This report seeks to figure out the probability score of key allies meeting up in an external place outside of school and to analyze what happens outside of school in varying situations.
According to internal research, the legal system at the house is geared towards 9-year-olds operating under a ‘trickle-down’ system. Thus, laws that pass benefit the youngest the most as they get to experience more levels of freedom at a younger age, thus testing the limit. This happens for three reasons.
Rules are rarely challenged, thus the non-existence of certain teen-centric rules is prevalent. The lack of rules regarding dating and hanging out doesn't exist because the legal framework around that has never happened, never seen any interest, and the COVID pandemic pushed back societal progress.
Advanced laws seem unnecessary due to the fact that, from a societal level we are good kids. Actual theft has happened once in the past decade, school discipline is non-existent, good grades are common, etc. The ‘crimes’ in which we engage include leaving stuff out, not cleaning a room and forgetting Bible verses. Thus, there are laws against that and not laws that deal with more heinous teenage-style crimes. Due to the fact that good is expected, if we delve outside of our proverbial ‘forget a Bible verse is a real crime’ bubble the law is swift. If the largest ‘crimes’ that push the bubble is forgetting to clean the kitchen, then the unknown is completely uncharted and unprecedented because it has been (correctly) predicted that nobody would challenge the bubble. This causes people to be afraid to ask for things as then in the proverbial bubble that can be thrown back at you. This stymies societal progress.
The location of the base is inconvenient, thus lacking the appeal to go out and explore. There is not even a sidewalk, limited neighborhood kids, and zero attractions for kids in a bikeable distance.
Due to this, the precedent for having a boy come over to the house is pretty fraught, and the precedent for having a girl come over is even more fraught, with the newest precedent being set in 2017. In both occasions, the parents have to know the parents. Of course, this eliminates a high number of the candidates below. However, the extent to which the parents have to know each other is not determined. Also in both cases, the parents went to church together and in the case of the 2017 precedent:
It was for a ministry meeting
The girls were younger than us
I believe they were not allowed into our room
Thus, this could be more akin to babysitting than a playdate, which by the way the legal system is still stuck. According to the patchwork of precedents that is our legal framework, it can be presumed that in order to have people come over they must know the parents and 9/10th of the time the parents are bringing the kids are part of a ministry meeting thus placing us in the role of ‘hosts’.
This contributes to the second problem that is posed by a legal system, that is the inexperience of playdates and hanging out leads to an increased rejection rate by students ~~100% RR at time of writing. According to internal research by Clubhouse Magazine, spy toys, and drones are not a draw of other HS. At that point, are we going to stare at a wall? According to the 2017 precedent (which is probably still law) people of the opposite gender aren't allowed inside the SSA HQ and possibly the technology office. The ruling on same gender is murky (2023 precedent says yes ish) AI powered research says that baking, and puzzles, and board games are also good options to do with people though some intuitive research shows that that will be as big as draw as Clubhouse magazine (0%) the draw to this area is also nonexistent and potentially in the negatives.
According to AI-powered research, getting the parents to meet would involve a detective-powered gam,e which is not feasible.
Potential Ideas based on research with pros and cons:
Movie Night: Simple/Not feasible, conflict of allowed rankings
Spy Theme: Useful to the nation/unintrestring to others
Precedent On Unaccompanied Mall Outing With Allies: 2024
This is a report that seeks to find parental precedent for a yes or a no on a potential out-of-school (mall) outing within the first half of 2024. Common belief is that it would not be allowed (statistically), but there is proverbial wiggle room in the precedents, presumably if our Allies request the meetup per the Make Friends Act (2019 to 2022)
Make Friends was an act that mandated that I sit at a table, if I was invited to lunch, even if I did not want to. This act was used in my time at Christian school,
Online school (though not really in effect due to the Pandemic), Public 10th grade, and the first half of 11th grade. It was invoked multiple times when L{} and S{}requested my presence.
It was revoked on November 10th, 2022 with the Make Your Own Decisions Act (2022 to Present)
Make Your Own Decisions has applied to internet activity as defended by me online, however it has not really applied to my external presentation to the world as that is still micromanaged. It has also applied to food as well such as wheat and chicken, but does not apply to things like soda and beef.
Cobbled together precedent(s) will define the Friendship Laws (2006 to Present).
Friendship, has been defined as people cannot come over to your house or vice versa unless the parents know each parents. Thus, only people from the church have ever visited. Friendship never defined how to make friends or what friends can and cannot do ,though. However, I was allowed to stay in a hotel room with the xxxxxx [club] project with other kids my parents did not know for a week. Friends have also been selected for me that did not end well.
Also, Dating (2006 to present?) law has not been fully defined (in part to us insisting it's a national security threat) however the general precedent has been kind of set out.
Dating If a girl harrasses you she likes you….? If you date (referring to future wives I presume) thay have to love God and visit me often and meet me before you marry them.
Real-world examples will now be linked to an accompanying precedent.
Friendship allowed one sleepover and one hangout (both years apart) with the same person because my parents knew their parents from church. Conversely, this does not apply to many people I know. This most likely makes a potential meetup a hard ask and a potential no.
Under a 2022 amendment to Friendship In 2022, a hangout was planned in a public place (soccer match) with people I knew from school. However, it did not come to fruition, not really giving much precedent except that it was potentially allowable. It can be argued that a mall is a public place, however, the mall is indoors and further away from home if anything were to happen. On two occasions, I have spent about 30 minutes in a mall alone, adding credence to the fact that parental authorities, conversely, I was alone and not with other kids.
Under Make Friends, it can be assumed that if someone invited me to go somewhere, it would be easier for me to go rather than the inverse. However, this act is no longer in effect having been superseded under Make Your Own Decision, which presumably means make your own friend choices as well. However, if the internal reasoning for the law is still intact, it could make the idea more viable. However, Make Friends only applied to the lunchroom, not the outside world. Friendship shows us that only if the parental authorities knew the kids and their parents, then maybe they might come over.
I analyzed the documents in my head, racking my brain for ideas. Under the law, a mall outing would be a seismic precedent-setting event. It had never been attempted before, and if accomplished, could send SSA into a new stratosphere. Unfortunately, the ability was bleak, which is why we needed a peaceful school and a stable GCAM-S. Our closest allies would have to make this work, using the old Make Freinds act of 2019-22. If someone invited me somewhere, then potentially I would be required to accept, as long as it was within the confines of the law. However, this was a very liberal interpretation, but it was the best we had.
Next, we would need to pick the people who we were allied with and also would probably say yes. While we had raised the idea with GCAM-S and Denver, it had been shot down multiple times. Potentially allying with JVN would help us here, giving as a more 'wideban' opportunity. Lastly, SSA had no idea what we were going to do with the. Reading teen parenting magazines, catalogs of Advebtures in Odyssey episodes, Reddit and CSM posts, but to no avail. Time was running out and SSA desperately needed answers. Invading GCAM may be our only choice.
Comments
Post a Comment