10-18-2016, 03:08 PM
(10-18-2016, 03:03 PM)maxx55 Wrote:(10-18-2016, 10:26 AM)posh Wrote:(10-18-2016, 10:06 AM)SargeMaximus Wrote: I still don't think entitlement is what we want. I'd much rather have them take it as a blow to their ego and value as women if they somehow can't get sex with the user. On the flip side, providing sex for the user should validate her temporarily.
thats a good idea. Good thinking!
Also shannon could put something like sex with the user being an addiction to her and she will do everything to get sex with they user. But to user can stop her addiction after hes bored of her.
Shannon's reply:
I checked the models. They say that it would result in the program being too effective. It'd be much too dangerous!
DMSI users' reply:
That's what we've been waiting for!!
Lol, jk.
But seriously Shannon. If you did make a "Too Dangerous" version of DMSI for super limited testing, I'd do it! I'd be totally willing to test it! I'd sign a waiver if I had to. And I'd even tell some of my friends!
Why do people assume that massive success = danger?
Interesting.
