Shannon's Journal Discussion Volume 3

[Have at ye]

I recall Shannon actually saying it's possible the AS was possibly being warped, in my case and others, in order to resist the program. Hence why *I* said it. It wasn't something I ever thought of until then, Roy.

I've also been in situations with psycho women...like the one that ruined my rep for 7-8 years and got my arm broken. I'm also able to see those are extreme cases and can more readily see signs to steer clear now. And don't want to run the risk of giving yet another avenue of escape before this thing actually works for the majority. Make it actually work, THEN dial it back. Seems obvious.

I agree with Nox on this. Same issue and talking points again...bit of a shame as that just shows the program hasn't gone further in actual results since...maybe the next one will though. We'll see.

If the anti sniper is being warped it's still is the result of other factors that warp it.It's better to deal with the warping factors rather than removing the safeties built into the program.

Considering the amount of damage that can be cause by STD,false allegations or crazy women it's not worth pulling out all the safeties to get more sex.As The technology will improve it will deal with more resistance and fears.In that case it's better from that reason to keep the anti sniper,to see how and why it's being warped.

I believe there are numerous safeties already included in the script even absent the AS. They are plentiful enough that, IIRC, it turned out that these can be used as a way of weaseling out of executing the reality bending in the program by a fearful subC.

You are misunderstanding the situation. There is only one safety. It is used throughout the program to prevent the program from becoming dangerous to the user. The issue was that the safety was worded such that it could be interpreted that executing something that was considered dangerous simply because you had a fear of it, when it wasn't actually dangerous, was allowing people do do exactly that.

I changed it. Now the safety does what it was originally intended to do, it prevents executing the program itself from potentially damaging the user. It doesn't allow you to refuse to execute because the goals seem scary anymore.

Thanks for clarifying.