62e4fa84f4d99eee83c32a426e36cbb8

Kevan, if you fail to put a statement on this post I’ll roll a 3 sided die in the GNDT passing the win to you on a roll of 1. It will only take five days.

Obviously if you defect I can just defect and nothing happens.

295987a7861bbff3c66aed03e8f5e6ce

This looney-bin has turned my gray matter into a defective ball of mush. No wonder I can’t come up with a half-decent escape scam.

A coin-toss win is never very satisfying - even less when I have to pass it on again because I’m the Warden. I think I’d rather focus any Attacks onto the other Escape attempt right now.

“Uh, sure, yes, that plan we made. I remember. Just step through this door here. (Defect.)”

Escape fails, nothing happens.

Or rather, the Escape doesn’t actually fail until Ayesdeeef posts the unencrypted message as a separate comment, or it times out as a double-Defect.

“This looney-bin has turned my gray matter into a defective ball of mush. No wonder I can’t come up with a half-decent escape scam.”

Forgot you can’t win.

I don’t think that counts as a defection. It needs to ‘contain the word “defect”’ and the word ‘defective’ is a different word. I think that means ayesdeeef cooperated.

But the word “defective” contains the word “defect”.

It’s also tricky that Ayesdeeef arguably hasn’t been able to post a comment which “specifies a piece of text whose Hash is the same as the Hash in their Statement”, because ExpressionEngine dynamically converts apostrophes for some reason. I suppose they can post it again and make it very clear with a comment that the apostrophe should be changed in order to produce the text that matches the Hash. But if we’ve been able to work out the unique sentence that Ayesdeeef meant, I’d say that counted as “specifying” it.

I’d say the “contain the word” bit was fine as well, but non-idle players are welcome to CfJ if they think Ayesdeeef should have ended up Injured here.

I think that expanding the definition of “word” to include “all linguistic derivations of that word” is very risky, but then BlogNomic seems to be drifting towards a kind of laisse-faire “we know what you meant” attitude about these things, so I may be out on my own on this one.

I wasn’t thinking so much in terms of linguistic derivations, but in terms of the literal sequence of characters involved (d, e, f, e, c, t).