Watch the Footage archive

I suspect he did have something to do with it, but I take this as more of a compliment to US than anything else. After all, once Pan is in jail, we wouldn't be able to contact him any more either, so Mr. A doesn't want that. Therefore, he took this action KNOWING we could stop it. He is showing, in his own way, that he has faith in us. He admitted himself: he wanted to delay the trial to ensure that Pan really did want to return before letting him go free. Don't we WANT to be sure the fictionals wish to return? We wouldn't want to send him back if he might have wished to stay.

Dryunya wrote:Allegedly crossed a line. We've seen many times that Mr. A sucks at communication. Instead of jumping to conclusions, you could, you know, ask him?

(I told you nothing good would come out of it, Qara. -_-)

There's a difference between being bad at communicating and being outright incriminating. Frankly this set of tweets is about as incriminating as it gets for him.

"IT IS IN OUR BEST INTERESTS THAT THE TRIAL CONTINUES."

"A LONG TRIAL WAS THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE."

Qara: "Please tell me you haven't had any direct involvement in prolonging this trial."
Mr. A: "FINE. WE WON'T TELL YOU."

Now, his intentions here are probably good, just trying to make sure we can access Pan, but the end does not justify the means here. Mr. A has deliberately tampered with the justice system. You have no idea how angry that makes me. I'm honestly not sure if I can trust him any more.

I'm not condoning anything he's done, or making apologist statements.

But just remember: He's not human, and he does not function in a human framework. Blue and Orange Morality applies; from HIS perspective, it is unlikely that he has done anything morally wrong or even morally questionable.

I really hate to say it but I take more of a "Watcher's" standpoint when it comes to Mr. A. I don't trust him and I honestly don't think he should exist either.

Nevertheless there is nothing I can do about that. What angers me the most is his alleged tampering in the Pan trial. The justice system is there for a reason and compromising it's integrity really annoys me. It annoys me further that he may have done it because it "Is in their best interests".

Suddenly his interests become our interests?
This is ridiculous. The Metaguards need to become a collective if we are to accomplish ANYTHING really productive without causing things like this where we aren't given enough information and in some cases having information be deliberately withheld from us. Instead of being a collective of people trying to help reality we end up being a conglomerate of people following a man who is afraid of something he barely knows and who takes his orders from an omniscient group of miscommunicating potential liars.

And honestly, I would rather listen to Edward than Joe anyways.

TheJester wrote:I really hate to say it but I take more of a "Watcher's" standpoint when it comes to Mr. A. I don't trust him and I honestly don't think he should exist either.

Possibly me nitpicking here, but while your points are... pretty much the same points many of us have been batting about since forever, fair enough, I am confused by this particular line... 'he shouldn't exist?' I don't think whether or not somebody exists is really something we simple humans shoud be permitted to decide.

I think therefore I am, right? They certainly think.

I'd like to see if A would want to have a chat in the chatroom with us.
maybe ed and joe too.
get more info

eli_gone_crazy wrote:I'd like to see if A would want to have a chat in the chatroom with us.
maybe ed and joe too.
get more info

It would be too chaotic, the only way it would work is if only a few of us participated or a few of us filtered responses, neither of which are fun or completely fair to all the metaguards. The chat is not a good idea when we have 20 members throwing all forms of questions, insults, jokes, and answers in between the people we'd invite to it.

Adell wrote:

eli_gone_crazy wrote:I'd like to see if A would want to have a chat in the chatroom with us.
maybe ed and joe too.
get more info

It would be too chaotic, the only way it would work is if only a few of us participated or a few of us filtered responses, neither of which are fun or completely fair to all the metaguards. The chat is not a good idea when we have 20 members throwing all forms of questions, insults, jokes, and answers in between the people we'd invite to it.

what about on the forum?

there really isn't a way to make it both fair and non-chaotic. even the twitter AMA's are madness.

Adell, I made a suggestion in the chatroom thread after Morgan's visit which I think would work: we all agree to not type if we see the pencil beside someone else's name already. True, that requires everyone to agree, but if we see someone's disregarding the rules, then we can just ignore that person's pencil.

I think Eli's idea is a good one, actually. The biggest problem people seem to have, at least with Joe and A, is lack of communication. This is probably the best way to solve that.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Adell, I made a suggestion in the chatroom thread after Morgan's visit which I think would work: we all agree to not type if we see the pencil beside someone else's name already. True, that requires everyone to agree, but if we see someone's disregarding the rules, then we can just ignore that person's pencil.

I think Eli's idea is a good one, actually. The biggest problem people seem to have, at least with Joe and A, is lack of communication. This is probably the best way to solve that.

There's no way to enforce that though, Qara, and NOT everyone is gonna agree. In it's current form I think the chat would be a terrible idea to have a conversation with them.

Or we could open a separate, temporary chatroom like Xana did for his lecture, and host the dialogue there. Anyone who comes in agrees to abide by those rules.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Or we could open a separate, temporary chatroom like Xana did for his lecture, and host the dialogue there. Anyone who comes in agrees to abide by those rules.

This is getting off topic. However I will say, if there's a chat we can use that has options to help enforce rules like that, then I think it would be a good idea. As it stands now, it would be a mess. Personally, I think we're better off just talking on the forum. Back on topic now please.

Attempting to rerail, then and in the spirit of Pixel's theory over here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=757

You know how we question Mr A's trust in us? And his plans? I posit an idea for exactly what Mister A isn't being honest about.

Okay the character echos include both the character and a trope, right? And according to Pixel's theory, when the fictionals came through they brought tropes with them, like bringing a bit of their world with them so they could adjust to exist her rather than Reality Ensues suddeny throwing them all for a loop

nd the EchoChamber experiment was about, and I paraquote "incororpating the tropes they think of into their lives", in a way ficitonalising REALITY. (I know that that series is seperate from this ARG but the plans from EC season 23 may still hold hints as to what's going on -and what went wrong- this time.

So... maybe Mister A isn't really itnerested in the characters at all. They're just some kind of... interferrence. What he and the other instantations are interested in are the TROPES.

No clue what that means yet, but it could be the beginnings of an explanation as to what he's really planning... I might ask him about it.

I would just like to say that I really feel sorry for poor Mr. A right now. This evening he started being really nice to us and revealing all the info he had just found, including raw experimental data, and everyone jumped all over him for no good reason. I've already chastised some people about it, but to the rest of you, that was pretty much uncalled for. I'm rather disappointed in you.

I still don't get why he got scolded, actually. Did I miss something?

Dryunya wrote:I still don't get why he got scolded, actually. Did I miss something?

Best I could tell, it started when Mr. A tweeted the deadline to refictionalizing Quixote, which happened to be the day the doctors said he would die. This prompted Brad to tweet directly to Mr. A, asking why he didn't try to be so helpful back when it really needed. This opened up a wound in many of the metaguards who took this as an invitation to tear down Mr. A for all his past misdeeds. The more metaguards joined in, the more other metaguards felt comfortable joining in. Mob mentality and all that. Then things just rolled downhill collecting more moss, even when Mr. A revealed two crucial pieces of info, the boulder was already moving too fast, and no one could really appreciate what Mr. A was doing.

That's my analysis anyway. TLDR: Blame Bradcho.

I would like to point out to Rota, who did not seem to understand why A didn't say anything about the wall fragments, the fact that there was no way to inform US of the fragments AND make it sensible and workable from a meta standpoint while still avoiding plot holes from an in game POV. We discussed this before. Furthermore, if A really had told us about the pieces I would think he was a total idiot. Letting a huge amount of people who cannot help you in on the existence of some objects that you have no reason to believe are in danger? That's retarded!

Sicon112 wrote:I would like to point out to Rota, who did not seem to understand why A didn't say anything about the wall fragments, the fact that there was no way to inform US of the fragments AND make it sensible and workable from a meta standpoint while still avoiding plot holes from an in game POV. We discussed this before. Furthermore, if A really had told us about the pieces I would think he was a total idiot. Letting a huge amount of people who cannot help you in on the existence of some objects that you have no reason to believe are in danger? That's retarded!

Yeah, that's quite an equation -- informing US -- keeping things sensible and workable from a meta standpoint -- and still avoiding plot holes from an in game POV -- talk about Dystopia Is Hard!

Sicon112 wrote:I would like to point out to Rota, who did not seem to understand why A didn't say anything about the wall fragments, the fact that there was no way to inform US of the fragments AND make it sensible and workable from a meta standpoint while still avoiding plot holes from an in game POV. We discussed this before. Furthermore, if A really had told us about the pieces I would think he was a total idiot. Letting a huge amount of people who cannot help you in on the existence of some objects that you have no reason to believe are in danger? That's retarded!

I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was discussed before. Or maybe I forgot, but I just don't check the forums that often anymore. This thing has gotten so big, it almost feels like a chore to read up on everything in order to properly partake in the ARG. I hope I didn't screw anything up.

RotavatoR wrote:

Sicon112 wrote:I would like to point out to Rota, who did not seem to understand why A didn't say anything about the wall fragments, the fact that there was no way to inform US of the fragments AND make it sensible and workable from a meta standpoint while still avoiding plot holes from an in game POV. We discussed this before. Furthermore, if A really had told us about the pieces I would think he was a total idiot. Letting a huge amount of people who cannot help you in on the existence of some objects that you have no reason to believe are in danger? That's retarded!

I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was discussed before. Or maybe I forgot, but I just don't check the forums that often anymore. This thing has gotten so big, it almost feels like a chore to read up on everything in order to properly partake in the ARG. I hope I didn't screw anything up.

Rota, I agree, it's so big and complicated, and it's hard to even figure out *how* to partake and contribute, without screwing things up, or stirring up conflicts that have been settled, or missing puzzles and mysteries that are supposed to be solved.

On that note, I got into some discussion on a thread that started with controversy over secrecy, arced to AverageJoe weighing in on Sicon's role as team advisor, and which led to my referencing Mr. A, and finally Sicon's guidance to move Mr. A discussion to the Mr. A thread. That thread is at Blowing up all possible cover. and has a bunch of walls-of-text (a.k.a., bundles of a few paragraphs) that I think is a needle in the relative haystack of these forums, just as this thread is. And Personal Conclusions has additional relevant conversation about how things could play out, and what to do about it.

Of course, Poor Communication Kills, but that's made even more complex in such a complex situation. That trope points out that, "In fiction, one of the turning points in dramatic development was the ability not to communicate." It has *tons* of subtropes for a reason. With a few short weeks to go, how will it all play out? What are various people intending? What will lead to what?

Part of the challenge is that everyone, including Mr. A, is thinking "all I have to do is *my* part in all this," which is true, but when those parts aren't clear, things get complicated. Mr. A provides reassurances and guidelines, but he's also all about his whims, and reacting to problems as he and his instantiations sees them. Some Metaguards side with Mr. A, but others are more suspicious, and then there's the Cabal to think about. Even questioning Mr. A at times seems controversial, but the Cabal can do it, and supporting the Cabal also seems, to some, a legitimate move. (I'm still trying to figure out what they're about.)

In general, the principle of flow is relevant here. If something is too easy, it's boring. If something is impossibly hard, it's frustrating. Constantly having the rules of the game seemingly switched up is confusing. And yet, without some surprises, the whole progression of events could be calculated on the back of a napkin.

Some balance in between those extremes is needed to keep anyone, including Metaguards, engaged. Maybe that's why Mr. A has withheld information? Maybe there's another level of problem solving or creative thinking we're expected to do, or will have to do, in order to deal with the Gambit Pileup between various sides? Is it worth spending time reading these Walls of Text or discussing better strategies to keep up with new information, as this all continues to unfold?

Now, consider Mr. A's attitude in this twitter exchange, about how he can be SO SURE OF SUCCESS amid SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY:

https://twitter.com/YouHaveFailedUs/sta ... 1233116160

Mr. A referenced the trope Unspoken Plan Guarantee. "When the characters come up with a plan to save the day, its chances of success are inversely proportional to how much the audience knows about it beforehand."

So, Poor Communication Kills, but an Unspoken Plan will Guarantee Mr. A's success, even though he denies running a Xanatos Gambit where he'd automatically succeed. (If that were the case, he wouldn't have much cause to complain, scold, panic, and sulk, now, would he?

