• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

301 Bloodsealer


About MetaTerminal

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

863 profile views
  1. One month later... Scadrial Round Solutions I mean, it's only a month and a half late. What's the big deal? There is also a very important question that I shall raise at the end of this post (regarding the next round) that I want everyone interested in participating in to at least read and consider. Travelling Blues Inscriptions Family Trees Relativity Astronomy Makes the Man Wayneisms Gossipers Okay, it’s time to talk about something. There’s a question that’s on all of your minds, and I’m here to answer it. Namely: It’s been two months since the last signups went up. Where’s the new round? What have you been doing all this time? Quiet at the back! But, yes, imaginary person, you are correct. Turnaround on the next round has been slow. Or, should I say, two rounds. (To do list item one: set up cliffhanger. Status: complete. Item two: personal anecdote and side tangent. Proceeding...) So the first round took over a month to draft and finalise. The second went up twice as quickly - just under two weeks. So what’s the difference? The difference is time. I had almost unlimited free time for Scadrial - after meals, and family commitments, most of my time was on planning, writing, testing, throwing out, starting again, writing, cross-referencing... and it worked! I got a fairly successful round finished very quickly - before the dust had settled on the first round, I dare say. The problem with that method is it causes burnout. It was impossible for me to work on the third round for the rest of February - I was spent. By the time I picked the thing up again in March, workload had picked up again significantly. I’d say at least fifty hours of work in the past week has gone towards a local theatre production. More has gone to stuff I can’t share, or projects on the Shard, or personal stuff... (You can see the results of some more of my and other's work here.) I haven’t just been buried under this - I’ve spent some good time slacking off as well! - but other things have been on my mind. Okay, Meta, stop making excuses and get to the point. Settle, settle. I do have a point, which is: at some point in late February, I looked at my sketch of the next draft and said: “This looks sorta Earth-sized, but on a much longer release schedule. I don’t want to release something this small after such a long wait, and the people who wanted another Scadrial might be disappointed...” And then I had what I thought was a brilliant idea. What’s better than one puzzlehunt round? Two puzzlehunt rounds. (Yes, thank you, save questions to the end. We’re not trying to establish whether it was, in fact, brilliant. The point is that I thought it was.) So I drafted another round, shuffled some things, tweaked some others. The details came out like this: I would have a first round that was slightly easier, more Earth-sized, to get everyone into the swing of things... and then the second one would pull out all the stops. It would be the biggest round yet. It would have ambitious and cool puzzles. (In theory, at least.) So I tried to write that one as well alongside it... and then, of course, I missed the March deadline. Good news! The first round is almost ready to go. (Puzzles are drafted, just some fine-tuning.) Associated bad news: the second round isn’t. It’s about halfway. And then with the ugly news: in almost exactly one month, I shall be sitting some very important exams. (Latin exams, precisely. Respice, quaeso, aliquando...) And studying and puzzle solving does not mesh well together. In fact, one week from now I will need to be studying solely for those Important Non-Puzzle Commitments, and I won’t have time to dedicate to anything else. Therefore, right now we have a dilemma. I can release what I have now: a single round (a finished one), after a longer-than-expected wait. But it won’t be very long, or very difficult. Underwhelming could be the right word. And the second round will have to be reworked as a result, and will take a little longer than if we wait, since I’ll have to rethink some of the things that might or might not be in it. Conversely, I can wait a month, finish the second round (won’t take long after that) and release the two-round extravaganza as intended. Upside: my evil plans work out, and I can release the two rounds in their interlinked glory. Downside: no Sanderson Puzzle Hunt for over three months. Great for suspense, maybe. Not so good for consistency. So! Instead of making up my own mind, I’ve put it to a vote. Would you rather a little bit of puzzle-content now (but you have to wait longer for the second/fourth round), or wait for both of them together? Neither are perfect - I would prefer the second option, but even so the delay is hardly ideal. But as long as the people more important than me - the audience - are happy, then I'm happy. What do you say?
