Scioly.org

Assassinator wrote:I meant to include a disclaimer about having actually solved the clue for quadratic. As for the others:

mingtian wrote:I protect Z because of clue 1. Nickname

I simply don't understand the reasoning there. But what really prompted the rule was this:

zyzzyva98 wrote:I protect amerikestrel because I don't want to lose those two protects each round- I mean, because that portmanteau of a nick could really irk someone if that's something they dislike.

I understand the second part, but he protected based on fear and tried to justify it. It should be the other way around.

I suppose I should clarify slightly, I don't necessarily have an issue with the rule itself. My main issue is timing/reasoning of/for implementation. We have 10 officers with 11 protects. I just think it's unreasonable to implement that kind of rule simply due to 1 protect out of 11 was like that jokingly made it obvious that he was looking for a reason to protect a specific person and happened to be right. I will admit, I said wtf to myself when I saw mingtian's initial protect and don't entirely understand how he got to that meaning nickname either, my point earlier was simply that that was his solution to the clue.
EDIT: That being said, as long as you are reasonable with your interpretations of said rule (as I said earlier, this style clue is prone to all sorts of interpretations and solutions), I'll drop my objection.
EDIT2: I applaud you for that surprisingly calm and un-gung-ho response to my initial rant.

Clue 5: An instrument of balance is a scale, developed in ancient times and still used today (old and new). If you take that as a musical scale, then, I would say the person with the most reputation for music, which would be AlphaTauri.

foreverphysics wrote:Clue 5: An instrument of balance is a scale, developed in ancient times and still used today (old and new). If you take that as a musical scale, then, I would say the person with the most reputation for music, which would be AlphaTauri.

Decent enough logic, I protect AlphaTauri for reasons in FP's post.

fmtiger124 wrote:

Assassinator wrote:I meant to include a disclaimer about having actually solved the clue for quadratic. As for the others:

mingtian wrote:I protect Z because of clue 1. Nickname

I simply don't understand the reasoning there. But what really prompted the rule was this:

zyzzyva98 wrote:I protect amerikestrel because I don't want to lose those two protects each round- I mean, because that portmanteau of a nick could really irk someone if that's something they dislike.

I understand the second part, but he protected based on fear and tried to justify it. It should be the other way around.

I suppose I should clarify slightly, I don't necessarily have an issue with the rule itself. My main issue is timing/reasoning of/for implementation. We have 10 officers with 11 protects. I just think it's unreasonable to implement that kind of rule simply due to 1 protect out of 11 was like that jokingly made it obvious that he was looking for a reason to protect a specific person and happened to be right. I will admit, I said wtf to myself when I saw mingtian's initial protect and don't entirely understand how he got to that meaning nickname either, my point earlier was simply that that was his solution to the clue.
EDIT: That being said, as long as you are reasonable with your interpretations of said rule (as I said earlier, this style clue is prone to all sorts of interpretations and solutions), I'll drop my objection.
EDIT2: I applaud you for that surprisingly calm and un-gung-ho response to my initial rant.

I will be reasonable. It's just the fact that I put a lot of work into the clues, and I am outraged when all of that is undone by utter BS.
When would you like an identity clue?

Right now, if you please (seeing as we've technically had 10 clues already).

As long as you're reasonable with the "reasonable protects" rule, I don't have a problem with it.

Yorkshire -> Britain -> British accent? If that's the case...both Koko and I tend to spell things the Brit way. But it's just a thought. Yorkshire is also famous for the War of the Roses (against Lancaster), and it used to be the capital of Roman-occupied England. And more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire

Also, thanks for the protect, Randy.

As you wish, m'lady.

First identity clue:
Balista
J.J. Abrams.

Just to confirm, "balista" is meant to be spelt that way and is not a typo of "ballista" (the kind of catapult), yes?

Edit: Anyways, Balista (assuming it's spelt correctly) was a Roman general in the 200s who supported the revolt of the Macriani against the Roman Emperor Gallienus.
JJ Abrams is an American TV producer, famous for Lost, Fringe, Star Trek (the newest movie), and Mission Impossible III.

Personally, I'm a little suspicious of TheGenius (based on writing style, the Star Trek ref in the ID clue, and the completely overhauled rules as he's relatively new to the games) and Z (based on writing style only, weak connection). Opinions anyone?

Assassinator wrote: I will be reasonable. It's just the fact that I put a lot of work into the clues, and I am outraged when all of that is undone by utter BS.
When would you like an identity clue?

That my friend comes with the territory....many an assassinator has had the best laid plans blown up by dumb luck.

AlphaTauri wrote: Personally, I'm a little suspicious of TheGenius (based on writing style, the Star Trek ref in the ID clue, and the completely overhauled rules as he's relatively new to the games) and Z (based on writing style only, weak connection). Opinions anyone?

I have opinions regarding that. I will not, however, share them.Revealing my identity outright would make a boring game, would it not?

To the sassy:
I thought my reasoning was too obvious for clue 1 that I didn't even right it.
Z is the only one that I know of with a nickname that is BAM>