You were not forced to do anything that would alter the events of that world. You were taken into custody
Right there. You just proved it. I was not forced to do anything which would alter the events of the world, I was taken into custody. Being taken into custody IS altering the events of the world!!!!!!
YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT!!!!!! You just said how I was forced to get involved and you can't even see 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.
Since I am the one doing the non-involvement, I think I should be allowed to define it, don't you? I should get to say what constitutes non-involvement for my character.
As far as I am concerned, you remained uninvolved up to the moment you insisted on telling someone about the impending attack.
As far as I am concerned, I was involved the moment the MP pulled up. You said have a "meaningful impact." DEFINE MEANINGFUL!!!!!!!!
You're going to insist that I was uninvolved in Dancing Princess until I went to the castle. I learned to blacksmith. I taught a young boy to box. I think they would call that meaningful involvement, don't you?
The MP has me in custody. I think he would call that meaningful involvement.
Two
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.
I have to concede this. To be completely uninvolved, a player would have to become a hermit. Arriving is not being involved, talking to people and interacting with them though, that is unquestionably being involved. Since you would have to be a hermit to be completely uninvolved, I'll wager few if any players are true non-involvement.
My definition is not "Stay completely away" it's more like "Do as little as reasonably possible to alter events." Since it is unreasonable to expect not to verse in, arriving isn't being involved. Since it is unreasonable to expect to not leave footprints in the sand, that isn't being involved either. Do as little as reasonably possible. Getting a job and learning to blacksmith. Well, I do want to learn new skills, and money and friends are a good thing to have. That's completely reasonable. So, I did as little as reasonably possible to become involved in Dancing Princess. However, I was UNQUESTIONABLY involved there.
This goes with Path Of Least Resistance. It is certainly reasonably possible to get off of the Pearl Harbor base without being seen!!!!!!! Not if an MP pulls up, 10 seconds after you arrive when you don't even know where you are to begin with. I was never even given a chance to do as little as reasonably possible to become involved. It just so happens that in THAT PARTICULAR CASE, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there!!!!
If I had known where I was BEFORE he got there, I would have headed out. You never got to see that. Then, doing as little as reasonably possible changes. If they see me and chase me, it's reasonable to run. If they shoot at me, it's reasonable to shoot back. I'm doing as little as reasonably possible to be involved. Do as little as reasonably possible to be involved. Path of least resistance. You've been saying it the whole time.
And getting off undetected could be an interesting story. The base is huge!! It isn't acres, it's square miles. It could take days to get off the base undetected. Doing as little as reasonably possible could mean doing quite a bit. I'm not saying make it easy to escape undetected, I'm saying make it reasonably possible to escape undetected. An MP pulling up 10 seconds after you arrive is forcing them to interact with Indigs. Interaction with Indigs. Unquestionably involved in their lives. Getting off the base undetected. If they never knew you were there, you were in no way involved in their lives. It just so happens that was a situation where I would have wanted to be a hermit and not talk to anyone.
Since it is reasonably possible to get off of the Pearl Harbor naval base undetected, I was forced to get involved. I was, after all, unquestionably involved in the life of the MP. Does that make more sense?
(Doing Therapy)
Three
Is it reasonable to be picked up by an MP 10 seconds after you arrive? Certainly. However, you just forced the player to interact with Indigs. Interaction with indigs. Being involved in their lives. Forcing the player to become involved in the lives of indigs. Not a very good way to see if they will stay UNinvolved in the lives of indigs.
And I just know someone is going to compare this to the opening I used for the zombie world. Bill and Ted saved Mike from a zombie attack. Mike was forced to get involved in the lives of Bill and Ted. Two differences. First, we weren't testing non-involvement with Mike. Second and most important, Bill and Ted would have let Mike walk away if he had chosen to do so. The MP wouldn't have.
(Doing Therapy)
You're going to insist that I was uninvolved in Dancing Princess until I went to the castle. I learned to blacksmith. I taught a young boy to box. I think they would call that meaningful involvement, don't you?
