Well, I also have a 2@ SAL and 2@ RSV with my weapon. It would have been more interesting than what did go down, at any rate.
That is now, in your second world, I doubt it was anywhere near as high.
Actually no, I really did start out with 2@2 skill with a Ruger 9mm and 2@4 with a Mossberg shotgun. Neither of those have improved since I versed out.
John, I agree that killing the MP would have constituted getting involved, and that would have proved that you were willing to get involved to avoid a situation.
"Not getting involved" would have meant passively allowing yourself to be arrested, answering questions by claiming to have no knowledge of where you were, how you got there, or what was happening, allowing them to incarcerate, hospitalize, or release you as they chose, and watching to see what would happen next. Not getting involved would mean approaching the scenario as if you were uncertain whether this Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked or not, possibly having an interest in seeing how that happened, or having no interest in it at all and ignoring the entire event.
A person who has a commitment to non-involvement interacts with the indigs to the minimum degree necessary, pretends he comes from somewhere else that they won't bother checking, does nothing that might interfere with their actions and decisions, and waits to see what will happen to him. If it kills him, oh well.
So I was right: you had no commitment to non-involvement; you were committed to whatever is easiest for John.
--M. J. Young
A person who has a commitment to non-involvement interacts with the indigs to the minimum degree necessary
(Laughing) Well, it wasn't necessary for an MP to arrest me!!!! That's a situation where I would have wanted to interact with them as little as possible. Which is none at all. If not for the jeep crash, you would have seen exactly the non-involvement attitude you expected.
If I was committed to non-involvement, I would have let the demons take over Dancing Princess. Noticed I engaged them when they were discovered to me.
So I was right: you had no commitment to non-involvement; you were committed to whatever is easiest for John.
And how can you use that to guide my character?
(Doing Therapy)
This is where MJ and I differ on character creation, while MJ has a willing to accept anything a person says as fact as long as it's not blow his mind unbelievable, I however subscribe to the realistic approach to character creation. I wouldn't give anyone a 2@ SAL with a weapon if they weren't using their weapon to earn a living on a daily basis or had done so. I have also been at a table when MJ asks someone if they have magic powers or things that cannot be explained by normal means. When I say 75% of the people say they do, it's almost comical to be at the table with them. It's a game, yes, but the first character sheet is based on you sitting at the table, not the you, you want to be, or will be. Just had to be said.
Adam
So you don't believe that someone who wasn't a cop or a security guard could have an equal amount of practice and thus an equal amount of skill? In that, you're quite mistaken. I'd give my cousin 3@ skill with some of his guns, and he's never worn a badge in his life. He's just been shooting since he was 5 years old.
And just because you are a cop doesn't mean you have 2@ skill either. I read about 3 cops who between them fired 48 rounds at a guy and hit him a total of 3 times.
I don't think you're giving the 3@ skill level enough credit. 3@ are experts, meaning the people the professionals turn to, the ones who write books, the ones who get called as a reference when a book is being written on the matter. The Joker in the Dark Knight had a very applicable quote here. "If you're good at something, never do it for free". Anyone good enough to be 3@ has either won a multitude of awards or has been paid for it or advising on it before.
As to the 2@ skills, cops by definition are 2@ shots, in that they are professional shooters. Perhaps a sub par cop won't have it, but the average cop has to based on the job description. The situation you are talking about is out of context, there could be any number of negative sit mods that caused that to happen.
I have a feeling part of the fact of your 2@4 and 2@2 gun skills is based on your dislike of authority and ranking them significantly below they're actual level of skill. Are you really contesting whether or not you could outfire an MP? Not your verser, this was earlier enough in your verses that the gunfight was effectively you. You believe you could outgun an MP in real life?
You believe you could outgun an MP in real life?
Yes I do. I used to go to the shooting range 6-8 times a year and fire an average of 200 or more 9mm rounds per trip. That's double the required practice time to be a cop. I can field strip and reassemble my gun blindfolded in under 4 minutes. How many cops can say that about their duty weapon? Not to mention the fact that a lot of military people qualify as "expert" with the gun, and it's the first time they ever fired a gun in their life.
First, no one who has qualified as an expert via multiverser rules has never fired a gun before. Please stop mixing terms, you know the way expert is being used in context, but just in case, any time I say amateur I mean someone with a 1@ skill, professional 2@, and expert 3@.
