Watch the Footage archive

Scarab wrote:
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.

Seems reasonable. I'm willing to work with them so long as they stop threatening us

I believe that it may be important for reasoning to remember the words of the Cat.

https://twitter.com/AVeryMadCat/status/257986457191456768

For we were to remain in the shadows to observe and unravel their machinations within their online forum. The Cat also referred this Cabal, what we take as villains, as "rodents". Is this merely the dialect of the Cat, or do they really possess the qualities of these creatures.

In any case, methinks it be best to wait a while longer before stretching the olive branch of peace to these mysterious miscreants.

Scarab wrote: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.

Death and Destructon are fun! Why avoid it?
But, as always, a wild Dryu appears and makes sense out of this mass of data. It means we can find a way to ally, or a the very least, stay neutral to them. At last by what we know so far.

I'll be willing to remain neutral towards the Cabal, if, and only if, they make peace with Joe. I find it hard to forgive them after the scare they gave him. If they apologize and make things right by Joe, then I will be all for peaceful negotiations with them.

Pixelmage wrote:

Scarab wrote: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.

Death and Destructon are fun! Why avoid it?
But, as always, a wild Dryu appears and makes sense out of this mass of data. It means we can find a way to ally, or a the very least, stay neutral to them. At last by what we know so far.

Death and destruction in fiction, or the coffee room? Sure, I'm all up for that. But I'm not so keen on it happening on my doorstep...
Indeed, I think this is a fairly good stance to take for now. Too soon to trust, but too little information for them to be outright dismissed. Since they're probably watching us all even now, let's show them how rational we can be...

In summary, for now, let's shelve this argument. Regardless of their intentions, their actions are both wrong and openly hostile. Therefore, I for one intend to show them why you DO NOT do things like that. I do not say that I WILL send them back, but I WILL show them where the line in the sand is. If they are willing to work and act like reasonable human beings with a sense of morality, then fine. We may then begin discussion of what to do. Otherwise, they are going to have to be removed from this world regardless, because I will NOT risk the lives of everyone they come into contact with.

Also:

Zup wrote:So...Heathcliff is Oberon.

YAY! SOMEONE ELSE IS HERE TO MAKE SAO REFERENCES WITH ME!!

Sicon112 wrote:In summary, for now, let's shelve this argument. Regardless of their intentions, their actions are both wrong and openly hostile. Therefore, I for one intend to show them why you DO NOT do things like that. I do not say that I WILL send them back, but I WILL show them where the line in the sand is. If they are willing to work and act like reasonable human beings with a sense of morality, then fine. We may then begin discussion of what to do. Otherwise, they are going to have to be removed from this world regardless, because I will NOT risk the lives of everyone they come into contact with.

Also:

Zup wrote:So...Heathcliff is Oberon.

YAY! SOMEONE ELSE IS HERE TO MAKE SAO REFERENCES WITH ME!!

Not I. WE. We should be a team, and we should discuss what we say to them. It shouldn't be down to an individual, especially if they could be violent criminals.

I'm with the stance that while we shouldn't be antagonistic toward them, we under no circumstances should trust them. If they wanted to get their message across peacefully, they could have joined this forum, and posted threads to make their points in. The fact that their chosen method of communication was destructive is and disruptive is an inherent negative against them, at least for me. I believe it shows that they aren't showing respect for other people, and only really care about their views being heard, without letting opposing(?) views being heard at the same time.

So I'd keep an eye on them, but certainly not side with them, and certainly not trust them. Also get as much information out of Mr. A as we can, because we need that info.

NeverSlender wrote:Not I. WE. We should be a team, and we should discuss what we say to them. It shouldn't be down to an individual, especially if they could be violent criminals.

I'm giving MY opinion on the argument. Just letting you know my analysis of the situation. I won't go off and do something on my own. If everyone else decides against something, I am perfectly willing to give up the plan myself.

Sicon112 wrote:In summary, for now, let's shelve this argument. Regardless of their intentions, their actions are both wrong and openly hostile. Therefore, I for one intend to show them why you DO NOT do things like that. I do not say that I WILL send them back, but I WILL show them where the line in the sand is. If they are willing to work and act like reasonable human beings with a sense of morality, then fine. We may then begin discussion of what to do. Otherwise, they are going to have to be removed from this world regardless, because I will NOT risk the lives of everyone they come into contact with.

Also:

Zup wrote:So...Heathcliff is Oberon.

YAY! SOMEONE ELSE IS HERE TO MAKE SAO REFERENCES WITH ME!!

SAO? I was referring to Wuthering Heights. People supposedly love Heathcliff's character, but he's a terrible individual.

