To put it in other words, "If you were assigning words/phrases that other people have to sneak into proposals without arousing other people's suspicion, what do you think are reasonable choices?"
The idea is that *I* have an idea of what I intend to assign as words/phrases, but this might not be what people expect, and I'm doing a reality check. (Hint: There is a reason why the contract is called what it is) 天火狐 On 26 October 2017 at 21:46, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not really sure what is meant by the first question. > > On 10/26/2017 9:34 PM, Josh T wrote: > >> For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would >> like to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so >> I have an idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making >> word/phrase lists on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the >> contract so that it is usable and pull / update that list as people make or >> concede the wager. The survey can be found here: >> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1aKvKLkD-kzBPrgBJ >> aRyl32nA028tjNlZXNCKvu35Vw5E8Q/viewform >> >> 天火狐 >> >> On 26 October 2017 at 00:25, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com <mailto: >> vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I become a party to the Order >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com >> <mailto:draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > NttPF. >> > >> > I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I >> missed >> > things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP. >> > >> > 天火狐 >> > >> > On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com <mailto: >> vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> I become a party to the Order. >> >> >> >> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com >> <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea >> >> > tremendously but there's two qualms: >> >> > >> >> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are >> in fact >> >> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This >> leads, >> >> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue: >> >> > >> >> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult hand, >> >> > potentially making this a giant scam. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> From V.J. Rada >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> >> >>
