|
Post by Tobey on Sept 12, 2007 23:45:19 GMT -5
Okay, I'm not gonna lie, this site has been in a major roleplaying slump lately. For which I'm probably not completely blameless. However, as I believe we've shown in the past, plot-ness-es can sometimes be good cures for slumps. Which is why I say we bring back the Media Plot! Let's face it; the 'Anarchy or Democracy' board is about as dead as it can get. There is no way that we'll get it to the point where we can actually discuss media plot-ness, what with Julia's injury. There was some talk of using her injury to bring up the media plot, but the more I think about it, the more unlikely that seems. There's just no way people would realistically ignore a possibly fatal injury to talk about going to the media. And that's if we can resurrect that board /at all/, and it's been my experience that once a board has gone that long without posts, it's pretty hard to resurrect. So, I think we have a few options: --Option #1: We can have a sort of 'follow-up' House meeting once Julia is all better, and then Guadalupe could announce the idea she had intended to announce at the original House meeting. And Forgotten could also show the resolution to Julia's crisis, thus allowing us to solve two problems neatly at once. We might have to bend the time-flow a bit, since such a meeting would probably have to happen not too terribly long after the first one, whereas it's now been, like, four months since the start of 'Anarchy or Democracy.' In this, second House meeting, we would presumably go straight to the point; no messing around with introductions this time. And I promise I'll try harder to keep my short-tempered scientist characters in check. --Option #2: I can use Pipsqueak's intro board to segue into the media plot (I was going to tie the whole situation surrounding him and Isaac into the media plot anyway). It might work, and it might not, depending on any number of things that might happen in the current conversations. --Option #3: We could do any number of other, less formal things. Maybe it just comes up in a random conversation between a couple residents. Or maybe the media figures out some tiny detail on it's own; there could be a news report about sightings of strange creatures (experiments), or about mental ward patients who sort of seem to have strange powers (experiments again). Such a news report could prompt the media idea. Or maybe, there was a law passed recently that somehow benefits the labs, or hurts experiments. Like, maybe, a law was written to define what is considered a 'human' (for purposes of differentiating between animal abuse and human abuse, for example), and it unintentionally leaves out some (or all) experiments. Something of that nature, that would make all the residents go "Hey, that's unfair! We need to do something about that!" Prolly shouldn't be something /too/ blatantly unfair, though; it ought to be something that the government simply didn't realize would cause any harm. --Option #4: Combination of the above ideas. Maybe the Pipsqueak/Isaac situation prompts another House meeting. Or maybe a conversation, news report, or recent legislation inspires the meeting. I like Option #1 the most, because it's nice and straightforward, and there isn't a whole lot that can go wrong. I also like Option #3, because it would allow the most creativity, and thus would be most fun to roleplay.
|
|
|
Post by zimmy on Sept 13, 2007 15:46:45 GMT -5
Splee!
Okay, I don't know, erm... Plot 3 for Zim?
It sounds the bstest to me, so yea verily, I vote for it. As for suggestions from myself--if you can't tell, I haven't been giving that much input on stuff, in detail anyways, soooo...
I might have an idea or two when my brain regenerates.
|
|
|
Post by Souleh on Sept 13, 2007 16:44:00 GMT -5
Eeeee, I was hoping someone would bring this up so I wouldn't have to. In other words, heck yes let's revive the plot.
I think that option three is best. The circumstances around Pipsqueak's arrival might make a good excuse to have a meeting. Put people a bit on alarm, remind them that there the scientists still exist, and they're still churning out new victims every day. Possibly, someone could have spotted Pipsqueak or sommat, and that could make for some faction of the media doing it as one of their local color stories. Like "Today some crazy trailer park lady said she saw some funny looking bat! More tonight at six!" And that could possibly make a few more people, not just Guadalupe, start considering the media as a way to get their story heard. So that there are more people much more willing to agree with her if she's the one to bring it up. You know, "Ohmigod, I was thinking something along those lines too..." And I know Kitty said Guadalupe was thinking a total exposure or sommat, so maybe that sentence could end "but mine was a little more subtle, crazy bxtch."
