Page 3 of 3
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:56 pmby WackyMeetsPractical
Scarab wrote:WackyMeetsPractical wrote:Have we ever been in good favor with the Cabal? Do we want to be? As for everyone else, they should take this as a warning not to join the Cabal.
...Sorry if I sound rude here, but you're impyling it's okay to use our powers as a threat against anyone who might join the Cabal?
We have absolutely NO good reason to threaten most of these people. Romeo, Juliet, Peter, Adam, Holmes, Poirot... they have done us NO harm at all, some ofthem have even benefitted people in this world. Excluding the risk of worldly collapse, this world is BETTER for havinga Poirot and a Holmes around, there are real people who can attest to that. Even the Wicked Witch has been pretty harmless. We can't go throwing around our ability like that.
I'm not threatening anybody. Or even implying we should. Read my words carefully. I said they should take it as a warning. It's no more a threat than a mother telling her child not to stick a fork in an electrical socket is threatening him. We like these guys, and we want them to have happy endings. But they should know that if they do align themselves against us like the Cabal, no good can come from it.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:11 pmby Scarab
WackyMeetsPractical wrote:
I'm not threatening anybody. Or even implying we should. Read my words carefully. I said they should take it as a warning. It's no more a threat than a mother telling her child not to stick a fork in an electrical socket is threatening him. We like these guys, and we want them to have happy endings. But they should know that if they do align themselves against us like the Cabal, no good can come from it.
I dunno, man, using the word 'warning' in the context of 'you better not do this', just after we'd been discussing the possibility of writing the bad guys into horrible stories, in your sentence seems pretty implicational to me :/ I think it's understandable that I got confused.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:27 pmby Zup
If anything, I want to write a story where the Cabal is humiliated, not killed. It's more effective to make a villain laughable then to kill them off.
Speaking of which, I think my story for Morgana will involve a change of heart (not literally) and clown school...
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:29 pmby Scarab
Zup wrote:If anything, I want to write a story where the Cabal is humiliated, not killed. It's more effective to make a villain laughable then to kill them off.
Speaking of which, I think my story for Morgana will involve a change of heart (not literally) and clown school...
Yes, not being taken seriously is more damaging to many of them than death.. .shame the story has to be realistic to their situation and perosnality, or it won't work >.>
Urgh, well I'm trying to be moral about all this and take the high ground, but... damn it, they've gone too far.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:47 pmby Jeroic9
Wait, do we need to find Moriarty''s echo, or could it be possible to pair him with Holmes? I know supposedly Romeo and Juliet are the only pair, but a rivalry so fierce as that....
At the least, I hope we send Moriarty back before Holmes. certainly preferable to the other way around.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:00 pmby Tohrinha
Jeroic9 wrote:Wait, do we need to find Moriarty''s echo, or could it be possible to pair him with Holmes? I know supposedly Romeo and Juliet are the only pair, but a rivalry so fierce as that....
At the least, I hope we send Moriarty back before Holmes. certainly preferable to the other way around.
We'll need to find an echo for Moriarty. He doesn't factor into Holmes's current echo.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:46 amby Scarab
Tohrinha wrote:Jeroic9 wrote:Wait, do we need to find Moriarty''s echo, or could it be possible to pair him with Holmes? I know supposedly Romeo and Juliet are the only pair, but a rivalry so fierce as that....
At the least, I hope we send Moriarty back before Holmes. certainly preferable to the other way around.
We'll need to find an echo for Moriarty. He doesn't factor into Holmes's current echo.
Mm, yeah and we have a fair few to go, at this point. Lots of echoes to find.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:09 pmby Dryunya
Dryunya wrote:Now that I think about that, they all share an echo. Maybe the procedure will be somehow different for the Cabal.
Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Although... They're all on the cover page together, but there's another echo which just has one or two of them. Maybe we'll have to take the tropes from the comic for ALL of them, but refictionalize separately?
WackyMeetsPractical wrote:Holmes and Poirot share an echo. Does that mean they must go back together? Silver and Gulliver too.
Your comment, Mr. A?
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:34 pmby Genndy Oda C.O.G.
Are we allowed to call in authors unrelated to the ARG for this?
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:03 pmby Mr. Administrator
WackyMeetsPractical wrote:Holmes and Poirot share an echo. Does that mean they must go back together? Silver and Gulliver too.
THE CHARACTER WHOSE POSTS LED YOU TO THE ECHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THAT ECHO.
THE ONLY KNOWN EXCEPTION IS ROMEO & JULIET, WHO WERE SO INEXTRICABLY TIED TOGETHER BY TROPES WHEN THEY CROSSED THAT THEY MUST BE RETURNED IN THE SAME STORY.
Are we allowed to call in authors unrelated to the ARG for this?
YOU ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO INVOLVE MORE AGENTS AT EVERY POINT DURING THIS CRISIS.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:04 pmby Genndy Oda C.O.G.
Mr. Administrator wrote:Are we allowed to call in authors unrelated to the ARG for this?
YOU ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO INVOLVE MORE AGENTS AT EVERY POINT OF THE STORY.
I'm on it.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:07 pmby Genndy Oda C.O.G.
