing fools.
I have been at the table with a player, both as a player in a game I was running and as a party member of a game in which I was the party leader, who makes you look like a careful reflective decision-maker. I can barely begin to tell you the foolish things this player's characters have done, from heading off solo into a dangerous dungeon without a map to challenging a god of chaos to a card game.
Further, as an experienced referee it has fallen upon me to run thousands of non-player characters of every possible personality type. My player characters are all careful and thoughtful, but I have played wildly unpredictable and cocky non-player characters.
So I know more than you suppose.
--M. J. Young
So I know more than you suppose.
Your game characters might be careful, but I've seen you be extremely careLESS. I'm sorry man. I just can't get over the fact that you "knew" I knew about the bombing because I had seen a movie which was loosely based on it, but didn't "know" that I wouldn't want to stop it, despite years of talking about why changing history is a bad idea. I'm sorry to rub your nose in it like that, but I just think that was far more careless than anything you've ever seen my character do.
The only way it's careless is in the sense that no one cares. I imagine interest was relatively low when you initially brought it up, and has gotten to the point of absurdity. People make assumptions, it's how the world lives. If you didn't, it would be impossible to take any actions. The difference is some assumptions are educated and some are not.
MJ's assumption of you knowing about the bombing is valid in multiple parts.
*There is a positive correlation between interest in guns and interest in military history
*Pearl harbor is a well known piece of US history, in which you live, and which is taught in school
*Even only having a cursory knowledge of the bombing is enough, even just knowing the date and approximate time is enough
*The assumption wasn't important past the idea of you noticing you were at Pearl Harbor eventually. And if you didn't, no big deal, we learned you aren't a US History or Military History buff and you got hit in a bomb attack and move on.
Now you continue to make the comparison between the multiverse and changing history. It's just not applicable. I can't imagine the Architect never mentioned the multiverse during your gather.
Now the most important point. No one cares what you say on this topic anymore. Stop trying to bait MJ into a response by posting an attack at his experience and then using it as a random transition back into Pearl Harbor.
And if you're going to comment on what he did that was careless, he's admitted in other words that picking up a mentally unstable player was careless. That far better explains the problem than what you point to as being careless.
*There is a positive correlation between interest in guns and interest in military history
NO THERE IS NOT!!!!!!! What you're saying is that an LA gangbanger who would just love to have a WW2 machine gun would be expected to know about the Normandy Beach campaign. You're also saying all WW2 historians are gun nuts. That is a STEREOTYPE!!!!! Nothing more. And it's quite offensive to me.
And if you're going to comment on what he did that was careless, he's admitted in other words that picking up a mentally unstable player was careless. That far better explains the problem than what you point to as being careless.
I don't think being mentally unstable has as much to do with it as everyone thinks. Here's why. Put yourself in my shoes. You swore that you would never do something. You believed strongly that doing this thing would have serious consequences. You're then put into a game setting and end up doing what you swore you would never do. You could not convince me that it wouldn't shake your cage just a little bit. The fact that I'm mentally unstable might have worsened it, but I'm certain even most "normal people" would be rattled by that. Please note, no other world I've been to has had even remotely this kind of effect on me. If I were still going on about every world I've been to, then I'd say yeah, maybe mentally unstable people shouldn't play. He just picked The One World.
And please don't forget that MJ is every bit as mentally unstable as I am. Just on the other end of the spectrum. Any argument made about why I shouldn't play due to mental instability applies equally to him.