Inviting the Cabal

[Pixelmage]

Woobie implies that the audience sympathizes with them. I do not sympathize with these terrorists.
All their messages imply to me is that they want to be the writers of their own destiny. I don't see anything that suggests that their in story lives were awful, simply that they do not want to back to it, perhaps because this world is better, or because they have the opportunity to do something here they couldn't before, to make their own choices and not conform to the will of an artist. They speak of freedom, not escaping a horrible existence.

True.
But it works as a deconstruction. You don't sympathise with the hacker, but, what if the hacker was in fact your favorite supporting character that has snapped now that he sees a world outside his limited in-story perspective?

[NeverSlender]

Thing is, do we have any idea what to do if we DON'T get a satisfactory answer? I mean, I don't trust this Cabal very much, however justified their reasoning may (and I do stress, MAY) be...

Well, while we wait... I was thinking.
The Cabal 4 fit the Woobie Archetype.
They talk about how awful it is to be stuck in their stories, yet, a protagonist such as Julliet wants nothing more than to go back. The ones that don't are the ones who go through hell on their stories. That could limit our possible character pool.

Woobie implies that the audience sympathizes with them. I do not sympathize with these terrorists.
All their messages imply to me is that they want to be the writers of their own destiny. I don't see anything that suggests that their in story lives were awful, simply that they do not want to back to it, perhaps because this world is better, or because they have the opportunity to do something here they couldn't before, to make their own choices and not conform to the will of an artist. They speak of freedom, not escaping a horrible existence.

And what if they are from awful stories? We shouldn't judge them until we know who they are.

[Zup]

Thing is, do we have any idea what to do if we DON'T get a satisfactory answer? I mean, I don't trust this Cabal very much, however justified their reasoning may (and I do stress, MAY) be...

Well, while we wait... I was thinking.
The Cabal 4 fit the Woobie Archetype.
They talk about how awful it is to be stuck in their stories, yet, a protagonist such as Julliet wants nothing more than to go back. The ones that don't are the ones who go through hell on their stories. That could limit our possible character pool.

So...one of them might be Job?

[Scarab]

Woobie implies that the audience sympathizes with them. I do not sympathize with these terrorists.
All their messages imply to me is that they want to be the writers of their own destiny. I don't see anything that suggests that their in story lives were awful, simply that they do not want to back to it, perhaps because this world is better, or because they have the opportunity to do something here they couldn't before, to make their own choices and not conform to the will of an artist. They speak of freedom, not escaping a horrible existence.

True.
But it works as a deconstruction. You don't sympathise with the hacker, but, what if the hacker was in fact your favorite supporting character that has snapped now that he sees a world outside his limited in-story perspective?

You know, but this reminds me of a debate I often have with a writer friend of mine. One of the main debates we always have is the fact that, while characters such as Scar or Iago or whoever are interesting to watch, complex, and even sympathetic WITHIN their story, it's natural to feel more sympathy for an evil character that entertains you than a generic one who has good intentions. You may even in certain circumstances want the bad guy to WIN... But if the character existed in the REAL world, you'd feel quite differently.The Joker? fantastic character, very entertaining to watch, but if he were actually here? That's the situation we're facing here.

And what if they are from awful stories? We shouldn't judge them until we know who they are.

Shouldn't we, though? I'm not judging them based on stuff we don't know, but on the stuff we do know. And what we know is that they're willing to threaten peoples lives in persuit of their goals before considering alternatives. Maybe they do have good reason, but their absolute refusal to be honest about it from the start, and their immediate choice of the violent route as opposed to a less destructive one, tells us a lot about the kind of people they are.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

And what if they are from awful stories? We shouldn't judge them until we know who they are.

Shouldn't we, though? I'm not judging them based on stuff we don't know, but on the stuff we do know. And what we know is that they're willing to threaten peoples lives in persuit of their goals before considering alternatives. Maybe they do have good reason, but their absolute refusal to be honest about it from the start, and their immediate choice of the violent route as opposed to a less destructive one, tells us a lot about the kind of people they are.

Exactly. This.

I don't care what kind of Fruedian Excuse these guys are trying to use, there is no reason why we should trust or sympathize with these guys.

[Zup]

You know, but this reminds me of a debate I often have with a writer friend of mine. One of the main debates we always have is the fact that, while characters such as Scar or Iago or whoever are interesting to watch, complex, and even sympathetic WITHIN their story, it's natural to feel more sympathy for an evil character that entertains you than a generic one who has good intentions. You may even in certain circumstances want the bad guy to WIN... But if the character existed in the REAL world, you'd feel quite differently.The Joker? fantastic character, very entertaining to watch, but if he were actually here? That's the situation we're facing here.

So...Heathcliff is Oberon.

[NeverSlender]

So far they have only threatened violence. Only one of them showed he would actually carry out the threats and one of the others immediately questioned him, and another seemed reluctant to resort to violence.

