03-13-2018, 12:48 PM
(03-13-2018, 12:15 PM)dissonance Wrote:(03-13-2018, 10:33 AM)Shannon Wrote:(03-13-2018, 10:21 AM)dissonance Wrote:(03-13-2018, 03:10 AM)Shannon Wrote:(03-12-2018, 03:25 PM)kingpill Wrote: Shannon, how would DMSI primed at relationships differ from DMSI now? Thanks
It would be designed to focus the user on the significant other for the effects of the program, and remove aspects of the program (or redirect them) that would otherwise threaten it. I have already had a couple of people tell me they had to stop using 3.2 because if they didn't they would cheat on their SO. The couples friendly version would aim to strengthen the relationship, instead.
I'm pretty stoked for this. Hopefully it'll make it into 3.3 because I feel like I'm going to get a girlfriend by then
It will not. I am not creating DMSI for couples until DMSI standard is finished. Branching the development stream is suicide.
Ok that's understandable. If I were to run it during a committed relationship, which aspects of it would help the relationship, if I consciously kept myself from seducing and flirting with other girls? I'm guessing the sexual performance modules would most likely... but what else?
Define "it".
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
