More than one
Brock suggested that I could have killed the MP and then gone on a destructive rampage. Brock, do you honestly think that I could fire a gun and kill an MP, and no one would hear it and come running? Then I've got swarms of MPs after me, and the plan of doing surreptitious sabotage is kind of blown. There's more than one way to get involved, and the MP opening completely kills the viable option of causing havoc of your own creation.
You gotta remember, from my point of view, the destruction of Pearl Harbor was a good thing. It caused the US to rear her head and strike back. More destruction means striking back harder. In my mind, that WOULD be improving the world. The MP opening ended all hope of seeing my path of involvement.
So MJ, do you still think Adam "Did the right thing"? His opening, best case scenario, you would miss out on seeing that I was not dedicated to non-involvement. Worst case, well, we've seen the worst case, haven't we?
(Doing Therapy)
A LOT!!!!
It wouldn't even have to be a player with my skewed viewpoint. A player who likes mayhem and destruction. I'm sure there's TONNES of those. "Well, this place is about to get blown to smithereens anyway. Might as well have some fun." That would STILL not be dedication to non-involvement, and the MP opening kills any hope you have of seeing it.
You wanted a better way to test non-involvement? Well, for starters, you could try not pushing the player away from their intended involvement.
(Doing Therapy)
more than one
This whole time, MJ has been saying that the only way to test non-involvement is to put the player in a position where it's easier to become involved than not to. It's next to impossible to perform sabotage if you're in a holding cell. So, logically, to put them in a position where it's easier to get involved than not to, you have to leave them alone. There's more than one way to get involved.
More than one
Hey, it's been more than a week!!!!
On one hand, I can certainly see why you thought I would want to stop it. I bet you were surprised that I didn't. I'm the gun nut, into self-defense, it just fits.
On the other hand, I can't believe you thought it for a moment. How many hours did we spend in discussion on the dangers of time travel, infinity loops, etc? How was my character to know that he had not simply traveled into earth's past, and that stopping the bombing would not cause an infinity loop? From that perspective, I can't believe you thought it at all. And just so you know, I'm laughing as I type this.
(Doing Therapy)
More than one, 4 days after.
MJ, I really need to apologize for the insisting that I was forced into the story. I was, but only because I, me, personally couldn't pull the trigger. I know for a fact there's a divergent version of me who emptied the entire AK-47 clip into the MP. I wish you could see this through my eyes. Maybe in the next lifetime.
(Doing Therapy)
PS, I'm certain you're a bit annoyed at all the posts. Please note that they are days and up to a week apart. Also, if this was a thread with exactly the same amount of posts from multiple posters, you wouldn't think twice about it. And I really do talk to myself, so this is nothing unusual for me.
The opening worked.
No, the opening forced me to get involved. I don't know why that's such a difficult concept for you to comprehend.
You have once again completely avoided the entire question posed. Helping to destroy the base is not dedication to non-involvement. The MP opening killed any chance of seeing it. If the idea is to see if the player will do something significant, and you just prevented them from doing something significant, did you not prevent yourself from learning what you wanted to learn? I would have been far more likely to help destroy the place. I was forced away from any possible chance of seeing it, and forced to get involved at the same time.
But more fundamentally, you are only thinking of this now--mumble mumble years after your character faced the situation.
Better late than never. Besides, now you know it for the future.
(Doing Therapy)
The opening worked: it caused you to get involved against your wishes.
If I hadn't crashed the jeep, you'd think I was dedicated to non-involvement, when all that happened is you picked a world I wouldn't want to touch.
If I'm not arrested by an MP and go on a destructive rampage, you find out that I'm not dedicated. In game, like you're supposed to. My point is that the MP is NOT the only way to test non-involvement, and could in fact be pulling the player away from their intended involvement. You avoided that part completely. That was the purpose of all of the posts you read, and you just avoided it. You could have prevented the player from getting involved, in your effort to test it.
And I was involved the moment the MP pulled up, which is the part I can't believe you're having trouble comprehending. Don't try again to explain it. Just let me believe it. In THAT PARTICULAR CASE, being on the premises was too involved for me. Note, I keep saying I wouldn't want to be within X number of miles of the place. Being on the grounds of Pearl Harbor was too involved.
The attack would have happened whether I was there or not. Why would I be tempted to stop it?
Two
1. Sat in the middle of the destruction and let it rain down on you as it destroyed the base without doing anything to impact events, or
2. Done something to change the course of history.
Yeah, and helping to destroy the place isn't changing the course of history? The MP opening prevents you from seeing it. That's the point. That would be getting involved completely of the player's own volition, and you would never see it because you chose to arrest them and force them away from it.
