Mr. A

[Dryunya]

His mentions of the letter (that is definitely not there, no sir) have surpassed all sane limits, so he is clearly doing it on purpose (or he's such a Bad Liar it's unbelievable). I think he is hinting at it against A-Prime's will.

[H22]

We have no idea who to trust here. I mean, can we trust some Mr. As but not others? If there's an infinite number, some will inherently be untrustworthy, possibly the problem with Pan. Eventually, we're up against a faceless bureaucracy ( ) which we have no power over. The fact remains, however, he is (or has been) trying to help us. The GMs always seem to have hidden motives, but (unless they want a Broken Base) they can't be too subtle. If he is untrustworthy, he probably wouldn't have helped us extraneous to the simple interest of the plot, which he has. We can trust him but make our own decisions, or we can distance ourselves from him and watch information disappear. Not necessarily cautious, but intelligent, trust is the only way of pursuing this, I think. I personally think he's just Bad With People, but it's worth drawing your own conclusions.

[narrativedilettante]

Okay, he keeps mentioning "the letter" in response to tweets that don't say anything about a letter, so yes, I'm definitely jumping on board the "there is a letter at one or all of the statues" theory. I don't quite get why Mr. A is doing this whole "I'm not telling you anything while secretly telling you everything" deal, but maybe it will make sense once we find the letter. With Layar, as he seems to be suggesting. Oh wait, I mean definitely not suggesting at all.

[Dryunya]

The letters are being discussed in the echo thread. And yes, he has confirmed the letter.

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

FINE. THERE MIGHT BE A LETTER. BUT ITS CONTENTS DRAW A CONCLUSION FROM AN INADEQUATE DATA SET.

See, if he'd said this from the start, I would have been a lot happier. But I'm happy now, provided I can get that letter.

[Scarab]

FINE. THERE MIGHT BE A LETTER. BUT ITS CONTENTS DRAW A CONCLUSION FROM AN INADEQUATE DATA SET.

See, if he'd said this from the start, I would have been a lot happier. But I'm happy now, provided I can get that letter.

So in other words he IS now saying 'look okay there's a letter but you shouldn't trust what it says.'

I'm still half sold on the idea that he MAY just be incredibly bad at communication, possibly some morethan others (it's very strange and confusing to think we might not all be talking to the same Mister A at any one given time). Asides from that, pretty much all the points you made here have me nodding my head sooo alas, I don't think I have anything to add here. All I know is, I sense a schism coming, whether the GMs want one or not. And we are still lacking any ACTUAL catastrophies that point to the Fictionals causing damage to the world.

We've already STARTED the refictionalisation process... can we stop now?

[paradisedj32]

You see, THIS is the thing: all we know is that Mr. A is claiming that reality is in trouble (Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence),as well as the occasional cloudcookoolander going on a disjointed rant about it, and we KNOW there are distortions in reality (the echos). Reality collapsing is not completely out of the question and we know Mr A is not completely lying. BUT....

The one person who is a regular, (seemingly) right in the head source of claims of reality collapsing is (becomeing) rather suspicious, and, although the echos DO exist, they are few, far between, and have shown no signs of directly damaging reality nor growing into something else that IS harmfull. Finaly, they are only visible via a smartphone virtual reality app, meaning that few will notice them by accident, and most will dismiss it as some sort of a prank by people of the internet. (gee, I wonder who would get the blame for that if someone found out and decided to investigate RIGHT NOW....)

Now,WHY do I go on and on bringing up this issue? Because weather or not reality is going to get warped is nothing more than the ONE thing that decides weather refictionalization makes us HEROES or COMPLETE MONSTERS. If realitiy is not under threat, we are stripping innocent being of all their freedom for a false cause, and my greatest fear is finding out about that AFTER we have done so. And if we find out before we do so, as Scarab said, can we stop?

So, there are questions I want Mr. A to anwser: What kind damage can the echoes do? How long before they multiply to th point of being noticable by the populace? (When)will they mutate into/spawn something this is alot more visible? If Mr. A. is truly certain of the collapse of reality, he should at least be able to give SOME SORT of predictions about what will happen is we fail to complete refictionalization.

(TL/DR: Mr a is getting suspicious, and If reality is going to die, mr a should at least be able to provide evidence or predictions of what is going to happen is we don't intervene. Weather reality is warping or not will make refictionalization heroic or monstrous)

I apologise if my lloooonnnggg post is ultimatly pointless or in the wrong place, but I feel the need to get this out.

