Two
The military can, will and does use non-lethal weapons. You could hit him with tear gas, tranquilizers, electric tasers, pretty much any non-lethal weapon you could imagine and it would be completely realistic. They don't want to kill him. They want to bring him in alive. Also not unrealistic. What referee worth his salt couldn't do that?
It's funny. Actually being forced like this, I wouldn't feel forced. I would like like I went down swinging in an unfair fight.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
You see if the player will warn them of his own volition. You see how hard he will fight to not be taken into custody. You get to see if he will try to sabotage the place. You see none of this with the MP opening. So, it's a better way.
(Doing Therapy)
Four
When I say "You're just not thinking fourth dimensionally" I mean exactly that. The fourth dimension is time. You've been doing it the same way for so long, you can't see beyond that. You need to think fourth dimensionally. Or probably outside the fourth dimension. Outside your experience. You could learn so much more about the player by turning them loose for a little while. Tell them where they are and turn them loose. I'd give it a 3 day lead in. The first day is to see what they're planning to do. Just don't reel them in or let them out yet. What do they do? Do they try to tell someone? Do they talk about planting bombs and painting buildings? Are they trying their solemn best to get out? What are they doing? On day two, you've got the resources of an entire military base with which to corral your wayward player if you feel you need to. Just don't kill them. They're in custody, you learned more, and they wouldn't feel forced. They lost an unfair fight. Seriously, I'd like some feedback.
It's so strange. I would NOT have felt forced if this is how it had gone down. It would take two 3 GE rolls in a row to get off that base undetected. I realize that. I think most players would.
(Doing Therapy)
I was kinda hoping for a bit more feedback than that. Giving up now would be like dropping out of a Marathon a quarter mile from the finish. Seriously. It's that close to completion. I just have to resolve this. I'm doing well I think.
Come on man. You've seen it this far. You're not gonna poop out now, are you?
Two
I'm trying to demonstrate what I feel would be universally better way to open and run that scenario for most non-involvement players. One that would work better for just about anyone. If a ref wants to run me in it, the way I described, I volunteer for it. It would resolve it. That's how you kill a psychotic episode. You resolve it to yourself.
Call it my "New Forum Resolution." I want very much for this to be the last, and left behind forever here, on this forum. Start new on the next. I just don't understand why limiting their ability to get involved tests non-involvement effectively when they're trapped on an army base. You could realistically collar them pretty much at will. Shoot them in the back with a tranquilizer. He was seen on a security camera and a SEAL team was dispatched. Not at all unrealistic if they feared trained spies and such. With the MP, you don't get to see what I would do if I was dropped in Pearl Harbor. You get to see what I would do if I was immediately arrested at Pearl Harbor. Big difference.
JOHN!!! STOP IT!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, I apologize for freaking out like that, I just think you either don't understand me or are as closed-minded as the door to NORAD. Here's the opening that I think would be really good for involvement and non-involvement alike.
Player verses in. Immediately, the PA system comes on. "This is Corporeal Cross with the Pearl Harbor daily news report. The date is December 5th, the weather is 79 degrees...." Maybe it does give too much information and is a little convenient, but it would be bound to happen once in a while. Now the player knows where and when they are, no outside influence. The opening of the MP takes away the player's first reaction. You never get to see if I would seek out someone to tell or try to run away. How did you know that as soon as I got there, I wouldn't immediately start telling them everything? Perhaps if you had dropped me outside, I might have tried to gain access to warn someone. For all you knew, I was just as eager to warn them as I am adamant to stay away from it. You would never know what my first reaction was. So, the PA system has just played, and the player sees, off in the distance, an MP on a jeep. The MP doesn't yet appear to see the player. Does the player stay down and hope he drives away, then make a break for it? Does the player run up to him? Does the player try to evade and resist? You would see my initial, unfettered, uninfluenced reaction to the situation. The opening of the MP could have backfired. If I immediately start telling them everything, the story just got really boring, as you stated. If I, oh, I don't know, cause the jeep to crash, the story is pretty much shot. You never saw my first reaction. You saw my scared out of my mind and wanting to flee but can't do it, reaction. Tell them where they are, give them a potential threat or someone to tell. If they run towards the MP, they risk getting shot. They have to work to get involved. If they try to flee (I would have) you would get to see how far they would go to stay uninvolved. "But then, they are involved." Don't give me that, you know what I mean. How involved will they get to stay out of the main story??? I would have never been taken into custody. There would probably have been a large trail of dead MPs along the way. If I actually make it out, now the story is a manhunt for this person who crippled their police force 2 days before the bombing. You could take it all sorts of directions. The opening of the MP takes away the player's initial reaction to the situation. The opening of the PA system announcement gets their initial reaction, makes it difficult to stay out or get in. It works either way.
