Print

Print


On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:39:39 -0400, <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>John Vertical wrote:
>>> If we did want it to be both secret and reliable, I would recommend
>>> this system: When each person finishes their step, they send the
>>> result to two randomly chosen people from the list of participants.
>>> That way while there would still be lost threads, there would also be
>>> enough new ones generated to sustain a reaction.
>>
>> Presumably the loss rate is small rather than close to 50%, so that wouldn't
>> just sustain the project, it would bifurcate it to a ton of different
>> variations!
>
>We could make a "spin the bottle" variation of this idea where the
>next person is chosen by some random means, rather than running
>through an ordered list.

Look, at this point we've collectively probably written, oh, at least four
times as much text about how to reorganise this game than actual description
of the in-game language.  And that's a bit silly.

Have we established who was last to see the torch?  If so, what say we just
have them send it on again and continue as planned, give the original
concept a bit more of a chance?  

Alex