On the contrary, you were definitely involved. By aiding that small town's economy with your blacksmithing, by befriending that boy and changing his life, you were by MJ's definition most definitely involved. As for the rest of your argument, I don't feel like arguing a point when one side says this is true and the other says this is false, about entirely separate ideas.
I don't feel like arguing a point when one side says this is true and the other says this is false, about entirely separate ideas.
The thing that irked me was the MJ said that the MP opening was the ONLY way to test non-involvement. PA announcement. Player knows where they are. They then spend the next 2 days evading capture and trying to escape the compound, without ever being seen. They finally make it off under the distraction of the bombing. Now tell me they didn't work to stay uninvolved!!!!! They never even spoke to anyone. How much more uninvolved could they get? And they certainly had to work for it.
In the case of Pearl Harbor, take the fear of versing out with 40 broken bones and turn it into how much I don't want to interact with them. If I had known where I was, I never would have been taken into custody. You would have seen me work incredibly hard to stay uninvolved. That's why I keep calling bullshit on his idea that it's the only way.
I was forced to get involved in the life of the MP, regardless of what I did after that. That's what I mean when I say I was forced to get involved.
(Doing Therapy)
He actually never said it was the only way. He said it was the best fit that he can think of for the situation.
Further, by YOUR definition of "being forced to be involved", yes you were. The point people are exhaustively reiterating is NOT "you were not forced to be involved by your definition of that term, John" it is "You were not forced to be involved by OUR definition of that term, John." The sooner you accept this, the less stress people will have to endure, because this entire argument is pointless as long as you are all using different definitions of the same damn thing.
Brock, like I keep saying, it isn't (entirely) about me anymore.
I get the feeling sometimes that MJ thinks he is always right. He isn't. I've proved him wrong a few times, even about his beloved time travel theory. My hope, genuinely, is that the information learned from me will help referees to better run games for lifetimes to come.
It is inarguable that I was forced to become involved in the life of the MP. To me, that constitutes forced to become involved, period.
I'm calling shenanigans on it not being about you first off.
Second, most GMs already have a way of dealing with players like you, they are asked to change they're problematic behavior or vacate the table.
As to the idea that you're the one who should be putting MJ in his place, that is absurd even if we ignore the fact that he isn't wrong.
The chance of us ALL being wrong and you being the only right one... not likely.
I'm calling shenanigans on it not being about you first off.
And of course, you can read my mind through the computer and tell exactly what my motivation is, right?
Second, most GMs already have a way of dealing with players like you, they are asked to change they're problematic behavior or vacate the table.
I've offered to leave several times.
As to the idea that you're the one who should be putting MJ in his place, that is absurd even if we ignore the fact that he isn't wrong.
And where exactly did I say that? I said he isn't always right and I have proven him wrong on occasion. I never once said that I should be putting him in his place.
The chance of us ALL being wrong and you being the only right one... not likely.
Ever read the poem of the 6 blind men who went to see an elephant? They came back with 6 distinct and different viewpoints of what an elephant was "Although all were partly in the right, and all were in the wrong."
(Doing Therapy)
Since I am the one doing the non-involvement, I think I should be allowed to define it, don't you? I should get to say what constitutes non-involvement for my character.
This is the part where I think your logic fails. Sure, I understand why you think this, and in another context, had you said, "I am a non-involvement player" in so many words, we would be saying, "Let's find out what he means by that." But that is not how it happened in this situation.
What happened was you were fighting with the other player characters about whether you as versers ought to interfere with events in the world you were visiting. It was a fun world, from one perspective, in which chemical waste and nuclear radiation were creating mutant monsters of all kinds. (I didn't get so far as introducing psionically capable indigs, but I did set the psi bias high enough that they would exist.) Graeme and Scott became very focused on trying to get the world to clean up its environment, and Nikolaj and maybe Jeremy joined him in that endeavor. You not only tried to stay out of it, you argued that they should not be doing this. After all, there were obviously benefits in that world from the chemistry and nuclear energy, even if giant insects and other mutated monsters were periodically seen ravaging the countryside, the rivers regularly caught fire, and you had to pay extra for clean water. If the people of that world wanted it to be different, they would change it themselves, right? That's not really an unreasonable position. I think you may even have invoked the Prime Directive as a Star Trek idea you thought versers ought to adopt.