  2. (I have no idea if this is in the right forum, but Kelek’s breath if I couldn’t find a better one. Not Sanderson-themed, but definitely applies to the Shard itself... Apologies to the mod who will inevitably have to move this post.) There was an international competition, called the Galactic Puzzle Hunt, that ran at about mid-March. We represented the Shard in it! Out of the 717 teams that competed, and the nearly three thousand participants, our team of nine Sharders came in the top 100! Ninety-third, to be exact. You can see the leaderboard here. For those who know the Sanderson Puzzle Hunts, this will be a familiar conceit - there are 42 puzzles released to all teams to solve which have an English word or phrase as an answer. You solve them as quickly as possible over the ten day period. The first team to solve all the puzzles wins. (Though the teams that finish are very much in the minority. Finishing at all, in fact, is a tremendous achievement - the teams marked with aeroplane emojis on the leaderboard were the ones who finished. We got about two-thirds of the way through, and probably wouldn’t be able to get any further even with extra time.) The puzzles weren’t standard formats - they ranged from logic puzzles with a twist, to multiple video games, to those match math puzzles (but instead of basic arithmetic, there’s calculus and sigma notation). Anything and everything is fair game - puzzles about words inside other words, country flags, TV shows, movies... Sometimes standard internet puzzle territory, sometimes not. Often, you think a puzzle will be about one thing, but it’s actually about another. Difficulty ranges as well: early in the competition, puzzles are fairly straightforward. By the end, they are almost impenetrable. The initial plot of the Hunt was Antarctic Artifact. We were 'invited' to an archaeological dig - as the supposedly best archaeologists and enigmatologists in the business - and had to piece together the meaning of the remnants of an ancient stone tablet. We soon discovered that the stone tablet was, in fact, a part of a centuries-old alien 'cold war' (in Antarctica? see?) and that we were required to uncover more artifacts and decode the galactic language in order to work out why each of the alien races weren't getting along. The round consisted of two main parts: pre-Artifact assembly, where the puzzles were easier (the 'intro' round); and after we had pieced it together, where the puzzles became considerably more difficult. During the first two days, we had a quick pace, though we were quickly overtaken by many, much faster teams. (The first puzzle took us an hour to solve. The best team took only eleven minutes.) We hovered between 120th and 160th for the first few days, jumping ahead and falling behind as we battled with teams with more spread out time zones. Solving the first artifact caused puzzles to increase in difficulty amazingly quickly. As a result, our rate of solving (initially about four per day) dropped, first to about two per day, and then one as the competition went on. Thankfully, the other teams appeared to be having just as much trouble with the higher difficulties, allowing us to creep into the top 100 as we approached the final week. From there we hovered around the 100th position until the end of the competition. For a little while it looked like we were in danger of finishing outside the double-digit bracket, until a number of solves (brought home by some hard, late night work and utilization of hints) on the final day pushed us over the finish line. Our fantastic team was myself, @AonDii, @Snipexe, @Babilarian Darkeyes, @MistCLOAKed Mountains, @MiToRo94, @Exalted Dungeon Master, @RShara and @Devotary of Spontaneity. All of these people provided amazing work and activity, and we wouldn’t have gotten the place we did if even one of them did not take part. Special shoutouts to Exalted and MiToRo, who managed to solve puzzles singlehandedly (Line Plots and Twitch Plays GPH respectively). But I am glossing over so much skill and effort that went into this - as someone said, part of our strength is having a lot of different people with different skill sets. With even one person missing, it's doubtful that we would have done as well as we did. Puzzles we/I liked: Race for the Galaxy 50/50 Peaches (this might be Stockholm Syndrome talking) Puzzles that caused us/me the most anguish: Ministry of Word Searches Colors The Last Databender General stats: Placing: 93/717 Puzzles solved: 27/42 Fastest solve: 1hr2mins, Cross Lines Slowest solve: 169hr49mins, Cuspidation Number of Sanderson references