|
|
|
Post by Tobey on Sept 13, 2007 18:32:22 GMT -5
Yay for option 3! But which /part/ of option 3 do you guys like? There are, like, 3 different sub-options. Oh, I like the idea of someone having spotted Pipsqueak and that being in the news. I hadn't even thought of that. But, come to think of it, he didn't know to be subtle until the scientists started chasing him, so there's a very good chance that a few people would have gotten a good look at him. Heck, he probably chatted with a few people until he realized that everyone was going to just throw things at him. So yes, that would work. Actually, though, what I had in mind had more to do with Isaac (get ready to hear a lot more explanation than you probably care about). Ahem. You see, Isaac is not a typical scientist. Whereas most scientists, upon learning the location of the House, would be like, "Cool, more experiments for us to capture! ", Isaac has no interest whatsoever in capturing non-Evolab experiments. He has a bit of a superiority complex about his lab, and thinks the other labs are all 'inferior' and 'criminal' and whatnot. Plus, he is in fact a thinking feeling human being, so he would feel some amount of pity for formerly-human experiments. So, he'd probably be on the residents' side, against the other labs. Once he finally figures out that he's STANDING IN FRONT OF /THE HOUSE/, that is. So, he might actually be the one to /suggest/ the media idea. He'd be all like, "Yeah, you guys need to try to shut those scum-labs down!" Buuuut, there's also a very good reason why he /won't/ do that. For, you see, he dreads the notion of any project Eco experiments getting public exposure. Part of that is a selfish instinct; he doesn't want his Perfect Lab to get caught for having done something naughty (like creating sentient life). But he's partially concerned for Pipsqueak, too. Because once the truth about him is exposed to society, two things can happen. One: Society doesn't accept Pipsqueak, and everybody throws rocks at him or whatever. Two: Society /does/ accept Pipsqueak, and, according to Isaac, this is the worse possibility; society doesn't typically accept things that are different from them, so they would try to 'humanize' Pipsqueak. Isaac thinks this would be an utter disaster for Pipsqueak's psyche, and he's probably not totally wrong on that point. Because Pipsqueak is fundamentally and instinctually /not human/. So, the moral of the story is, Isaac would be all for media exposure for experimentation, so long as he gets assurances that Evolab would get to keep its hands clean, and Pipsqueak would remain hidden from human society. Yeah, I agree that part of the reason I like options 2 and 3 is because they would sort of build up support for the media plot, if it comes to another House meeting. Right now, if we had a meeting for no outside reason, a lot of people will be like, "Eh, who cares? We made it this far without the public knowing about us; why do they need to know /now/?", whereas if something prompts the meeting, they'll be like, "Whoa! Okay, maybe we should do something."
|
|
|
Post by Souleh on Sept 13, 2007 18:52:53 GMT -5
Ooh. I like that whole mess with Isaac. Perhaps, though, if people want to somehow incorporate the media already catching on, or need a reason why the House residents would take the advice of someone who still is a dirty white coat, finding out that the media had already noticed would make people think "Hm, making that bastard scientist was right."
And, best of all, the apathetic will be enthused, but those who really do oppose it will still oppose it!
|
|
|
Post by Kitty on Sept 14, 2007 6:38:46 GMT -5
Well, Guadalupe would side with Isaac, certainly, and she does have--slightly more pull over the residents, if she chooses to possess it.
She could totally just drop in on the thread with him, right when he starts spouting media stuff, and agree with him completely even though he's a scientist.
Also, as an aside, Tobey, wouldn't it be spiffy if her power didn't work on Pipsqueak at all, because he lack a human brain or something? That's kinda interesting to ponder on.
And Souleh's idea about having a few news articles showing up and prompting more favor for the idea makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Tobey on Sept 14, 2007 8:29:13 GMT -5
I like the idea of news articles creating favor for the media plot, but we'd have to be careful not to make it too conveniently timed. We'd have to make it /not/ look like the horrendous coincidence that it actually is. At least, if we use an article on a topic other than a Pipsqueak sighting. If it's a Pipsqueak sighting, then a) it won't be coincidence, so we're all clear in that department, buuuut, b) it'll make Isaac's stomach churn, and might make him even less likely to suggest/support the media idea.