The MP opening does NOT work so well as you had thought to test non-involvement. It's NOT the "only" way to test it. You could have prevented the player from getting involved. The fact that it's coming to me now, years after the fact is beside the point. It came to me. It's a new option. A new set of parameters. The MP opening doesn't work nearly as well as you had thought. It also forces the player.
(Doing Therapy)
Come on MJ, you're not going to do that again, are you? I want to know what your thoughts are on this. Helping to destroy the base is not dedication to non-involvement, the MP prevents the player from doing that, ergot, the MP opening does not work to test non-involvement.
"I'm not going to be IGNORED Dan!!"
Alex Forrest, Fatal Attraction.
Mike, think about it for a second. You just arrested the player. They kept their mouth shut and let Pearl Harbor be destroyed. They must be dedicated to non-involvement, right?
Ah, but what would they have done otherwise? I would have been far more likely to help destroy the place, which is, by MJ's definition, NOT dedication to non-involvement. That opening would prevent you from ever seeing it. What could you learn about the player that way?
MJ was saying that the PA announcement only works if the referee can turn the PA announcement into arrest by an MP. How hard would that be? You announce where they are. They run for the gate. OK, the player wants to run and escape. "As you are crossing a hill, when you reach the bottom, you run into 5 MPs." Wow, I just turned a PA announcement into arrest by an MP. That was SOOOOO difficult!!!!!!!!!
On the other hand, the PA announcement, they go on a destructive rampage. You see they're not dedicated.
Not to mention the fact that I was more involved than I would ever willingly get the moment the bastard MP pulled up, so that kind of destroyed the notion of "Will John WILLINGLY get involved." I WAS ALREADY INVOLVED WHEN HE PULLED UP!!!!!!!!! For all of MJ's intellect, I can't believe he has such a hard time comprehending that.
Mike, you just blindly follow the herd like a lamb to the slaughter. THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!
Two
That statement only works if you were able to add the sentence 'Helping to destroy the base is the ONLY way to show lack of dedication to non-involvement'.
If you're going for a logic-based statement, this only works if you can add "Saving Pearl Harbor is the ONLY way to get involved." and as I've proven, IT ISN'T!!!!!!!!
The MP knew I was there. I WAS INVOLVED!!!! What's the sticking point? What part of that do you not understand? You wanted to see if I would WILLINGLY get involved. The moment he pulled up, I was more involved than I would ever WILLINGLY get!!!! WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND??????????????
Doublepost
Introducing another method of showing non-involvement doesn't invalidate any of my above statements.
1. Revealing information about the attack shows lack of dedication to non-involvement
(This is true regardless of if there are other ways for non-involvement to be shown)
2. The MP opening drove you to reveal information about the attack
(This is not impacted at all by the existence of other ways for non-involvement to be shown)
3. The MP opening worked to test your non-involvement
(Once again, not impacted by the presence or lack there of of alternate proofs)
It only worked by accident. It only worked because I was a cocky idiot who chose to harass the MP. If I hadn't crashed the jeep, I never would have warned them, ergot, that WOULDN'T have worked. I would have kept my mouth shut and let the place be destroyed. MJ then draws the incorrect conclusion "John must be dedicated to non-involvement."
PA announcement. John goes on a destructive rampage, which would be far more likely than me warning them (under normal circumstances) You draw the conclusion "John ISN'T dedicated to non-involvement", and it isn't due to an unforeseen accident. You keep forgetting that the ONLY reason it worked to show you that is because I was a cocky idiot. Otherwise, you'd think I was dedicated. Due to completely unpredictable, unforeseen circumstances and a sadistic referee, you saw that I was not dedicated to non-involvement. My way, you would have seen it as I helped destroy the place.
Being on the grounds of Pearl Harbor was too involved for me.
Seeing as the question was "Is John a non-involvement player" and we got the answer, the test achieved it's goal.
I'm not denying that. What I AM denying is that immediate arrest by an MP is the ONLY way to test it.
That's the purpose of this Max. You can see if the player is dedicated to non-involvement without forcing them to become involved. MJ said something to the effect of "Immediate arrest by an MP is the only way to test non-involvement. I'm surprised I couldn't see that sooner." I'm calling bullshit on that statement. There's better ways than forcing them to get involved.