So I thought to myself, "John sounds like what I might call a 'non-involvement player', trying not to change the worlds he visits. I wonder if there's a world that would put that to the test? I would bet that he would take steps to change events if he were in Pearl Harbor; but I don't know Pearl Harbor well enough to run it, so let me see if any of my trusted friends here can do it." I sent messages to that effect to Kyler, Adam, and I think Eric and John. Adam said he could do it.
The point was to determine whether you fit what I was defining as a "non-involvement player". I don't know that I even used that phrase in those letters, but I do know that I did not use it in any conversation with you prior to the events of that world. Thus this was not a test of whether you were what you would call a "non-involvement" player, but whether you were what I was labeling a "non-involvement" player.
And since the question was entirely about a notion I had in my head about how you were approaching play, and neither that notion nor that phrase was communicated to you in any way, shape or form prior to the events which were designed to test it, I am at a complete loss in trying to understand why you think that your definition of the phrase you had never at that time heard is worth spit in the question of how to determine whether you fit my concept.
If you can't understand why your definition of an idea which at that time existed almost solely in my head doesn't matter in the least to the question of whether you fit that concept, then you might as well give up.
Now, if you think that you understand the concept as I have defined it, and you still think that:
- you were forced, in the sense that your character could not possibly have done anything else including die painfully in a crippled condition to avoid
- becoming involved, in the sense of taking meaningful and intentional steps to alter the state or events of the world in a major way beyond the matter of the lives of isolated individuals
But if all you want to do is tell me that my definition of my own idea is wrong, then you might as well stop arguing now, because as you said to Mike, it is unlikely that you could possibly know what was in my head better than I myself do.
Of course, it's possible that your therapy is making your thinking process too fuzzy to understand this, in which case you're forgiven but not justified.
--M. J. Young
"John sounds like what I might call a 'non-involvement player', trying not to change the worlds he visits. I wonder if there's a world that would put that to the test? I would bet that he would take steps to change events if he were in Pearl Harbor; but I don't know Pearl Harbor well enough to run it, so let me see if any of my trusted friends here can do it."
And under normal circumstances, you would have lost that bet.
Here's the problem that I have with your logic MJ.
This is speaking of a normal, no jeep crash run through. There's no way I would have warned them. You, thinking I was "sorely tempted" and avoided the temptation, would have thought I was deadly committed to non-involvement. Had I never mentioned my motivation for warning them, you probably would have concluded that I had intended to warn them all along. Point is, you would have gotten, at best, flawed information.
My way, you would have gotten better, more accurate information, in game like you were supposed to.
And since the question was entirely about a notion I had in my head about how you were approaching play, and neither that notion nor that phrase was communicated to you in any way, shape or form prior to the events which were designed to test it, I am at a complete loss in trying to understand why you think that your definition of the phrase you had never at that time heard is worth spit in the question of how to determine whether you fit my concept.
You don't have to know what something is called to know how it works. You don't have to know the name of something to know how you would describe it. That said, I don't see how my lack of knowledge of the phrase "Non-involvement player" is worth spit in what I mean when I say "I don't want to influence the events of the world." It just so happens that in that case, I wouldn't want to be within 50 miles of the place.
Now, if you think that you understand the concept as I have defined it, and you still think that:
1. you were forced, in the sense that your character could not possibly have done anything else including die painfully in a crippled condition to avoid
2. becoming involved, in the sense of taking meaningful and intentional steps to alter the state or events of the world in a major way beyond the matter of the lives of isolated individuals
It was an episode of Quantum Leap. Sam is at a party, and a man starts choking. Sam administers appropriate first aid. As Sam is walking away, someone says to the choking victim: "Are you okay Dr. Heimlich?" Now tell me that unintentional steps towards isolated individuals can't have a major influence on the world. In that particular case, unintentional steps got me involved far deeper than I would have ever chosen to be.