You gotta give this some merit.
(Doing Therapy)
No, john, YOU don't understand. that is what you might do with a NEW player who has just realized he is a verser in the last world or so, or with a veteran verser who has been around the block so many times he has become insane and is now totally unpredictable. The MP opening was a great opening for the player type they erroneously believed you to be. They keep saying they were not wrong because they weren't-had you been the type they thought you were, it would have been an excellent story with a great opening. Instead, it was a short story of someone who was in over their head over-reacting. Are you ever going to stop trying to convince people that an opening that fits who you are at this moment is far better than an opening that fits the person they long-ago interpreted you to be?
Don't get me wrong-I like the opening you are pitching. It just didn't fit what they thought of you back then.
Don't get me wrong-I like the opening you are pitching. It just didn't fit what they thought of you back then.
What YOU are not getting Brock is that this is no longer about me. This would be a good opening for any player, involvement or no. You get their initial reaction. MJ was saying that the MP arrest is the ONLY opening for my type of player. WRONG!!!!! This would work much better for any player. There's no such thing as only one way to do something. There's only a way you haven't yet thought about.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
No, john, YOU don't understand. that is what you might do with a NEW player who has just realized he is a verser in the last world or so
Uh, yeah. That's who I was then!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
Third
They keep saying they were not wrong because they weren't-had you been the type they thought you were, it would have been an excellent story with a great opening
Brock, do you even realize what you're saying? MJ keeps saying he wasn't wrong, because if I was who he thought I was, it would have worked. Gee, that must mean he was WRONG about who I was? If I was who he thought I was, the opening would have worked. The opening I suggested would have worked no matter who I was. In saying he wasn't wrong, you prove the thing he was wrong about.
(Doing Therapy)
I think John is right, there are other openings for John I would approve of:
1) Having him appear a thousand feet above the base.
2) Have him appear in the diesel engine (not the room), of one of the ships stationed there.
3) Have him appear right in the base's finest jail cell.
4) Have him appear in the barrel of one of the ships long guns just before it fires.
5) Have him appear in the child care facilities of the base.
For the amount of whining, bitching, moaning, and grief you have given over this, you would have thought, you would do something productive with that time, like get and keep a job. Guess that is asking for too much. :P
Maybe you will keep that in mind next time you run the world for someone.
(Doing Therapy)
John, you are certainly correct that there are other openings for the Pearl Harbor scenario. What you are forgetting is that the reason we put you there was because in the previous world you were insisting that versers should never interfere with local events and policies. You were espousing a Prime Directive Non-involvement Philosophy, and we wanted to test whether you were serious about that. This thus meant that we needed to put you in a situation in which all the pressure would be on you to become involved, to change history as you knew it.
Adam has the right idea. Have you confront an MP immediately. You say that if you had not been confronted immediately you could have fought your way off the base, but that it would have been cold-blooded murder to kill the MP once he got close. That's nonsense: if it is your intention to kill people to escape the base, it does not matter whether you start with this one or not. If you decide not to kill this one, that means you are that much less devoted to avoiding involvement at any price, or that you think that killing the MP would mean becoming involved while being arrested wouldn't. I'm sure that had you not become involved by harassing the MP with your TK pulse, Adam would have placed you in a cell and spent the next couple of days with military intelligence agents grilling your character to find out who he was and what all that stuff in his van was. The question would have been what you would have told them and when. If you resisted telling them about the impending attack (which after all would have been a way of proving a claim that you were from their future, if that was your explanation of yourself) then you would have demonstrated your determination not to change their world. As it was, you raised the stakes entirely on your own and admitted that you were not willing to run the risk at that level, and so became involved to save yourself. That told us that you are not non-involvement; you are path-of-least-resistance.