[Dryunya]

I don't really see the problem. Mr. A says he is unable to provide the evidence until it becomes too late, and it is quite possible. Considering that we are in control of the endings we send the characters to, AND can leave them open-ended, giving them free will, I'd say we are definitely not monstrous. What we do may be inconvenient to some of them, but that's about it.

While I certainly would like to have more proof, I still would like to go meta and point out that there's no way the GMs can leave the characters here.

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

The one person who is a regular, (seemingly) right in the head source of claims of reality collapsing is (becomeing) rather suspicious, and, although the echos DO exist, they are few, far between, and have shown no signs of directly damaging reality nor growing into something else that IS harmfull. Finaly, they are only visible via a smartphone virtual reality app, meaning that few will notice them by accident, and most will dismiss it as some sort of a prank by people of the internet. (gee, I wonder who would get the blame for that if someone found out and decided to investigate RIGHT NOW....)

I will not beat a dead horse. I will not beat a dead horse. I will not beat a dead horse.
I will not beat a dead horse, but I feel compelled to say SOMETHING, so I'm only responding to those parts of your argument that I don't feel have been beaten to death already.

First, you claim the echoes are "few and far between". This is not the case. There's no PATTERN to their appearance, but we've been known to get two or three echoes on one day, and we currently have four (five, if you include the letter) unaccessed echoes that we need to locate, and more on the way. We have twelve fictionals who as far as we know will still be producing echoes, and if you check the echo forum you'll find that we have had a GREAT many echoes already.

Second, you claim that the unlikelihood of people noticing the echoes makes them harmless. I would say the opposite is true. That just means that more people will be unaware of the potential danger they are in, and unaware to deal with it accordingly.

I would address the remaining fallacies that I feel are present in your argument, but I have promised myself that I WILL NOT BEAT A DEAD HORSE.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

I for one enjoy a good dead horse beating every once in a while, but I will make this brief, just to address the idea that sending these characters back to their homes makes us complete monsters.

Regardless of how many times people here have said it, I have never been able to understand why what we're doing is bad. I hear the terms "playing god" tossed around a lot, and every time my only response is, "I love God". Nobody's really been able to convince me that what we're doing is morally wrong.

For one thing, it's not like we're sending all of these characters into a world of endless torture. On the contrary, we're writing happy endings for them, which is a good thing. I don't necessarily believe that we need to give them open-ended endings, as long as the ending we give them is happy. If they have to live through the same story again and again, it's nice that it be a good one that ends happily every time. I for one believe that eternal happiness trumps free will...Which leads to my next point...

Free will is overrated. I've been reluctant to post this argument for some time, because, for one, it makes me sound like the supervillain from the Avengers movie, and for another, I know it's a point most of you will fundamentally disagree with. We tend to value freedom and free will, and although I value it too, I'll also admit that it's a double edged sword. Yes, it's great to be able to make your own decisions and to be able to make the right choices and to earn your own awards. But on the other hand, you also have the freedom to make bad choices and suffer the consequences of your actions.

And now to a point that I think has been argued at least once before is, are we even robbing them of their free will? As a writer, I can tell you that the majority of the characters I write, more or less, write themselves. Yes, I do create the characters and their backstories and their set of circumstances, but when it comes to their actions inside the story, more often then not, they're the ones that tell me what they want to do, and I just write it. It seems to me they still do have free will even in their stories. Their writers can't make them do anything that they wouldn't normally do given their personalities and philosophies.

[Dryunya]

I wanted to post a dead-horse-beating pic, but resisted it.

[Scarab]

I can tell you that the majority of the characters I write, more or less, write themselves. Yes, I do create the characters and their backstories and their set of circumstances, but when it comes to their actions inside the story, more often then not, they're the ones that tell me what they want to do, and I just write it. It seems to me they still do have free will even in their stories. Their writers can't make them do anything that they wouldn't normally do given their personalities and philosophies.

Trying to avoid the dead Horse part of this debate but I've got to say - I'm a writer too and I have NEVER had that. I think the diea that characters write themselves is based on a fallacy. Of course this is entirely possibly just because I'm not very good at writing characters, but every single action my characters mke are actions that *I* dictated they would make by analysing the perosnality I gave them, and deciding what options I personally would take if I were that kind of person. People do on and on about 'characters being alive' and 'the troublesome ones making the boo kcome to life' but every character is the product of ME not some vague, indefinable use, transferring their thoughts to my head (again, perhaps I'm just not a great writer, who knows really).

