Watch the Footage archive

Scarab wrote:

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.

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.

The thing is, I'm of the opinion that trust isn't earned, it's lost. I don't find it good to be distrustful of everyone until they give me a reason to trust them, but it's not like I blindly obey anybody in a suit. Mr. A has given us invaluable information. He's given us no reason to distrust him, so why should we?

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:The thing is, I'm of the opinion that trust isn't earned, it's lost. I don't find it good to be distrustful of everyone until they give me a reason to trust them, but it's not like I blindly obey anybody in a suit. Mr. A has given us invaluable information. He's given us no reason to distrust him, so why should we?

I'm of the opinion that we have two options. We go on strike and refuse to work for Mr. A and try to work with the Cabal, or we work for Mr. A. I say we do the latter, since the Cabal have proven themselves to be vicious and willing to coerce, threaten, and harass. Not my kind of folks.

But we don't have to follow blindly. We can keep our friends close-- and our enemies closer. No reason not to be suspicious, but we can carry on for now and keep it in the back of our brains.

NeverSlender wrote:

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.

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.

1. Who hasn't lied? Ever. Lying is what people do. And nicknames are not always necessarily descriptive.

2. Secrecy is important, especially now. Plus, why should he trust us? Why does he need to tell us anything? Who are we to him? We haven't gone through background checks. We haven't done anything to earn his trust. In fact, many of us are actively fighting against him, and yet he's still willing to trust us with these important tasks. If you want him to divulge more information, prove to him that you are worthy of his trust.

3. There's one leader, Alpha prime. They all act on one accord, unlike us.

4. Because that's all we need. He clearly wants people to be safe and to restore stability to the wall, so why fight him? We're all on the same side, at least, we should be.

NeverSlender wrote: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?

1. I don't think he ever said he was the administrator of everything. He is the administrator of some things. And I don't think he ever called himself the unsmiler, either. That was the Cat's name for him. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

2. Is a valid point.

3. Any time an instantiation moves too far from the standard design, he is terminated. I doubt an evil instantiation would last long, unless he was also somehow much more intelligent and manipulative than the others... and now I've scared myself with that idea.

I agree that we shouldn't blindly trust him. He hides information from us and he seems more concerned with things going his way than in honestly pursuing the best solution for all concerned. We definitely need to treat him with caution. But let's not assume that his motives are sinister, either.

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:The thing is, I'm of the opinion that trust isn't earned, it's lost. I don't find it good to be distrustful of everyone until they give me a reason to trust them, but it's not like I blindly obey anybody in a suit. Mr. A has given us invaluable information. He's given us no reason to distrust him, so why should we?

It's not that we completely distrust him, and you're right - he's given us invaluable information and tools. But a vague fact or a half-truth is just as bad as a lie. Without facts that he's withholding, we can't trust what he tells us. We still use the information, but it's... I know I'm not explaining this well, someone help?

I think a good position here is "cautious trust." We can't assume everything Mr. A says has a hidden, manipulative meaning. But at the same time, if we let him tell us what to do and never question him or think to act against his wished, we could allow ourselves to be instruments of a harmful cause.

1. Who hasn't lied? Ever. Lying is what people do. And nicknames are not always necessarily descriptive.

2. Secrecy is important, especially now. Plus, why should he trust us? Why does he need to tell us anything? Who are we to him? We haven't gone through background checks. We haven't done anything to earn his trust. In fact, many of us are actively fighting against him, and yet he's still willing to trust us with these important tasks. If you want him to divulge more information, prove to him that you are worthy of his trust.

3. There's one leader, Alpha prime. They all act on one accord, unlike us.

4. Because that's all we need. He clearly wants people to be safe and to restore stability to the wall, so why fight him? We're all on the same side, at least, we should be.

1. I accept your counter argument.

2. Secrecy about something as important as this is clearly causing issues. It is his lack of a response that is causing the problem, even just repeating "WE CANNOT ANSWER THAT" would be better than ignoring us.

3. While Prime is the leader, to the best of my knowledge it has never been stated that they act as one.

4. He does not "clearly want everyone to be safe." The fact that we don't know his motives is one of the main issues.

narrativedilettante wrote:I think a good position here is "cautious trust." We can't assume everything Mr. A says has a hidden, manipulative meaning. But at the same time, if we let him tell us what to do and never question him or think to act against his wished, we could allow ourselves to be instruments of a harmful cause.