There are many openings for any scenario, but just because there are openings doesn't mean they're all good for every character. For example, for ninety-nine out of a hundred players, The Dancing Princess works wonderfully well by dropping them in the world, letting them get settled, and then introducing the fairytale search for a hero. Most versers step up to be that hero. For you, I needed to get to a place where an angel told you that you were needed to fight the demons. That tells me that if I ever run you again in the future, I should look forward to running games in which you don't do anything that isn't virtually forced upon you. The Titanic would work, because even though I don't know what you would do you would have to do something just to avoid being trampled to death at some point, although maybe you would just allow yourself to be trampled to death. I could put you in The Industrial Complex and let you settle in and figure out how to live among the tribes, and then you'll have to deal with the apocalypse when it begins, or just let it kill you and send you to the next world.
--M. J. Young
Adam has the right idea. Have you confront an MP immediately. You say that if you had not been confronted immediately you could have fought your way off the base, but that it would have been cold-blooded murder to kill the MP once he got close. That's nonsense:
No it isn't. For one thing, I tried to leave peacefully. They wouldn't let it go. That's kind of different from getting caught flat-footed by the equivalent of a beat cop. Secondly, I knew I wouldn't be able to do it once I looked into his eyes. Shooting out the window of the van and not even being sure if you hit anything is a might bit different. That's how deeply into his head I got.
(Doing Therapy)
Gee, that must mean he was WRONG about who I was?
YES, PRECISELY!!!!! You finally understand. That is why the opening happened the way it did. It showed everyone just that fact! It revelaed you to be a "me-first" player not a "don't get involved" player.
That's kind of different from getting caught flat-footed by the equivalent of a beat cop
You mean an MP just doing his job peacefully taking a heavily armed intruder with a vehicle in for questioning as per his orders.
You mean an MP just doing his job peacefully taking a heavily armed intruder with a vehicle in for questioning as per his orders.
Right. How can you kill him? Now if I had been in the process of leaving, that's different. You would never walk up to a complete stranger and hit him in the face with a baseball bat, but if that same stranger were breaking into your house, you would have no problem with it. See what I mean?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Besides, have I not been clear yet? This isn't about me anymore. What do you think of that opening, from the perspective of 30 years gaming experience? That was more the point. I think that would work a lot better. Really, this is supposed to be a discussion about game openers. I'm just using that as a well-known example. I want to be clear about that. This isn't about me anymore.
(Doing Therapy)
Revealing all of that information from the start is a viable strategy for some gamemasters, but it really is about personal choice and how you as a GM think the player will react. There is no such thing as a perfect opening-it needs to be tailored to the group.
I prefer to make the player(s) work for their information.
Well, all I know for certain is that if I had known where I was before the MP got there, that scenario would have gone radically different. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD GET INVOLVED IN THAT?????????
Yes, I did. I could hardly be said to have been in my right mind at the time, however.
Two
MJ, I am familiar with the line of thinking that being into guns is reason to think they're into military history. However, in my experience, people interested in guns usually have a real problem with authority. Sometimes it's both, but I think the latter is far more common. Just a tip.
(Doing Therapy)
I would. I would most CERTAINLY warn them, out of a sense of social justice. But then, i am far less worried about changing historical events than some others are.
Then what do you do 10 years later when a German tank is rolling down I-70 as a direct result?
Ah, but who says that a German tank WOULD be? Predicting the future is not so easy as you would think. If you warn them and it comes true, they may be willing to at least listen, and knowing the Germans plan to take over the world, I could very well prod them into action against them too. I do not shy away from trying to rewrite history and prevent disasters. Sure, a new disaster *could* occur, but then I can try to prevent that too.