I do not allow this fact to excuse the Cabal or any other fictional their actions, however, as me having created their personality (and indeed, the scenarios which LEAD to that personality) does not mean that these characters would be any less responsible for their behaviour if they were to enter the real world. Even if I gave them their personality, they exercised it as they chose.

[Sicon112]

If they have to live through the same story again and again, it's nice that it be a good one that ends happily every time.

I just feel I should point out to Wacky that it seems very odd and strange for characters to be forced to live through some kind of loops for all eternity. It doesn't mesh with our model of reality, with its multiple layers, at all. Also, if that were true, you would think Holmes, Poirot, Quixote, and all of the rest would have commented something about it. They do not even know their whole stories. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the character's worlds merely exist just as our world does, governed by forward moving time.

As for the rest of it, I suppose I can see where you are coming from. I could speak more on that subject, but I'm afraid I am away from my home and very busy today, so farewell.

[Victin]

I just feel I should point out to Wacky that it seems very odd and strange for characters to be forced to live through some kind of loops for all eternity. It doesn't mesh with our model of reality, with its multiple layers, at all. Also, if that were true, you would think Holmes, Poirot, Quixote, and all of the rest would have commented something about it. They do not even know their whole stories. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the character's worlds merely exist just as our world does, governed by forward moving time.

As for the rest of it, I suppose I can see where you are coming from. I could speak more on that subject, but I'm afraid I am away from my home and very busy today, so farewell.

I don't think it's a loop. I think it's like that theory that says that everytime happens at the same time.

[Sicon112]

I can tell you that the majority of the characters I write, more or less, write themselves. Yes, I do create the characters and their backstories and their set of circumstances, but when it comes to their actions inside the story, more often then not, they're the ones that tell me what they want to do, and I just write it. It seems to me they still do have free will even in their stories. Their writers can't make them do anything that they wouldn't normally do given their personalities and philosophies.

Trying to avoid the dead Horse part of this debate but I've got to say - I'm a writer too and I have NEVER had that. I think the diea that characters write themselves is based on a fallacy. Of course this is entirely possibly just because I'm not very good at writing characters, but every single action my characters mke are actions that *I* dictated they would make by analysing the perosnality I gave them, and deciding what options I personally would take if I were that kind of person. People do on and on about 'characters being alive' and 'the troublesome ones making the boo kcome to life' but every character is the product of ME not some vague, indefinable use, transferring their thoughts to my head (again, perhaps I'm just not a great writer, who knows really).

I do not allow this fact to excuse the Cabal or any other fictional their actions, however, as me having created their personality (and indeed, the scenarios which LEAD to that perosnality) does not mean that these characters would be any less responsible for their behaviour if they were to enter the real world. Even if I gave them their personality, they exercised it as they chose.

Maybe that doesn't happen for you, but I have yet to have a character that doesn't boss me around. I rarely know what any of my characters will do in a situation, I just give it to them and see what comes of it.

[Sicon112]

I just feel I should point out to Wacky that it seems very odd and strange for characters to be forced to live through some kind of loops for all eternity. It doesn't mesh with our model of reality, with its multiple layers, at all. Also, if that were true, you would think Holmes, Poirot, Quixote, and all of the rest would have commented something about it. They do not even know their whole stories. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the character's worlds merely exist just as our world does, governed by forward moving time.

As for the rest of it, I suppose I can see where you are coming from. I could speak more on that subject, but I'm afraid I am away from my home and very busy today, so farewell.

I don't think it's a loop. I think it's like that theory that says that everytime happens at the same time.

It's not that they all happen at the same time, it is that times of difference worlds are completely disconnected from each other. It is meaningless to try to translate the time of one world to another. Wacky seems to think there was an endless loop, probably the theory that they repeated their lives every time someone reads their story, which the actions of many of our fictionals have already thrown into doubt.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

Trying to avoid the dead Horse part of this debate but I've got to say - I'm a writer too and I have NEVER had that. I think the diea that characters write themselves is based on a fallacy. Of course this is entirely possibly just because I'm not very good at writing characters, but every single action my characters mke are actions that *I* dictated they would make by analysing the perosnality I gave them, and deciding what options I personally would take if I were that kind of person. People do on and on about 'characters being alive' and 'the troublesome ones making the boo kcome to life' but every character is the product of ME not some vague, indefinable use, transferring their thoughts to my head (again, perhaps I'm just not a great writer, who knows really).

