Watch the Footage archive

Pixelmage wrote:

IslaKariese wrote:Alright, I know Dryunya just made a thread to that very same end (ie, we don't trust Mr. A), but why was it suddenly locked?

Meaning, we can't talk about how infuriating his behavior is? Or Rule 3 on the word "ass" in the title?
I don't think we're forbidden to discuss his behavior though... It would be... infuriating.

Ah, according to Double-D, he locked it because that's not the point of the forum and Mr. A's the only one who can help Joe (and Joan Lawson). Sounds legit enough, though I still think we should take everything Mr. A says with a pound of salt.

Pixelmage wrote:

IslaKariese wrote:Alright, I know Dryunya just made a thread to that very same end (ie, we don't trust Mr. A), but why was it suddenly locked?

Meaning, we can't talk about how infuriating his behavior is? Or Rule 3 on the word "ass" in the title?
I don't think we're forbidden to discuss his behavior though... It would be... infuriating.

Read Ed's posts, he just doesn't want us talking about it.

IslaKariese wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:I think it could be much more important now. He's avoiding questions and appears genuinely unhinged in his latest video. A new thread may be needed.

Perhaps. He came across to me as less unhinged and more annoyed and slightly victorious that the Cabal came forward at all.

I find it really, really hard to tell with this guy... or guys.

Whatever the case, it... unsettled me. Something is very much not right here.

IslaKariese wrote:Ah, according to Double-D, he locked it because that's not the point of the forum and Mr. A's the only one who can help Joe (and Joan Lawson). Sounds legit enough, though I still think we should take everything Mr. A says with a pound of salt.

Well we were already doing that, I guess.

Scarab wrote:Well we were already doing that, I guess.

There were a handful of lapdogs among our ranks, if only because they didn't know any better. And people can be unsettled by a higher-up and still do everything he tells them to.

This forum is for discussing WTF. Mr. A is related to WTF. we should at least be able to discuss him.

NeverSlender wrote:This forum is for discussing WTF. Mr. A is related to WTF. we should at least be able to discuss him.

It just means we can't have a thread dedicated to Mr. A's lack of trustworthiness. Edd cares too much for Joe and is too scared of the implications to allow it. It doesn't mean we can't still talk about it.

The Sending them Back Dilemma thread? it's still right here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=153&p=11674#p11674

Edited to add: Wait was there just a post here asking where the Sending them back thread went, or am I going crazy?

IslaKariese wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:This forum is for discussing WTF. Mr. A is related to WTF. we should at least be able to discuss him.

It just means we can't have a thread dedicated to Mr. A's lack of trustworthiness. Edd cares too much for Joe and is too scared of the implications to allow it. It doesn't mean we can't still talk about it.

Which just means that threads like this one will just keep getting derailed to deal with this issue. We do have some lapdogs, but if everyone that suspects him decides to force his hand into being more open, he won't have the manpower to accomplish his goals.

Scarab wrote:The Sending them Back Dilemma thread? it's still right here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=153&p=11674#p11674

Never mind, I just tried to find Wakamakamu's post that he'd just then deleted and it said 'Topic Not Found' so I panicked.

Pixelmage wrote:

IslaKariese wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:This forum is for discussing WTF. Mr. A is related to WTF. we should at least be able to discuss him.

It just means we can't have a thread dedicated to Mr. A's lack of trustworthiness. Edd cares too much for Joe and is too scared of the implications to allow it. It doesn't mean we can't still talk about it.

Which just means that threads like this one will just keep getting derailed to deal with this issue. We do have some lapdogs, but if everyone that suspects him decides to force his hand into being more open, he won't have the manpower to accomplish his goals.

That's a good point. We don't really have a lot of time to question Mister A's motives or trustworthiness right now because whatever the case, the boundaries of fiction and reality ARE under threat here, we have more immediate concerns. I say we keep doing what we're doing: figuring out both how to send them back if we have to, and exploring other possible options.

Pixelmage wrote:Which just means that threads like this one will just keep getting derailed to deal with this issue. We do have some lapdogs, but if everyone that suspects him decides to force his hand into being more open, he won't have the manpower to accomplish his goals.

I'm not sure we can force his hand (beyond the temper tantrum, anyway). There's only so much we can do with someone who holds so many cards.

I think Mr. A should be our immediate concern. All our information about the wall and the cracks has come from him. If we can't trust him then everything he has said could be a lie.

NeverSlender wrote:I think Mr. A should be our immediate concern. All our information about the wall and the cracks has come from him. If we can't trust him then everything he has said could be a lie.

That's... quite a jump.

IslaKariese wrote:

Pixelmage wrote:Which just means that threads like this one will just keep getting derailed to deal with this issue. We do have some lapdogs, but if everyone that suspects him decides to force his hand into being more open, he won't have the manpower to accomplish his goals.

I'm not sure we can force his hand (beyond the temper tantrum, anyway). There's only so much we can do with someone who holds so many cards.