I had a record at the video store. I rented and watched 64 movies in a 30 day period. What I'm saying is, I watch a lot of movies that have nothing to do with my personal feelings. I wish I had put a disclaimer on that analysis. "The views and opinions expressed in this analysis do not necessarily reflect those of the author." Would have saved us a lot of trouble.
(Doing Therapy)
I've offered to leave several times.
The way I see it, MJ will never ask you to leave unless you begin to viciously and verbally attack people just for the purpose of attacking them. So long as you debate these things merely because you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, I don't think he will ask you to leave. MJ appears to have taken it upon himself to help you to understand these things, and to an extent, to understand other people.
Brock, if there was a situation you would want to stay as far away from as you possibly could, and the only way you could get out of it was to kill another human being, wouldn't you feel forced into the situation? I bet most people would. That's why I think that is a really crappy opening, and is far from being the ONLY opening for that scenario. I think the PA announcement would be much better, and played right by the ref, could be perfect for any player, involvement or not. That's why I keep saying it isn't about me anymore. I was an extreme case. It's from the extremes that you learn.
(Doing Therapy)
No, I would feel that I have a tough choice to make, and would then make the choice. Fretting over whether or not circumstances have forced my hand is non-productive. But then, I am a confident and headstrong person who uses logic to find the best solution and then follows it.
If had known where I was BEFORE the MP got there, there's no way in hell I would have been taken into custody. I think that's an unfair opening to the player. They don't even know where they are, and immediately, they've got a guy shoving a gun in their face, demanding they come with him. And then you sit there and insist that I wasn't forced. Next time you come to Columbus MJ, I'm gonna shove a gun in your face. Then you can tell me you don't feel forced.
Two
2. becoming involved, in the sense of taking meaningful and intentional steps to alter the state or events of the world in a major way beyond the matter of the lives of isolated individuals
And I'm going to say it again. DEFINE MEANINGFUL!!!!!! Personally, I consider being taken into custody to be meaningful, forced involvement.
This is speaking of a normal, no jeep crash run through. There's no way I would have warned them.
Ah, but we have no idea what would have happened in that circumstance. I wasn't running the game, and I don't know how far ahead Adam had considered it or to what degree the dice would have controlled. You could have been questioned and released, in which case you are correct that we would have learned little, and would know that we had learned little. You could have been detained Guantanamo-style and questioned with every bit of pressure and stress the United States military could muster until you were on the verge of insanity. So talking about whether you would have told them anything absent the accident is almost as bad as asking Mrs. Lincoln how she enjoyed the play. We can't get there.
Had I never mentioned my motivation for warning them, you probably would have concluded that I had intended to warn them all along.
Oh, no--I had already concluded that you had no intention of warning them. I was surprised that you did. Had you not mentioned your motivation, I might still be wondering what did it.
Now tell me that unintentional steps towards isolated individuals can't have a major influence on the world.
Yeah, I always loved that bit. It was a feature of the show that there were these throwaway changes to the world in every episode, but that's the most memorable.
But that's not the point. The point isn't that you don't change the world; it's that you don't do so intentionally and directedly. That is, it's one thing to teach Dr. Heimlich the Heimlich maneuver accidentally; it's quite another to attempt, like Joe Kondor in Sherwood, to revamp medical practice in some area by teaching techniques not known in that time and place. A non-involvement player, as I who created the term have defined it, isn't going to be concerned so much with such incidental changes. He's going to be concerned with letting the world pick its own future. That is, if I'm a non-involvement player I'm not going to teach America how to build a nuclear bomb, but if Oppenheimer comes to me and says, "we're going to attempt to build a nuclear bomb and we'd like to ask you some questions about them," I might answer his questions, because they have made the decision about their future. I'm not telling them how their world should be different; I'm not trying to change it. I'm letting them change it.
...if there was a situation you would want to stay as far away from as you possibly could, and the only way you could get out of it was to kill another human being, wouldn't you feel forced into the situation?
Brock's right. It's a choice--and that's the point. To illustrate the point, let me rephrase what you said just slightly, to insert an important phrase:
...if there was a situation you would want to stay as far away from as you possibly could at any cost, and the only way you could get out of it was to kill another human being, wouldn't you feel forced into the situation?