Actually, though, now that I've been thinking about it a bit longer, would a taste of media exposure really have the effect of making people hungry for more? It miiiight, but I think it would have the most effect on the people who are already in favor of the idea. The others might be like, "There. We got media exposure." Or some might even go the other way; freak out about how the public already knows too much, and nix the media idea altogether. This isn't really an argument against the news article idea, so much as just something I wanted to point out. After all, the article would still have the lovely effect of possibly polarizing people's opinions; those that are against become more firmly against, and those that are in favor become more firmly in favor. And that would be fun.
Buuut, I have to admit, I'm a bit in love with the 'accidental-anti-experiment legislation' idea, partially because that would have even more emotional impact on the whole situation. Thereby polarizing opinions all the more. Yay conflict! Plus, it might be more likely to rally support from the apathetic residents. The downside is that, again, you have the 'horrendous coincidence' thing. Probably far worse than the coincidence of a conveniently-timed news article, even. But, if Isaac is removed from the picture (ie, I make him /not/ get involved with the Media Plot), then it doesn't seem like such an unlikely coincidence anymore. Hmm. Difficult choice.
Hey, if Guadalupe's going to enter the conversation anyway, maybe she could be the one to suggest the media idea? That way, Isaac could be like, "Hmm, well, that's a good idea, but I have a few concerns . . . "
I can't answer if Guadalupe's power would work on Pipsqueak or not. It depends whether her power can work on anything sentient, or whether she needs a /human/ mind to control. If she can only control human minds, then wouldn't there be a few other residents (the ones with lots of animal instinct), that her power would theoretically be less effective on? Another factor for Pipsqueak could be that dactyls are loners. Pipsqueak really has no concept of a 'mob mentality' (except maybe during mating season; and even then it's sort of 'every man for himself'), so that might make him harder to control, too. And it might not be a question of 'her power works' or 'her power doesn't work,' but rather a question of degree. Hey, you were right, that is interesting to think about.
Please forgive the rambling-ness of this post. I was trying to get my (obviously quite jumbled) thoughts in order.
|
|
|
Post by zimmy on Sept 14, 2007 14:09:01 GMT -5
I, for one, do not care that it's a coinquidink. That's incredibly fine with me--especially after rereading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (yay for improbability)!
So yea on BOTH idea for me! Both the legislation and the Guadalupe things =3 And perhaps, on that same board or a continued one, there could be a mini-meeting in the livingroom for all those that, again, conveniently happen to be there ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tobey on Sept 14, 2007 14:20:11 GMT -5
I dunno, I tend to not like it when writers do things like create coincidences just for the sake of plot. Granted, coincidences /do/ happen, but almost never when you expect/need them to. It just isn't very realistic.
Wait. I've got it! The legislation (or news article) happens /first/, and then it /isn't/ a coincidence when the subject of public awareness comes up in the conversation with Isaac! Yep, that makes sense. And then, that gives us a reason to bring up the media idea in that conversation in the first place! Hehe, I feel smart.
|
|
|
Post by Souleh on Sept 14, 2007 15:11:20 GMT -5
... What Tobey said. xD (<3s for you and your braiiiin.)
|
|
|
Post by Kitty on Sept 14, 2007 22:13:30 GMT -5
Tobey, I think that works, with the news article coming before Isaac. We could make a thread pre-dating your current thread, or we could have him come baaaack.
And Guadalupe will take any chance to bring the idea back, because she's an obsessed little creature by nature.
|
|
|
Post by Tobey on Sept 14, 2007 22:58:23 GMT -5
Yay for my brain!
Hmm. I don't know whether Isaac would come back or not. It really depends on how the conversation with Zepher and Guadalupe goes; whether he decides he trusts the House residents to take good care of Pipsqueak without his help, or if he thinks he'll need to check on Pip to make sure they're keeping their word. So, just to be safe, I think we should have a thread pre-dating Pipsqueak's thread. As long as we're messing with the time stream anyway, why not?
