...then, a word of advice - and this might be pushing what I can say a little, but... I'd be hesitant to read too much into that, if it's just the two that you know of. How should I say this...
[thinking... thinking... (thinking may be sort of hard for them.)]
If it were me, and I was in your shoes, I think I would want to believe that's - significant, somehow. Because I don't really like being told what to do. But whether it is or isn't significant, acting on it as if it is when you don't really have much proof that it's what you should be acting on has the potential to backfire. Does that make sense?
Oh, I would be too! I'd be furious. But if I had reason to believe it wasn't going to be honored, I'd behave differently than I would if I thought that it would be. And... if it turned out that it was going to be, but I acted like it wasn't, I might end up inadvertently shooting myself in the leg. Wait, no, the phrase is "shooting myself in the foot."
Mmm, well... it says both the guest and the host are bound by the terms of the contract, doesn't it? So if something was done to make it impossible for anyone to get into the lobby at all, it would be the host who was breaching the contract.
Another question I have is for myself. I have killed someone now. It would seem that the portions of the contract titled 'entertainment' no longer apply, but the portion about breach of contract still does...?
Well... they all apply, in a way. You must still go to the lobby at the end of this to check out, if you wish to go home. But because you've provided the Nightman's preferred form of entertainment... even if you don't make it out of here, either because you are killed yourself or because... I don't know, you oversleep and miss the time to check out - and I know that's not likely, I can't imagine you oversleeping! - your hostage will be set free.
But the part about breach of contract definitely applies. Your hostage is safe according to the contract, but if you breach it, that's not protecting him anymore.
Ah. I should have clarified. Yes, I understand that I must be in the lobby to go home. But the important point is my hostage can still be harmed if I breach the contract.
Yes... the host is bound by the terms of the contract, so as long as you're following them, it can't go against them either. Which means that so long as you don't breach your contract, your hostage is safe. There's nothing the Nightman can do to him.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
...then, a word of advice - and this might be pushing what I can say a little, but... I'd be hesitant to read too much into that, if it's just the two that you know of. How should I say this...
[thinking... thinking... (thinking may be sort of hard for them.)]
If it were me, and I was in your shoes, I think I would want to believe that's - significant, somehow. Because I don't really like being told what to do. But whether it is or isn't significant, acting on it as if it is when you don't really have much proof that it's what you should be acting on has the potential to backfire. Does that make sense?
no subject
[genuinely; it's something to latch onto.]
I would say the opposite was true. I would be very angry if my contract wasn't honoured when I've already done it.
no subject
no subject
What do you make of the notion that the contract requires us to be in the lobby at the end - so someone could withhold access to the lobby?
no subject
no subject
[hmm.]
Another question I have is for myself. I have killed someone now. It would seem that the portions of the contract titled 'entertainment' no longer apply, but the portion about breach of contract still does...?
no subject
But the part about breach of contract definitely applies. Your hostage is safe according to the contract, but if you breach it, that's not protecting him anymore.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject