Watch the Footage archive

Joe has posted this.

In short: The Phantom wants us to join him, bur DO read the email in full it deals in more than that can describe.

Here's where we'll discuss his reasoning and perhaps compose our response to him.
Sicon has asked me to warn that he'll appear around soon to post his analysis and opinion.

As for my opinion:
Mind play. Not necesarily evil play. But he's trying to persuade us to sympathise with him. He's attacking our center of balance by pointing out Mr. A's behavior. His intent is to split our forces and make us lack the necessary manpower to send them back.

As to why he says he can't accept our proposal to custom craft a world in the way he desires, it's foolishness. A fear as based in conjecture as our fear for our reality is according to his point of view.

I say we stay open to have their input on the worlds we send them to, but no way that talk about Narrative Fate will get me to side with him. If he wants to persuade me, he'll have to show proof that his presence here is not dangerous to reality, at the very least. And also start making amends for the damage already caused by his behavior so far. He and his team did get Joe on the run after all.

Wait, why do we need to be warned about Sicon coming here? Does he know something we don't or is it another one of those things he does sometimes?

I believe him, and am compelled to hope that perhaps fiction and reality can coexist in harmony. However, some potentially deadly aspects of it, such as Medusa and Anansi, are better left on the other side. Mostly, though, it;'s so I can rejoice in fanboyish glee when fictionals from media that I enjoy make it across, (Batman, Johnny of Paranatural, or TOM, for examples.)

Pixelmage wrote:If he wants to persuade me, he'll have to show proof that his presence here is not dangerous to reality, at the very least.

This, to me is the crux of the matter. Above all else, we must consider the safety of our own reality. Everything else comes second to that.

The line "are you truly willing to condemn so many on so uncertain a prospect?" is so easily turned against him.
Are we truly willing to condemn the world on so uncertain a prospect as the fictionals causing no harm?

i donno. how would they be able to prove there was no danger? mr. a himself said he couldn't prove that there was.

The Cabal says that Mr A is lying.

Mr A says that the fictionals make reality collapse.

Neither have any proof of their statement.

This is ridiculous.

Chief Wakamakamu wrote:Wait, why do we need to be warned about Sicon coming here? Does he know something we don't or is it another one of those things he does sometimes?

It's his gambiting and all around planning. Overall most of us listen to his ideas and give them great weight. Half of the plans we carry out are his and he helps tweak the other half.
I'm not saying he's the end all planner for the forum, but he's one of our best. So maybe some people might wait to hear what he has to say before posting.

I'm concerned about the apparent mistrust he has for Mr. A. Perhaps it's just understandable fear, but I feel like maybe he has an idea of Mr. A's motives beyond the suspicions we keep raising and then putting aside until we know more.

RotavatoR wrote:Neither have any proof of their statement.

So we must act on the possible consequences of each statement, not the relative possibilities of them occurring.

narrativedilettante wrote:I'm concerned about the apparent mistrust he has for Mr. A. Perhaps it's just understandable fear, but I feel like maybe he has an idea of Mr. A's motives beyond the suspicions we keep raising and then putting aside until we know more.

Well, in Mr. Administrator's thread, those present agreed that he can make anything sound sinister. I follow his advice and orders do to the humorous instantiations in the mix.

I'd like to thank Joe and Ed for revealing this letter to us, I believe it was the right move to make..

Okay the thing is, what we need here is proof - either Mister A that the universe IS breaking down, or proof from the Cabal that it is NOT. Indeed there are many characters I would HAPPILY allow to stay if that was what they wanted, if the universe were not at stake... but reality and all it's inhabitants is too big a price to pay for the sake of the few no matter how much we like some of them, and we WOULD do our best to give them the best, most open ended future we could. We are not in this to be bad people. We can only weigh up the odds presented to us, and decide for ourselves.

Erik also assumed that any world we created for them would be as big a prison as their old one -we have no proof that this is false, but we also do not know for sure that it is true. The original writers of these characters' had goals and intentions in mind. Some, like Shakespeare, were trying to make a point, others just wanted to create a person who acted a certain way... but either way, any world WE created would be open ended with no chosen destiny for them. Our only intent is "make them free". I thought the idea of giving them their own worlds and then leaving it open ended, would be to leave them free to make their own choices in a world that may as well be ours?

