5,389
edits
Oni2 talk:Truth Number Zero/Digest: Difference between revisions
m
→Re: Was the Daodan's danger really clear from the beginning?
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
::::However, from all the talk we might take note that the prototypes are an important milestone. At this point the DC's potential is clear - either as a "Daodan in a box" (for Kerr) and as "weapon" (for Syndicate/Stumanderung) and is close to the raid event. In your TNZ it is also showes Hasegawa readiness to "leave Mai behind". If you write (or plan for John) any past scenes his one should be included, I think. --[[User:Paradox-01|paradox-01]] ([[User talk:Paradox-01|talk]]) 07:19, 21 May 2020 (CEST) | ::::However, from all the talk we might take note that the prototypes are an important milestone. At this point the DC's potential is clear - either as a "Daodan in a box" (for Kerr) and as "weapon" (for Syndicate/Stumanderung) and is close to the raid event. In your TNZ it is also showes Hasegawa readiness to "leave Mai behind". If you write (or plan for John) any past scenes his one should be included, I think. --[[User:Paradox-01|paradox-01]] ([[User talk:Paradox-01|talk]]) 07:19, 21 May 2020 (CEST) | ||
:::::I detail the scenes that I think need detailing, thank you very much. If I can avoid overstatement (a 100% factual account of "how it really happened"), I will. Blurry memories are fine, verbal accounts are fine, basically anything "falsifiable" is fine (or rather "non-falsifiable", in the sense that you can never know if such a revelation is true or not - it needs to be ''plausible'', no more, no less). For example, I can imagine Mukade's conversations with Hasegawa, but I cannot imagine exposing them as blunt facts, because that would be "too much fact" in Konoko's uncertain past. | :::::I detail the scenes that I think need detailing, thank you very much. If I can avoid overstatement (a 100% factual account of "how it really happened"), I will. Blurry memories are fine, verbal accounts are fine, basically anything "falsifiable" is fine (or rather "non-falsifiable", in the sense that you can never know if such a revelation is true or not - it needs to be ''plausible'', no more, no less). For example, I can imagine Mukade's conversations with Hasegawa, but I cannot imagine exposing them as blunt facts, because that would be "too much fact" in Konoko's uncertain past. | ||
:::::Kerr "managed to escape with" Mai, and TNZ does not say to what extent this was wanted/arranged/accepted by Hasegawa or Mukade. Maybe the plan was to let Kerr save Mai (if Griffin didn't insist | :::::Kerr "managed to escape with" Mai, and TNZ does not say to what extent this was wanted/arranged/accepted by Hasegawa or Mukade. Maybe the plan was to let Kerr save Mai (if Griffin didn't insist on weaponizing her, she'd have been in relatively good hands at the TCTF, as per Kerr's initial intuition). At the Syndicate, it was clear that Muro and Mai would have both been raised as soldiers, perhaps with some cruel competition between the two. So it's hard to tell which plan looked best - infiltrate the Syndicate as a trio, and possibly have more flexibility later, or stick to a somewhat simpler (more predictable?) father-and-son operation. That's one thing that Mukade and Hasegawa may have disagreed on and, again, the ultimate "choice" (Kerr's escape) may have been accidental. --[[User:Geyser|geyser]] ([[User talk:Geyser|talk]]) 11:40, 21 May 2020 (CEST) | ||
''NOTE: Follow-up reactions to new statements of mine (and not to the digest itself) should be indented as sub-sections of the initial question. --[[User:Geyser|geyser]] ([[User talk:Geyser|talk]]) 19:46, 21 May 2020 (CEST)'' | ''NOTE: Follow-up reactions to new statements of mine (and not to the digest itself) should be indented as sub-sections of the initial question. --[[User:Geyser|geyser]] ([[User talk:Geyser|talk]]) 19:46, 21 May 2020 (CEST)'' | ||
:"They don't need proof" ? - That's quite an unscientific mindset/statement ;) --''''Dox''' | :"They don't need proof" ? - That's quite an unscientific mindset/statement ;) --''''Dox''' | ||
::That was just a remark on a scientist's unconditional dedication and enthusiasm for his current project. If you look at the complete sentence and its context, it should be clear. --[[User:Geyser|geyser]] ([[User talk:Geyser|talk]]) 19:46, 21 May 2020 (CEST) | ::That was just a remark on a scientist's unconditional dedication and enthusiasm for his current project. If you look at the complete sentence and its context, it should be clear. --[[User:Geyser|geyser]] ([[User talk:Geyser|talk]]) 19:46, 21 May 2020 (CEST) | ||
==The Daodan Chrysalis is unproven "super" technology - How can they be so confident about it?== | ==The Daodan Chrysalis is unproven "super" technology - How can they be so confident about it?== | ||
:The Daodan is so powerful and was done in so little time that it raises the question of how a mere "two man army" could have developed it. Obviously it is not the full picture. --''''Dox''' | :The Daodan is so powerful and was done in so little time that it raises the question of how a mere "two man army" could have developed it. Obviously it is not the full picture. --''''Dox''' | ||