Your process sounds nearly identical to what I'm describing, only you seem to be a bit more concsious about it, and to be honest, half of the time the process is like this for me. But the more I get to know a character, the more the process of analyzing and then deciding on the character's actions becomes so much like second nature, that it's like the character himself is acting of his own accord. Of course, when I speak of a character 'being alive', it's really more of a metaphorical way of describing what you just described. Either way, in the terms of discussing whether these characters still have free will in their stories, it has the same effect. We, as authors, cannot force them to do anything that would be out of their character to do, without seriously damaging the story.

(Also, I don't think you're a bad writer. Most likely, it's just a matter that different writers have different approaches. We're not all the same.)

I just feel I should point out to Wacky that it seems very odd and strange for characters to be forced to live through some kind of loops for all eternity. It doesn't mesh with our model of reality, with its multiple layers, at all. Also, if that were true, you would think Holmes, Poirot, Quixote, and all of the rest would have commented something about it. They do not even know their whole stories. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the character's worlds merely exist just as our world does, governed by forward moving time.

Again, this is another case in which I was talking more metaphorically then literally, imagining that every time a particular story is read, performed, interpreted, or thought about, the characters live through the story each time. But every time, it's new for them, because they do not retain the memories from having lived through the story any of the previous times. Like each telling of the story happens in it's own isolated bubble, and there are many iterations. This is my own model any time I think about stories as being real, even before participating in this ARG, and may or may not correspond with this ARG, but I have seen nothing so far that has contradicted it, so I'm sticking with it.

[Sicon112]

Again, this is another case in which I was talking more metaphorically then literally, imagining that every time a particular story is read, performed, interpreted, or thought about, the characters live through the story each time. But every time, it's new for them, because they do not retain the memories from having lived through the story any of the previous times. Like each telling of the story happens in it's own isolated bubble, and there are many iterations. This is my own model any time I think about stories as being real, even before participating in this ARG, and may or may not correspond with this ARG, but I have seen nothing so far that has contradicted it, so I'm sticking with it.

Actually, it does contradict the EC based model of alternate self-contained universes by relating time across worlds. Simple version: The Witch disproved it with her experiments on dimensional travel.

Essentially, that model assumes time relates directly to a fictional universe, therefore it can no longer be a self contained universe, but more like a spinoff that is still fundamentally connected to our world, but just doesn't correspond directly to points in our space-time. If that were true, the Witch would have been able to access her world via a wormhole or some other means, since it would still be connected. Since she cannot,t hat means our worlds have a gap between them, the fifth dimension of the void, and therefore cannot relate directly through time. Mr. A made some tweets recently relevant to the situation, about time not really working in the void. That just further points to the disconnected universe theory of the meta-verse model.

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

Speaking of Mr. A, news from the twitterverse! A has finally learned how to hug! (He also learned what a glomp was, but he was unnerved by it.)

I now defy anyone to dislike a being who can hug that adorably.

[WackyMeetsPractical]

Again, this is another case in which I was talking more metaphorically then literally, imagining that every time a particular story is read, performed, interpreted, or thought about, the characters live through the story each time. But every time, it's new for them, because they do not retain the memories from having lived through the story any of the previous times. Like each telling of the story happens in it's own isolated bubble, and there are many iterations. This is my own model any time I think about stories as being real, even before participating in this ARG, and may or may not correspond with this ARG, but I have seen nothing so far that has contradicted it, so I'm sticking with it.

Actually, it does contradict the EC based model of alternate self-contained universes by relating time across worlds. Simple version: The Witch disproved it with her experiments on dimensional travel.

Essentially, that model assumes time relates directly to a fictional universe, therefore it can no longer be a self contained universe, but more like a spinoff that is still fundamentally connected to our world, but just doesn't correspond directly to points in our space-time. If that were true, the Witch would have been able to access her world via a wormhole or some other means, since it would still be connected. Since she cannot,t hat means our worlds have a gap between them, the fifth dimension of the void, and therefore cannot relate directly through time. Mr. A made some tweets recently relevant to the situation, about time not really working in the void. That just further points to the disconnected universe theory of the meta-verse model.

You see, when you read all that, you see a valid argument against my case. But when I read that, all I see is BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH SCIENCE STUFF FAKE SCIENCE STUFF SOMETHING ABOUT A WITCH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Can I get that in english?

