Not temporary if... So, it's actually temporary unless that 13.4% of continually using an aura to possibly create a deep-seated mental state that still leads to the "Eeew Gross" reaction from not having Mind Control, but can still be done after doing exactly what I said, which actually answers the issue raised.
No, since it also sets
char.taboo=False if related.
You keep on accusing me of thinking the correct answer is wrong.
I prefer to do it the deep-seated mental illness way personally because it frees up a top slot, allowing me to give them 'wild oats' suppression and the like.
It wasn't clear whether or not you were agreeing or disagreeing with what I'd already said. Especially when you were focusing more on making the mental states deep-seated.
No, my previous post was clearly a question.
That was clearly highlighting the temporary nature of Obsession and Nympomaniac mental states, which are temporary. Making them deep-seated, therefore permanent mental disorders, requires a percentage chance to go in favour of them becoming deep-seated. It is an exceptional condition to them being temporary, not the standard.
Why assume I'm disagreeing with the rest of your answer?
The others only offered additional info to that answer.
"Exceptional?"
I interpreted the initial comment to mean sis, since 'Gross' is a common phrase for her, and she likes to point out their relation. You are probably right that the meaning was MC, in which case mind control is necessary for his flaw, but would still use the aura because it allows working on multiple characters at the same time.
I do not agree that 64% chance in a week, for something that requires little work or 'resources', classifies as "exceptional condition".
Exceptional, as in it's an exception to the statuses being temporary.
No shit, Sherlock.
It's not a cumulative effect though is it? As in, it doesn't add 13.4% each time, to the previous chance roll.
Again, it's not temporary if it can be made permanent.
So are superpowers, why do you not refer to the mind control part of your post as a rare exceptional condition? Why are you even referring to it in this way?
I don't even know what to say to you at this point in the conversation. I made the same "assumption" of what normal people would assume based on what you said. What you're doing now is no different than saying "I shot someone," then implying I'm stupid for thinking you meant literally and not metaphorically.No shit, Sherlock.
Now who's making assumptions here?
Hmmm....
(By the way, to respond to this post, it mathematically becomes more likely each time it fails. The odds of 13% failing once is 87. The odds of it failing twice is 76%.)
I will, but only because you wasted all that post by contradicting yourself at the end there
Was a bit generous with the rounding. Chance is
1-(1-0.134)^7, or (more correctly rounded) 63.5% chance of occurring once in 7 rolls.This is devolving into semantics, no thank you.
So it's more like 9.1% chance per roll then?
It's not really, but I'll acquiesce to your politeness on this.
In order to calculate the chance of an event occurring once given multiple rolls, you use the formula 1-(1-X)^n, where X is the base chance and n is the number of rolls. Another solution is 1-Y^n where Y is base chance of the event not occurring.
13.4% of occurring in a single roll, and 63.5% chance of occurring in 7 rolls.
Okay, so is that 13.4% chance the same chance each time, or are you saying that it builds up to 63.5%?