Why take the chance? We know there's a 100% chance of American victory if Pearl Harbor is destroyed. We know this because it has already happened. God only knows what happens if you change it.
Two
People say that they would love to alter history. They want to stop The Pearl Harbor bombing and whatnot. What would have happened if that didn't happen? So you stop the other thing, so then you stop the other thing. Until finally things are so out of whack, you wish you had just left well enough alone and let Pearl Harbor be destroyed.
(Doing Therapy)
What do you think of that opening, from the perspective of 30 years gaming experience?
Not one I would use, but then, I can see using something like it in other circumstances. If I dropped you on the Titanic, there's a good chance you'd see a life ring with the name "Titanic" on it within minutes of your arrival; or maybe there are no such rings, and you'd be wandering around the ship interacting with people before discovering that this is the Titanic. After all, who would mention it? The assumption would be that if you're aboard you know what ship it is. You could see the name written on the bow, but by that time you're in the water, so the only way you'd get there is if there's trouble. It might also be written on the stack, but that's also not an easy spot to see from the decks.
For me, part of any scenario is figuring out where you are, and I only make it clear if it's to be a shock and I'm not giving you much time to react. If you arrive on the Titanic and see the name on something immediately, you can be pretty sure that you're going to hit the iceberg within twenty-four hours, and maybe within twenty-four minutes, and maybe it's already happened, because there's no reason to give you that much information that quickly unless you need it that quickly.
You didn't need it that quickly in Pearl Harbor, because you could have remained uninvolved by talking your way out of arrest or withstanding questioning while awaiting the attack.
For most players, my choice would be to put you in the town of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and let you figure out that that military base where most people work is the famous one that gets bombed--when? A couple days from now? How can you warn them, and what can they do about it?
For an avowed non-involvement player, I want to avoid any opening that allows him to turn his back and walk away too easily. If he is intent on staying out of it, he should have to prove it to me.
Of course, if I've already accepted that this is what he is, I can put him outside, because odds are he'll want to find a way to get a front-row seat to watch the Arizona sink just to say he saw it himself. After all, if you're a non-involvement player, you need some motivation to care about what is happening (or you wouldn't bother to play the game), and the most plausible motivation is that you want to see what happens. If you're just a hermit, then it's probably a waste of everyone's time for you to play--you'll just retreat to the mountains and go about living your life until something happens to disturb you enough to kill you, and then you'll do it again in the next world, becoming expert in survival in every imaginable environment and never really doing anything. Why would someone play Multiverser/ who did not want to be involved and did not want to see what happens? You could play The Sims and do nothing much more easily.
As far as whether I would have warned them, I think the answer is yes, I would have; and had I been you, I would have used my cache of futuristic weaponry to help fight the Japanese, and then used my status as the guy who came from another dimension with knowledge of the future to push for the Manhattan Project, and with my limited understanding of how an atomic bomb works would probably get involved in that project, building my knowledge of nuclear physics and pushing the technological edge of the United States at the same time. Oh, Oppenheimer and all would still be the heroes, but I would be part of that, and we'd have nuclear submarines sooner and probably safer nuclear power sooner, as well as movement in the development of microelectronics, solar power, and other concepts. After all, I might not be able to make a microprocessor chip, but I understand the basic technology by which it is made, and with my knowledge combined with that of the physicists and technologists of the day we could have laptops a decade sooner and beat the Japanese to cellular phone and flat screen television technology.
In short, we would be so far ahead of the Germans and the Russians that the Cold War would be only Cool.
You address each step as it arises. Advancing the technology of the United States advances my own. That's a win-win in which we win.
--M. J. Young
Cross posted.
So you stop the other thing, so then you stop the other thing. Until finally things are so out of whack, you wish you had just left well enough alone and let Pearl Harbor be destroyed.