Also Erik's line about not our character, but our context that defines who we are? Strikes me as somewhat inaccurate... I mean, sure he has a point: a woman who kills her husband for beating her has a LOT more moral weight behind ehr than one who just did it for the inheritance, but either way a man is still did. If the unvierse collapses as a reuslt of this then it will not give a damn about who was right and who was wrong. Also, they CONTINUED to act as they had been written once they emerged into reality. They BEGAN this with threats as he rightly points out, and it took them this long to open a dialogue that we offered from th start (admittedly, we didn't offer it very... coherently or well but if JAMES MORIARTY can't read between the lines then I don't bloody know who can)? It is also entirely possible that Erik is just trying to create dissention in our ranks. I don't know.

It's not your context that defines you at ALL - it's what you DO with your context.

Pixelmage wrote:As for my opinion:
Mind play. Not necesarily evil play. But he's trying to persuade us to sympathise with him. He's attacking our center of balance by pointing out Mr. A's behavior. His intent is to split our forces and make us lack the necessary manpower to send them back.

As to why he says he can't accept our proposal to custom craft a world in the way he desires, it's foolishness. A fear as based in conjecture as our fear for our reality is according to his point of view.

I say we stay open to have their input on the worlds we send them to, but not way that talk about Narrative Fate will get me to side with me. If he wants to persuade me, he'll have to show proof that his presence here is not dangerous to reality, at the very least. And also start making amends for the damage already caused by his behavior so far. He and his team did get Joe on the run after all.

So, obviously I talked Joe into posting the letter, and yes, I'm a little bit sympathetic. More than a little bit, I guess, at this point.

The more I think about it, the more I feel Mr. A is asking us to do something pretty dramatic given what we know.

Even if someone was like "being near someone from New Jersey causes cancer," I don't feel that would justify getting rid of everyone from New Jersey until they were able to prove they didn't. But then again, if they do...

But I don't know about you, but that statement about just having everything handed to you still being imprisoning... got to me? I mean, maybe I've just read too many stories about people who are handed everything they want without earning it and are still miserable... and I don't know how we can possibly assume we know what it's like being fictional better than they do.

Is it not impossible to prove that something is not happening? It would be kind of weird if you were stopped by a cop, and he told you to prove that you were not driving too hard.

What I'm saying is that the Cabal don't trust Mr A for the exact same reason that we're not trusting him. He's not showing evidence, no proof. If he would, then the Cabal might change their minds.

@Ed and @Rota

True enough. But his reasoning is still far too weak. We can't prove reality is NOT breaking down, ok. I concede that point.
Then what can we do?

Ask Mr. A proof that sending them back is necessary!
If he hands us that, no more talk, we drag them kicking and screaming to fictionland. Would you kill a country to save a family?

If he can't prove it, then we hand the four to the police! At the very least, they'll have to taste the consequence of their freedom: They commited at the very least the crime of threatening someone. They must answer for that. If they oh so love this world then they better play by it's rules.

RotavatoR wrote:Is it not impossible to prove that something is not happening? It would be kind of weird if you were stopped by a cop, and he told you to prove that you were not driving too hard.

What I'm saying is that the Cabal don't trust Mr A for the exact same reason that we're not trusting him. He's not showing evidence, no proof. If he would, then the Cabal might change their minds.

Yes, but it'd also be quite a clever cop.

We would also need proof for them that any world we sent them to would NOT be a prison as they assume -can we prove that? Do we know ourselves?

Pixelmage wrote:If he can't prove it, then we hand the four to the police! At the very least, they'll have to taste the consequence of their freedom: They commited at the very least the crime of threatening someone. They must answer for that. If they oh so love this world then they better play by it's rules.

Another good point, right there. Will they accept responsibility for their crimes?

Scarab wrote:

RotavatoR wrote:Is it not impossible to prove that something is not happening? It would be kind of weird if you were stopped by a cop, and he told you to prove that you were not driving too hard.

What I'm saying is that the Cabal don't trust Mr A for the exact same reason that we're not trusting him. He's not showing evidence, no proof. If he would, then the Cabal might change their minds.

Yes, but it'd also be quite a clever cop.

We would also need proof for them that any world we sent them to would NOT be a prison as they assume -can we prove that? Do we know ourselves?

Pixelmage wrote:If he can't prove it, then we hand the four to the police! At the very least, they'll have to taste the consequence of their freedom: They commited at the very least the crime of threatening someone. They must answer for that. If they oh so love this world then they better play by it's rules.

Another good point, right there. Will they accept responsibility for their crimes?

They might take responsibility, all except Moriarty perhaps. He'll probably plan something to make win out in the end.

