Watch the Footage archive

You can ask saying you know someone who likes to go to that restaurant or something. Just a thought. It would keep you from sounding like conspiracy theorists.

Sicon112 wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:That would confirm my theory about someone/ a group manipulating the fics.

Someone Twitter her and ask if she saw a weird looking dude with an orange beard. If she ignores the Tweet, consider the WMG as "probably Jossed" A reaction of some kind implies we may be on to something. More vague questions about the other customers in the building may also turn up leads.

If she ignores it it's probably more likely. She probably wants to avoid spoilers.

NeverSlender wrote:

Sicon112 wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:That would confirm my theory about someone/ a group manipulating the fics.

Someone Twitter her and ask if she saw a weird looking dude with an orange beard. If she ignores the Tweet, consider the WMG as "probably Jossed" A reaction of some kind implies we may be on to something. More vague questions about the other customers in the building may also turn up leads.

If she ignores it it's probably more likely. She probably wants to avoid spoilers.

Negative. if she is asked directly she needs to answer. Doing otherwise would be railroading. It would also be odd behavior from the puppetmasters. Or at least, it wouldn't match up to the profile of them I have collected so far.

Easiest way to avoid giving something away is to ignore the question.

NeverSlender wrote:Easiest way to avoid giving something away is to ignore the question.

EXACTLY

Sicon112 wrote:Negative. if she is asked directly she needs to answer. Doing otherwise would be railroading. It would also be odd behavior from the puppetmasters. Or at least, it wouldn't match up to the profile of them I have collected so far.

Sicon, that really shouldn't matter if they don't want to acknowledge something or not. Let's be honest, they'll tell us what they want us to know.

NeverSlender wrote:Easiest way to avoid giving something away is to ignore the question.

I know, but assuming that Stein WAS there plotwise, and we were smart enough to think of it and ask, ignoring us is railroading us on the plot line that they have set up. If they want to avoid doing so, they HAVE to give us a response somehow. That doesn't mean that a response confirms it, and depending on the response, it may be Jossed anyway, but they do need to give us something if we are on the right track.

Sicon112 wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:Easiest way to avoid giving something away is to ignore the question.

I know, but assuming that Stein WAS there plotwise, and we were smart enough to think of it and ask, ignoring us is railroading us on the plot line that they have set up. If they want to avoid doing so, they HAVE to give us a response somehow. That doesn't mean that a response confirms it, and depending on the response, it may be Jossed anyway, but they do need to give us something if we are on the right track.

They aren't strangers to railroading. It's only now that the detectives have decided to meet, now that the GMs have decided it's appropriate.

Look, if they are railroading us, there really isn't anything we can do except say What The Hell, Puppet Masters. Therefore, we must operate under the assumption that they are NOT. This allows us to keep moving forward in situations where we would otherwise probably remain because we didn't think anything actually resulting was likely. Basically, we must assume that all our actions will be accounted for in some way, or the point of making any action in the first place becomes moot.

Secondly, assuming non-railroading and assuming that they account for all our actions actually makes it more annoying for them to railroad in a lot of situations, so it also is kinda vindictive.

Sicon112 wrote:Look, if they are railroading us, there really isn't anything we can do except say What The Hell, Puppet Masters. Therefore, we must operate under the assumption that they are NOT. This allows us to keep moving forward in situations where we would otherwise probably remain because we didn't think anything actually resulting was likely. Basically, we must assume that all our actions will be accounted for in some way, or the point of making any action in the first place becomes moot.

Secondly, assuming non-railroading and assuming that they account for all our actions actually makes it more annoying for them to railroad in a lot of situations, so it also is kinda vindictive.

(SLAP)

THAT'S FOR USING A TROPE

NOW DRINK

Sicon112 wrote:Look, if they are railroading us, there really isn't anything we can do except say What The Hell, Puppet Masters. Therefore, we must operate under the assumption that they are NOT. This allows us to keep moving forward in situations where we would otherwise probably remain because we didn't think anything actually resulting was likely. Basically, we must assume that all our actions will be accounted for in some way, or the point of making any action in the first place becomes moot.

Secondly, assuming non-railroading and assuming that they account for all our actions actually makes it more annoying for them to railroad in a lot of situations, so it also is kinda vindictive.

Sicon, please stop with this gambit talk. It's making my head hurt.

And by that I mean, stay on topic, this is way too meta, talk about it in another thread if you MUST.

Sicon112 wrote:Look, if they are railroading us, there really isn't anything we can do except say What The Hell, Puppet Masters. Therefore, we must operate under the assumption that they are NOT. This allows us to keep moving forward in situations where we would otherwise probably remain because we didn't think anything actually resulting was likely. Basically, we must assume that all our actions will be accounted for in some way, or the point of making any action in the first place becomes moot.

Secondly, assuming non-railroading and assuming that they account for all our actions actually makes it more annoying for them to railroad in a lot of situations, so it also is kinda vindictive.

*Sighs*

We're here to solve the puzzles we're given and to move the plot forward when we do. Operating under the assumption we're free to do as we like plotwise will make this more enjoyable. But realism is aproppriate in places.

Adell wrote:Sicon, please stop with this gambit talk.

Really? Why? It made sense to me... This is just how my mind works, though. (Were you serious or just teasing. I can't really tell...)

NeverSlender wrote:*Sighs*

We're here to solve the puzzles we're given and to move the plot forward when we do. Operating under the assumption we're free to do as we like plotwise will make this more enjoyable. But realism is aproppriate in places.

So you just aren't gonna do it? What would it hurt?

Cmon, guys, this is like the Lime plan, a no loss, all gain situation. It won't really hurt things, meta or in-character, so we should be fine.

Look, the plan itself is fine (to me anyway), but we don't need a page worth of derailment explaining why it should be done (especially in the way you explained it).

Sicon112 wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:*Sighs*

We're here to solve the puzzles we're given and to move the plot forward when we do. Operating under the assumption we're free to do as we like plotwise will make this more enjoyable. But realism is aproppriate in places.

So you just aren't gonna do it? What would it hurt?

If you had a twitter you might have seen that I've already asked if any suspicious people were around, before we started this conversation in fact. But that's not my point. My point is that regardless of whether I get a response, it doesn't disprove the theory.

Now, back on topic if you please.

Would it be too rude for me to ruin your meta-talk by saying that if the puppetmasters don't want us to move in that direction, the psychiatrist will just answer that she didn't see the orange-bearded guy? It's not like she has an eagle-eye. Duh.

Dryunya wrote:Would it be too rude for me to ruin your meta-talk by saying that if the puppetmasters don't want us to move in that direction, the psychiatrist will just answer that she didn't see the orange-bearded guy? It's not like she has an eagle-eye. Duh.

Again, part of my point. I can ask, and have, but if I get a negative response, it doesn't necessarily rule it out.

*Places topic back on its rails*

(That means lets drop this, please. At least in this thread.)

For reals, lets allow one thread to run safely.

Back on track. She has replied with the restaurant's name (now that Sicon has deduced it already ). Considering that she is back online, we should expect her to answer about the suspicious people anytime now. If you asked, of course.

UPD: She didn't see anyone. The case is dropped.
Now the question is: should we go there or not?

A response. No suspicious characters around that she saw. And judging by Holmes' description, Stein counts as "suspicious".

Dryunya wrote:Back on track. She has replied with the restaurant's name (now that Sicon has deduced it already ). Considering that she is back online, we should expect her to answer about the suspicious people anytime now. If you asked, of course.

Do you actually read my posts? I stated twice that I asked her.

Just confirmed.