John wrote
Mistake.
Yes, I agree.
--M. J. Young
Did you happen to read the posting above that? Go up one more. (Which is to say, I'd like a much better reply if you did, and you need to read it if you somehow missed it)
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I just had this mental picture of the "Fuse MP's hands to steering wheel" botch. Once he realized that his hands were fused to the wheel and stopped, me in handcuffs, him with his hands fused to the wheel. Me trying to get the handcuff keys away from him while he's barely able to steer and trying to run me down with the jeep and prevent my escape. That could have made a very interesting, funny scene.
John, please don't demand extra time during a week in which MJ is clearly hyper extended as it is. His dedication is well above the level in which it becomes practically beyond reproach.
As to your paragraph about it being baseless because he didn't know exactly how you would react, only the majority, that's true of everything. That means you find ever decision he makes to be entirely baseless. As is every decision anyone makes. The assimilation of information of the norm and projection of your perceived norm is how people work. It's not just this way as a flaw in humanity, it's this way because it's good method of judgment with limited information. It's also the foundation for all statistics courses.
As to the paragraph to safe botches and MJ's reply that it was cheating. A botch list is dangerous based on the level of the extremes of what you could do to screw up. For example I think I had a relatively safe botch list for when I was using a weaving loom. This makes sense as how dangerous am I really being? You weren't doing one of these safe procedures. The conditions involved you, in a jeep, messing with how the jeep works, and royally screwing up something. I don't see how an objective referee could come up with a botch list and ignore the blatantly obvious idea of the jeep crashing.
Furthermore, I know you reference the fact that you're not a gamer while most of us are. I just want to point out one aspect of gaming culture in roleplaying that really defines why people look at what you wish Adam would have done as cheating. You're playing a roleplaying game in which you're told "You get a character, and get to weave a destiny". The referee or GM or whatever you wish to call the person running the game is generally running under a mechanical system but also using their imagination and thought to generate a scene. When the GM oversteps setting up the scenario and reactions of the environment he's accused of railroading. This a thoroughly hated word by most players and refs, because it makes a refs job miserable trying to avoid it and players sometimes feel abused if its used. Moral of the story is railroading happens to a degree a lot of the time, and it's a necessary evil of the system. Don't complain when the ref doesn't railroad though because you think he could have railroaded you towards your goals better than your actions brought you yourself.
Also expecting the referee to show you grace from your own actions is a discredit to this game. I'm new but wouldn't want MJ to forgive poor decisions on my part with no repercussions because I'm new. That doesn't make sense as a world, worlds don't just forgive poor decisions by figuring out how experienced the person making it was. The backlash is what teaches the person, both in real life and in the versers life.
As to the slide ruler comment, you mean slide rule I believe, and calling someone who is voluntarily running a game for you to play in a sadist is ridiculous. Ref abuse is just as bad as player abuse, if not worse since there are less refs than players.
I think I've also clearly stated how it would be impossible to extend you the grace you ask for, without any cause to expect it, without betraying the game in and of itself.
His dedication is well above the level in which it becomes practically beyond reproach.
No question about that.
As to your paragraph about it being baseless because he didn't know exactly how you would react, only the majority, that's true of everything.
Have you ever met MJ in person? He's 50 something, with a heavy beard and hair down to his butt. Most people would look at him and say "Aging hippie who loves his drugs." This is entirely UNtrue of him. He is UNlike the majority of 50 something men with heavy beards and long hair. Does that mean that MJ does not have the right to be offended when people think that of him just because of his appearance?
I don't see how an objective referee could come up with a botch list and ignore the blatantly obvious idea of the jeep crashing.
I never said that crashing the jeep was unfair. The botch which crashed it was "Knock out driver." All things considered, that's probably the single most realistic and appropriate botch in the long, sad history of botches. Completely fair. What I'm saying though is would it have been unreasonable to NOT crash the jeep? Crashing it was certainly fair. No question. However, he still could have not. That's all I'm saying.