There's the rub. There's the bit you're not understanding. Which is more important--staying as far from this situation as you possibly can, or not killing another human being? You decided that not killing another human being was more important, and I applaud you for that. It means that your philosophy is not so important that you would kill someone to get away from Pearl Harbor--or more specifically, that your philosophy includes not killing people.
Richard Lutz, who is immortalized in the game as Peter Adams, is notable in this regard. Although he is an atheist, he came to the conclusion that being immortal meant that his life was of less value than the finite lives of indigs not scriff-infected. That is, if it ever comes to a choice between some individual indig dies and loses every scrap of life he could ever have had, or Peter Adams dies and continues his life in another world, then Peter Adams will make the choice to die so the other will live. That's part of his philosophy--a key part, really.
So, not wanting to be taken into custody by an armed MP, and not wanting to kill a human being, what do you do? You draw on him and so force him to shoot you. Hopefully he does so fatally (he is undoubtedly a professional with a high powered rifle) and you don't have the problem anymore. But you certainly are not forced to choose between being taken into custody and killing a man.
And as for whether in forcing him to kill you you would have scarred him, there are two answers to this. One of them is that he's a soldier who expects to have to kill people and probably will kill more in the days ahead if he survives the bombing. The other is he will never see your dead body, so he'll be confused about it but will assume that he didn't kill anyone, whatever happened to you.
Next time you come to Columbus MJ, I'm gonna shove a gun in your face. Then you can tell me you don't feel forced.
That was ill-considered, John. Do you know what happens when you point a loaded gun at a depressive frequently suicidal patient? He relaxes and decides finally he gets to die without having to do it himself. I would probably smile.
--M. J. Young
That was ill-considered, John. Do you know what happens when you point a loaded gun at a depressive frequently suicidal patient? He relaxes and decides finally he gets to die without having to do it himself. I would probably smile.
Actually, aside from the smile, I had considered exactly that. I deemed it too personal to you to mention. You mentioned it, not me.
EDITING: OK then, since your own life means nothing to you. Hypothetically speaking, what if I were to shove a gun in Kyler's face, then tell you that you can either smoke a bowl or watch your son get shot? You could not persuade me that you wouldn't feel forced to smoke the bowl. That's assuming of course that your desire to protect your son would win out. I might be wrong in that assumption. You wouldn't BE forced to smoke the bowl. You could certainly let me kill him. You could not persuade me that you wouldn't FEEL forced, however. You would be no more forced to do what I said, just making the same difficult choice.
And I say again. DEFINE MEANINGFUL!!!!!!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
I don't care HOW hypothetical you think you are being, that is something that is completely UNACCEPTABLE to say. Edit that out, or you are going to have a lot of people yet more upset at you.
Edited Brock. Not taken out, just edited to make the hypothetical more obvious. It was worded more like a threat on Kyler's life. Thanks Brock for pointing that out.
(Doing Therapy)
Hypothetically speaking, what if I were to shove a gun in Kyler's face, then tell you that you can either smoke a bowl or watch your son get shot?
He and I might have to discuss the matter. After all, it might be that he would rather die than be the cause of me doing something like that.
Besides, there is also the more difficult question of whether we believe you. We might choose to call, and trust that you are bluffing.
--M. J. Young
You have a penchant for avoiding difficult questions. It gets on my nerves.
And I ask again. DEFINE MEANINGFUL!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
Two
You keep saying "Have a meaningful impact on the world" and I keep saying "DEFINE MEANINGFUL". When are you going to get around to defining meaningful? I define meaningful as being taken into custody against my will.
Depending upon your definition of "Meaningful Impact" you could without question argue that I was forced to get involved. If you take a different definition, even preventing WW2 altogether might not be considered a "Meaningful Impact".
Your definition of meaningful, and actually your definitions in general, have no real use in this conversation. The world was effectively an exercise to see if your philosophy was what MJ thought it was, as such the only thing that matters is what HE says HIS version of "non-involvement" means, and things are only meaningful by his definition if he thinks so.