So, then, which do we want to do? News article, or legislation? And, if we go with legislation, should we use the 'legal definition of a human' idea? I've been thinking a bit more on that subject, actually. I think there could have been one of those crackpot court cases (you know, like the one where the lady sued McDonald's for spilling coffee on herself?), where someone tries to argue that their dog is a human being and should be given legal rights or something. And they have a really good lawyer who can find all the legal loopholes, so they're like "Haha, you can't prove me wrong." So the legislature decides to make a law defining 'human' so that that sort of thing doesn't happen again. A few features that could be included in their legal definition of human could be 'mammal (and therefore no feathers or scaly skin),' 'nothing beyond a vestigial tail,' 'body hair thin enough that the skin can be easily seen,' and 'having no more than two legs.' That rules out about half the experiments in the House, but could be a pretty good working definition for non-experiment human beings. I should mention that this court case would, by no means, have to be a recent event. It could have taken place a long time ago, and the resulting law was considered such an unimportant bit of news by the media that nobody at the House found out about it until just recently. Maybe an article mentions the law as it relates to some more recent event.
So, what does anyone think? Is it too far-fetched? It seems a little that way to me, but I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by zimmy on Sept 14, 2007 23:05:12 GMT -5
Doncha think human being is already defined though? Vury good explination, but... a human is pretty much a Cro-Magnum, or something...
|
|
|
Post by Tobey on Sept 14, 2007 23:14:01 GMT -5
Yes, we all know what a human being is, but that's not the point. The point is, it isn't /legally/ defined. Trust me, it really isn't; I looked it up. On Google. But anyway, that means that clever, sneaky lawyers can say that you can't /prove/ that a dog isn't a human. Because you can't prove it legally. Legal stuff tends to be weird that way. I admittedly don't really know that much about legal stuff, but I was under the impression that it tends to be ridiculously literal.
|
|
|
Post by zimmy on Sept 14, 2007 23:24:36 GMT -5
HMMMMMMMMMMM.
MUCHO BIEN IDEA.
|
|
|
Post by Kitty on Sept 14, 2007 23:35:58 GMT -5
Okaaaay, what if a stupid court case sparked a new bill being written up, defining a human as a creature with the genetic code of a human. That would alienate almost all of the Housemates, right?
Also, as I shamelessly character-endorse, Guadalupe's father is a politician. He should totally be involved. Maybe he should support the bill.
Yeah, I think that would work. It works in my head.
|
|
|
Post by Tobey on Sept 14, 2007 23:46:47 GMT -5
Yeah, I definately considered using genetic code as the basis for the definition of humanity. But the problem is that DNA testing is inconvenient and expensive; the lawmakers probably would prefer a definition that could work on physical traits alone. Plus, there's oodles of grey areas with a genetic definition, what with chimpanzees being so close to humans genetically, and with the genetic variation in humans being what it is. As a matter of fact, I heard somewhere that female humans are genetically closer to female chimpanzees than to male humans. On the other hand, I think there are 'identifiers' in our DNA that are specific to humans alone, so they could use that. But that would mean that some of the House residents might still be 'human,' and some wouldn't, and they wouldn't even know which were which. Perhaps it's a two-part definition? The genetics part could be the more formal, rigorous definition, and the physical description could be the 'backup' definition? Oh, and I really like the idea of Guadalupe's dad being involved. Character endorsement for the win!
|
|
|
Post by Kitty on Sept 15, 2007 0:09:18 GMT -5
Yeeeessss--that will work. In fact, it would be perfect.
When should we get started?
|
|
|
Post by Tobey on Sept 15, 2007 0:14:34 GMT -5
As soon as I can get the post typed up (prolly sometime next week, barring any interfering circumstances). I was going to have Dakota find the article referring to the court case because a) I haven't seriously roleplayed her in /forever/ and b) she's not 'human', probably by either definition.
Unless, of course, someone else really wants to make the thread. Which is fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by Kitty on Sept 15, 2007 0:20:28 GMT -5
I could start the thing sometime tomorrow-ish, if you don't want to. I don't care at all.
|
|