All of his cards rely on us following through with his plans.

JackAlsworth wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:I think Mr. A should be our immediate concern. All our information about the wall and the cracks has come from him. If we can't trust him then everything he has said could be a lie.

That's... quite a jump.

Yeah. After all, the best lies are the ones wrapped up in true facts so that you can't tell the difference.

JackAlsworth wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:I think Mr. A should be our immediate concern. All our information about the wall and the cracks has come from him. If we can't trust him then everything he has said could be a lie.

That's... quite a jump.

Which is why we should be allowed to talk about it. Otherwise we could make that jump, and then what?

Adell wrote:All of his cards rely on us following through with his plans.

Which is why we have enough power to force him to do something. Not that we can make him do whatever we want, but if we refuse to work without proper intel, he's forced to either persuade us to do it anyway or give us the intel.
Whoever follows him blindly probably won't have enough people to acutally carry the plans through.

It's the same problem with calling someone a puppetmaster though, however he responds we may still not believe him. Is there any real way for him to be up front with us? Or are we just hoping for answers he doesn't have. It's all so frustrating.

Adell wrote:It's the same problem with calling someone a puppetmaster though, however he responds we may still not believe him. Is there any real way for him to be up front with us? Or are we just hoping for answers he doesn't have. It's all so frustrating.

But at the very least he could respond so that we can judge him on his responses not by what he could be hiding from us.

NeverSlender wrote:

Adell wrote:It's the same problem with calling someone a puppetmaster though, however he responds we may still not believe him. Is there any real way for him to be up front with us? Or are we just hoping for answers he doesn't have. It's all so frustrating.

But at the very least he could respond so that we can judge him on his responses not by what he could be hiding from us.

Agreed. The only thing that really worries me is that he's just not explaining things to us properly. If he did that... well, what's the harm? We'd probably still keep doing exactly what he wants us to do which is trying to find ways to repair the wall and sort all this mess out with the fictionals. if he's genuine then he has nothing to lose by being upfront.

We might not trust what he said, but ignoring the questions entirely makes it look like he is hiding something.

IslaKariese wrote:

Scarab wrote:Well we were already doing that, I guess.

There were a handful of lapdogs among our ranks, if only because they didn't know any better. And people can be unsettled by a higher-up and still do everything he tells them to.

Am I one of these lapdogs? I don't think I'm fond of the term. But I still don't understand why we shouldn't trust him. He hasn't done anything wrong, unlike the cabal.

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:

IslaKariese wrote:There were a handful of lapdogs among our ranks, if only because they didn't know any better. And people can be unsettled by a higher-up and still do everything he tells them to.

Am I one of these lapdogs? I don't think I'm fond of the term. But I still don't understand why we shouldn't trust him. He hasn't done anything wrong, unlike the cabal.

Perhaps it's a bit rude, but it's far from smart to follow the man without wondering at his morals and motives. No, he hasn't done anything bad, certainly not like the Cabal has, but he is manipulative, seeing us more as pawns and tools than allies. He doesn't give a damn about us and our situations, and things that go wrong are automatically our faults, not his.

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:

IslaKariese wrote:

Scarab wrote:Well we were already doing that, I guess.

There were a handful of lapdogs among our ranks, if only because they didn't know any better. And people can be unsettled by a higher-up and still do everything he tells them to.

Am I one of these lapdogs? I don't think I'm fond of the term. But I still don't understand why we shouldn't trust him. He hasn't done anything wrong, unlike the cabal.

We just think we should be careful about trusting him just because the other side is clearly (so far as we know) worse. This is kind of like choosing between a snapping shark that probably will bite you, and a sleeping shark that may bite you (I'm aware that sharks don't sleep, it's a bad analogy I'm afraid). Just because he's a less obviously negative option than the Cabal doesn't mean he's trustworthy.

Still as said - we don't have enough evidence here TO trust him. He hasn't given us any clear information, or explained exactly why we are doing what we're doing. We are told nothing and he has already said he doesn't care if we trust him. That seems... an unwise philosophy for an employer.

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:

IslaKariese wrote:

Scarab wrote:Well we were already doing that, I guess.

There were a handful of lapdogs among our ranks, if only because they didn't know any better. And people can be unsettled by a higher-up and still do everything he tells them to.

Am I one of these lapdogs? I don't think I'm fond of the term. But I still don't understand why we shouldn't trust him. He hasn't done anything wrong, unlike the cabal.

1. He lies. He is not the administrator of everything. He calls himself the faceless but we've seen his face, the unsmiler but we've seen him smile.

2. He is not answering our questions. We may not be satisfied by his answers but not responding is making the situation much worse.

3. His nature as an infinite being. It's not just about trusting one person, but an infinite number of people with different personalities and motives. How does HE know he's not the bad guy?

4. He is single minded. He tells us to do things with only a vague, unproven justification.