Two
What no one seems to be grasping is that the MP opening NEVER WOULD HAVE WORKED if I hadn't crashed the jeep. There's no way in hell I would have warned them. It was only the fear of versing out in that condition that did it. You'd think I was totally dedicated. My opening would have worked for me to test it. I'd either kill dozens of soldiers to escape or help blow the place up. Either of those would have shown you a lot more accurate information, in game like it was supposed to. At best, the MP would have given you false information. At worst, I'd spend years complaining about it. My opening would have worked much better for the purpose of testing my non-involvement philosophy.
Ah, but maybe we took into account that you were a cocky idiot who was bound to get himself in some kind of trouble that would tell us what we wanted to know.
And you're a dirty liar. I remember you saying afterward "I did not anticipate that you would be antagonistic to the first person you met, though, and that has, to some extent, steered your course in a direction I am not certain you would have taken otherwise." So no, you did not take that into account.
I don't know whether it was likely at all. After all, it's been years since your character was in this situation, and in all that time you only just thought of it now.
I never said I WOULD HAVE gone on a destructive rampage, I said it was FAR MORE LIKELY than warning them. As you keep pointing out, there's no way we can know what would have happened. The things I would be most likely to do would be running like a bat out of hell, and helping to destroy the place. What I know for sure is that I would not have warned them after being taken into custody.
You keep forgetting that all the "Constitutional rights" on which you're relying were asserted by the Warren Court starting in the 1960s.
And YOU keep forgetting that this wasn't earth, the Warren Court didn't necessarily exist, and that it would have been decided by a dice roll. Not to mention the fact that I highly doubt Adam knew of such things. What I do know for a fact though is that sitting in a chair and staring blankly at an interrogator is not at all difficult. Limited bathroom breaks? Fine. I'll just whip out my lizard and piss on the floor. Show my respect for authority, as it were.
I think you're wrong on that.
I still think you're wrong. That would only apply if Adam as referee knew of such things. I would be willing to bet that you, the one with the law degree, are the only person on the board who would have known such a detail. Would you have known that if not for your law degree? A referee who didn't know such a detail would be likely to rely on an GE roll. I certainly didn't know it. If the player exercised their right to remain silent, they would sit undisturbed in a holding cell if I were running the game.
As for going on a destructive rampage and my only thinking of that now, a player somewhere sometime would think of that. The MP opening kills any chance you have of seeing it. How many players arrested would have gone on a destructive rampage, and no one would have ever seen it? I would think that, in order to effectively test non-involvement, it would be best to leave all avenues of involvement open to the player. That's the point I've been making that you seem to be missing. It is undeniable that the MP would be likely to prevent the player from going on a rampage. You just closed that avenue of involvement. I would think leaving all avenues of involvement open would be the best way to test it. If the referee isn't smart enough to turn an escape attempt into an arrest, he has no business running games. The MP kills any chance you have of seeing alternate avenues of involvement. Thus, the MP opening is NOT the best way, and certainly not the ONLY way to test non-involvement.
You are, once again, completely avoiding the issue at hand.
the day after you were making out with that cute Katie Brewster.
You think Claire Danes is cute? I think you need new glasses. She was way too whiny.
All that matters is that you would not have thought of it at that moment,
How do you know? Did you suddenly develop some remote past viewing ability? Should you compete for James Randi's million dollar prize now? Whether you think I would have thought of it is irrelevant. The fact is, the MP killed any chance I would have had of thinking of it. If I hadn't crashed the jeep, I never would have warned them. That's the point. Whether I would have thought of helping to destroy the place is unknown. I never got the chance to try to think of it!!!! That's why I still think the MP opening doesn't work as well as you thought for testing non-involvement. You're not even giving that a moment's consideration. It's almost like Adam can do no wrong in your eyes or something. I don't think that works as well as you thought it did. That's all I'm saying, and really, all I want you to admit at this point. There was an option for involvement that NO ONE thought of, that would have been killed by the MP opening, ergot, the MP opening doesn't work so well to test non-involvement. I think I could let this go if you simply admitted that. If you simply admitted that I proved that the MP opening doesn't work as well as you thought it did. You won't even do that. You must not want me to let this go if you won't admit that in the face of this new evidence. If you won't admit that this is possible, then don't ever complain about me talking about this. You officially lose all right to complain about it if you won't admit that I could be right.
