Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8699607" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I've literally never seen or heard of this. Ever. You are the first person to ever speak of such a thing to me.Then you aren't talking to anyone in this thread, because both the opening post and essentially everyone since then has been. Like, as much as I may hold the written text of the opening post to account for what read like fig-leaf excuses, it DOES actually explicitly say to not take away the players' agency. That's literally part of the topic.Okay. Now...what if that one person (because it only takes one!) is expected to be involved in most activities because, say, they're your spouse and you really love to include them in the things you do? You'd be terribly disrespectful to throw those surprise parties knowing you'd be dragging your spouse into a party they would legitimately dislike attending.That does not sound good to me. "I want my players to not think much of anything." That's...what? I want my players to be thinking constantly! I yearn for their critique.Then I will consider the point conceded; if you refuse to refute the examples, then your claim that there is no such thing as a well-meaning but still wrong deception has been given two counter-examples.Again, you are thinking of this as "I want to check in on the things my child likes." That is not what I am saying.I am saying that this parent literally doesn't even allow their child the possibility of meeting someone, AT ALL, EVER, that has not been pre-approved. The child is kept inside an enclosed bubble. The only people allowed into that bubble are EXCLUSIVELY those the parent has approved in advance. She cannot meet a friend and ask for the parent's approval. She will ONLY be allowed to even START meeting people after those people have been reviewed and approved by the parent. And she is never told this. She thinks she meets people just because they're people she happens to have run into. This is false. Literally no person she has ever met, in her entire life, is someone that her parent has not, in advance, reviewed and deemed acceptable.That is why I am calling it draconian. I absolutely agree with you that a good parent takes interest in the people their children meet, and works to ensure that their child forms healthy relationships with constructive people. This is not that. This is, "I will never even let you realize that you only met people I chose for you to meet in advance." This is "Truman Show" type stuff.....so you're willfully only talking about circular examples. In that case, I'm just going to ignore every instance of examples like this in the future, because they are pointless.Sorry, don't buy it. Both genres are quite obvious. There's a reason you chose them for the example.Then you are concentrating on people irrelevant to the thread.So...in contravention of what you said before, you did in fact MAKE them clueless. That was your goal. You specifically intended that. And you do these things, knowing that (a) you did NOT have to, you COULD have done something that wasn't railroading "and worse" (whatever that means), and (b) they WILL be upset should they ever find out.To be honest, I'm done arguing here. You clearly know what you're doing has an enormous potential to hurt the people you do it to. You do it--"and worse"--anyway, without remorse, without even a second thought. I have nothing further to say to you. I hope the truth doesn't harm the people you run for so much that they decide never to play again, because that would be a tragedy.</blockquote>

Verification