Regardless, you're ignoring the fact that when you were taking into custody and when you violated "non-involvement" weren't the same situation. You took a conscious action towards changing the world. That right there proves that you aren't non-involvement and makes the analysis of the rest a moot point.
As to the PA announcement being better, no, it's not. It's just different, and sorta lame. Experienced GM's make their players work for information, because it makes for a better story, and is more realistic.
Also stop being such a (insert all the inappropriate words I've been meaning to say, but won't out of respect for the forum). Respect MJ, he has done more than enough to deserve so. Respect your fellow gamers, as you are not better than us. No one cares if you got more involved by your definition than you wanted to. No one cared back then, we really don't care now.
And Brock was right, your hypothetical was a shitty thing to say, inappropriate, and I'm surprised to say has made me lose respect for you. I say surprised to say because after the conversation on this topic and you trying to convince MJ to try weed, partially by calling upon his faith, I didn't think I had any respect for you.
As to the PA announcement being better, no, it's not. It's just different, and sorta lame. Experienced GM's make their players work for information, because it makes for a better story, and is more realistic.
As far as making the player work for information, the MP opening was even more lame, by the definition you're using. I didn't have to work for information, and you can't ask a PA system specific questions. So, by your definition, the MP opening was even more lame.
And Brock was right, your hypothetical was a shitty thing to say, inappropriate, and I'm surprised to say has made me lose respect for you. I say surprised to say because after the conversation on this topic and you trying to convince MJ to try weed, partially by calling upon his faith, I didn't think I had any respect for you.
It's funny. You say that as if I should care what you think. I learned a long time ago. People on the internet aren't typically people you should care about the opinions of. I'll likely never meet you, so what difference does it make what you think of me?
You should have seen how he worded that hypothetical before he edited it. Of course, when I vehemently asked him to change it, I actually meant for him to remove the hypothetical, but he didn't. John is John, and he doesn't care how badly he hurts other people or annoys others just so he can be "right".
People keep saying that players should work for information. As far as gathering information, what's more convenient than having a guy who can answer any question you ask come straight up to you? The PA system only says it once. If you don't hear it, you're screwed. You can't ask it any further questions. As far as making the player work for information, the MP opening is about as lame as they get.
I'm surprised I couldn't see that sooner.
Two
Glantri, you said you didn't believe this wasn't about me anymore. There's your proof. The opening you've all been touting also flies in the face of everything else you've been touting, and I bet none of you ever gave it a moment's thought. It's not about me anymore. That opening isn't as great as you say, especially if part of your objective is to make them work for it.
I also like the idea of putting them next to an unoccupied building. A calender and paperwork on a desk tells them all they need to know. Then, what happens when the building's occupants return 20 minutes later? That could have a lot of potential.
(Doing Therapy)
John, I'm going to pose a counterpoint to this:
No one gives a d*mn but you, either shut your yap, or leave. We are here to play a game, not be your support group. Be crazy all you want somewhere else, here we play games.
Yeah, and you're also supposed to be here to learn how to play the game better. THAT, my friend, is my objective. Whether you believe it or not.
(Doing Therapy)
And I ask again. DEFINE MEANINGFUL!!!!!
O.K., so it's a difficult question and I've not answered it directly. As you observe, it can be very subjective.
But I have an excuse for avoiding it. My emphasis is not so much on the meaningfulness as on the intentionality. That is, if you accidentally change the world in a major way, that does not mean you're not a non-involvement player, only that you did not anticipate a potential change. So what if because of your involvement this MP survives or does not survive the attack and it would otherwise have been different. So what if because of your involvement he later leads a major maneuver in the war against Japan that changes the outcome of the war in some way. You did not intend to make such a change.
When you told the military leaders that the attack was coming on a specific day, you did so specifically so that they would be ready to repel the attack, so that lives would be saved at Pearl Harbor, among them your own. You knew that you would be changing the future, and you did so intentionally.
So I'm not worried about whether you might have made "meaningful" changes by leaving footprints and tire tracks in the sand on the beach (entirely possible), because "non-involvement" does not mean not changing anything meaningful, it means not intentionally changing anything meaningful.