Look, no one is as cognizant of the way one event impacts another as I. When I wrote Bender's Big Score part 9: the Gorey details, in which I demonstrated that a Gore over Bush victory in 2000 would have made a 2008 Obama victory impossible, I got a lot of flack from comments of those who did not like my politics. Sure, one little change brings another, and soon the future is entirely different and unpredictable--but who cares? This is the multiverse. We can build a better universe than the one we knew. I'm not worried about keeping the future "on track". I'm worried about making the world a better place. There are a lot of things that happened after Pearl Harbor we could do without. If that means a very different history, that's fine. I'm in that world; I'll benefit from it.
--M. J. Young
As far as when and how much information is given, what's the difference between the PA announcement and the MP opening? The only difference is that the PA system doesn't shove a gun in your face whilst giving the information.
(Doing Therapy)
Agreed.
What the MP opening does which the PA opening does not do is immediately place you in the position where it is considerably easier to become involved than it is to avoid involvement, and being pressuring you to become involved instead of allowing you to attempt to escape.
Thus the MP opening is right for testing whether someone is truly a non-involvement player.
--M. J. Young
BULLSHIT!!!!!! You're FORCING them to become involved!!!!!!!
How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in? TALKING TO THE MP IS MORE INVOLVED THAN I WOULD HAVE CHOSEN TO GET!!!!!!!!
Thus, I was FORCED to get involved!!!!!
The MP knows I'm there. I'm involved. I don't know why that's such a difficult concept for you to comprehend!!!!!!!
How can you possibly say that forcing them to become involved is the way to see if they will get involved? I was involved the minute the MP pulled up!!!!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
BULLSHIT!!!!!! You're FORCING them to become involved!!!!!!!
no, it forces you to evaluate whether or not the price you will pay to stay uninvolved is worth it. Had you merely:
A) cooperated with the MP but refused to give them any information about how you were there
B)lied and said you were lost
C)any other along these lines;
Then you would have remained uninvolved. But involvement wasn't what you care about. It's "don't rock MY boat" that you care about. Leave well enough alone and all that. That is why you are lashing out, really. You merely disliked the story and wished it had never happened to your character, but you don't want to start over and lose all your work.
Yeah, but whilst I'm doing all of that, I'M INVOLVED!!!!! That's the point that no one seems to get. They wanted to see if I would warn them of the attack. In doing so, they forced me to become involved.
Warning them of the attack and being involved aren't the same thing. Whether I warn them of the attack or dance a jig on a general's desk, I AM INVOLVED!!!!!!! That's the part that no one seems to comprehend. I was involved the moment the MP pulled up. No matter what I do after that, I AM INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!
You wanted to see if I would get involved, so you force me to become involved.
Two
And don't give me that "You're not involved until you warn them" crap either. Your definition of involvement means about as much to me as mine does to you. I was more involved than I would have ever gotten willingly the moment the MP pulled up. Kind of blows the whole "Will John willingly get involved" BS right out the window. I was more involved than I would have gotten willingly the moment the MP pulled up!!!!!!
WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT FOR ALL OF YOU TO COMPREHEND???????????
(Doing Therapy)
John, if your idea of "not getting involved" is not being seen, then you voluntarily break that one routinely.
If that was true though, you wouldn't talk to people on the street in your games.
You wouldn't ever shoot ANYONE, since your existence in a universe is inherently more unnatural to the natural progression than natives.
You wouldn't ever get a job, as that provides benefit to the community that is absent if you were not there.
You wouldn't ever trade for anything, including guns, as that introduces non-native currency or resources.
You would always hide away in a cave on the lookout for if someone else might come and see you and going through every effort to hide from people in the area.
Also, I guess you're dropping the poor disguise that this isn't all about you anymore?
I really don't care if you thought you were involved when someone talked to you, and I'm pretty sure no one else cares either. It doesn't stop us from observing whether you allow yourself to become involved further. Which you did, and as such you are not a non-involvement character.
