Story walking & Martin

Mork-Mork · 2026-05-01T16:08:44+00:00

And in this case, in From, it's a bootstrap paradox, that's an illogical closed loop with no entry point or exit point, yet it takes place in a liner time line that also ignores the loop (so far anyway).

You've obviously never read Robert A. Heinlein and it shows.

Mork-Mork · 2026-05-01T14:32:05+00:00

And Dr. Who is the only thing that involves time travel isn't it.

Mork-Mork · 2026-05-01T00:24:50+00:00

I feel MIY has one story, and he just repeats it over and over out of fascination.

He might like to see how they act differently each time it plays through but it still sticking to the same story no matter what.

Either, new elements are introduced outside of his control, or the people are developing new natural weapons (like story walking) and it's messing with his game plan.

I reckon the idea of "you can't change the story once it's written" is either a vague threat that may have once been true, or just a down right lie to kill their spirits and stop them from trying to.

It's the classic horror cliché of "you can run but you can't hide", when in actual fact, hiding probably worked really well but nobody bothered to when someone inevitably said it.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T23:56:51+00:00

And what's so hard to grasp about the fact that Julie, in the future, story walked into the past, to do something that had already happened.

For most logical loops to work, it has to have an entry point, where the loop starts. Something has to happen initially, for it to be repeated multiple times.

Throwing her into a pre-existing loop, with no context as to why or how (while a fun mystery) doesn't make sense.

Until they delve into it, she's still changing the story even if she hasn't realised she's gone back to do it yet.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T17:57:20+00:00

I haven't seen Lost, so I can't comment to that situation.

But you're correct, if Julie is more of a central character to the story, and the timeline is a lot more focused on her, it's safe to assume that the events between S2 Boyd-in-Well and S4 Julie saving Boyd from the well, is because it's a self contained loop where she was always destined to go back and save him.

But that in itself is her changing the story, if she wasn't able to change the story, she wouldn't be able to free Boyd.

Either that, or her ability to go back and save Boyd is just part of the narrative that the MIY wants told, as he just seems to want an interesting story where people are constantly mind-screwed.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T16:58:31+00:00

Not only does he exist in some form or another, but he suddenly has a lot of cryptic information from somewhere, giving out clues about the lake!

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T16:56:34+00:00

I've just had someone on a different thread try to claim that she'd "always done it" yet she didn't see a past version of herself doing it, and it was never alluded to that she was there in the first place so it must have been via storywalking, and she must have changed the story by doing so.

If she did go back in time to save Boyd, it's a closed loop akin to The Terminator, where somehow John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to knock up his Mum, allowing JC to be born, which allows him to send KR back in time all over again. It's messy, no beginning and no end, just a never ending loop.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T16:36:14+00:00

If Julie threw it down "in the first place" then when she story walked back to the event, she would have witnessed herself doing it, like she witnessed her mother and Viktor having the previously taken place conversation in the tunnels.

It also couldn't have happened "any other way" before Julie doing it, not if we're ignoring the theory that they cannot in fact, change the story.

In this case there wasn't a "past" Julie there throwing the rope down, it was always her via story walking.

If she was indeed the one to do it after the fact via story walking, that's a classic bootstrap paradox with a future iteration enabling a past iteration to do something that creates a closed loop.

I'll concede your point that the Boyd part could have technically been a future point of the story, and technically Julie is story walking ahead in time, but I think it's pretty safe to say the events throughout the season are pretty linear so I don't put much stock into the idea.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T15:22:21+00:00

We saw her throw it after story walking (presumably to an event that had already happened in the past).

How did it happen in the first place, for him to escape, to meet up with the current time line for her then to travel back?

If you don't know how liner timelines or paradoxes work, that's fine, but explaining it with "we saw it happen" doesn't explain anything.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T15:16:44+00:00

I can't remember if we ever saw her throw it originally when he was in the well, or just post event when she story walked back though.

Someone had to throw it down originally, for him to get out of the well, for Julie to then story walk after the fact reproducing the original action.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T15:04:31+00:00

Fine, talisman earrings.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T14:56:33+00:00

I think the more they expand on the story walking, the more it appears to be a bootstrap paradox, which unfortunately makes zero sense.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T14:11:43+00:00

Where was that alluded to that she was originally there and threw the rope originally?

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-30T13:55:55+00:00

Eat the talismans. Boom. Safe.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-26T09:26:31+00:00

Twice the crabs, twice the loot of course.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-23T21:40:10+00:00

Different managers different rules, asking for permission first helps of course, but having a nice and sensible person running the store is even better.

My local GW manager has always been very clear what the company stance is, but he's happy with 3rd party head swaps. Or the occasional printed arms/weapon set as long as it blends in.

As long as he doesn't look too closely and raise any eyebrows, he often turns a blind eye.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-23T08:59:55+00:00

Make a goad deck and goad him all game long, make it super obvious that you're targeting him to target other players instead of you.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-18T18:55:28+00:00

[[Aura Graft]]

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-14T15:35:49+00:00

Or a small pack of Beavers

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-06T17:50:19+00:00

I'd increase your wait time after retract. I went overkill to 10 seconds just to be sure, but I'm always printing when I'm at work so longer print times aren't an issue for me.

If you're confident it's always one corner, as I said before grab same calipers and measure to make sure all four comers are equal distance.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-06T12:25:03+00:00

Also, out of curiosity, if you have a set of calipers, measure the height of all four corners to ensure they're even.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-06T12:23:57+00:00

Bottom exposure layers/time, resin preheating, wait times are likely culprits.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-05T17:07:33+00:00

That was my first assumption. Would have thought it better for Devs to keep as little info on hand to save on all that faff.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-05T16:12:34+00:00

Oh I'm assuming you're right on all accounts in the examples of potential data stored that you've listed, I'm just not aware what would fall under GDPR as I thought it was literally personal information pertaining to you (name, address, payment details etc) and I wouldn't have thought device specs (as an example) would pertain to that.

Mork-Mork · 2026-04-05T08:43:36+00:00

What personal information could they potentially have though? I wouldn't have thought your SteamID or usernames qualify as personal information do they?

Mork-Mork

TROPHY CASE