Also expecting the referee to show you grace from your own actions is a discredit to this game. I'm new but wouldn't want MJ to forgive poor decisions on my part with no repercussions because I'm new.
Again, not saying that grace should have been shown, only that it could been shown. Have you ever worked customer service of any kind? Seven words will get out out of almost any jam with almost any customer. "It's my first day on the job." Most people recognize inexperience.
I'm not saying anything was done wrong, not saying anything was unfair, just saying that it could have been done differently.
I have met MJ, I got started at Ubercon when he was running the game. We judge people every day and make assumptions based on their clothes, stature, weight, hair, accent, vocabulary and a variety of other aspects. To be honest I wouldn't describe MJ as an aging hippie who loves his drugs. I'd probably be more likely to identify him as a gamer, perhaps because he was at ubercon but also because the profile matches better. He may have had a haircut by the time I met him from when you did, as I don't remember the length of his hair being abnormal. Either way, this is all irrelevant. So far as there is logic behind it (ie. age/beard/hair) it's not baseless or unfounded. It may be inaccurate but it was not baseless.
As to the rest, your last sentence renders it a null point. You said:
I'm not saying anything was done wrong, not saying anything was unfair, just saying that it could have been done differently.
I agree, nothing was done wrong or was unfair. I also agree that there are always alternate routes. Adam sounds like he did his job pretty well then.
I have met MJ, I got started at Ubercon when he was running the game. We judge people every day and make assumptions based on their clothes, stature, weight, hair, accent, vocabulary and a variety of other aspects.
One thing I have learned in my life is that you CANNOT make assumptions about the way people will behave. That's how racism occurs. Why would anyone think that just because every player they have ever met would do a certain thing, that every player in the world would do the same thing? I think that's stupid. About as stupid as racism. I used to be extremely racist. I realized that I was judging an entire race of people on the actions of only a select few of them.
You're trying to tell me you don't judge people? I'm sorry, can't believe it, and as such I can't credit the claim that we can't make assumptions. It's impossible to go through life without it. If you want an explanation of exactly why society breaks down if assumptions are not made I can, but if you're going to insist that no assumptions are made that's pointless.
And yes, I can make a lot of assumptions based on what other people do. To a higher accuracy with some things, but I can make assumptions, because they're right more than wrong. I'm very very good at reading people. Not just saying so myself, but have had many comments on it from my friends. I know what to say and when and how based upon how someone walks, what vocabulary they choose and the way they hold themselves among other things. It's practically never backfired, because it works.
Your case for racism is discontinuous from the rest of the argument. I'm talking about making judgments about one person based on an overwhelming majority of people with the same characteristic making the same choice. You admit yourself racism stems from the fault of making a judgment on the whole based on the actions of a small portion.
Furthermore, the issue with racism isn't that you're profiling, but that you're doing it on a characteristic that is not controlled.
You're trying to tell me you don't judge people?
I didn't say that. I said I don't make assumptions about the way they will behave. There's a difference. I judge MJ as a kind, patient individual. That's judging him. I wouldn't dare to assume that he would run into a burning building to save a stranger's child just because I would or everyone else I know would. That's making assumptions about his behavior. MJ might be smart enough to figure out a way to save the child without putting his own life on the line.
Your case for racism is discontinuous from the rest of the argument.
Yeah, that it is. I'm good at going off on tangents.
I'm talking about making judgments about one person based on an overwhelming majority of people with the same characteristic making the same choice.
If we were talking about people with the same characteristics, I'd agree with you. In my first world, there were 4 or 5 players. The other players were "getting involved". I wasn't. Obviously, I do not have the same characteristics as my companions. If I am not showing similar characteristics to the majority now, what makes MJ think that I will automatically begin showing similar characteristics in the next world? I've thusfar demonstrated non-involvement. What makes him think that I will automatically abandon that just because every other player would get involved? I've already shown that I am not like every other player.
Judging does make assumptions, it's not a bad thing. It's just a fact.