Scarab wrote:

RotavatoR wrote:Is it not impossible to prove that something is not happening? It would be kind of weird if you were stopped by a cop, and he told you to prove that you were not driving too hard.

What I'm saying is that the Cabal don't trust Mr A for the exact same reason that we're not trusting him. He's not showing evidence, no proof. If he would, then the Cabal might change their minds.

Yes, but it'd also be quite a clever cop.

We would also need proof for them that any world we sent them to would NOT be a prison as they assume -can we prove that? Do we know ourselves?

Of course, that is exactly what I said in the chat, and you even replied to that. I'm not taking sides here, just posting my thoughts.

I will state this here and now. This is my position, and I will stand and hold it until a better one is shown to me by logic.

The Phantom's argument is, in short, this: That it is morally wrong to send the fictional beings back to their side of the wall merely because we suspect that there might be an apocalypse due to their presence, and that even sending them back with their fates tailored to their whims is still nothing more than a prison, since they are controlled by us.

I shall speak on the second point before the first. To an extent, his claim is true. He will indeed be 'forced' to abide by the fiction we create to send him back, and will follow it until the ending we give him. However, accepting this as the whole truth, we must still consider that a fictional universe is more than what it's original creator portrays. It extends beyond, into the realm of epilogues and backstories. Therefor, an open ended refic would, while it controlled him for a while, merely do so to place him at the beginning of a new tale, one all his own. Finally, such a fiction would have to be very well done and in character, meaning that the actions he would take on his journey would be, essentially, those that he would take regardless, simply because that is who he is.

However, I find fault with his "prison" analogy for a good reason. He is no more free in this world than in any other. In his world, while he possessed a character and was guided by it the entire world around him was controlled by the author's whims. I disagree entirely with his argument that his situation in completely at fault. It is the same, invalid argument that people try to use everyday to excuse others for their misdeeds, and it is nothing but foolishness. However, the mechanics of the world were controlled by a higher power, one he could not change. Now he has come to our world, and he claims he is free of such things. This is silly. Can he control the way the world works NOW? Of course not. This world could be fictional itself, just on a higher level than his, or it could be that there is a God above it who stands higher still. Even should you not believe in a deity, you must admit that the world runs on it's own set of laws that we cannot ever hope to change. There are only two basic differences between our world and his, in the end. The first is that in our world, the social climate is such that he can have an easier life. This will be negated by our current refic plans. The second is that he believes that this world allows him more freedom because he knows for sure that we can control his world through fiction, but does not know of or see the laws that control us and him even now.

On to his first claim, that of the wrongness of sending back the fictionals. He asks a question in his post that fills me with outrage. Here it is:

are you truly willing to condemn so many on so uncertain a prospect?

This is the exact question I now pose to the Cabal! No, we do not have proof that the presence of fictionals has a negative and catastrophic effect on reality, but we DO have proof that there IS an effect! This proof comes in the form of the echoes their actions leave behind! Now, the person who has so far given us reasonably reliable, though vague, information has stated that the presence of fictionals may cause the erasure of all of reality. There are three main possibilities.

1. He is wrong.
2. He is lying.
3. He is right.

Assuming each in turn, these are the things that could happen, should we send back the fictionals, and then the things that could happen if we do not.

Send them back:

1. Mr. A is mistaken, but we sent back the fictionals anyway. This is unfortunate, but they do have a good life in their new worlds.
2. The same thing occurs.
3. He is right, but the total destruction of reality is averted. The fictionals have a good life in their new worlds.

Do not send back:

1. The fictionals remain and have a happy life. We apologize or the trouble.
2. The fictionals remain and have a happy life. We slap Mr. A for being a douchebag.
3. All of reality is erased and we and the fictionals all die.

These are the main possibilities. We currently do not know the chances of Mr. A being wrong/lying and the chances of him being right, and I do say we should figure out as soon as possible. However, should we discover that there IS a chance of the apocalypse, no matter how small, I say send them back.

This situation is one requiring a cost benefit analysis. If we send back the fictionals, it is at the certain cost of their lives here in this world. If we do not, it is at the POSSIBLE cost of the entirety of this world, including the fictionals involved. Now, some cost-benefit analyses end up calling for some level of risk. However, in this case, I say ANY level of risk is too high. When the possible cost is all of existence, there is no price too high.

You may find this blunt. You may think I'm being a Knight Templar. I do not care. To paraphrase Martin Luther standing before the Diet of Wurms, here I stand, I can do nothing else.

Sicon112 wrote:I will state this here and now. This is my position, and I will stand and hold it until a better one is shown to me by logic.

