BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

if we want to informally establish that were gonna cut down on stuff like this going forward but want to chalk this up to an honest mistake and let SingularByte have this I’m okay ultimately okay with it. I’m mostly worried about the precedent it sets if we allow a play on, and then later down the road a similar situation arises and we have no choice but to allow another play on

There is the strange quirk here though that this gives me, JonathanDark and Lukas the ability to get a trophy almost immediately - depending on who’s faster on the draw and who can work out the text of the Big One.

On thinking about it, a less dangerous option might be to set the timestamps of my actions to be the same as the Sight Disturbances action - that way, my actions are only considered to have been done when legally possible to do so, without giving three players a large advantage.

even if you have all 9 letters… you’ve still got 362880 possible names for the big one. Will it really be that easy to figure out?

Potentially. JD is probably in the best position there having spent all of his catches to get 0 hits, combined with the fact that you spent all of yours to get 2 hits.

It’s building up a picture of what kind of rules we’re looking at, even from my outside perspective. It’s not a sure thing, but it’s definitely a non-zero chance of getting it - especially when you’ve got 3 people looking at it independently.

JD lacks catches to submit with though. So sure he might have some idea of what letter it starts with, but will get fewer guesses to try and nail it

as its already been 24 hours since I made this and the other CfJ passed, at this point I feel like its too late to undo this so I’ll  

To clarify my own comments on that post, I’m okay with upholding SingularByte’s actions primarily because doing them in the correct order would have had exactly the same result. It is true that the difficulty of trying to undo the actions had a slight influence on whether I thought it was worth trying to make an argument against the scam (not that I had a major problem with it, but I’m still figuring out the BlogNomic culture and how my own interpretation of the rules should interface with that).

I do think making incorrectly revealed information public can work in many situations, but I’d be hesitant to make it the general rule, as it can throw everything off balance.