Post making contest 1.0

Rule 3: Question?

Rule 5: Relates to character count, I'm not concerned with the exact details because it's simple enough to make a non-compliant post work.

Rule 1: Identical posts from the same people have gotten different results. Signatures and post titles seem irrelevant. This either relates to posts before the actual post, or to something else that varies inherently from one post to another - which leaves post number, ID, or time of posting. (Could be if the Xth character on the page is in the post or something like that.)

Rule 4: I have no idea. Quoting this one Lankiepost and modifying what's in the quote has given the best results so far.

Rule 2: Also not idea but we're not breaking it as often.

This post violates rules 1, 4 and 5.

Okay, we're only violating Rule 1 now. Winning is just a matter of posting that Lankie-quote under the right circumstances.

Any ideas?

This post violates rules 1, 2, 4 and 5.

I don't think it's post number or time of post I'm comparing successful rule 1 passes and I can't see any real correlation there, plus if it was just that then hey sooner or later you might stumble across the correct conditions whilst spamming.

This post violates rules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

I think it might have something to do with the content of the previous post. Or, possibly the previous post that isn't Sruixan telling us which rules were broken.

This post violates rules 1, 2, 3 and 4.

HINT: I gave out some hints once.

;)*&?

a

i'm drowning in data

;)*&?

a

This post violates rule 1. Again.

hey?

This post violates rules 1, 2, 4 and 5.

i'm drowning in data

This post violates rules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, whilst eliciting a nod of understanding from someone who's keeping a spreadsheet because he thought that might be a nice idea for some reason...

So. Sruix said in #238 that his posts had obeyed Rule 1, except for the initial post and #211.

Content doesn't seem to be the deciding factor.

I guess it could be "if Sruix sees you online when he answers" but that would be an awful condition.

Nonetheless, I'm going to test it.

;)*&?

a

I hope you're regretting Rule 1 now, whatever it is.

That's probably not it because it works with spamming, and also two Bob posts made in quick succession had different results.

But I am so thin on ideas that I set myself to invisible to post complete nonsense, because that's all we have.

Even without the "spamming on its own won't work" hint, we can definitively rule out post time as the condition because there are posts with the same timestamp as Sruix posts that don't meet Rule 1.

Post number or ID would eventually work with spamming.

Either the content of previous posts matters, or there's some other condition I'm missing.

I'm going to stare at Bob's identical posts that got different Rule 1 results again.

These posts appear identical, but the first one doesn't have the quote in the link.

Thanks! I can't believe I misspelled Sruixan the first time!

Thanks! I can't believe I misspelled Sruixan the first time!

These posts are completely identical. The first passes Rule 1. The second does not.

;)*&?

a

;)*&?

a

;)*&?

a

;)*&?

Ixcaliber

;)*&?

Reyweld

;)*&?

Dragon Fogel

Post #287 violates no rules.

Give me a minute.

hot damn nice work reyweld please tell us the secret of your miraculous post

Rule 1 is that you have to mention the name of the previous poster. I worked that out about the same time as Reyweld, but he posted while I was checking my suspicions.

Luck? The right combonation of letters? I have no idea...

I was just shamelessly shitposting where I could get away with it

Does this mean I come up with the next set of rules? Because I would be down with that.

Apologies for the suffering inflicted upon you all. The moral of the story is: think through your rules before you make them, because edge-cases can kill. Clarifying alterations made after my first post are indicated in red:

#1: must include the name of the author of the previous post (hence the "strict" interpretation having kittens over whether or not to accept "sruix" for Sruixan, and why the only post of mine that didn't satisfy this rule was the one where granola ninja'ed me)
#2: must contain at least two distinct characters from !@#"£$%^&*() - as found on the numbers row of a UK/US keyboard
#3: must ask at least one question (anything followed by a question mark counts)
#4: must use precisely four different vowels (so "Lankie wrote" was ideal)
#5: must contain an odd number of words, where a terrible lack of forethought has forced me to define a word as "a continuous string of characters, no pictures allowed, bookended by some combination of spaces, punctuation and line breaks". This includes the words that constitute a quote box and the word "Spoiler:", and is the reason I got very fed up around post #201.

Congratulations Reyweld! Your reward may as well be to dream up the next set of rules, though honestly I don't know if that's more of a prize or a curse... maybe I can think of a better one...

(go ahead anyway)

I was working out digital roots over here jfc

I was working out digital roots over here jfc

This post violates rules 2, 3, and 4.

((Edit: This is me saying I'll do it))

I was working out digital roots over here jfc

I was going to say "I'm not that cruel", but, um, let's face it: I am.

(also blame granola for rule 4: the "who needs vowels anyway" post made for Lankie's ruleset was what gave me the idea)

Oh wait, hang on, we're up again!

This is test #1.