Search the Community

I was pondering RAFOs, and wondering if and how it might be possible to derive useful information from them. I realized a few things, which are pretty obvious. 1. It's significantly easier to derive information from RAFOd yes/no questions than from RAFOd questions with more than two answers. 2. If the answer to a question has no/very little significance, Brandon is unlikely to RAFO it, no matter what the answer, because it won't affect the plot and is less likely to be revealed in a book. 3. If the answer to a question is extremely significant, Brandon is extremely likely to RAFO it, no matter what the answer, because it will affect the plot and is more likely to be revealed in a book. 4. If a question is confirming/denying only one theory from a large pool of theories, Brandon is less likely to RAFO it. 5. If the answer to such a question is no, Brandon is less likely to RAFO it than if the answer is yes. This is because removing one theory from a pool is less significant than removing all theories from a pool. So, using only this information, on average more questions that are RAFOd will turn out to be true than false. The margin expands when we narrow the parameters to "yes/no questions that refer only to one theory out of a pool". However, it's likely that Brandon knows this, and RAFOs more questions than he might otherwise, in order to make it more difficult to analyze. As such, more information is needed to fully analyze RAFOs. I haven't been around here that long, so I don't know much about which questions were RAFOd. So I need help. If anyone remembers any questions that were originally RAFOd, but were later answered by some means, could you post them? If all goes well, I hope to be able to find a pattern among the data which will help determine the quality of evidence provided by RAFOs.