Sicon112 wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:Not I. WE. We should be a team, and we should discuss what we say to them. It shouldn't be down to an individual, especially if they could be violent criminals.

I'm giving MY opinion on the argument. Just letting you know my analysis of the situation. I won't go off and do something on my own. If everyone else decides against something, I am perfectly willing to give up the plan myself.

I, for one, love your plan.

Zup wrote:SAO? I was referring to Wuthering Heights. People supposedly love Heathcliff's character, but he's a terrible individual.

Awww, shoot. The villian of SAO is also named Heathcliff and he is an epic Magnificent Bastard, despite his plan causing the deaths of four thousand people. He gets what he deserves, but he still manages to be really awesome at the same time. So basically, it's the same argument.

Zup wrote:

Sicon112 wrote:In summary, for now, let's shelve this argument. Regardless of their intentions, their actions are both wrong and openly hostile. Therefore, I for one intend to show them why you DO NOT do things like that. I do not say that I WILL send them back, but I WILL show them where the line in the sand is. If they are willing to work and act like reasonable human beings with a sense of morality, then fine. We may then begin discussion of what to do. Otherwise, they are going to have to be removed from this world regardless, because I will NOT risk the lives of everyone they come into contact with.

Also:

Zup wrote:So...Heathcliff is Oberon.

YAY! SOMEONE ELSE IS HERE TO MAKE SAO REFERENCES WITH ME!!

SAO? I was referring to Wuthering Heights. People supposedly love Heathcliff's character, but he's a terrible individual.

And here I thought that was referring to the comic strip character.

Sicon112 wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:Not I. WE. We should be a team, and we should discuss what we say to them. It shouldn't be down to an individual, especially if they could be violent criminals.

I'm giving MY opinion on the argument. Just letting you know my analysis of the situation. I won't go off and do something on my own. If everyone else decides against something, I am perfectly willing to give up the plan myself.

When we start to communicate with them, we should make a tbread to discuss the best response to what they say.

And I just know it's gonna happen when I'm asleep.

NeverSlender wrote:

Sicon112 wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:Not I. WE. We should be a team, and we should discuss what we say to them. It shouldn't be down to an individual, especially if they could be violent criminals.

I'm giving MY opinion on the argument. Just letting you know my analysis of the situation. I won't go off and do something on my own. If everyone else decides against something, I am perfectly willing to give up the plan myself.

When we start to communicate with them, we should make a tbread to discuss the best response to what they say.

And I just know it's gonna happen when I'm asleep.

You and me both The curse of being on a forum set in a different timezone...

Maybe it's all three in one Composite Character?!?!

Zup wrote:Maybe it's all three in one Composite Character?!?!

That would be weird.

Wen you get down to it, it's not just these four people who are at stake here. I mean, there's a reason why we were already having the "is sending them back really required?" debate in the first place. There are plenty of perfectly innocent fictional characters here who don't really deserve to go back to their fates. Romeo and Juliet don't deserve to have to go home and die, Don Quixote... well, he'd probably be happier home, I guess. And then there are characters like Sweeny Todd - he could actually have a chance of rehabilitation which would save both his psyche, and the lives of any future potential victims in this world.

I don't think a lot of them would want this cabal to speak for them.

If their going back HAS to happen... well, maybe it does, and we'll have to find a way to deal with that. But that's a discussion we're already having in another thread.

THIS "CABAL" IS SELFISH. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THEIR VERY PRESENCE DESTABILIZES REALITY, AS RECENT DISCOVERIES SUCH AS THE ECHOES SEEM TO INDICATE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO JEOPARDIZE YOUR REALITY FOR THEIR OWN COMFORT.

WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU TRUST US. WE WOULD ADVISE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU DO NOT TRUST THEM.

Mr. Administrator wrote:THIS "CABAL" IS SELFISH. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THEIR VERY PRESENCE DESTABILIZES REALITY, AS RECENT DISCOVERIES SUCH AS THE ECHOES SEEM TO INDICATE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO JEOPARDIZE YOUR REALITY FOR THEIR OWN COMFORT.

WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU TRUST US. WE WOULD ADVISE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU DO NOT TRUST THEM.

Hey, looks like we agree again, my mysterious employer. Great, now someone is going to bring up the "Sicon is Mr. A" theory again, aren't they?

Mr. Administrator wrote:THIS "CABAL" IS SELFISH. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THEIR VERY PRESENCE DESTABILIZES REALITY, AS RECENT DISCOVERIES SUCH AS THE ECHOES SEEM TO INDICATE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO JEOPARDIZE YOUR REALITY FOR THEIR OWN COMFORT.

WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU TRUST US. WE WOULD ADVISE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU DO NOT TRUST THEM.

Can you tell us how their presence destabilises reality?

Mr. Administrator wrote:THIS "CABAL" IS SELFISH. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THEIR VERY PRESENCE DESTABILIZES REALITY, AS RECENT DISCOVERIES SUCH AS THE ECHOES SEEM TO INDICATE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO JEOPARDIZE YOUR REALITY FOR THEIR OWN COMFORT.

WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU TRUST US. WE WOULD ADVISE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU DO NOT TRUST THEM.

You don't need to warn us there, Mister A, they're hardly behaving in a trustworthy manner. Advice taken.

But... forgive me if this sounds rude, okay, but you act as if we are neccesary here, as if we are NEEDED to protect the wall, but you offer us NO clear information. If we cannot trust you, how are we supposed to follow you? We want to protect reality, so rest assured, we will keep doing everything in our power to help. But you could make it easier for us. What is it that you refuse to tell us? If you truly don't know the answers to the questions we ask, feel free to just SAY you don't know the answers (saying 'we cannot answer that' is a very vague response, could you pelase perhaps clarify)?

Please. We really need to know this. If we're both on the side of protecting reality here, surely we should be honest with each other?

Sicon112 wrote:

Mr. Administrator wrote:THIS "CABAL" IS SELFISH. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THEIR VERY PRESENCE DESTABILIZES REALITY, AS RECENT DISCOVERIES SUCH AS THE ECHOES SEEM TO INDICATE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO JEOPARDIZE YOUR REALITY FOR THEIR OWN COMFORT.

WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU TRUST US. WE WOULD ADVISE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU DO NOT TRUST THEM.

Hey, looks like we agree again, my mysterious employer. Great, now someone is going to bring up the "Sicon is Mr. A" theory again, aren't they?

Just take a drink now Scion we're all thinking it. but on an on-topic note if they are indeed destabilizing our reality than we will have no choice but to send them back

NeverSlender wrote:

Mr. Administrator wrote:THIS "CABAL" IS SELFISH. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THEIR VERY PRESENCE DESTABILIZES REALITY, AS RECENT DISCOVERIES SUCH AS THE ECHOES SEEM TO INDICATE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO JEOPARDIZE YOUR REALITY FOR THEIR OWN COMFORT.

WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU TRUST US. WE WOULD ADVISE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU DO NOT TRUST THEM.

Can you tell us how their presence destabilises reality?

THE ECHOES CHARACTERS LEAVE BEHIND ARE TRACES OF YOUR REALITY BEING INFILTRATED BY FICTION. THEY ARE TEARS IN THE FABRIC OF REALITY, SIMILAR TO THE CRACKS IN THE WALL. OUR RESEARCH INDICATES THAT REALITY COULD, DUE TO THESE RIPS, UNRAVEL.

OUR RESEARCH IS ADMITTEDLY INCOMPLETE, BUT WE HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SENDING THE CHARACTERS BACK THROUGH THESE TEARS WOULD CLOSE THEM. WE ARE REASONABLY ASSURED THAT A BREAKTHROUGH AS TO THE MECHANISM FOR SENDING THEM BACK IS CLOSE AT HAND.

Mr. Administrator wrote:

NeverSlender wrote:

Mr. Administrator wrote:THIS "CABAL" IS SELFISH. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THEIR VERY PRESENCE DESTABILIZES REALITY, AS RECENT DISCOVERIES SUCH AS THE ECHOES SEEM TO INDICATE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO JEOPARDIZE YOUR REALITY FOR THEIR OWN COMFORT.

WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU TRUST US. WE WOULD ADVISE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU DO NOT TRUST THEM.

Can you tell us how their presence destabilises reality?

THE ECHOES CHARACTERS LEAVE BEHIND ARE TRACES OF YOUR REALITY BEING INFILTRATED BY FICTION. THEY ARE TEARS IN THE FABRIC OF REALITY, SIMILAR TO THE CRACKS IN THE WALL. OUR RESEARCH INDICATES THAT REALITY COULD, DUE TO THESE RIPS, UNRAVEL.

OUR RESEARCH IS ADMITTEDLY INCOMPLETE, BUT WE HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SENDING THE CHARACTERS BACK THROUGH THESE TEARS WOULD CLOSE THEM. WE ARE REASONABLY ASSURED THAT A BREAKTHROUGH AS TO THE MECHANISM FOR SENDING THEM BACK IS CLOSE AT HAND.

If we could come up with another option which worked just as well as sending them back, could we take it?