As to characteristics I doubt MJ's analysis was quiet as one dimensional as involvement vs non-involvement. The assumption isn't that you would abandon it just because. It was that if given enough reason you would get involved. Judgments aren't always right, but it had a basis. I'm not MJ so I can't say which characteristics he used or if it's even able to be verbalized. Turns out he was partially right, you did get involved at some point. The reasoning ended up being fear instead of what MJ predicted, but hey, it happens. Just stop saying it's baseless as that's insulting to a logical person.
Thanks, Mike.
John wrote
Did you happen to read the posting above that? Go up one more. (Which is to say, I'd like a much better reply if you did, and you need to read it if you somehow missed it)
Yes. Oh well.
I said I don't make assumptions about the way they will behave.
Sure you do.
You assume that the drivers on the street aren't suddenly going to pull up on the sidewalk attempting to run you down, or create a circle around you and open fire. You assume that your neighbors aren't intentionally going to set fire to the apartment complex, or smash your windows and lob grenades inside. You assume the KKK isn't going to decide abruptly that you're a friend of--well, we'll leave out the derogatory labels--and add you to their list of lynch targets. You also assume that you can't tell the guy at the next table to pay for your lunch and expect him to do so, that if you attend a local church service as a complete stranger you won't be asked to deliver the sermon, and that if you grab a gorgeous stranger and kiss her it's not likely to go well.
If you did not make assumptions about the conduct of other individuals, you could not survive.
--M. J. Young
If you did not make assumptions about the conduct of other individuals, you could not survive.
I concede that point. However, that's different. You assumed that this player who had already demonstrated non-involvement would want to get involved based on the idea that every other player you know would get involved in that situation. That would be like assuming that you, who answer email and forum posts from strangers are suddenly going to stop doing so, and basing it solely on the fact that the majority of people I know don't answer email and forum posts from strangers. I had already given you a basis and foundation to work from. You kicked that foundation out, and went with the foundation that everybody else would. So, you just completely disregarded what you already knew about me. I thought your objective was to learn about players. How can you learn about players if you're just going to assume that they're all the same? You had reason to believe that I would stay out of Pearl Harbor. Instead, you assumed that I would follow the herd.
Before I started playing even, you knew I was different from most people. I recall I once asked you how many "regulars" you had on the time travel site. People you could count on an email from them every so often. Regular writers. You said "You are unique" then told me about how most people write once or twice, write for a few weeks and stop, etc. I was the only person who had been around for a long time and constantly asking questions. You knew I was unlike most people before I started playing. Why assume suddenly that I am going to turn into everyone else? Since when have I EVER done ANYTHING like you expected or like anyone else would do?
Two
I'd like to think that we all agree that we all have valid points. That you can see my point just as I can see yours, even if we don't agree 100% with each other. Just don't ever again assume that I will behave like every other player. I would have thought that, even if you knew nothing else about me, just knowing I was psychotic would be enough to completely exclude the probability of you believing I would behave like other players.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
I do think it insulting that you assumed I would behave like every other player. I am certainly less offended than that post undoubtedly made it out to be. I must admit that I am guilty of making the automatic assumption. Right after my last post before MJ's, I went outside to wait for my mom. Whilst I was waiting, a police officer called out to me, and then pulled up to me in his car. I said "What's the problem officer?" (Or something) and he said "No problem. I just like getting to know people." I replied "Sorry, I'm just paranoid. A police officer pulls up, you automatically assume that you're in trouble." (I'm laughing)
Yeah, I'm guilty of it.
Sorry MJ. I do find it insulting, but I'm not insulted, how about that? Glantri? Your name is Mike? Thanks. You're a good voice of reason. You would make a good negotiator I think.
What does that mean, if you don't mind me asking. A1 means "The Best" and nut means "Nut", so I am "John The Best Nut." The "A1nut" came to me in a dream. It was the license plate on a car I was driving.