Also you answered how you would compare to a cop, the military police are a little more intense. Also, I don't know how many cops can say they can field strip and reassemble their weapon in under 4 minutes, but I bet military trained persona's can. Unless you have won awards or some other commendation of how good of a shot you are, I would be hesitant to envision you gunning down a military persona who is trained to keep other armed soldiers in order. But that's my opinion. It really boils down to MJ takes the stance he'll believe anything unless it's so horribly egregious that no one could look the other way on the fact. As he says it's easier to believe whatever the player says that try and dissect everything. Whether other people ascribe to this is another question.
Have you ever seen me shoot? No. Have you ever seen an MP shoot? Not likely. Point is, what basis do you have to refute my claims?
And the point about military qualifying as expert was that military training might not be as intense as you think it is. I wouldn't know, I'm just making a guess.
Military doesn't qualify as expert by multiverser rules... There is no point about military qualifying as expert because they don't.
As to your ability to shoot you seem to be missing the point. Adam stated he doesn't follow the same train of thought as MJ.
MJ accepts whatever you tell him about yourself as long as it's not so far fetched that he absolutely must call it into question.
Adam demands a slightly higher standard of proof.
MJ has stated before that his reason for this is that it would be much too difficult to not just take people at their word.
I honestly don't care how well you can shoot, or your verser can shoot, or how many holes an MP could fill you with. I'm simply clarifying that the mindset is different. To MJ you never had to offer proof past the "I would say I'm a mild professional in this gun and almost average professional in this other gun." To Adam that would never have flown without proof of WHY you feel you could be easily paid for your ability with a gun.
As to your claim that the military training isn't as intense as I presume, this only reinforces the idea that a good deal of your view of being able to take on an MP in 1v1 combat is slanted due to your disregard for authority figures. I do not know how intense military training was in the 1940's, but I do have an idea of what it is now based on friends I know in the military, one of which is an MP. They know how to handle a gun.
Then why are we arguing about it? Adam isn't the one who made the call, so what he thinks is irrelevant.
Two
As to your claim that the military training isn't as intense as I presume, this only reinforces the idea that a good deal of your view of being able to take on an MP in 1v1 combat is slanted due to your disregard for authority figures. I do not know how intense military training was in the 1940's, but I do have an idea of what it is now based on friends I know in the military, one of which is an MP. They know how to handle a gun.
Yeah, that didn't come out right. Seriously though, a lot of people who qualify expert with the gun have never fired one before. They've been through military training, they lived up to what the military considers expert, but they're probably (at best) a 1@3 by Multiverser standards. However, it sounds like Adam would give them a 3@1 score. I, on the other hand, who was trained to shoot, have shot tens of thousands of rounds, but have no awards for it, have to argue about having a 2@2 score. That hardly seems fair, ya know?
I saw a guy who could hit flying aspirin tablets with a 22 pistol. THAT GUY was an expert. I'd like to see your average military trained, qualified expert with a Colt 45 do that. That's what I was saying.
(Doing Therapy)
You are mis-using the term expert. Just because someone is an expert by some other standard doesn't make them an expert by multiversers standards. By multiversers standards they are professionals. As for the 1@3 rating, either I don't understand multiverser rules yet or you're being absurd. 1@3 is below the average amateur. Someone who is simply an average hunter would be 1@5. And yes, to some you will have to argue that you deserve a 2@2 score if you have no awards for it. How many bullets you fired isn't a quantitative assessment of your ability, but only the effort you've exerted to attempt to become better. An award is a qualitative assessment of skill.
As to the guy who can hit flying aspirin, yeah he'd be an expert. But the average joe of the military isn't claiming to be an expert, merely a professional.
My point is using Multiverser Rules, could you find gainful employment with your shooting skills in real life? I'm going to lean on saying no. If you had said I'm a 1@10 with the pistol and shotgun, I wouldn't blink an eye. As to you saying it's irrelevant, you keep bringing up these hypothetical situations, so I think it's equally as fair, that if they came up, being the referee at the time, these questions would have been brought up if a gunfight started.
Adam
By multiversers standards they are professionals. As for the 1@3 rating, either I don't understand multiverser rules yet or you're being absurd. 1@3 is below the average amateur. Someone who is simply an average hunter would be 1@5.
As to the guy who can hit flying aspirin, yeah he'd be an expert. But the average joe of the military isn't claiming to be an expert, merely a professional.