You pride yourself on not being a cookie cutter gamer, often times by insulting everyone that is a gamer and isn't you in the process. Guess what, GM's have a term for you (several actually, but one constructive one) that's relatively cookie cutter, just infinitely frustrating. You like being adverse to the flow of a story, regardless of what the flow is, or a Player Obstacle. Throw in a little Munchkin behavior and I'm pretty sure we have John in cookie cutter form.
John, if your idea of "not getting involved" is not being seen, then you voluntarily break that one routinely.
Let me be clear. IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, non-involvement would be leaving unseen. Seriously. What could be more non-involved than getting off the base before anyone even realizes you were there? And that could certainly make an interesting story. THAT would be non-involvement, and no one could argue it.
(Doing Therapy)
I wrote
Thus the MP opening is right for testing whether someone is truly a non-involvement player.
John vehemently and offensively answered
You're FORCING them to become involved!!!!!!!...TALKING TO THE MP IS MORE INVOLVED THAN I WOULD HAVE CHOSEN TO GET!!!!!!!!
So who said you had to talk? You chose to talk. What would he have done had you not said anything--shot you? More likely took you to be a foreigner, or a mute, or deaf, or injured, depending on what you did to avoid talking. And if he shot you, so what? You could drive the van into the ocean and get out of there rather surprisingly, or grabbed one of your highly advanced weapons and shot back, or simply died on the beach.
Did we force you to get involved, or did we use force to pressure you to get involved? I think we can be accused of the latter--but then, that's exactly what we wanted to do. We wanted to see whether under pressure you would have gotten involved. Of course we're going to use force. However, your response was not to avoid getting involved at any cost--it was to do whatever was the easiest thing. That's not non-involvement. That means if it's easier to be involved than not, you'll be involved, and if it's easier not to be involved, you won't be involved, whatever's easier.
Warning them of the attack and being involved aren't the same thing. Whether I warn them of the attack or dance a jig on a general's desk, I AM INVOLVED!!!!!!! That's the part that no one seems to comprehend. I was involved the moment the MP pulled up. No matter what I do after that, I AM INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!
Oh, now I'm going to start using vulgar language.
No, John, you're wrong. The moment you awoke on the beach you were involved. You became more involved by opening the door of your van and stepping on the sand, leaving your footprints. By the definition of "involved" you are trying to force on us, the only way for you not to be involved in any of the game worlds is for you to stop playing, because your very presence in the world means that, by this definition, you are involved.
But you know what? Your definition of non-involvement is completely irrelevant, because if I recall correctly I was the one who first used the word to describe what I saw as your attitude in B Monster Movie Columbus. Your statement was that the other versers should not be trying to change the world because it was not their world, nor yours, and versers have no right to try to make a world fit their idea of "better". I said that you were espousing a "non-involvement" philosophy, an approach to the verse in which you are a tourist visiting and observing but not altering or assisting in the worlds you visit. Therefore by my definition of "non-involvement" we're talking about nothing more than a Star Trek Prime Directive: don't do anything that will change the worlds you visit. That does not mean don't get arrested, or don't talk to the MP, or don't leave footprints in the sand. It means don't try to alter the world for what you perceive to be the better, which is all that you were saying in Columbus. Now you're trying to make it so much more than that that I don't even recognize the concept. It is not possible to play Multiverser and not change the worlds you visit. You will be seen; you will breathe the air, leave footprints, eat and drink and ur--well, you are going to leave something behind if you stay long enough.
So if indeed being seen by the MP was "involved" then you can stop playing now, John, because you will always be "involved" in the worlds you visit for as long as you are playing. And even if we dropped you in Seattle a month before the attack, you would be involved in the Pearl Harbor scenario because you would be in the world when it happened.
And this attitude is part of the reason I have no intention of reviving your game now that you have jumped ship to another referee.
--M. J. Young
Did we force you to get involved, or did we use force to pressure you to get involved?
You forced me to get involved. I can't just walk away from Pearl Harbor and pretend that I wasn't there. That would be not getting involved. I was forced to get involved, and I think deep down inside that tiny little, closed-minded brain of yours, you know that. Eh, what difference does it make? Eric keeps saying that you can't use reason to win an argument. You're just proving that.