made during solving: needs improvement Number of friends and family contacted to help with obscure topics: 2 Placing of the team named WIT: 50 (always a few steps ahead!) Number of times we got rickrolled: 2 (Apologies to anyone who is skilled at puzzles but got overlooked for the team - I tried to get everyone that I knew had ability, but I was conscious of team size limits (10 maximum) and it's entirely possible that I missed very talented people. Send me a ping and I'll be sure to keep you in the loop next time.) It is many months until the next large puzzle competition, so it's unlikely you shall hear from us again until near year's end. Yours cryptically, MetaTerminal, Team Captain
  3. A number of new rules have been passed: the Fair Play Act, the Settlers of Disputes, and the Bold Text Initiative. (A note: deciding on what constitutes as 'reasons' will probably be down to a Settlers of Disputes vote.) 3 eggs have been awarded to Dr. Dapper, 3 to AonEne, and 3 to MiToRo. The amendment for the Rule of Locations has been included into the rule itself, as all who support the rule support the amendment (including me). Rules 94, 97 and 98 have thus been added to the Waiting List. I second the Monopoly Rule and the Rule of Zwei #2. I propose the Rule of Forbidden Things: that acknowledging this rule's existence is impossible. I withdraw it from consideration. :3 Due to issues with setting up a new poll for deciding presidency, I will instead be doing it in any format that @I think I am here. and @AonEne can agree on a format. I am massively out of date on Participation Eggs, but I claim it now. (I also had to manually change the formatting of the rules due to the Initiative. I hope you're all happy.) To Itiah, Hemalurgic Headshot, and Taradiddle: I move pawn d4. My Character Sheet: Gameboard Character Sheets Player Attributes Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Waiting List (ONLY THESE PROPOSALS CAN BE VOTED ON) Other Proposals (in order of time seconded, then time proposed): Proposed Amendments: Failed Rules
  4. Which means, if this is true, that you didn’t need to even wait for Ene - it would become true the moment someone who voted for it received eggs, creating said feedback loop. Fixed. New Gameboard Rules! I have -21 eggs. :3
  5. Okay, so Ene does support. In which case she would begin to support when the rule is enacted, and wouldn’t cause the problem since the eggs are awarded after the rule is put in place... ugh. The ordering on this is very confusing. It shouldn’t cause an infinite loop, anyway, since she’s either supporting or not supporting it, and once she’s made the shift she can’t go back (ie you can count her getting the eggs before she supports it, so you get double, but since she supports it after that she doesn’t get the double points). You could push to get one sum of points, but that’s basically it. That’s entirely fair. In that case, I shall take the first incident as the most agreeable, and assume that you have revoked your seconding, as indicated by the above quote. The waiting list is thus formed: I support the Rule of Inactivity. It passes, and is removed from the waiting list. The next (and only other) rule that is eligible to go on it is the Amended Sanity Rule. ( @AonDii does need to revote on it!) :3 -11 I propose two rules. The Rule of Locations: That the Gameboard be divided into four equal regions, considered ‘top-left’ (everything north and west of d5), ‘top-right’ (everything north and east of e5), ‘bottom-left’ (everything south and west of d4) and ‘bottom-right’ (everything south and east of e4), and that these locations shall correspond to the following places in the RP: Sel, Scadrial, Nalthis, and Roshar respectively. In order to be in a place in the RP (and take part in discussions in said places, etc.) you must have a piece on the board in these locations. In addition, every location created in the RP must have a position on the Gameboard. The Rule of Pieces: Every player must have a piece on the board. If you choose, you may place a non-chess piece which has the same movement abilities of a king (known as a ‘checker’) on the board as close as possible to the centre in a region of your choosing (prioritising north, east, south and then west directionally if their is ambiguity in possible placements). Multiple checkers may stack upon each other, but no checker may share a square with a chess piece (ie move to a chess-filled square, or have a chess piece move to a checker-filled square - this does mean that checkers ‘block’ moves through that square even if the move does not end on that square) and checkers may not check or be checked. A player may discard their checker for a chess piece at any time of their choosing, but may not do the reverse. Game State: Gameboard Character Sheets Player Attributes (Egg Balances currently in dispute and thus out of date) Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Waiting List (ONLY THESE PROPOSALS CAN BE VOTED ON) Other Proposals (in order of time seconded, then time proposed): Proposed Amendments: Failed Rules