OK, basic training is what, 6 weeks? First time you've shot a gun of any kind in your life. You qualify expert. How can you say they deserve a professional rating? They've fired maybe a few hundred rounds. Anyone else would be (at best) a 1@3. Adam would give them 2@1. I, who have fired tens of thousands of rounds, have to argue about it. Does that makes more sense?
I guess what I'm asking is why does having the practice of a 1@3 qualify you for 2@1, just because you had a drill instructor in your face the whole time?
I legitimately have the practice of a 2@2. Why does the 1@3 get the professional rating? Going by range time and rounds fired, I've had much, much more practice.
(Doing Therapy)
I will admit not being a military person myself, but what I do know if you take a combat MOS, that is not basic training, that is your job in the military. If you choose to be an MP, you will have at least 2@1 in your sidearm before your put on duty by yourself. My questioning of you about your professional level skills is not me rating people too high, it's my view of you looking at your own skills too high. It's hard to admit we aren't as good at something as we think we are. In terms of the game the difference between a 1@10 skill and a 2@1 skill is huge, due to the inherent mechanics.
Adam
My questioning of you about your professional level skills is not me rating people too high, it's my view of you looking at your own skills too high. It's hard to admit we aren't as good at something as we think we are.
That makes sense. Still though, in the scenario, I also had an AK-47 assault rifle. I was holding it. Why I didn't use it, I'll never know. That and my 1@10 skill would have made me more than a match for 3 or 4 of them, if all they had were the 45 sidearms. I think that opening stinks. I don't think you would learn as much as you would by letting them know where they are first, and checking their reaction. How many people would try to run if they knew where they were? How many people would head for the base on their own? You would learn a lot more like that, I think.
Oh yeah, and this isn't supposed to sound rude, if it does.
(Doing Therapy)
From John:
Well, it wasn't necessary for an MP to arrest me!!!! That's a situation where I would have wanted to interact with them as little as possible. Which is none at all.
None-involvement is not about what they do to you, but about what you do in response to them. They can kill you; if you didn't fight back you were not involved. They can torture you; if you give them no information, you were not involved.
Again John:
And how can you use that to guide my character?Simple. If I want your character to do something, I make sure it appears to be in his best interest to do that.
From Adam:
I have also been at a table when MJ asks someone if they have magic powers or things that cannot be explained by normal means. When I say 75% of the people say they do, it's almost comical to be at the table with them.
Well, that's complicated.
First, I'm a trans-denominational Christian theologian, and have seen the minor miraculous first hand, and have heard reliable eye-witness testimony of greater miracles. If someone told me they had the gift of tongues, I've seen that gift in action many times and am forced to have an opinion concerning whether it is valid. I have also known at least one person who genuinely understood what people were saying when they spoke in tongues, lending credence to both abilities. If someone claimed to have been able to heal by divine power, I've enough information about divine healing that I'm pretty certain it really does happen. So whatever I think of the individual credibility of any specific gamer, in general I acknowledge the divine powers at work in our world. When Nikolaj mentioned that he prayed in tongues, I had no reason to challenge that claim. People do, and they believe it to be a real gift.
Second, for the game to be fair I have to extend the same level of acceptance to those who claim supernatural abilities based on other faiths, and on non-religious bases. My theology does not have a problem with this, because I already believe that there is a spiritual battlefield and that there are earthly combatants within it. Mercifully I do not have to pass judgment on a player's religious beliefs to allow him to play in the game. I simply have to let him define himself in game terms. So if someone believes he has spiritual powers, however he thinks they work, I accept that.
Point two point five, as it were, is that on one level it doesn't matter. I rarely give anyone greater than a 1@5 SAL at such powers unless there is reason to think they did this professionally. (One of our UberCon friends who has appeared here occasionally was at one time a faith healer, which qualifies as professional by my reasoning, whatever his understanding of the power is.) Anyone who believes he has such a power has the right in the game to attempt to use it through a skill learning roll, which is going to give him a 1@1 to 1@3 SAL anyway, which isn't that much different in the long view, so why argue about whether he has the ability initially or not? Most players are very honest about their believed abilities, and few claim extraordinary levels of power--and since they have no idea how the bias system works, they aren't inventing skills to give themselves high starting biases.