(Doing Therapy)
Four
Yeah, it's a lot. You have to understand how the psychosis works. The episodes are based on memories. It's a flashback of the memory, and a sharp pain the likes of which you have never known. Brain Burn sounds really close to what this feels like, so I guess that means I'm the only one here who really knows what that feels like. I have no control over when they happen (which is often) and they don't like to listen to reason. I still have minor psychotic flashes about memories of things I know for a fact that I am forgiven for. I know because the other people told me I was.
Imagine being painfully reminded of this hundreds of times a day whether you want to or not. You've been painfully reminded of it once a day. Once a day is more than enough for you, I'm certain. Try having it hundreds of times a day. Like I keep saying "Put it into perspective."
(Doing Therapy)
Thank you John, that compliment means more to me than you probably would guess. (the voice of reason aspect)
My name came from a prewritten roleplaying scenario for a system I never really learned. The reasoning behind it is that it's one of the few systems I've been exposed to and not learned, it was the first world in the first system I've tried to learn, and that it was the name of a magical kingdom that I thought sounded really neat. More and more what seems magical to me is taken away. This is my own fault because my thirst for knowledge drives me to find rational and quantitative definitions behind the mysteries of life. Learning why little trinkets you find in stores works takes away the magical aspect of it but also inspires a type of awe that can't be felt elsewhere, from my experience. This is much the way the name Glantri is to me. I honestly don't understand the system, because I never went back to look at it at a more appropriate age (I think I was 12 when I stumbled across it) so the system itself is mystical. I'm not sure it's a good system, or that I'd enjoy it, but I know that the fact that I don't know about it is important to me. I also use it in forums because Mike is such a common name :).
I always think of steak sauce when reading your name by the way, possibly because I most actively read this forum around my dinner time.
As to the comment about the assumptions being insulting, I'm not saying it's invalid but want to point something out that might help resolve any bitterness over the issue (it's always nicer to live without those feelings anyway.)
When assumptions are made it's what is considered a probable course of action or probable outcome. The problem is it's very difficult to understand the core that drives a person. I'm sure you could make some educated guesses as to why I do what I do in my game, but there are a number of driving aspects that could make me do what I do. Unfortunately they would all make me do different things in another area. Try not to be insulted by the fact that MJ and others are trying to figure out what drives you to do or not do things, but rather happy that your friends here wish to understand you better and thus create a hypothesis on why you do what you do. The more times a hypothesis is proven wrong and has to be tweaked the more and more it truly defines a person. It also doesn't help there is a certain chaotic aspect to human behavior.
Also, keep in mind MJ has to make assumptions on what you would like otherwise he won't manage to put you in a world. I very much don't want to verse out of NagaWorld right now, as I'm still learning a lot, but I'm also excited to see how MJ interprets what world will suit me for my next one.
Also, you are different from everyone else, this is true, but the way your wording it makes it sound like everyone else fits into cookie cutter patterns while you stand alone. I would probably do some things that would never cross your mind, just like you would do things that wouldn't cross mine. I'm assuming this is just the way I read it and you didn't mean it, but it is important to keep in mind everyone is different in certain areas, which makes assumptions non-ideal, but it's still the best we've got.
Cross-posted, so this is to John's fourth post.
Also, this is going to sound harsh/rough and I'm sure I could put it more acceptably, but it's my mindset and I'm not often apologetic for how I think.
We all have issues. Some of us espouse them to others more freely and others keep them tucked in. I for one struggle with being borderline a compulsive liar. Not because I don't like telling the truth, but because I get a rush out of lying. Not online because there is no challenge, but in person it's exhilarating. I don't ask others to deal with the fact that I struggle to keep straight in my head what I've said or not, as I know they have their own quirks that they don't put upon me. As such it doesn't matter to me if a person struggles 100x as they subject me to, or vice verse. Only the arbitrary amount I'm subjected to.
I know this sounds mean but keep in mind I don't mind dealing with a decent amount of arbitrary information to help a friend. I also like helping people, which is why I post so frequently, it's another compulsion I have to try and help make things better. (It's weird when coupled with my lying one) It also helps that I'm a college student and thus have more free time on my hands than MJ.