Fully agree. Trust until a reason for distrust arises. Maybe not exactly what you're trying to say, but there's my position. I'm not going to trust him to the degree that I will let myself do something I know is wrong. So far, that hasn't been the case, so my trust continues.

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:

narrativedilettante wrote:I think a good position here is "cautious trust." We can't assume everything Mr. A says has a hidden, manipulative meaning. But at the same time, if we let him tell us what to do and never question him or think to act against his wished, we could allow ourselves to be instruments of a harmful cause.

Fully agree. Trust until a reason for distrust arises. Maybe not exactly what you're trying to say, but there's my position. I'm not going to trust him to the degree that I will let myself do something I know is wrong. So far, that hasn't been the case, so my trust continues.

I've never really trusted him. There's a vague difference between believing what someone says and trusting them. I don't have the words to explain what it is but I'm sure someone here gets it.

IslaKariese wrote:I've never really trusted him. There's a vague difference between believing what someone says and trusting them. I don't have the words to explain what it is but I'm sure someone here gets it.

You think everything he's told us is true but you're having a hard time figuring out his motives, so you're wondering why we should do as he says. Is that close?

IslaKariese wrote:

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:The thing is, I'm of the opinion that trust isn't earned, it's lost. I don't find it good to be distrustful of everyone until they give me a reason to trust them, but it's not like I blindly obey anybody in a suit. Mr. A has given us invaluable information. He's given us no reason to distrust him, so why should we?

It's not that we completely distrust him, and you're right - he's given us invaluable information and tools. But a vague fact or a half-truth is just as bad as a lie. Without facts that he's withholding, we can't trust what he tells us. We still use the information, but it's... I know I'm not explaining this well, someone help?

No, I think you did pretty well, there. Better than I'm about to, anyway...

We can look at Mister A in two ways. First: inaccordance with fictional tropes (hey that's what brought us here after all): his behaviour is the quintessential Mysterious Employer and they are sometimes good, but often bad. Dana pointed this out before the ARG even began. His behaviour has been questionable, he hides his face, he's got the malevolent chuckle down to an art, he... gloats on video. Yeah I know that sounds unrealistic, but so is Don Quixote getting locked in a drunk tank, I think reality has taken the bus out of town.

Secondly (and this is the more rational way, I think): we can take what information we have to build a picture of the kind of person he is. And admittedly, we don't have a lot. When responding to questions about what was causing the walls collapse he said 'WE CANNOT ANSWER THAT', which is a curious way to phrase it. Why not say 'WE DO NOT KNOW YET'? And when this was brought up he steadfastly refused to answer. He refuses to answer many of our other questions no matter how casual they are. He point blank refuses to consider alternatives to sending the characters back, but again will not explain to us WHY. There are other lies that people have mentioned. Saying that 'people lie, that's what they do' is rtrue enough but in this instance, not telling the truth could affect the stability of reality (then again being honest with us might too, we don't know). He also doesn't seem to consider trusting US nessecary so long as we do what he says - but surely he has noticed by now that his lack of clarity is what's CAUSING us to distrust him in the first place?

I don't think these factors are enough to classify him as secretly evil or having an agenda or anything. As has been previously mentioned, he's done a lot to HELP us, too, but they shouldn't be factored out. There are things that just aren't adding up.

So basically... yeah, let's be cautious about this, but not discount him based on our suspicions.

IslaKariese wrote:I've never really trusted him. There's a vague difference between believing what someone says and trusting them. I don't have the words to explain what it is but I'm sure someone here gets it.

I think I do... it's kind of about what his own agenda may be, if he has one... he could be telling the truth to cover a lie, or having a goal entirely of his own, it's hard to tell.

JackAlsworth wrote:

IslaKariese wrote:I've never really trusted him. There's a vague difference between believing what someone says and trusting them. I don't have the words to explain what it is but I'm sure someone here gets it.

You think everything he's told us is true but you're having a hard time figuring out his motives, so you're wondering why we should do as he says. Is that close?

Very much so, yes. Scarab cleared up much of the argument, too.