Third, it is a shame of the Christian churches that there was so much misinformation about and rejection of role playing games, but the result is that the hobby tends to attract a disproportionate number of believers in radical and unconventional religions. One of the prime attractions of such religions is the claim of real supernatural power--those on this board who claim a Pagan or Wiccan faith do so not so much because the ideas expressed seem right to them but because there is an expectation that their gods will act on their behalves. Thus the fact that such people congregate in significant numbers in role playing game contexts and can express themselves with little fear of ostracization means we get a higher than average number of people who believe they have such powers. Similarly, among those who disbelieve such powers entirely (the hard-core atheists and anti-supernaturalists) there are two sub-groups who are significant. one is those who find all magical fantasies completely incredible and so are repelled by any game or story in which magic is accepted; these don't play role playing games and so further skew the sample. The other believe that man has not yet achieved his full mental potential and that by diligent work they may be able to achieve the long-sought mental powers of psionics, and that perhaps they may have done so in some small way; these increase the pool of those who play who believe they have such powers.
I would rather not request that everyone who claims to have such powers demonstrate them for me; I would rather not offend anyone's beliefs by telling him that he is self-deluded by the false idea that he has power.
Adam, you are not the first person to laugh at those claims. I think that you are too skeptical of the supernatural--but I believe that the supernatural does impinge upon the natural at many times, in many places, and in many ways. Many of those who share the hobby you enjoy also believe that, and although we differ in the specifics, I think Harry would agree with me in something C. S. Lewis once wrote, that the Pagan and the Christian are much closer in their beliefs to each other than either are to the Atheist.
But at least you refrain from laughing at them, and I'm glad you find humor in it. I admit sometimes I'm a bit incredulous myself, but why challenge a claim? If he genuinely believes he can do it, that already counts for something in Multiverser terms, since magic is based on expectations.
John again:
OK, basic training is what, 6 weeks? First time you've shot a gun of any kind in your life. You qualify expert.
Mike's right, John: you are obscuring the issue by using one term in two different meanings. For the army, "expert marksman" means that the combination of ranged strike value and weapons training has resulted in you being able to hit a specific number of specific targets in a measured time. You get a ribbon for it, and you get to be proud of it. If you're really good, though, guess what? They single you out and send you to sniper training, and then you get improved to a greater level of skill. That means you weren't really an expert at all; you were one of the outstanding amateurs.
For what it's worth, whenever someone tells me that he believes he has a professional level of skill at something, I ask him why he believes that, unless I already know enough about the person to know that it is likely that he does have such a level of ability. If a cop or a soldier is at my table, and he says he is a professional with a gun, I give it to him and ask only how good a professional he is. If he says he's only an amateur, I challenge whether he might actually be a poor professional, since he does get paid to do this; but I also accept the possibility that he is an amateur, because being in the police or the military means a lot more than firing a weapon, and a military recon analyst or a police information systems specialist might be a terrible shot. I love Dennis Quaid's character in Undercover Blues. He's some sort of Federal agent but we never find out exactly what. He constantly tells us he can't shoot and never carries a gun. His wife, Kathleen Turner, says it's true, that he would have failed his FBI firearms test except that he bribed the guy at the FBI. He objects that that's not true, that he bribed the guy at the CIA, but he blackmailed the guy at the FBI. So you can be an amateur in such fields, but it's not likely. You can also be an expert, but you'd better give me solid evidence--like they put you through sniper school; I believe Jethro Gibbs to be an expert.
In any case, I know enough about John that I believe his claims to have professional level of ability at those weapons. I find it a bit unnerving, but I believe him.
I also believe that the reason he would not be able to find employment using those skills in real life are that show and competition shooting pretty much require expert skill, and he is documented unstable enough to disqualify him from police, military, and armed security work. He could probably get a job as a hitman, but we don't want to encourage that.
Ah, decent and reasonable objection. Answer: Page 37I guess what I'm asking is why does having the practice of a 1@3 qualify you for 2@1, just because you had a drill instructor in your face the whole time?
There may be special rules governing the acquisition of skills or the improvement of skills in particular universes. These are binding on the characters while in those universes.So in this universe, somehow it comes about that the particular training given to soldiers in basic elevates them to 2@1 SALs in those specific weapons, but that you can't reach that level by copying their program out of its context. We don't know why it works, but we accept that it does. Maybe it's the drill sergeants. Maybe the food they serve is magic.
And maybe you aren't 2@1 right out of Basic; maybe after that they train you more.