Assuming that I'm interested in military history just because I'm a gun enthusiast. I'm familiar with that line of thinking. I think it's stereotypical and obscene. It's also not as common a stereotype as people seem to think. I think a much more correct and common stereotype is that the majority of gun enthusiasts have a problem with authority. Thus, if you were using the far more common stereotype, you would have anticipated that I would have a problem with an MP.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
No, John, you're wrong. The moment you awoke on the beach you were involved. You became more involved by opening the door of your van and stepping on the sand, leaving your footprints. By the definition of "involved" you are trying to force on us, the only way for you not to be involved in any of the game worlds is for you to stop playing, because your very presence in the world means that, by this definition, you are involved.
I'm not influencing the events of the world by leaving footprints in the sand. It's the old "Tree falling in the woods" question. If a verser arrives and no one knows he was there, was he involved? Of course not.
Therefore by my definition of "non-involvement" we're talking about nothing more than a Star Trek Prime Directive: don't do anything that will change the worlds you visit.
And the MP arresting me isn't changing the world that I'm visiting? How do you know he wasn't at the end of his shift and on his way home for the day? I got involved in his life. How can you possibly say that arresting me isn't changing the life of the MP? If he hadn't seen me, his day would have gone that much better. Thus, by arresting me, I changed the course of his life. Thank you. You just proved how I was forced to get involved.
Of course I will get involved if I'm forced to. I don't have much choice in the matter then.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
Therefore by my definition of "non-involvement" we're talking about nothing more than a Star Trek Prime Directive: don't do anything that will change the worlds you visit.
I can't believe you can't even see the fallacy in your own logic. Don't do anything which will change the worlds you visit. Let's analyze the MP opening.
1) I got arrested. That's changing the world.
2) I would be detained. That's changing the world.
3) I would interact with people. That's changing the world.
I could go on.
I would have no choice in the matter. Having no choice. Let's see. Isn't that BEING FORCED??????????
Oh, but I didn't do anything "meaningful" DEFINE MEANINGFUL!!!!!!!! Leaving footprints in the sand is in no way meaningful. You're just proving again and again that I WAS FORCED TO GET INVOLVED!!!!!! You just can't see the fallacy in your own logic.
Leaving undetected. Not involved.
Getting arrested and detained. Forced involvement.
WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND?????????
I was forced to get involved. PERIOD!!!!! You're just too arrogant or closed-minded or both to see the fallacy in your own logic.
(Doing Therapy)
I can't just walk away from Pearl Harbor and pretend that I wasn't there.
So by your definition, being present is being involved; thus it would not be possible for you or any other player character to be uninvolved in the worlds to which you verse, because once you are there you are involved.
By that definition, of course we forced you to be involved. The moment you appeared on the beach, you were involved.
Eric keeps saying that you can't use reason to win an argument. You're just proving that.
Eric is incorrect. You can indeed use reason to win arguments, provided everyone agrees on fundamental principles. He feels it is otherwise because he fails to recognize that he is arguing with people who have entirely different fundamental principles.
In the case at hand, argument from your side would be:
- To be present in any place is to be involved in that place.
- I was placed by the referee in Pearl Harbor without any control over the fact.
- Therefore, I was forced to be involved in Pearl Harbor.
That is unarguably correct, and if I accepted the first point I would be forced to accept the conclusion. Reason wins the argument.
However, the first point is a fundamental principle. Let me give the argument from my perspective:
- Being involved means making a meaningful effort to impact events in a situation; it is thus possible to be present in a situation and do nothing meaningful, and thus not be involved.
- At no point did anyone take control of your character and cause him to make willful actions which impacted events at Pearl Harbor.
- Therefore, you were not forced to be involved at Pearl Harbor, but rather chose to be involved rather than accept the consequences of non-involvement.
By my definitions, you were never forced to be involved, and reason just proved it.
