Inviting the Cabal

[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.

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.

I think you hit the nail on the head. They do not know any other way. Because bad people don't know how to do good. And there's no hint that they'd ever learn. They will continue down this path, making threats, ruining lives, and eventually resorting to violence and doing many bad things. That is exactly why we shouldn't side with them.

[NeverSlender]

Quote from Angelus. "We are not criminals."

[Scarab]

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.

And what of the rest? Can they be convinced to do otherwise? They were all already willing to send the threatening letters in the first place and some of them openly applaude Oberon's efforts. Granted that's not quite on the same level of evil as threatening to elliminate people, but still...

Anyway I agree with you that we need more information. And to get that information, I think we need Mister A to start talking and giving us more answers, if he even knows himself. At this rate poor communication is going to get somebody killed.

[IslaKariese]

Quote from Angelus. "We are not criminals."

That means very little. A criminal record has to start somewhere. They may not be criminals, and they may not have done bad things, but that doesn't mean that they won't start now.

[Scarab]

Quote from Angelus. "We are not criminals."

That means very little. A criminal record has to start somewhere. They may not be criminals, and they may not have done bad things, but that doesn't mean that they won't start now.

Well they've already started sending threatening letters, I'm pretty sure that's illegal, right? If they weren't criminals before, they are now.

[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.

And what of the rest? Can they be convinced to do otherwise? They were all already willing to send the threatening letters in the first place and some of them openly applaude Oberon's efforts. Granted that's not quite on the same level of evil as threatening to elliminate people, but still...

Anyway I agree with you that we need more information. And to get that information, I think we need Mister A to start talking and giving us more answers, if he even knows himself. At this rate poor communication is going to get somebody killed.

The one who applauds his actions is Steintiz, who we suspect is Moriarty so that is to be expected.

[IslaKariese]

That means very little. A criminal record has to start somewhere. They may not be criminals, and they may not have done bad things, but that doesn't mean that they won't start now.

Well they've already started sending threatening letters, I'm pretty sure that's illegal, right? If they weren't criminals before, they are now.

I'm not entirely sure it is illegal. Grounds for a restraining order, yes, but I'm not verse enough in law to tell.

[NeverSlender]

That means very little. A criminal record has to start somewhere. They may not be criminals, and they may not have done bad things, but that doesn't mean that they won't start now.

Well they've already started sending threatening letters, I'm pretty sure that's illegal, right? If they weren't criminals before, they are now.

I'm not entirely sure it is illegal. Grounds for a restraining order, yes, but I'm not verse enough in law to tell.

It's the way he says it. I think at worst, he will be morally neutral.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

The one who applauds his actions is Steintiz, who we suspect is Moriarty so that is to be expected.

So, you believe Moriarty is among the four, yet you want to continue being neutral? You know there's an evil, manipulative villain amongst them, and you think there's a possibility that they might be good? Even if two of them are good and mean no harm, they're still with the Cabal, and have made no attempt to leave or alter the team's tactics. They're bad. That's all there is to it.

[NeverSlender]

The one who applauds his actions is Steintiz, who we suspect is Moriarty so that is to be expected.

So, you believe Moriarty is among the four, yet you want to continue being neutral? You know there's an evil, manipulative villain amongst them, and you think there's a possibility that they might be good? Even if two of them are good and mean no harm, they're still with the Cabal, and have made no attempt to leave or alter the team's tactics. They're bad. That's all there is to it.

I suspect it is Moriarty. SUSPECT. I don't KNOW. Read what I write or I'll just ignore you.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

The one who applauds his actions is Steintiz, who we suspect is Moriarty so that is to be expected.

So, you believe Moriarty is among the four, yet you want to continue being neutral? You know there's an evil, manipulative villain amongst them, and you think there's a possibility that they might be good? Even if two of them are good and mean no harm, they're still with the Cabal, and have made no attempt to leave or alter the team's tactics. They're bad. That's all there is to it.

I suspect it is Moriarty. SUSPECT. I don't KNOW. Read what I write or I'll just ignore you.

Read what I write. I said believe, not know. I can nitpick too.

[Adell]

Both of you take it easy. We should be having a civil conversation here.

[IslaKariese]

I suspect it is Moriarty. SUSPECT. I don't KNOW. Read what I write or I'll just ignore you.

Read what I write. I said believe, not know. I can nitpick too.

Alright, fellas, calm down. Stick to the subject.

[NeverSlender]

So, you believe Moriarty is among the four, yet you want to continue being neutral? You know there's an evil, manipulative villain amongst them, and you think there's a possibility that they might be good?

I don't KNOW who any of them are.

[NeverSlender]

Both of you take it easy. We should be having a civil conversation here.

I tried. It didn't work.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

Both of you take it easy. We should be having a civil conversation here.

I'm sorry. I'm trying, I really am. It's just so very frustrating. It just feels like he's ignoring our good points and arguing against very insignificant things.