The Phantom's argument is, in short, this: That it is morally wrong to send the fictional beings back to their side of the wall merely because we suspect that there might be an apocalypse due to their presence, and that even sending them back with their fates tailored to their whims is still nothing more than a prison, since they are controlled by us.

I shall speak on the second point before the first. To an extent, his claim is true. He will indeed be 'forced' to abide by the fiction we create to send him back, and will follow it until the ending we give him. However, accepting this as the whole truth, we must still consider that a fictional universe is more than what it's original creator portrays. It extends beyond, into the realm of epilogues and backstories. Therefor, an open ended refic would, while it controlled him for a while, merely do so to place him at the beginning of a new tale, one all his own. Finally, such a fiction would have to be very well done and in character, meaning that the actions he would take on his journey would be, essentially, those that he would take regardless, simply because that is who he is.

However, I find fault with his "prison" analogy for a good reason. He is no more free in this world than in any other. In his world, while he possessed a character and was guided by it the entire world around him was controlled by the author's whims. I disagree entirely with his argument that his situation in completely at fault. It is the same, invalid argument that people try to use everyday to excuse others for their misdeeds, and it is nothing but foolishness. However, the mechanics of the world were controlled by a higher power, one he could not change. Now he has come to our world, and he claims he is free of such things. This is silly. Can he control the way the world works NOW? Of course not. This world could be fictional itself, just on a higher level than his, or it could be that there is a God above it who stands higher still. Even should you not believe in a deity, you must admit that the world runs on it's own set of laws that we cannot ever hope to change. There are only two basic differences between our world and his, in the end. The first is that in our world, the social climate is such that he can have an easier life. This will be negated by our current refic plans. The second is that he believes that this world allows him more freedom because he knows for sure that we can control his world through fiction, but does not know of or see the laws that control us and him even now.

On to his first claim, that of the wrongness of sending back the fictionals. He asks a question in his post that fills me with outrage. Here it is:

are you truly willing to condemn so many on so uncertain a prospect?

This is the exact question I now pose to the Cabal! No, we do not have proof that the presence of fictionals has a negative and catastrophic effect on reality, but we DO have proof that there IS an effect! This proof comes in the form of the echoes their actions leave behind! Now, the person who has so far given us reasonably reliable, though vague, information has stated that the presence of fictionals may cause the erasure of all of reality. There are three main possibilities.

1. He is wrong.
2. He is lying.
3. He is right.

Assuming each in turn, these are the things that could happen, should we send back the fictionals, and then the things that could happen if we do not.

Send them back:

1. Mr. A is mistaken, but we sent back the fictionals anyway. This is unfortunate, but they do have a good life in their new worlds.
2. The same thing occurs.
3. He is right, but the total destruction of reality is averted. The fictionals have a good life in their new worlds.

Do not send back:

1. The fictionals remain and have a happy life. We apologize or the trouble.
2. The fictionals remain and have a happy life. We slap Mr. A for being a douchebag.
3. All of reality is erased and we and the fictionals all die.

These are the main possibilities. We currently do not know the chances of Mr. A being wrong/lying and the chances of him being right, and I do say we should figure out as soon as possible. However, should we discover that there IS a chance of the apocalypse, no matter how small, I say send them back.

This situation is one requiring a cost benefit analysis. If we send back the fictionals, it is at the certain cost of their lives here in this world. If we do not, it is at the POSSIBLE cost of the entirety of this world, including the fictionals involved. Now, some cost-benefit analyses end up calling for some level of risk. However, in this case, I say ANY level of risk is too high. When the possible cost is all of existence, there is no price too high.

You may find this blunt. You may think I'm being a Knight Templar. I do not care. To paraphrase Martin Luther standing before the Diet of Wurms, here I stand, I can do nothing else.

I'm not sure how to reply to this... It's rather Awesome

I'll try. Even if it sounds rather redundant..

That's a great analysis of the situation right there. While Erik may have his points with this email we can't risk the world and people's lives just to let these characters live here.

The best we can do is give them a story that ends well for them and gives them a better life. It's our duty to do that and help them.

<applause>

We need to ask for proof from Mr A. Right now.

(And I don't want to hear something like "My Admin-sense is tingling")

I believe the reason for the "Sicon Incoming" warning in the first post is now clear, no?

RotavatoR wrote:We need to ask for proof from Mr A. Right now.

(And I don't want to hear something like "My Admin-sense is tingling")

Well, then, we ride! To the Twitter!