Another Mr. A twitter exchange that indicates what we are dealing with:

https://twitter.com/YouHaveFailedUs/sta ... 3409397761 (Click for context and follow-up.)

"UNLIKELY. BESIDES, THERE IS NO TIME TO BRACE FOR SUCH A POSSIBILITY. THEREFORE, YOU MUST HOPE IT IS NOT THE CASE."

How much time do people spend in the Coffee Room? How much time do Mr. A instantiations spend doing whatever it is they do rather than whatever else it is they could be doing?

My response to Mr. A: "That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise, it's an arbitrary demand. And besides, Hope Is Scary"

Hope that there is a Third Option is nightmarishly scary to Mr. A, while Mr. A's hope for an Unspoken Plan Guarantee might turn out to be just as much of a guarantee as Enron.

Enron The Smartest Guys In The Room
"Sooner or later, they were doomed to go off that cliff at 90 miles an hour. It's astounding that they got away with it for so long. In reality, Enron was a house of cards. What we didn't know, was that it was built on a pool of gasoline. It all sort of became smoke and mirrors..."

Another classic Mr. A line was produced today:

"@Dryunya THAT BRIDGE MUST BE CROSSED WHEN WE ARRIVE AT IT. IN THE MEANTIME, THERE IS ONLY ONE BRIDGE LEADING FORWARD."

https://twitter.com/YouHaveFailedUs/sta ... 0244297728

GlyphSun's response sums it up well: "Have you considered checking the map? Maybe you missed a bridge somewhere v.v"

How many bridges is Mr. A missing, given that his Unspoken Plan Guarantee (or Xanatos Gambit) *guarantees* that he will never look at a map?

The new wall piece dilemma has reminded me.

Mr. A "cries lightning". The characters appear (and, apparently, disappear) with something resembling a lightning flash. Notice a pattern?

Me neither.

Dryunya wrote:The new wall piece dilemma has reminded me.

Mr. A "cries lightning". The characters appear (and, apparently, disappear) with something resembling a lightning flash. Notice a pattern?

Me neither.

Haha. That gets at a fundamental question of how patterns are identified and applied. There's a concept, apophenia, that describes a tendency to see patterns where none exist. Moral psychologist David Pizarro summed up the idea of "everyday apophenia" as his answer to Edge.org's question "what scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?" http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_16.html

everyday apophenia wrote:The human brain is an amazing pattern-detecting machine. We possess a variety of mechanisms that allow us to uncover hidden relationships between objects, events, and people. Without these, the sea of data hitting our senses would surely appear random and chaotic. But when our pattern-detection systems misfire they tend to err in the direction of perceiving patterns where none actually exist.

The German neurologist Klaus Conrad coined the term "Apophenia" to describe this tendency in patients suffering from certain forms of mental illness. But it is increasingly clear from a variety of findings in the behavioral sciences that this tendency is not limited to ill or uneducated minds; healthy, intelligent people make similar errors on a regular basis: a superstitious athlete sees a connection between victory and a pair of socks, a parent refuses to vaccinate her child because of a perceived causal connection between inoculation and disease, a scientist sees hypothesis-confirming results in random noise, and thousands of people believe the random "shuffle" function on their music software is broken because they mistake spurious coincidence for meaningful connection.

In short, the pattern-detection that is responsible for so much of our species' success can just as easily betray us. This tendency to oversee patterns is likely an inevitable by-product of our adaptive pattern-detecting mechanisms. But the ability to acknowledge, track, and guard against this potentially dangerous tendency would be aided if the simple concept of "everyday Apophenia" were an easily accessible concept.

I like connecting ideas together and looking for meaning in various juxtapositions, but I'm not looking to find completely meaningless patterns. Sometimes things seem significant that aren't, and sometimes things that are significant don't seem so. How do you figure out what's what? I'm trying to get a sense of the underlying character depths and narrative structure of Mr. A and all these other characters. It may be a lost cause, as just following his orders would be enough to finish the game, by his definition. Is it worth digging deeper, and in so doing keep Mr. A on his toes?

If nothing else, there's strange comedy in the juxtaposition of some of the things he says.