Two
I suppose I should clear that up a little. My obsession is finding a better opening for the purpose of testing non-involvement, and/or proving why the MP opening isn't as effective as you think. I'd like to believe I've accomplished those tasks. I've found the hole in the MP opening, and why it isn't as effective at testing non-involvement as you believed. If you agree, say so. My obsession will be placated. If not, well, I've just got to keep trying until I find a better way. I realize it might sound a bit like an ultimatum, but you are dealing with an obsessive psychotic.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm not interested in your notions of a "better opening" to test non-involvement, because such a question is always going to be player/character-specific.
Over in Random Chat, you said "Immediate arrest by an MP is the ONLY WAY to test non-involvement. I'm surprised I couldn't see that sooner." Or something to that effect. If you really want, I'll find it and quote it directly. That doesn't sound too "player/character specific" to me. That sounds like you're dead set on using that opening to test non-involvement, period end of story. Now you're going back on your word.
I have a nearly photographic memory at times.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
You've not said anything really about how the MP would prevent involvement in certain players. All you've really said is that not many players would think of it and that you don't believe I would have. My point is that in trying to see if the player will get involved, you could very well be preventing them from getting involved. You seem to think that could never happen. I think the PA announcement would be far better for this reason. You get their initial reaction and you get to see what they would do on their own. You've been saying that "Adam did the right thing." Well, it would seem not. Yeah, I keep saying I would run, but God only knows what I would have thought of in game if I had been given some time. Perhaps I would be sneaking past an ammo depot and get the bright idea to paint a bulls-eye on the roof. Who knows? Adam could have prevented me from getting involved in this fashion, and of my own volition. Prove he didn't. That opening closes a completely reasonable path of involvement. That opening sucks for that and a myriad of other reasons.
You seem to be avoiding discussing this as a path of involvement.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
I realize that my belief that stopping the Pearl Harbor bombing would result in the US losing WW2 is completely unfounded, especially in a game setting where so much is random. However, if the US DID lose WW2 in my game, at least I would know for certain that it WASN'T because I stopped the bombing.
Sorry, I just felt like ranting about that.
(Doing Therapy)
So now you're just completely ignoring me. Don't do that. Please do not forget that this is ultimately your own fault. Or did someone else pick the world to which I was sent?
Just because someone has seen a movie about a historical event doesn't mean that they know squat about it or that they would want to stop it. You never gave that a moment's thought when you picked it, did you?
Two
I think you're just pissed off because you know I'm right and don't want to admit that you've been wrong about that opening this whole time. It kills a completely reasonable path of involvement, and one I would have been far more likely to take.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
All you've said thus far is that you don't believe I would have done what I'm now suggesting. What relevance does that have? The fact of the matter is I was never given the chance to try to think of it. How do you know I wouldn't have thought of that if given a few minutes alone?
Face it MJ. I proved you wrong. Just admit it and this problem will go away. Seriously, you want this to end? Ignoring me is the worst mistake you can make if you want it to end. Admit that you were wrong. I know it's difficult, but you can do it.
(Doing Therapy)
Four
It is inarguable that the MP opening worked.
BUT AT WHAT COST????????????????????????????? I would have thought that in itself would prevent you from ever even considering using an opening even remotely similar to that.
It is defensible that even without your stupidity in poking someone driving a vehicle in which you are a helpless unprotected passenger it very well may have worked when you were placed in interrogation that makes Guantanamo look like a Caribbean vacation.
There's a difference between doing something stupid and doing something you believe in. I believe in striking back at bullies, and since I see authority as the ultimate bully, well, I really didn't have a choice. I could argue that someone would have to be the stupidest person on the planet to spend well over a decade and uncounted resources promoting a game that doesn't sell. On the other hand, I could say that person really believed in what they were doing. Which do you prefer? At least my injuries only took 3 months to heal.
Er, what happen to agreeing to disagree?
Seems the relapse is quicker than I thought...
No Max, I just decided I didn't want to waste his time with that.
If you can go back to the past, would you warn anyone about the earthquake that have happened recently?
No, I wouldn't. God allowed it to happen. Who am I to undo what God allowed to happen? Which is one of the reasons why I can't believe he thought I would want to stop the attack.
Please MJ, Max please stop responding to the forum troll. Remember negative attention is attention, and that's what is being craved.
Yeah Jacks-ass, I'm trying to leave him here, on this forum. Not bring him to the next.