Alright. I asked Brian Randall, of Kyon: BDH fame, to help. Hopefully, he'll be able to write a tale to trap our freed fictionals.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:56 amby Dryunya
This question arose with Peter Pan's plotline: do the fictionals have to have their story read to them? Because that seemed to be the case with Cinderella, and is going to be the case with Todd. If I am correct, then Pan's getting into jail will be troublesome.
Also, tell us about the refictionalization of corpses you mentioned.
On a side note, why didn't you visit us on the appreciation day? 
EDIT: One more question. Now that the refictionalization truly begins, we need to know what to do with those who don't want to leave. Moral dilemmas aside, is it possible to refictionalize a character who refuses to cooperate?
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Sun Nov 11, 2012 3:14 amby Terrac1
Dryunya wrote:EDIT: One more question. Now that the refictionalization truly begins, we need to know what to do with those who don't want to leave. Moral dilemmas aside, is it possible to refictionalize a character who refuses to cooperate?
Mister Administrator wrote:OUR AGENTS HAVE FOUND ENOUGH ECHOES TO REFICTIONALIZE HOLMES, GULLIVER, AND ADAM FRANKENSTEIN. CONTACT THESE CHARACTERS IF YOU WISH TO KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE READY TO GO BACK. HOWEVER, IF THEY RESIST, YOU ARE FREE TO USE WHATEVER METHODS YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE
From this I'd gather that it's possible but undesirable.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:58 amby Mr. Administrator
Terrac1 wrote:Dryunya wrote:EDIT: One more question. Now that the refictionalization truly begins, we need to know what to do with those who don't want to leave. Moral dilemmas aside, is it possible to refictionalize a character who refuses to cooperate?
Mister Administrator wrote:OUR AGENTS HAVE FOUND ENOUGH ECHOES TO REFICTIONALIZE HOLMES, GULLIVER, AND ADAM FRANKENSTEIN. CONTACT THESE CHARACTERS IF YOU WISH TO KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE READY TO GO BACK. HOWEVER, IF THEY RESIST, YOU ARE FREE TO USE WHATEVER METHODS YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE
From this I'd gather that it's possible but undesirable.
CORRECT. ULTIMATELY THE STABILITY OF REALITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THEIR COMFORT AND HAPPINESS, BUT IT IS OBVIOUSLY PREFERABLE IF THE PROCESS IS AMICABLE.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:15 pmby Mr. Administrator
OUR RAW DATA FROM THE SEISMETAGRAPH IS INCLUDED BELOW:
- Code: Select all
20-8-5 23-1-12-12 23-9-12-12 6-1-12-12 21 12 20 12
WE HAVE OUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF THIS DATA, BUT SINCE YOU ARE ALWAYS REQUESTING MORE EVIDENCE, WE WILL WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE INTERPRETED IT FIRST.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:23 pmby Krika
Those translate to "THE WALL WILL FALL U L T L". Exactly.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:41 pmby Blurred_9L
So according to Krika and the chatoom. The wall falls on the solstice 21st of december. Is that it?
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:45 pmby Mr. Administrator
OUR INTERPRETATION OF OUR INSTRUMENTS INDICATES THAT THE WALL WILL BECOME CRITICALLY UNSTABLE ON 21 DECEMBER 2012.
THE REFICTIONALIZATION OF THE CHARACTERS MUST BE COMPLETE BY THAT TIME, OR WE CANNOT PREDICT WHAT MAY HAPPEN.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:46 pmby Endless Sea
Called it.
(DF called it first, but I was the one spamming the chatroom about it. :P)
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:53 pmby Blurred_9L
Mr. Administrator wrote:OUR INTERPRETATION OF OUR INSTRUMENTS INDICATES THAT THE WALL WILL BECOME CRITICALLY UNSTABLE ON 21 DECEMBER 2012.
THE REFICTIONALIZATION OF THE CHARACTERS MUST BE COMPLETE BY THAT TIME, OR WE CANNOT PREDICT WHAT MAY HAPPEN.
So when we refictionalize all the characters... then what?
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:58 pmby Mr. Administrator
THEN YOUR WORK IS DONE.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:00 pmby Blurred_9L
And if we happened to fail, then we will be left with an unstable reality that might collapse at any time. Nice >.<
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:33 amby Dryunya
Endless Sea wrote:Called it.
Called it back in the megathread
(beatch).
That's so appropriate. If the apocalypse doesn't happen, I'll brag about it all the time.
Ok, srsly now. We're fscked, people.
Re: REFICTIONALIZATION Q&A
Posted:
Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:04 amby The Finch
Mr. Administrator wrote:OUR RAW DATA FROM THE SEISMETAGRAPH IS INCLUDED BELOW:
- Code: Select all
20-8-5 23-1-12-12 23-9-12-12 6-1-12-12 21 12 20 12
WE HAVE OUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF THIS DATA, BUT SINCE YOU ARE ALWAYS REQUESTING MORE EVIDENCE, WE WILL WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE INTERPRETED IT FIRST.
Welp. December 21st. Doomsday.
This isn't just the fate of fiction anymore. This is now the fate of all of the people in the entire world, hell, the ENTIRE EARTH itself! WE MUST GET THEM BACK IN, OR THE WORST WILL HAPPEN.