Talk:Yes/Chad/Enough of this, try to go back to dinner

I'm not entirely sure how the ring would clean this up. From the original description, it's supposed to make any question true but not necessarily alter reality so much as the perception of the person who is asked. So past making the puddle invisible to specific people I'm a bit at a loss. Villenia (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (CET)

The ring works on inanimate objects like the puddle as well as people, but Chad does not realize it at this point in the story. If he did, he could simple address the puddle itself and ask if it was about to cease to exist for example to take care of it. Like I said though, he has yet to realize that the ring works on absolutely anything. --Elerneron (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2017 (CET)

Tried to post this at the same time as El and got hung up. Part doesn't aply now

In one of the other storylines he carries his sister to her room, and the door opens when asked. I would start with "is the kitchen floor clean?" And if that is too vague or Elerneron vetoes it as the ring not affecting objects or something then try "Have I already cleaned the kitchen floor?" That would apply to you and thus the kitchen floor would be clean. --Notsooldpervert (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2017 (CET)

Crap edited out the unnecessary stuff from my cut and paste lol --Notsooldpervert (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2017 (CET)

Hmm. My confusion is that in the writer's guide it uses the example of a blue sky turning green, but the result isn't reality itself changing but the perception of the subject. I honestly like that concept more than asking the puddle to evaporate and it complying. It's much more interesting when there could be greater or unintended consequences to your actions. The imperfect and unpredictable nature of the ring is really fun. So why would asking the puddle to evaporate not just make me think the puddle is gone without actually changing it? Not to take anything away from you guys, but - based on the original example - the whole superhero thing feels more like Chad convincing himself that he's doing those things without actually changing the nature of physics. Which itself is interesting; we can only perceive our own reality, so if ours is different from someone else's whose to say which is "real"? Anyhow, still not sure where I'm taking this thread. :) Villenia (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2017 (CET)