Two
As Max said, those other three posts were a bunch of long-winded rants about how I'm agreeing to disagree. I want to leave this here. Start new on the next. I still think you're wrong and are being very closed-minded. But that's nothing new for you. You're so closed-minded you don't even believe that God, in His infinite power, could have turned you towards molecular biology. I don't know about you, but I think that's an insult to God's glory. I think I'm going to agree to disagree. I just cut out three posts to shorten it to one. The PA announcement could work, and accomplish everything required if the referee was smart enough to play it off. I guess anyone using the MP opening isn't...... And it could accomplish that WITHOUT forcing the player to get involved or being a sadistic Jacks-ass of a referee.
I did what I perceived would destroy the US to save my own hide. I was afraid. I might not be dedicated to non-involvement, but at least I played my character accurately.
Three
mistake
I think in all of this, my entire point has been completely missed. You can ALWAYS confront the player with an MP. You can do that at ANY TIME!!!!! It doesn't HAVE to be 10 seconds after they get there. PA announcement. Now they know where they are, AND YOU GET TO SEE THEIR REACTION!!!!!!!! You get to see if they would try to head somewhere to tell someone on their own. You get to see if they would run. You get to see if they would go on a destructive rampage. If they're not doing what you expect, THEN confront them with an MP. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 10 SECONDS AFTER THEY GET THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Confronting them right off the bat, you miss seeing their initial, unbiased, uninfluenced, unfettered reaction to the situation, AND THAT IS COMPLETELY INDISPUTABLE!!!!!!!!
Now I'd turn the MP and all of his buddies into Swiss Cheese, so I really don't see any point in that. How do you figure you don't get to see their initial reaction? They know where they are, no outside influences, nothing trying to steer them any direction. They know they're at Pearl Harbor two days before the attack. What do they do then?
Two
I mean really, for all you knew, if I had the PA announcement, I would head straight to tell someone. For all you know, I was rip roaring to tell them. You just missed out on making me work for it. For all you knew, I would plant explosives and paint bulls-eyes. That's not dedication to non-involvement. You would NEVER see it. You miss their initial reaction to the situation. You miss seeing what they would do with the knowledge that they're at Pearl Harbor 2 days before the attack. All you see is that they will submit to being arrested if confronted. That doesn't tell you squat, except that they are a law-abiding citizen (for the moment). There's so much you miss seeing with that opening.
More than one.
No, my assertion was that the opening Adam used was the only one which was guaranteed to put you, John Cross of that particular time, in a position where you would have to choose between becoming involved somehow and suffering consequences of not having done so.
And this is based entirely on hindsight. AT THE TIME you had no idea how I would react to being at Pearl Harbor, and never bothered to find out my initial reaction. How did you know I wouldn't get there and immediately start telling them everything? You just missed a chance to see how hard I would work TO get involved, and missed finding out that the non-involvement talk was just that. TALK. All you found out is that I was (past tense) a law-abiding citizen.
Why no reply? You gotta admit, this is good stuff and worth commenting on, is it not?
My thing is that there is ALWAYS a better way to do something. There's no such thing as a "Best Way" to accomplish a task. There's only a better way that no one has yet considered. That's why I hate the 3@10 score in this game. There's no such thing as "peak performance". There IS a better way to test non-involvement than immediate arrest by an MP. There has to be. No way around it. I think I've found that way, I've made a thorough case and examination, and now I can't get anyone to consider it. While that's not totally surprising, it IS rather irritating. You only have to see it when you come here. I've got it running through my mind constantly. I still have nightmares about this on occasion. And I believe this is and could be a better way to test non-involvement. Kyler, you asked if I would feel better about running through it again. I recently issued a challenge to any ref to run the PA announcement opening. Are you game? Let's see how that works.
Kyler, did you want to run the PA announcement opening?
Right up front, I am NOT upset. The caps are for strong emphasis, not yelling to expressing anger of any kind. That's true for all of them.
MJ, I really don't think you're understanding me. You can ALWAYS bring the player into custody. If that truly is the ONLY way to see if they're dedicated (which I doubt, but I'll concede it for the moment) you can do that AT ANY TIME!!! The PA announcement lets you see WHAT THE PLAYER WILL DO!!!! What referee worth his salt couldn't forcibly subdue even the most heavily-armed of players with the resources available on a military base? You could send a Special Forces unit after him if you had to. You could have him barricaded inside a building, and drop a SEAL Team on him. They specialize in those kinds of situations. The SWAT of the military. You can ALWAYS take the player into custody. What referee worth his salt couldn't do that? At least the PA announcement lets you see WHAT THE PLAYER WILL DO FIRST!!! What would he choose to do in that situation? You get to see his initial reaction. You get to see if he will warn them of his own free will. With NO OUTSIDE INFLUENCE!!!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)