--M. J. Young
I think I get it MJ. John is saying he doesn't want to get involved, so I'll drop him into Pearl Harbor. Who wouldn't want to save the lives of hundreds of people? He talks the talk, but can he walk the walk? You thought I would want to get involved, and would have to really be dedicated to non-involvement. You didn't anticipate that I would see it as a scenario I wouldn't want to touch.
The thing is though, how can you draw the conclusion that I will do things if it is in my own best interest to do so? How many non-involvement players could honestly stay uninvolved under the threat of landing in the next world with 40 broken bones? I mean that is a lot to ask of someone, just to uphold The Prime Directive. Your conclusion is right, I'm just curious how you arrived at it. You call it a "temporary problem". I didn't see it that way, and I don't think many players would.
But that's just it; you are armed with the knowledge of scriff, and what it means for you. Broken bones will not be forever, hence they are temporary. A non involvement player would have avoided any involvement whatsoever, but that isn't you at all. MJ was still getting a grasp on what kind of player you really were back then. Now he knows.
A true non-involvement player wouldn't have gotten involved at the threat of personal harm unless his non-involvement conviction was weak. A truly committed player would know he could resist anything they do to him.
A truly committed player would know he could resist anything they do to him.
For some strange reason Brock, I find that very difficult to believe.
A truly committed player would know he could resist anything they do to him.For some strange reason Brock, I find that very difficult to believe.
Non-involvement comes in all forms. Obviously, if some demon possessed your body, locked your spirit in a jar, and did things you would never have done, that doesn't really count as you doing them. There comes a point where force ends and external control begins, and it's not always clear whether the drug you've been given compels you to obey or simply makes it more difficult for you to resist. Maud dib kept his hand in the pain inducer. The Psientist carries a Dune pain inducer around with him to practice his will power. We expect most people would pull their hands out of the pain inducer and accept the deadly needle in the neck rather than resist the pain. (And if you're not at all familiar with Bene Gesserit pain tests, that won't make any sense to you at all.)
Torture does not force you to become involved; it makes it more difficult for you not to do so.
You weren't tortured.
--M. J. Young
(And if you're not at all familiar with Bene Gesserit pain tests, that won't make any sense to you at all.)
Actually I'm not at all familiar, but oddly, it does make sense. I've read about things like that. I'm assuming your choices are keep your hand in the pain inducer or die. Sounds like something out of a cheesy sci-fi horror flick.
Torture does not force you to become involved; it makes it more difficult for you not to do so.
You weren't tortured.
I never said I was. I said I find it difficult to believe that someone would not warn Pearl Harbor if they were in my exact situation. Thinking that, in less than 24 hours, they are going to land in the next world with 40 broken bones and no hospital in sight. I find that difficult to believe. That's all I'm saying. Am I not allowed to find it difficult to believe?
Probably sounds a bit more defensive than it should, but I can't put it any better and still get the point across.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Mistake
I said I find it difficult to believe that someone would not warn Pearl Harbor if they were in my exact situation. Thinking that, in less than 24 hours, they are going to land in the next world with 40 broken bones and no hospital in sight. I find that difficult to believe. That's all I'm saying. Am I not allowed to find it difficult to believe?
You are certainly permitted to believe what you like. I don't get a lot of non-involvement players, and I can't be certain you're wrong.
--M. J. Young
I find that difficult to believe because, as you know, I have a rather unique perspective on the situation. Five years ago, I would have sworn I could never be induced to warn Pearl Harbor. I had to be totally honest with myself when I was in the situation. I would warn them. Seeing the situation as I do, I find it very difficult to believe that even the most staunch non-involvement player would not warn them, with exactly the same knowledge and doubts that I had.
I don't think that means they're not committed to non-involvement, I think that means they have an instinct for self-preservation. You could say "Yeah, but they could heal themselves in the next world." But what if the mag and psi biases are flatlined, and you don't already know how to do it? Likely to botch and hurt yourself worse. What if the tech bias (And thus, the medical care) is even lower than this one? You would be scared. I should know, all of this was going through my mind. The biases could all be high and you could heal yourself instantly, but would you really take that chance? A 1940s military hospital is a decent place to be, given the possible alternatives. I had to be honest with myself. I find it difficult to believe that anyone else would make a different choice.
And ya know what? That last sentence is just a nicer way of saying "I automatically assume". A thousand apologies MJ.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
MJ, I just noticed. My tendency is towards leaving things alone rather than to risk making them worse. I'm sure you could use that.