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

Can I get that in english?

Time here is not attached to time in other worlds. That's why the witch couldn't go home using her Mad Science.

Laconic enough for ya?

[Sicon112]

You see, when you read all that, you see a valid argument against my case. But when I read that, all I see is BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH SCIENCE STUFF FAKE SCIENCE STUFF SOMETHING ABOUT A WITCH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Can I get that in english?

Sorry. Short and simple it is, then. See, the Witch tried to use a wormhole to access Oz and failed. The reason she gave was that the two universes were totally separate. According to her, wormholes allow you to travel to AUs and stuff, and possibly through time, but that is it. Since Oz is a world different from our own, it cannot be reached through wormholes. That was what she found out with her research.

So, from that we conclude that Oz, and by association all other fiction based worlds, are separated from us by some other barrier, which obviously, is the fourth wall/void. Since the worlds are separate, the "time" coordinate of each (think of a point on a timeline) is totally separate as well. It's like if someone made a timeline for the events of Sherlock Holmes' novels, and then a timeline for the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. The two lines wouldn't connect at all, or have anything to do with each other. Therefore, the actions of people in this world, in this case the reading of the stories in question, cannot affect the timelines of the other worlds.

Instead, what happens is just like what happens when you look at a timeline. You can look at any point on the line and figure out what happened there, but you don't make any change to the original event by doing so. Essentially, we are, by reading stories, looking through the book into a slice of their world, their timeline.

Make sense?

EDIT: Or... Qara could just say that.....

Look, I'm not good at this laconic thing, OK?

[WackyMeetsPractical]

You see, when you read all that, you see a valid argument against my case. But when I read that, all I see is BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH SCIENCE STUFF FAKE SCIENCE STUFF SOMETHING ABOUT A WITCH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Can I get that in english?

Sorry. Short and simple it is, then. See, the Witch tried to use a wormhole to access Oz and failed. The reason she gave was that the two universes were totally separate. According to her, wormholes allow you to travel to AUs and stuff, and possibly through time, but that is it. Since Oz is a world different from our own, it cannot be reached through wormholes. That was what she found out with her research.

So, from that we conclude that Oz, and by association all other fiction based worlds, are separated from us by some other barrier, which obviously, is the fourth wall/void. Since the worlds are separate, the "time" coordinate of each (think of a point on a timeline) is totally separate as well. It's like if someone made a timeline for the events of Sherlock Holmes' novels, and then a timeline for the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. The two lines wouldn't connect at all, or have anything to do with each other. Therefore, the actions of people in this world, in this case the reading of the stories in question, cannot affect the timelines of the other worlds.

Instead, what happens is just like what happens when you look at a timeline. You can look at any point on the line and figure out what happened there, but you don't make any change to the original event by doing so. Essentially, we are, by reading stories, looking through the book into a slice of their world, their timeline.

Make sense?

EDIT: Or... Qara could just say that.....

Look, I'm not good at this laconic thing, OK?

I'm sorry. I still don't follow. I think I get what you're trying to say, but it's like you're jumping from point A to point B without anything connecting them. I understand that the witch can't get there using wormholes, but then you use that to prove that the stories have their own timelines, then I get lost. I mean, maybe the wormholes just don't lead to the story worlds. Maybe it has nothing to do with how time there interacts with ours. I don't know, maybe I'm just being dumb. Forget it, I'm never going to be able to understand it.

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

Wacky-- wormholes let you go from Point A, at 12:00, to Point B, at 12:00, a split second later.

The witch could not get through a wormhole from Point A to Point B because her Point B was not at the right time.

This is because our time and time in her universe are not synced up.

[Sicon112]

I'm sorry. I still don't follow. I think I get what you're trying to say, but it's like you're jumping from point A to point B without anything connecting them. I understand that the witch can't get there using wormholes, but then you use that to prove that the stories have their own timelines, then I get lost. I mean, maybe the wormholes just don't lead to the story worlds. Maybe it has nothing to do with how time there interacts with ours. I don't know, maybe I'm just being dumb. Forget it, I'm never going to be able to understand it.

It is because the fact that wormholes cannot reach fictional worlds means that those worlds are separated from our own. The wormholes cannot reach them because, as the Witch explains, they are separate universes. Time coordinates exist only within a universe, and are disconnected when the universes are. It's like if you take the exact global coordinates of wherever you are, and then go to those same coordinates in Oz. They would be two different places, right?