  6. At that point in the game, there had been little to no support for the rule - indeed, it had only been introduced 3 posts before. Thus, ‘unless the majority seems to be going the other way’ seems to indicate that a lot of people are voting for it (since there had been no indication of that happening up until that point, and the conditional indicates a yet unhappened but possible future scenario). There is also nothing that states you can vote for a rule once it has been passed. Similarly: Withdrawing support from a rule that has already been passed (or would have been passed) would not take those rules out of effect - similarly, a rule might be put into effect by you seconding it, and can’t be taken out when you un-support them. :3 -1 Since I think having the Gameboard and the RP more closely entwined - what would people think of 1) having a Rule where everyone needs to have a piece, but if you want you can have a piece that can’t be checked or check people and 2) having locations in the RP (possibly influencing trading, or fulfilling Side Quests) correspond to places on the board? I’m thinking of a zoning system where the board is divided into quarters.
  7. In which case her vote would have been removed upon the imminence of the passing of the rule, since she would be a ‘deciding’ factor (a vote which got it passed by 1) - it would still be at 3. Even if you don’t want to un-effectify the rule (though it would have been passed in error and shouldn’t be counted, and just like you losing said false reportings are to be considered as not happening - I shall mull this over), it’s odd to claim that this somehow gives a feedback loop, since she’s going from supporting to not-supporting, meaning that once she has switched no more eggs would be given to her. Or, indeed, any extra eggs at all. :3
  8. In the past, I have counted general indication of support (including vague answers like ‘I support this’ and ‘I second this’) as a vote for - unless you want to make a strict rule stating that general support does not count as a vote in the future (and without such a rule seconding would in this instance count as a vote), then we’d have to reasses the validity of effectively every rule we have. Indeed, Mac’s Rule gives no indication that seconding is nothing more than ‘a second person voting for support on it to give it legitimacy’. (I have a slight indication towards invoking the Rules Lawyering Rule as well, but that really depends on whether we can come to an agreement.) There’s a quote in my signature, I realise (though technically misprinted). Heaven Sent. :3. -1. I have no idea where Ene has indicated where they supported the rule - or, indeed, that rules can be successfully supported once in effect.
  9. Amended. This has been seconded twice (and thus has three total votes), but it’s not on the waiting list - four more rules need to be passed before it can be put into effect. Thus, if you haven’t voted for some of them on the waiting list (or would like to propose to strike them), then do so, sil vous plait. *increased distress* “I have a bad feeling about this.” That being said, you may not have voted for some of those yet, meaning that they get passed - and removed from the waiting list. Whether that will be enough to get the new proposal on there remains to be seen. This is one lump sum of minus 10 - the rule states you lose them for each post, not each rule violation. I will make a move on the board and check the new waiting list shortly (about an hour). :3 (-1 eggs)