(Doing Therapy)
Well, I for one will always stick to my values regardless of any pressures, actual or perceived. I'm not a non involvement player, but if I were, a destroyed body is not nearly sufficient to change my mind. I'm outrageously stubborn when it comes to anything I care about.
Well, I for one will always stick to my values regardless of any pressures, actual or perceived.
Say that when you're actually faced with the situation.
And just to be clear, I mean exactly what I said. When you're actually faced with the situation where you would have to abandon your values is when you're allowed to say that.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Ya know what Brock? For some reason, I'm inclined to believe that you just might just stick to your values in that situation. Have you ever broken multiple bones? I broke 2 at once, once. I don't even want to imagine the pain of 40. That was the deciding factor. You would stick to your values. I also think you would regret it terribly once the morphine wore off. Would you stick to your values a second time? Who knows? This is all to be taken at face value, literal meaning, BTW.
(Doing Therapy)
I have had the ever-loving hell beaten out of me for sticking to my values. I have been beaten on a regular basis, every day, for a period of 3 months, for refusing to help my (former) step dad with his crimes. I know what I am saying.
I have broken bones before, but not often. I also had a leg injury almost equivalent to it, which lasted for 12 days of walking on it and hiding it (from that same step dad).
No offense meant or anything; I merely mean that my bold statement was meant wholeheartedly.
No offense meant or anything; I merely mean that my bold statement was meant wholeheartedly.
And no offense was meant on my end either. I guess you have faced the situation.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
And ya know what? After reading what Brock put down, "No commitment to non-involvement" makes a lot more sense. That's strange.
(Doing Therapy)
I can see that. If you have a commitment to something, you're willing to suffer for it, to the degree that you are committed. If non-involvement is the value to which you are committed, you'll accept that it will sometimes cost you to stay uninvolved. The test examines what price you are willing or not willing to pay to that end.
It's like that joke we told earlier about haggling over the price.
--M. J. Young
I can see that. If you have a commitment to something, you're willing to suffer for it, to the degree that you are committed.
I'm suddenly reminded of the Apostle Peter. He denied Jesus three times out of fear. Just a few hours before in the garden, he stood alone against an armed mob prepared to fight to his death to prevent Jesus from being captured. Did denying Jesus really mean that Peter was not committed to Jesus? I don't think it does. I think it means Peter acted somewhat rashly in a moment of fear. I draw a parallel to that to this world. Same kind of circumstances.
(Doing Therapy)
The reason why the opening of the MP sucks is because it only works to show you what you want to see if they intend to get involved. If I had not crashed the jeep, I would not have warned them. MJ would then assume that I was truly committed to non-involvement to resist that temptation. (What temptation? I wasn't tempted to irrevocably destroy the United States.) Since I crashed the jeep and did warn them, if there had been no other discussions, you would have assumed that I had intended to warn them all along. Either way, you gather false information. If you're going to say that I wasn't truly committed to non-involvement at Pearl Harbor because I warned them, then you might as well say that Peter wasn't truly committed to Jesus, which we all know is a lie.
So, in short, at best that opening gives you false information, at worst, it seriously pisses off the player. Don't use it.
It's been gone over that it isn't a bad opening. You've made this exact argument multiple times now, and MJ has addressed it previously.
As to Peter being committed to Jesus in the sense of absolutes he wasn't. If you are absolutely committed to anything you would NEVER breach that. Now absolutes tend to be theoretical, but we know there is a line where he wasn't loyal to Jesus and we know there is a line where you are not committed to non-involvement.
It's been gone over that it isn't a bad opening. You've made this exact argument multiple times now, and MJ has addressed it previously.
Let me put it to you another way. What's the challenge to non-involvement by being picked up by an MP? All I have to do is sit in a holding cell and not say anything. How is that challenging my non-involvement philosophy? I don't like authority figures anyway. Talking is the last thing I would be wanting to do. I don't see any challenge in sitting in a holding cell and being quiet for two days.
Knowing where I was and trying to escape, THAT would be a challenge to non-involvement. But you thought I would be inclined to warn them. Well, the possibility that you were wrong was never explored. I see no challenge whatsoever to non-involvement in sitting in a holding cell for two days. You wanted to challenge my non-involvement philosophy. What's challenging about being fed three square meals a day and waiting to verse out?
As obvious as it is to you that people would warn Pearl Harbor, that's how obvious it is to me that no one in their right mind would warn them. Yeah, I warned them. I was hardly in my right mind at the time, however.