I don't KNOW who any of them are.

Nobody said you knew anything of the sort. Get off that. None of us know. We're judging them by their actions, not their identities.

[NeverSlender]

Both of you take it easy. We should be having a civil conversation here.

I'm sorry. I'm trying, I really am. It's just so very frustrating. It just feels like he's ignoring our good points and arguing against very insignificant things.

I don't KNOW who any of them are.

Nobody said you knew anything of the sort. Get off that. None of us know. We're judging them by their actions, not their identities.

I quoted you. YOU said I knew. And I'm not just arguing the insignificant things, I'm looking at what you write and arguong against what I disagree with. If you can't see that then don't bother. Ignore what I write because I don't care. You argue against everything I write, without being willing to actually listen. So I don't care anymore.

[Scarab]

Both of you take it easy. We should be having a civil conversation here.

I'm sorry. I'm trying, I really am. It's just so very frustrating. It just feels like he's ignoring our good points and arguing against very insignificant things.

I don't KNOW who any of them are.

Nobody said you knew anything of the sort. Get off that. None of us know. We're judging them by their actions, not their identities.

I quoted you. YOU said I knew. And I'm not just arguing the insignificant things, I'm looking at what you write and arguong against what I disagree with. If you can't see that then don't bother. Ignore what I write because I don't care. You argue against everything I write, without being willing to actually listen. So I don't care anymore.

...Guys, come on. We're a team here, aren't we? Nobody's trying to ignore anybody and you BOTH make good points. Just... both step back a little, fighting amongst ourselves isn't going to help (Please?)

[WackyMeetsPractical]

...Guys, come on. We're a team here, aren't we? Nobody's trying to ignore anybody and you BOTH make good points. Just... both step back a little, fighting amongst ourselves isn't going to help (Please?)

It's fine. I'm done. I'm going to try to focus on other things now.

[Pixelmage]

Both of you take it easy. We should be having a civil conversation here.

I'm sorry. I'm trying, I really am. It's just so very frustrating. It just feels like he's ignoring our good points and arguing against very insignificant things.

I don't mean to nag, but you realize you just did here the same thing you did in the morality thread, don't you?
By replying to every single argument with "They're evil. Stop trying to like them". You didn't really make a good impression to develop the discussion. That's why I stopped posting pages back.
I know you said this was your persona for the ARG, but it is still a bother to everyone if we keep stumbling to this point and require moderator aid to stop.

I suggest you start proposing models for your answers, such as pointing to a trope that applies or perhaps trying to follow the oppsite argument to the conclusion you see, instead of simply dismissing it.

[Dryunya]

As I'm catching up again... Wall Of Text warning.

Let me review their posts:

1. Angelus started the chat in order to find the letter-writer, and possibly side with him. Note his motivation:
   

   People may be hurt because of the recklessness he has been exhibiting in his «reporting.»

   
   Also, at that time, only 1 letter was sent.
2. Pyramus joined. Nothing more in partucular.
3. Steinitz joined and said:
   

   I propose that we three get to the bottom of this so-called mystery

   
   Moriarty, no? =]
   He gets into an argument with Pyramus (and yes, his style is somewhat dramatic) about whether or not to attract the writer's attention. Angelus says that he may be dangerous. Note that Steinitz has already found Joe's address.
4. Oberon joins (he said that "this name suits him today"). He said he approves of writing more letters, but he wants Joe gone. Both A and P (S is not present) are reluctant.
5. Steinitz has approved of the letter flood plan. He also was saying "NO" to somebody else at the same time.
6. They've hacked our site and posted their manifest. (Note that Steinitz calls possible new compatriots "Accomplices", which Angelus disagrees to)

Now. The way I see it: none of them want to stay. Angelus wants to find a possible ally, and sides with Pyramus in the process. They write more letters to find Oberon - It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time. It basically goes downhill from there.
Angelus and Pyramus are obviously not evil. Steinitz is questionable. Oberon is clearly the mastermind and not exactly safe (I'm not going to accuse a man I've yet to talk to ). What I'm saying is: they are all different characters with different motivations and values. If you want to accuse the initial letter-writer - blame Oberon. All other letters were sent just because they thought it would work, and were already on a roll. And just because of the Slippery Slope, they threatened the therapist. I don't think they all are happy with their actions - don't forget that they are not coming back.

As long as no one is actually hurt, I don't see how we can't settle the differences.

[NeverSlender]

Both of you take it easy. We should be having a civil conversation here.

I'm sorry. I'm trying, I really am. It's just so very frustrating. It just feels like he's ignoring our good points and arguing against very insignificant things.

I don't mean to nag, but you realize you just did here the same thing you did in the morality thread, don't you?
By replying to every single argument with "They're evil. Stop trying to like them". You didn't really make a good impression to develop the discussion. That's why I stopped posting pages back.
I know you said this was your persona for the ARG, but it is still a bother to everyone if we keep stumbling to this point and require moderator aid to stop.

