I'm not sure why it's necessary, tbh.
I've considered it, but I don't think we have to worry here. It sounds like a bad lie.
I would consider suggestions. Implemented, though.
Entertainment. Also, rapport: Ami finds messing with people amusing as well.
The game they played run for a long time.
I don't consider personal-entertainment-value to be a very strong motivating factor for inclusion of details in plan, for future reference. The latter, however, is a good point.
We're not doing them simultaneously. The plan divides the meeting into the "serious" part and the relatively relaxed "picnic". The
Well, I considered the previous version (about chronology) to be amusing not only to me, but to the rest of the playerbase too, as well as to the QMs. Since we're ultimately all in this for entertainment, I considered a little OOC joke appropriate.
Bear: Depending on what's going on with it, implicitly asking for intel on it may be a non-trivial matter. I'll consider it.
I feel I read Ami differently to you. She doesn't do these things as a joke, she does them to win. Saying random things is likely to be as effective as saying bitcoin and AI mumbo jumbo to a professional; maybe you'll convince a bystander that you're playing on the same level, but you won't convince the real deal.
Why not both? Keiko believes that Ami genuinely finds these games entertaining, and Ami implies in her PoV chapter that she's never deceived Keiko prior to the Exams... which is far from conclusive evidence, granted, but it does support that possibility.
No, they would not have, and we can discuss the reasons if you would like. But even if we were to accept that torturing someone to death was the only way to save the lives of everyone in the world, the point here that the people just had to have an extremely vague greater good argument wafted in their general direction and they uncritically accepted it to such an extreme extent that they willingly tortured people to death, and then electrocuted the corpses some more for good measure. Similar occurrences have repeated many times throughout human history, where people committed completely unnecessary horrors because they were told they were necessary and their brains switched off.
For the sake of this discussion, it's just a regular person that doesn't normally go about torturing other people to death. Who would never dream of doing so all by themselves, but who did so thanks to a greater good argument that didn't even have so much as a scrap of specific supporting evidence much less actual validity.
I don't think you've understood my comment about how Ami is playing a skilled game that's fundamentally different to what's being proposed on the thread.
98%. Why wouldn't it?
Eh. Ethical injunctions aren't especially necessary for that. Just game theory.