In fact, it's entirely possible that you could have warned them and they ignored you, with the result that the attack happened exactly as it did and you changed nothing. The point was not whether you changed it, but whether you intentionally attempted to do so.
Why bother with the word "meaningful" then? Well, because you "intentionally" changed some of the oxygen to carbon dioxide, altered the humidity in your immediate vicinity, created kinetic waves by your movements, altered the paths of uncounted photons, and made many other changes "intentionally" because you chose to do things which you knew or should have known would have had those effects. I'm looking for the "double intent crime": you intentionally did A with the expectation that it would result in B, which you knew or reasonably should have known would result in a significantly different future for the world, and which was the point of doing A. In this case, the only "intentional meaningful" action was whether you would do anything that you intended to result in a change in the outcome or events of the attack on Pearl Harbor. If you made no attempt to change that outcome, you did nothing "intentionally meaningful" even if you accidentally changed the outcome; and if you failed to change the outcome but you tried to do so, that would have been "intentional meaningful" action.
People on the internet aren't typically people you should care about the opinions of. I'll likely never meet you, so what difference does it make what you think of me?
How about this: because I have met Mike in person and I value his opinion, and the fact that his opinion of you has fallen so far impacts my opinion of you--simply because his is a separate perspective, he sees through different but also intelligent eyes, and I weigh his evaluation in forming my constantly evolving opinions. In fact, I have not met Brock in person but I also value his opinion, because I recognize an intelligent and insightful person in him. I certainly have more information about you than anyone else here (besides you), but that in itself can distort my perspective. Thus the opinions others hold concerning you influences the opinion I hold concerning you, and if you care about my opinion--someone you have met and who has some respect for you--then you should realize that the opinions of others matter.
Or how about this: because of the turns my life has taken, I probably know more people in more places through the Internet than I know in my own home town or county. In fact, most of the people I know in my own county I also know through the Internet, connected to them through Facebook and MySpace and so keeping up with their latest news through those posts. I am hoping in the near future to embark on a new ministry venture and in that regard I asked two people to write letters of recommendation on my behalf. One of those two people has never met me, but has been part of several groups in some ways not unlike this one in which I have been involved. Because I have a good reputation in that group, that individual has a high level of respect and love for me, and said he was honored to have been asked and pleased to do it.
What other people on this board think of you is, for better or worse, your reputation. I've put some effort into maintaining a good reputation online. I have handled trolls and hecklers with as much respect as I could manage, avoided losing my temper or being insulting when in disagreements, and tried at all times to be the best, most respectful, and most responsible participant I could be. It has served me well, because I have a good reputation in many quarters of the Internet and around the world.
I don't know whether it was a movie or a television show, and I was young enough that I don't know when it was, but it was in some western in which some character said, "A man ain't got nothin' but his word, an' if that's ruin't, he ain't got nothin'." Well, I have my word and my reputation, and I tend to agree that that's really all anyone has, and you want them both to be good.
Yours, unfortunately, is not so much so.
You don't care. That's fine. But when you are reviled because of your bad reputation and no one wants to play with you anymore, you can remind yourself that you made the decision not to care what others thought of you.
--M. J. Young
Cross-posted with several posts, largely because I was called away for several hours after opening all the threads.
Yeah, and you're also supposed to be here to learn how to play the game better. THAT, my friend, is my objective. Whether you believe it or not.
Perhaps, but--
- You have made your point clearly.
- Everyone agrees that for a certain play situation your opening works.
- Everyone agrees that given what we wanted to accomplish with putting you in that world, your opening does not work and Adam's opening worked quite well.
- You have been beating a dead horse for months.
So if you want us to admit that the opening you prefer would work for most players in that situation, you're wasting our time because we already agree that there are a hundred good openings for such a world of which yours is possibly one; and if you want us to agree that we would have learned just how resistant you would have been to becoming involved in Pearl Harbor we ought to have put you in a situation in which you could have slipped away without any difficulty whatsoever, you're never going to win that one, because to learn what we wanted to know we had to make it almost impossible for you not to become involved.
--M. J. Young
I have handled trolls and hecklers with as much respect as I could manage, avoided losing my temper or being insulting when in disagreements, and tried at all times to be the best, most respectful, and most responsible participant I could be.