I suggest you start proposing models for your answers, such as pointing to a trope that applies or perhaps trying to follow the oppsite argument to the conclusion you see, instead of simply dismissing it.

THANK YOU.

[NeverSlender]

As I'm catching up again... Wall Of Text warning.

Let me review their posts:

1. Angelus started the chat in order to find the letter-writer, and possibly side with him. Note his motivation:
   

   People may be hurt because of the recklessness he has been exhibiting in his «reporting.»

   
   Also, at that time, only 1 letter was sent.
2. Pyramus joined. Nothing more in partucular.
3. Steinitz joined and said:
   

   I propose that we three get to the bottom of this so-called mystery

   
   Moriarty, no? =]
   He gets into an argument with Pyramus (and yes, his style is somewhat dramatic) about whether or not to attract the writer's attention. Angelus says that he may be dangerous. Note that Steinitz has already found Joe's address.
4. Oberon joins (he said that "this name suits him today"). He said he approves of writing more letters, but he wants Joe gone. Both A and P (S is not present) are reluctant.
5. Steinitz has approved of the letter flood plan. He also was saying "NO" to somebody else at the same time.
6. They've hacked our site and posted their manifest. (Note that Steinitz calls possible new compatriots "Accomplices", which Angelus disagrees to)

Now. The way I see it: none of them want to stay. Angelus wants to find a possible ally, and sides with Pyramus in the process. They write more letters to find Oberon - It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time. It basically goes downhill from there.
Angelus and Pyramus are obviously not evil. Steinitz is questionable. Oberon is clearly the mastermind and not exactly safe (I'm not going to accuse a man I've yet to talk to ). What I'm saying is: they are all different characters with different motivations and values. If you want to accuse the initial letter-writer - blame Oberon. All other letters were sent just because they thought it would work, and were already on a roll. And just because of the Slippery Slope, they threatened the therapist. I don't think they all are happy with their actions - don't forget that they are not coming back.

As long as no one is actually hurt, I don't see how we can't settle the differences.

This.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

Both of you take it easy. We should be having a civil conversation here.

I'm sorry. I'm trying, I really am. It's just so very frustrating. It just feels like he's ignoring our good points and arguing against very insignificant things.

I don't mean to nag, but you realize you just did here the same thing you did in the morality thread, don't you?
By replying to every single argument with "They're evil. Stop trying to like them". You didn't really make a good impression to develop the discussion. That's why I stopped posting pages back.
I know you said this was your persona for the ARG, but it is still a bother to everyone if we keep stumbling to this point and require moderator aid to stop.

I suggest you start proposing models for your answers, such as pointing to a trope that applies or perhaps trying to follow the oppsite argument to the conclusion you see, instead of simply dismissing it.

I'm not getting into any more debates. Not right now.

[Scarab]

As I'm catching up again... Wall Of Text warning.

Let me review their posts:

1. Angelus started the chat in order to find the letter-writer, and possibly side with him. Note his motivation:
   

   People may be hurt because of the recklessness he has been exhibiting in his «reporting.»

   
   Also, at that time, only 1 letter was sent.
2. Pyramus joined. Nothing more in partucular.
3. Steinitz joined and said:
   

   I propose that we three get to the bottom of this so-called mystery

   
   Moriarty, no? =]
   He gets into an argument with Pyramus (and yes, his style is somewhat dramatic) about whether or not to attract the writer's attention. Angelus says that he may be dangerous. Note that Steinitz has already found Joe's address.
4. Oberon joins (he said that "this name suits him today"). He said he approves of writing more letters, but he wants Joe gone. Both A and P (S is not present) are reluctant.
5. Steinitz has approved of the letter flood plan. He also was saying "NO" to somebody else at the same time.
6. They've hacked our site and posted their manifest. (Note that Steinitz calls possible new compatriots "Accomplices", which Angelus disagrees to)

Now. The way I see it: none of them want to stay. Angelus wants to find a possible ally, and sides with Pyramus in the process. They write more letters to find Oberon - It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time. It basically goes downhill from there.
Angelus and Pyramus are obviously not evil. Steinitz is questionable. Oberon is clearly the mastermind and not exactly safe (I'm not going to accuse a man I've yet to talk to ). What I'm saying is: they are all different characters with different motivations and values. If you want to accuse the initial letter-writer - blame Oberon. All other letters were sent just because they thought it would work, and were already on a roll. And just because of the Slippery Slope, they threatened the therapist. I don't think they all are happy with their actions - don't forget that they are not coming back.

As long as no one is actually hurt, I don't see how we can't settle the differences.

Okay, that mostly seems to make sense to me... at the very leasy Angelus and Pyramus are morally ambiguous characters (they did write letters, didn't they?) but that doesn't make them out and out bad guys.

If there's the possibility we can get out of this without, you know... death and destruction, I'm all for it.