I always think of steak sauce when reading your name by the way, possibly because I most actively read this forum around my dinner time.
If I had a nickle for every time I've heard that..... (laughing)
I don't ask others to deal with the fact that I struggle to keep straight in my head what I've said or not, as I know they have their own quirks that they don't put upon me.
This is going to sound equally, unintentionally mean. I totally understand that. You don't ask me to deal with your problems. However, I am in no way responsible for your problems. The same cannot be said here. You are in no way responsible for it, but MJ certainly is. Unintentionally, but still. In a nutshell, I'm just asking him to take responsibility for his actions, just as he asks me to take responsibility for mine.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm glad you understand, I'm very paranoid at times that people will misinterpret what I mean. As to whether anyone else is at fault or it was a series of accidents without blame is the argument here. I really don't have an input on that, as I wasn't around for the actual instance. I do think that a person shouldn't be blamed for doing what you ask of them. By being here, you ask MJ or whoever your current ref is to make certain judgment calls. Part of that is accepting that they are human and not placing undue burden on them for running the game for you. The part I can't help with is what each side would decide is an undue burden.
I'm glad you understand, I'm very paranoid at times that people will misinterpret what I mean.
Yeah, I know all about that. If you watch, not as much as I used to, but I often make multiple posts about the same topic just to be sure that I am being understood.
As to whether anyone else is at fault or it was a series of accidents without blame is the argument here.
A series of unfortunate events. No one at fault, really. It fell into place exactly right to get me into a heap of trouble in a hurry. First I learn psionics, and without fully understanding that they can be, for the most part, taken away in the next world, then running into a police officer first thing..... Of course I got cocky with him. I think my character might have known better. He might have had a better understanding of how the biases worked. (Long story on why) My character might have known better. That's neither here nor there of course. It happened. Now deal with it.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Just be clear, being at fault and being responsible aren't the same. It wasn't his fault, certainly. That would imply that he did it on purpose. He is, nonetheless, responsible for it.
(Doing Therapy)
More than one
I get it. It's on the page wrap. That last post didn't show up until now. Every time that happens, it's been on the page wraparound. Interesting. Someone should call Aaron's attention to this.
(Doing Therapy)
I think that your specific use of the word "assume" is what is getting you into trouble. Technically, the word "assume" means "act on the basis of a belief that certain things are true." In the vernacular, though, it has a less specific meaning, and includes everything from "presume" to "hypothesize". "Presume" has the sense of "believe something to be true in the absence of evidence and/or despite evidence to the contrary." "Hypothesize" means "act on the basis of a theory to test whether or not it is true."
When I said I assumed certain things, you took me to mean that I presumed those things, where I meant that I hypothesized them. I said to myself, "John is raving about how versers should never interfere with the histories of the worlds in which they find themselves; I wonder whether he would still feel that way were he placed in a critical moment in the history of a world that closely resembled the history of his own world, such that he would become involved in redirecting that history to something better?" You seem to have taken my line of thought to be, "John says he will never become involved in the events of any universe, but everyone I know would interfere in the events of Pearl Harbor so I'm sure he will, too, so let me demonstrate that by putting him there."
I really don't know even whether Adam would have become involved in the events of Pearl Harbor, or how he might have done so. Maybe he would not have mentioned it to anyone, but would have found a convenient vantage, deployed his heavy weapons, and gone for target practice against incoming Japanese aircraft. I am not entirely certain what I would have done--either incarnation of me. I wondered whether Pearl Harbor would break your non-involvement claims.
After all, as some actor in Star Trek once said, the only reason they have a Prime Directive is as a plot device, because it's only mentioned when they need to find a way to break it to accomplish what they need to do. They almost never adhere to it.
So I theorized that Pearl Harbor might be a good test of your non-interference claims. You now condemn me for having wondered what you would have done and put it to the test.