So the problem is you want to use your own definition of "non-involvement"; but since "non-involvement" is a term I introduced to the discussion as a way of describing your character's attitude, only my definition of the term is relevant. I can say that we wanted to test whether you were genuinely a non-involvement player, by which I mean that no matter how much force is applied to your character you will not interfere with the events of a world in any way, and that by putting your character in a position you found untenable we proved you were willing to become involved if it was to your character's benefit.
Now, you can say that you don't accept my definition of "non-involvement". In that case the entire discussion is meaningless, because I am saying that the light is red and you are screaming at me that no, it is not orange, and I should stop saying so.
So, if "be involved" means "character took meaningful action to impact events or circumstances" and "forced" means "player had no control over the character and could not have caused the character to do otherwise in any way", I think you can see that, by reason, I am correct. You "took meaningful action to impact events or circumstances" in Pearl Harbor because you decided that not doing so would be detrimental to your character, and you were unwilling to accept those detrimental circumstances.
If the choice is between "obey the Prime Directive" and "allow the Enterprise to be destroyed with all hands", and the Prime Directive really is the prime directive, that is, the first rule that is to be followed in every situation in which it is relevant, then you let the Enterprise be destroyed with all hands. To do otherwise is to act as if the preservation of the Enterprise and its crew is more important than that which is stated to be most important, and so to invalidate the sense of the Prime Directive being prime.
If the most important thing is to remain uninvolved and you are taken by an MP and crippled and hospitalized in a location where you are in danger of being killed, and you take action which constitutes involvement, in order to protect yourself from that possibility, then by definition protecting yourself from that possibility is more important than remaining uninvolved.
That is all anyone has said on this side of the argument.
What you have said is that if we wanted to see if you would or would not become involved, we should have made it easy for you to walk away without incident. That would only have proved that you walked away given the opportunity to do so. It does not prove whether you would or would not have become involved, because walking away was easy. In this case, it would have proved nothing, because we might have concluded that your failure to become involved proved you were a non-involvement player, when all it really proved was what we discovered the hard way, that you will do whatever is easiest.
You were not forced to do anything that would alter the events of that world. You were taken into custody and put in a situation where you had the opportunity to alter the events of that world, and pressure was put on you to do so, and you broke under pressure. You never had to tell them anything. You chose to do so--and as I recall I was shocked that you did, because I thought once you were in the hospital it was just a matter of waiting for events to pass, and you surprised me by insisting at that time of warning of the imminent attack. Yes, I understand what motivated you to do this, as you did not realize that being killed would have cured all your injuries. That does not change the fact that you became involved because you thought it would be detrimental to you not to do so, and that means that that potential for detriment was more important than "the most important thing", and you are not a non-involvement player.
I was forced to get involved. PERIOD!!!!! You're just too arrogant or closed-minded or both to see the fallacy in your own logic.
As far as I am concerned, you remained uninvolved up to the moment you insisted on telling someone about the impending attack. Therefore you were not forced, by my definition, to be involved, by my definition. And since my definition of "non-involvement" has been established as the only one which matters when I ask whether you are a non-involvement player by my definition of those words, the fact that you think you were involved before that moment is irrelevant; and since there was at the moment you became involved no pressure on you to do so (you had to ask for them to get someone for you to tell), you did so entirely voluntarily, and were not, by my definition, forced.
I'm sorry you feel as if introducing you to a character in that world forced you to become involved, but the fact remains that it did not force you to take specific meaningful action which was designed to alter the events of that world, and you did not at that moment do so. Sure, I understand that you changed the life of the man you met, and that that might accidentally have altered the future; but we're not talking about the fact that your breathing like butterfly's wings might have been the factor which tipped the balance creating the tsunami that wiped out the Japanese fleet. We're talking about actions which were intended by your character to change the events of the world. Being arrested, being questioned, being tortured and executed, does not count. Telling someone that the Japanese were about to attack was the moment you "became involved" in intentionally changing the world.
--M. J. Young
And if you don't stop being so offensive in your posts I will stop answering.