[IslaKariese]

So far they have only threatened violence. Only one of them showed he would actually carry out the threats and one of the others immediately questioned him, and another seemed reluctant to resort to violence.

It's a classic social situation. If whoever's the most violent (I haven't had the chance to check out their site) gets sway over the others, even once, then it'll be easier for him(?) to convince them to do so again. But how do we prevent that?

[NeverSlender]

And what if they are from awful stories? We shouldn't judge them until we know who they are.

Shouldn't we, though? I'm not judging them based on stuff we don't know, but on the stuff we do know. And what we know is that they're willing to threaten peoples lives in persuit of their goals before considering alternatives. Maybe they do have good reason, but their absolute refusal to be honest about it from the start, and their immediate choice of the violent route as opposed to a less destructive one, tells us a lot about the kind of people they are.

Exactly. This.

I don't care what kind of Fruedian Excuse these guys are trying to use, there is no reason why we should trust or sympathize with these guys.

Becahse they may be scared. It is possible that they came from a world that is encompassed by war, is after a nuclear war, or thy are being hunted down to be killed. They only want peace.

We don't know whether all of them hacked the site or just one of them. At no point have I said we should sympathise with them. In fact I said we should be neutral. We shouldn't judge them until we know who they are. We should neither sympathise or be against them. Yet.

[NeverSlender]

So far they have only threatened violence. Only one of them showed he would actually carry out the threats and one of the others immediately questioned him, and another seemed reluctant to resort to violence.

It's a classic social situation. If whoever's the most violent (I haven't had the chance to check out their site) gets sway over the others, even once, then it'll be easier for him(?) to convince them to do so again. But how do we prevent that?

They are open to communication. When we start to communicate with them, we can tell them it isn't necessary and we are willing to help them.

[Adell]

Did Mr.A answer anyone yet. None of this matters if we have no choice but to send them back.

[Dekso]

It's a classic social situation. If whoever's the most violent (I haven't had the chance to check out their site) gets sway over the others, even once, then it'll be easier for him(?) to convince them to do so again. But how do we prevent that?

If we do manage to get in contact with someone who is part of The Cabal (if we haven't already) then we'd have to sway the more moderate ones over to our side. Yet there's not much we can do concerning them at the moment though.

[Zup]

So far they have only threatened violence. Only one of them showed he would actually carry out the threats and one of the others immediately questioned him, and another seemed reluctant to resort to violence.

It's a classic social situation. If whoever's the most violent (I haven't had the chance to check out their site) gets sway over the others, even once, then it'll be easier for him(?) to convince them to do so again. But how do we prevent that?

Well, first we need to open communications with them. Which we can't. Yet. Once we are able to talk with them, then we can explain that we're on their side. I don't know about you guys, but I don't trust Mr. A and I love my fiction. So I'm inclined to trust them.

Well, not if they hack, and threaten people, but I want to open that communication if we can.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

So far they have only threatened violence. Only one of them showed he would actually carry out the threats and one of the others immediately questioned him, and another seemed reluctant to resort to violence.

Threats are not to be taken lightly. Good, decent people do not threaten. And they've forced Joe out of his home and have not seemed remorseful. They are not looking for a peaceful solution where we can all live happily. They use bully tactics to get what they want. No matter how you look at it, these are bad people, and I will not put it pass them to actually resort to violence if the situation calls for it.

[Pixelmage]

So far they have only threatened violence. Only one of them showed he would actually carry out the threats and one of the others immediately questioned him, and another seemed reluctant to resort to violence.

It's a classic social situation. If whoever's the most violent (I haven't had the chance to check out their site) gets sway over the others, even once, then it'll be easier for him(?) to convince them to do so again. But how do we prevent that?

Support everyone besides Oberon as part of our side. If Oberon has to overpower all of us, his ability to act upon his desires will be severly limited.

Regardless of their wishes, if we can manage to keep them from resorting to violence, I see no problem in working together. See the Witch section. We're trying to elect her president! That's got to be a big precedent to working with shady characters.

[NeverSlender]

So far they have only threatened violence. Only one of them showed he would actually carry out the threats and one of the others immediately questioned him, and another seemed reluctant to resort to violence.

Threats are not to be taken lightly. Good, decent people do not threaten. And they've forced Joe out of his home and have not seemed remorseful. They are not looking for a peaceful solution where we can all live happily. They use bully tactics to get what they want. No matter how you look at it, these are bad people, and I will not put it pass them to actually resort to violence if the situation calls for it.

People who are scared also make threats.

And a peaceful solution where we all live happily is exactly what they are after.

[Scarab]

So far they have only threatened violence. Only one of them showed he would actually carry out the threats and one of the others immediately questioned him, and another seemed reluctant to resort to violence.

