(09-23-2019, 06:50 AM)Roy Wrote: Are you sure you want to run DMSI with you being married? According to Shannon it should be much stronger now.

(09-23-2019, 06:58 AM)RTBoss Wrote:

(09-23-2019, 06:50 AM)Roy Wrote: Are you sure you want to run DMSI with you being married? According to Shannon it should be much stronger now.

I understand this version will be leaps & bounds ahead of the last version, however, it also includes a module that should (in theory) keep me from affecting anyone but my wife.  At least, I think that's how it is supposed to work.

(09-23-2019, 06:59 AM)Have at ye Wrote:

(09-23-2019, 06:58 AM)RTBoss Wrote:

(09-23-2019, 06:50 AM)Roy Wrote: Are you sure you want to run DMSI with you being married? According to Shannon it should be much stronger now.

I understand this version will be leaps & bounds ahead of the last version, however, it also includes a module that should (in theory) keep me from affecting anyone but my wife.  At least, I think that's how it is supposed to work.

It does?

(09-23-2019, 07:08 AM)Roy Wrote: Where did you read about this? I don't remember it.

(09-07-2019, 09:18 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-07-2019, 08:18 AM)Bignoise Wrote:

(09-07-2019, 07:54 AM)Shannon Wrote: Is it my place to dictate morals to everyone who uses my programs?  And if so, who's morals shall we dictate?  Mine?  Yours?  Who is to say who's morals are "the right morals"?  Likewise, who is to say that anyone's morals are "the right morals for everyone else"?  And last but certainly not least, what gives anyone the right to assume their morals should be what everyone else is subject to?

You should explain precisely that to the other Shannon who is developing DMSI and not allowing it to affect girls in a committed relationship.   

I don't think you understand what I am actually doing.  I am preventing it from doing two things.

1. I am preventing it from taking away someone's free will.  User or affected.
2. I am preventing people who are in committed relationships, or relationships they otherwise would not choose to interrupt or damage, from being targeted.

Now you may say that is me imposing my morals on you, but the part of the coin you can't see is that I am preventing you from screwing yourself and someone else, perhaps multiple someone elses(sic), when doing so will only cause harm that is unnecessary.  It will harm you, it will harm me and it will harm whomever damages their relationship and whomever gets hurt by that relationship damage.  That could extend to spouse or SO, children, and other family members.

So it's not about my morals.  It's about me not being willing to be stupid about this.  I have been on both sides of this fence, and I am not about to be responsible for even indirectly causing someone else to have to suffer the way that I have had to over stupid decisions that they wouldn't have made without otherwise being influenced.

This hurts me as much as anyone else if that happens.

So, there are plenty of fish in the sea.  I don't want DMSI doing to anyone else what I wouldn't want it doing to me.  So do I want any of you to show up and*****my girlfriend because you're running DMSI?  No.  And anyone else in a serious relationship would say the same.  It's not just one side of the coin.  You have to consider both sides.

In the end, you guys have two choices.  Either I implement these checks and balances, or we stop developing DMSI.  Just because I can do something doesn't mean I should, because there are consequences.  That's wisdom and common sense talking, not morals.

(09-23-2019, 08:19 AM)Have at ye Wrote: Yeah, that's not the same. It's supposed to avoid people who are in relationships of importance to them from being *targeted*. So affected. It won't stop your subc from executing the aura and snipers on people other than your wife, should you be sexually interested in them.

(09-23-2019, 08:19 AM)Have at ye Wrote: Yeah, that's not the same. It's supposed to avoid people who are in relationships of importance to them from being *targeted*. So affected. It won't stop your subc from executing the aura and snipers on people other than your wife, should you be sexually interested in them.

(09-23-2019, 08:23 AM)RTBoss Wrote:

(09-23-2019, 08:19 AM)Have at ye Wrote: Yeah, that's not the same. It's supposed to avoid people who are in relationships of importance to them from being *targeted*. So affected. It won't stop your subc from executing the aura and snipers on people other than your wife, should you be sexually interested in them.

I'll let Shannon tell you what he put into the last version of DMSI himself.

(09-23-2019, 08:23 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-23-2019, 08:19 AM)Have at ye Wrote: Yeah, that's not the same. It's supposed to avoid people who are in relationships of importance to them from being *targeted*. So affected. It won't stop your subc from executing the aura and snipers on people other than your wife, should you be sexually interested in them.

What do you suppose "targeted" means?  It means that's what the snipers get triggered by and what they fire at.

(09-23-2019, 08:26 AM)Have at ye Wrote:

(09-23-2019, 08:23 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-23-2019, 08:19 AM)Have at ye Wrote: Yeah, that's not the same. It's supposed to avoid people who are in relationships of importance to them from being *targeted*. So affected. It won't stop your subc from executing the aura and snipers on people other than your wife, should you be sexually interested in them.

What do you suppose "targeted" means?  It means that's what the snipers get triggered by and what they fire at.

Huh. I thought it implied it's going to be pre-filtering people who are in committed relationships from being targeted by the user (or something to this extent), not preventing the user who *is* in a committed relationship from attempting to target people who are outside of the bounds of the relationship.

Because that would indeed by something new.