  10. My post did not violate anything - I simply reported incorrectly on the effects of the passing of a rule. Rule 5 simply states that the rule is invalid, not that incorrectly invoking it is against the rules. On the other hand... storms. “Houston, we have a problem.” I propose the Amended Sanity Rule: That Rule 16 be removed from effect, and that any effects to egg balances caused by the rule (ie increases, decreases, transfers, or any other changes in egg state that the rule allowed or caused) shall be revoked, overruled and undone retroactively, so the game can be fair. This rule supersedes all other rules (lest Meta despair). (Note - since this is a proposed new rule, and not simply a removal, voting for it does not need to be in green.) In the interests of Voidus and (insert the other three people who voted for it) not immediately winning, someone needs to second this rule (to get it onto the waitlist - it can be considered to overrule ones already proposed, since they have not yet been seconded), and then two more people need to vote for it. I’m assuming that you are taking the eggs for the passing of new rules - I would be hesitant about that, since the eggs are being awarded at the same time as the rule is being passed into effect. Thus, when the transaction begins, the rule does not apply. So the ordering of it all is a little fuzzy. Also - UNO! Voidus’ post violates the First Rule of Idiocy. This will be of interest to @AonEne. (I’ll make the poll in the morning.) I actually can’t decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I cannot tell at all. :3
  11. I challenge all active players (and anyone else who cares to become active) to a Duel of Awww! That being said, I don't want to have to include a whole bunch of different photos in one post, and I'd like to use different photos for each challenge, so consider this an 'I dare you to challenge me' statement. (Though I will specifically say that MiToRo's new snek needs to be on this thread at all costs.) The majority has fallen to 4, and as such many, many new rules have been passed into effect: Voidus' Law of Unfair Advantage, the Chessboard Rule, the Rule that Says You’ve Lost the Game, the Spikes Rule, the Discarded Proposal Proposal, the Voidus Law of Mayhem, the Musical Page Proposal, Ene's Third Rule, Voidus' Rule of Things, Mac's First and Second Rules of Organisation, Voidus' Ultimatum of Doom, the First Rule of Idiocy, the Rule of Egg Puns, and the Wandering Merchant Exception and Neutrality Act alongside the amendment to Dapper's First Law. Eggs have thus been awarded: 12 to @Voidus, 6 to @MetaTerminal, 9 to a player no longer involved in the game, 3 to @MiToRo94, 6 to @AonEne, 3 to @TheVillageIdiot, 3 to @Taradiddle, and 6 to @Hemalurgic Headshot. In the interests of streamlining, every proposal older than 3 days that has less than the minimum majority of 3 votes has been struck from consideration to streamline things. If you wish to protest the striking of a particular rule, I will reverse it. The list still violates Mac's Second Law, but only by 4 rules. Mac's Third Law of Organisation has also been fulfilled. In accordance with Meta's Sanity, and in conjunction with the passing of the Law of Unfair Advantage, Voidus loses. (This does not preclude him from continued play, or indeed winning some time in the future. We haven't got a rule dictating that yet.) We have a gameboard now! The Chessboard Rule has been reprinted here: there exists a standard chessboard, originally starting as the starting piece positions for white and black. Each player may elect one piece on the board as theirs - during their turn, they may move their piece as per the standard rules of chess. Checking a piece (checks being defined as per standard chess rules) which is controlled by another player (the ‘recipient’) gains the moving player 100 points, and loses the recipient 100 points. Mutual checks provide no point increase or deduction for either side. This will be really good for the game, if people take its existence into account and draft rules for it. How can we represent eggs, wandering merchants, duels, or other existing mechanics into the game? I claim the White Queen on d1. :3 Gameboard Egg Balances and Player Attributes Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments: Failed Rules
  12. Welcome to the game! Sorry everyone, I was quite busy today, so I wasn’t able to pass things into effect that should have been. Tomorrow, I’ll do it all properly. :3
  13. In which case, it’s probably good that it was revoked... If you provide evidence of the other upvotes, I’ll factor it into the Egg counts. :3 FIRST OFFICIAL EGGS COUNT: Please note that exactly 24 hours after the posting of this list, anyone not in accord with Ene’s Second Rule will be UNO-able. If you have queries about your Egg amount, then just contact me in the thread.
  14. The only reputation received by one of your posts on this was the seventh post - since the Reputation Points Rule was enacted at the end of Page 10, you only receive 10 points. Reputation earned on posts before enaction don’t count. :3
  15. The Reputation Rule does not specifically supersede this, and thusly only 10 Eggs are awarded. :3 @AonDii