--M. J. Young
"John is raving about how versers should never interfere with the histories of the worlds in which they find themselves; I wonder whether he would still feel that way were he placed in a critical moment in the history of a world that closely resembled the history of his own world, such that he would become involved in redirecting that history to something better?"
Temporarily better. I save a few hundred lives. What happens when the US doesn't enter WW2 on time because of what I did? I was looking at The Big Picture. Pearl Harbor would have been a noble sacrifice in my eyes.
You seem to have taken my line of thought to be, "John says he will never become involved in the events of any universe, but everyone I know would interfere in the events of Pearl Harbor so I'm sure he will, too, so let me demonstrate that by putting him there."
Yeah, that is pretty much how I took it.
The ONLY reason I warned them was because I feared versing out with 40 broken bones. This was a case where knowing I wouldn't stay dead was the disadvantage. Would I be willing to die there rather than warn them? I'd like to think so. Versing out with 40 broken bones seemed a fate worse than death.
Two
I'll tell you this though. I don't ever want to see anyone say that there's something they could NEVER be induced to do. Don't say that there's no way you could be induced to kill your wife. There's a situation, and pray it never happens, which could induce you not only to kill your wife, but to slowly torture her to death and be laughing about it the whole time. Don't tell me there isn't, because you've never been in that situation, so you don't know. Five years ago, I would have said there was no way I could be induced to warn Pearl Harbor. If I could be induced to do that, then anyone could be induced to do anything.
Sorry John, but there are things that I can safely say I could never do. The reasoning is there are certain things I define myself by. Not as when someone asks me to describe myself it's in the following ramble, but that my view upon it entirely alters my life and without such a view. I'd rather die, be tortured, live eternity in pain, or a variety of other worst case scenarios that betray the fiber of who I am.
(I purposely left this as an abstract, because I figure you'll debate the topic with me, and mentioning what it is in cases like this adds the illogical aspect to the argument that the person arguing against the point feels bad about it. My point is whether you define the absolute essence of your being as preservation of human life (not killing) or refusal to ever eat bubblegum my argument is there are just some things that are so basic to a person that they can't betray them.)
I'd rather die, be tortured, live eternity in pain, or a variety of other worst case scenarios that betray the fiber of who I am.
And what if it was someone you loved who would die, be tortured, or live eternity in pain if you didn't betray that fiber of who you are? Not you, someone else who would take the punishment if you didn't do it? See what I mean? There's a situation which could get you to do anything, no matter what it is.
Nope, still wouldn't. People I love I love because of who I am. People who love me love me because of who I am. If I were to betray that very basis then I not only insult them, but myself and everyone I have ever loved.
Forgive me, but I'm going to call you a liar. Until and unless you're actually in the situation, don't tell me there's something you could never be induced to do. I don't want to argue about it anymore, so how about we just agree to disagree?
Ok, fine by me. Just was mainly pointing out there are some valid points behind the opposite side. Always a good thing to have in perspective.
There's always valid points to every side of an argument.
Two
Glantri, have you ever heard of Patty Hearst? I saw a documentary about her not too long ago. She was a billionaire heiress. I would bet that if you had asked her if she would ever assist in a bank robbery, she would have sworn up and down that she wouldn't. She's a billionaire, why would she need to rob a bank? She did just that after being kidnapped and brainwashed by a radial militia group. Yeah, she was brainwashed, doesn't change that fact that she assisted in the bank robbery. There's a way you could be induced to do anything.
(Doing Therapy)
John, you asked me not to argue this point and wanted us to agree to disagree. Now, I do have a response to what you said, but unless you wish to continue the conversation its best I don't. Please only ask me to respond if you want to continue the discussion on the topic.
Yesterday, I couldn't think of any valid arguments for my side, and it would have amounted to "Would not" "Would too" "Would not" "Would too". I was just curious what your thoughts might have been on this. I'd be interested in reading your response, to be certain.
(Doing Therapy)
First, the money she had doesn't mean that abiding by the law was at the core of her being. She had money and therefore didn't need to, but she didn't avoid it because she was so fundamentally opposed but because she had no cause to. As such it doesn't really address my point.