Still not a single one of them has thought to try a route involvng NO violence at all. Perhaps they're from universes where they're naturally expected to do the bad thing because they're bad guys, I don't know, but here's one possible option they could've taken: Instead of Joe recieving a vague letter full of threats, he could've gotten one saying something along the lines of "Hello, we are the explanation for the videos, this is who we are and what we want, we do not want to cause trouble, our world is a terrible place and the idea of returning terrifies us, we just want to be left in peace, and would like to speak with you further regarding our intentions to stay in this world. Perhaps we can come to some mututally beneficial arrangement?"

But they never did that. Joe never said anything about recieving a letter offering that Olive branch.
And really they're not offering an Olive branch at all - they aren't really giving us a choice. If we decide not to help them we'll be 'coerced' I think they said, or be put out of comission, some people could even be killed.

Becahse they may be scared. It is possible that they came from a world that is encompassed by war, is after a nuclear war, or thy are being hunted down to be killed. They only want peace.
We don't know whether all of them hacked the site or just one of them. At no point have I said we should sympathise with them. In fact I said we should be neutral. We shouldn't judge them until we know who they are. We should neither sympathise or be against them. Yet.

Maybe so, this is a point but they still have a funny way of going about it. I do still think we should try to talk about them, because there may still be more to this than we're aware of and there ARE still characters in the world who may not deserve to have to go back to a hellhole, or a situation that guarantees their deaths. Cae in point: R&J.

[Adell]

So far they have only threatened violence. Only one of them showed he would actually carry out the threats and one of the others immediately questioned him, and another seemed reluctant to resort to violence.

Threats are not to be taken lightly. Good, decent people do not threaten. And they've forced Joe out of his home and have not seemed remorseful. They are not looking for a peaceful solution where we can all live happily. They use bully tactics to get what they want. No matter how you look at it, these are bad people, and I will not put it pass them to actually resort to violence if the situation calls for it.

People who are scared also make threats.

And a peaceful solution where we all live happily is exactly what they are after.

Which may not be possible, if we must send them back. Again, we need answers before sympathizing and working together with them is really an option.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

Becahse they may be scared. It is possible that they came from a world that is encompassed by war, is after a nuclear war, or thy are being hunted down to be killed. They only want peace.

We don't know whether all of them hacked the site or just one of them. At no point have I said we should sympathise with them. In fact I said we should be neutral. We shouldn't judge them until we know who they are. We should neither sympathise or be against them. Yet.

They've already set themselves up against us. They've drawn a line and forced us to choose. We cannot stay neutral.

And we know who that are. They are terrorists. They are bullies. Like I said, they're past doesn't matter. It's their actions that define them. And their current actions don't portray them well.

I may believe that one of them, whosever's initial is P, may not be as bad as the other, and we may be able to sway him, but as long as he's willing to align himself with them, he's just as bad as them. He agreed to writing the letter's just like the others. He's no less guilty.

[NeverSlender]

Which may not be possible, if we must send them back. Again, we need answers before sympathizing and working together with them is really an option.

Sometimes I wonder if people read what I post.

That is what I've been saying since the sending them back argument started.

[NeverSlender]

Becahse they may be scared. It is possible that they came from a world that is encompassed by war, is after a nuclear war, or thy are being hunted down to be killed. They only want peace.

We don't know whether all of them hacked the site or just one of them. At no point have I said we should sympathise with them. In fact I said we should be neutral. We shouldn't judge them until we know who they are. We should neither sympathise or be against them. Yet.

They've already set themselves up against us. They've drawn a line and forced us to choose. We cannot stay neutral.

And we know who that are. They are terrorists. They are bullies. Like I said, they're past doesn't matter. It's their actions that define them. And their current actions don't portray them well.

I may believe that one of them, whosever's initial is P, may not be as bad as the other, and we may be able to sway him, but as long as he's willing to align himself with them, he's just as bad as them. He agreed to writing the letter's just like the others. He's no less guilty.

They haven't set themselves against us. They have asked for communication with us. Which we will do. If there is a choice to be made we will make it.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

And a peaceful solution where we all live happily is exactly what they are after.

Making threats is not how you achieve a peaceful solution. Scaring a man into living a life on the run does not ensure a happy ending.

[Adell]

Actually Slender, they've made it clear that if we try to stop them they'll "destroy us." Their opening communication only with people who side with them. They want sympathizers and to "coerce" those who don't.

[NeverSlender]

And a peaceful solution where we all live happily is exactly what they are after.

Making threats is not how you achieve a peaceful solution. Scaring a man into living a life on the run does not ensure a happy ending.

I didn't say their actions have been peaceful, I said that's what they want. They may not know another way. We cannot judge until we have more information.

[NeverSlender]

Actually Slender, they've made it clear that if we try to stop them they'll "destroy us." Their opening communication only with people who side with them. They want sympathizers and to "coerce" those who don't.

That's Oberon, who is almost definitely evil.