Which is why I respect you so much, and why John really gets on my nerves so much when he insults you.
if you want us to agree that we would have learned just how resistant you would have been to becoming involved in Pearl Harbor we ought to have put you in a situation in which you could have slipped away without any difficulty whatsoever, you're never going to win that one, because to learn what we wanted to know we had to make it almost impossible for you not to become involved.
You're not even paying attention to what I've been saying this whole time. My opening could have made it next to impossible to stay out of that situation WITHOUT forcing me to become involved in any way shape or form. Since I was unarguably forced to become involved by the MP, and I could have had a very difficult time evading capture from my opening, my opening is certainly far better. You're not even paying attention. It's almost like Adam can do no wrong in your eyes.
How can you even argue that I wasn't involved when the MP pulled up? I wasn't involved in the sense that you wanted to test, but I was unquestionably involved, and I was forced to become involved.
Oh, no--I had already concluded that you had no intention of warning them. I was surprised that you did. Had you not mentioned your motivation, I might still be wondering what did it.
And you're contradicting yourself. For years, you preached about how you thought I would be "sorely tempted" to warn them. Then, finally when I manage to get through to you that I had no intention of warning them, only then do you say that you knew I had no intention of warning them. When I finally managed to beat it through that thick skull of yours that I had no intention of warning them, you seemed surprised. Now, you're saying you knew it all along. Please stop contradicting yourself. I'm suddenly not at all persuaded that your reputation is so well deserved. You just contradicted yourself with blatant disregard to what you've been saying all along, and you didn't even realize it.
As far as caring what people think of me and my "reputation", at the end of the day, when everything is said and done, there's only 2 people I have to answer to. God and myself. So, I say again, why should I care what Mike or anyone else thinks?
It should matter what people think of you, because as someone who now knows you don't care what anyone thinks of you I've lost almost all incentive to interact with you.
While it may not matter to you what I think, it matters to me that it doesn't matter to you. Eventually everyone will realize such, and you'll be left with no one willing to talk to you. Which is where your reputation is rapidly heading.
Statements which are particularly bad I'll probably still chime in on, as to save MJ a little of his valuable time, but largely I think it better to just ignore you.
"This is a public service announcement brought to you by me. I don't care what people think. Only God can judge me."
Mistress Mandy.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
That's the thing. I, me, personally, consider being arrested and detained to be meaningful involvement. And it was unquestionably forced on me. (Or did I volunteer to be arrested?) You don't consider it meaningful. I understand that. OK, well if being arrested and detained on a military base isn't meaningful to you, why don't you go and get caught trespassing on one? If being arrested and detained is so meaningless to you, go to the nearest army base, hop the fence, flag down the first MP you see and beg him to take you into custody. Not so meaningless to you now, is it? If that's not meaningful involvement, then go get caught trespassing on one. I bet you would change your mind pretty quickly.
Until you are actually arrested and detained on a military base, I don't see how you have any right to say it isn't meaningful.
(Doing Therapy)
I am extracting myself from this discussion. it is obvious John wishes only to argue and will NEVER concede his point, no matter how much you tell him that you are correct by your definitions. He will continue to use his own, which means he is correct by his own, which means the argument is indefinite and John can extract as much bitter pleasure as he can from causing us all to pay attention to him.
No Brock, I think I understand what he means. Does he understand what I mean? That's the question.
How can you say that being arrested and detained cannot possibly be considered meaningful involvement? If you honestly believe that it is in no way meaningful, then go get arrested trespassing on an army base.
I'm just asking MJ to put his money where his mouth is, that's all. If he considers getting arrested and detained to be meaningless, then he should go and do it. Show me exactly how meaningless it is to him.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
And to be clear, I'm just trying to get you to see it from where I'm sitting. I'm not so much arguing or trying to convince you that you're wrong. I'm trying to get you to see it from where I'm sitting. If getting arrested and detained isn't meaningful, and no one should consider it meaningful, as you seem to think, then go ahead and get arrested and detained. I thought it quite meaningful.
(Doing Therapy)