Secondly, my thoughts on brainwashing is one of two things, either it's not possible or it's the practice of preying upon those with poor willpower. I lean towards it's not possible and it's just strong suggestion in reality. I've never seen scientific data on the process of brainwashing that's convincing, I'll reconsider my stance on it's feasibility in the presence of some however.
So are you saying that she did it willingly? I'm not sure I understood what you were saying.
As far as brainwashing, I've seen it first-hand. Granted it was a weak-willed person. He was brainwashed to do some pretty evil things. He had every opportunity in the world to get away from the guy, but he just couldn't. I don't really want to give a whole lot of details about it, but it was a guy I used to know.
I have no doubt that it's possible.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I had a teacher in high school. His thoughts on doing what you don't think you would ever do were "If you were hungry enough, you would." "Would you steal/kill/cheat/lie?" "If you were hungry enough, you would."
(Doing Therapy)
Three
This is for MJ. You wanted to see if I would "willingly" get involved in that scenario. And the best way to do that is to send an MP to force me at gunpoint? (Don't even start with the whether or not I was technically "forced" you know what I mean.) If you wanted to see if I would "willingly" get involved, the best way to do it would have been to let me know where I am with no other influences. Yeah, you weren't running it. This isn't complaining as it is trying to understand, and telling you what NOT to do in the future. How is forcing me at gunpoint going to show you if I would "willingly" get involved? That's hardly "willingly". Let the player know where they are. Do they actively try to insert themselves in the story, or do they actively try to remove themselves from it? I would have actively tried to remove myself from it. The MP totally killed any chance you had of seeing that.
(Doing Therapy)
I wasn't saying she was saying it willingly, but that if she did it it wasn't so intrinsically against the person she was. Sure, she had money, but unless her defining aspect in life is her respect for banks and authority figures to a near religious level then it doesn't meet my criteria o being a basal element in her life.
The way you're referring to brainwashing I would label strong persuasion. I know there are people who are very good at manipulating others out there. I don't think I'm easily persuaded to begin with, but how hard is it to persuade someone to betray themselves entirely? That is to take the one thing they use to define all aspects of life and turn it against itself? I honestly don't think a person can be convinced to that extent without breaking them so far that they're more likely to be suicidal or a similar extreme.
The idea of "If you were hungry enough, you would" only really applies to a handful of vices which can be used to obtain food. I can't really put myself behind the would you steal/kill/cheat/lie because it's not all too hard for me to think of extremes where I would.
I know that the third post was for MJ's, but as a player I'd like to point out something. Knowing everything takes away from the experience a good deal. Making what seems like a good idea to you at the time based on limited knowledge is fundamentally what the game is challenging you to do. With all the knowledge it becomes a strategical exercise that when played enough will be run the same way over and over. An example just happened in my game based on me not having all the information. As a player I probably could have figured it out, but it would have been using a lot of out of character knowledge. My character made contact with the Nash Far Kraal and has assumed a couple of things which I take it were poor decisions. Sure, this isn't optimal for my character, but it's an important aspect of the game and I speak for most likely many players that I would be depressed to being given all the information available before having to make a decision. In particular without particularly trying to figure it out.
Just thought it would help to realize that you're not asking him to change an aspect of the game to improve the game, but rather fundamentally change how he runs yours from how he runs other peoples. It's a role-playing game, which by most expectations is meant to be realistic. Lack of knowledge is one of those things thats true all the time when you're trying to make decisions.
OK, give me an example (That is, if you're comfortable disclosing such information publicly) of something which is fundamental to you which you could never be induced to do. Personally, I don't think there's very much left I couldn't be induced to do. Warning Pearl Harbor was the thing I didn't think I could do. Since I did that, all bets are off. The only thing I know I wouldn't do is sell my soul.
As to the other, I think sending an MP assumes that the player wants to get involved. Very bad choice for a player with a history of non-involvement.
(Doing Therapy)