Post making contest 1.0

oh no i played too much wow yesterday and missed 10 entire pages jesus you guys

one hunDDreDD percent Sruix's fault

Yeah, I like this thread and enjoy watching it, but that's a big part of the reason I can't really participate much. That, and I am super bad at puzzles holy shit

What if I was to say "Buckle Up Mother Fuckers!"?

This thread is killing me, so with my dying breath I shall declare:

"Fuckle Mupp, Buther Uckers"

Plagiarism.

Pelagic rims

Peal garlic rimmmiiss

Fucker, Lee, rumpus, both or ochre

This post breaks rules 2, 3, 4, and 5.

This is test #6.

I AM GOING TO BED.

End of message.

This post breaks every rule!

Maybe it's an absence of something? Or maybe a presence of many things. Who can tell!

@#$%^&*()_+-= 811

This post breaks every rule!

Should I "Buckle Up, ?"

This is test #6.

I AM GOING TO BED.

End of message.

This post breaks rules 2, 3, and 4.

What if I was to say "Buckle Up Mother Fuckers!"?

This thread is killing me, so with my dying breath I shall declare:

"Fuckle Mupp, Buther Uckers"

This post breaks rules 2 and 3.


This post breaks every rule!

rULE tHREE iS,
yOU mUST pOST iN yOUR tROLL qUIRK,
aLSO,
iT mUST bE sT. bATRRICK'S dAY,

This post breaks every rule!


This post breaks rules 1, 2, 3, and 5.

this is bounDD to suceeDD in passing rule three

This post breaks every rule!

oh no i played too much wow yesterday and missed 10 entire pages jesus you guys

This post breaks every rule!

one hunDDreDD percent Sruix's fault

This post breaks every rule!

Yeah, I like this thread and enjoy watching it, but that's a big part of the reason I can't really participate much. That, and I am super bad at puzzles holy shit

This post breaks every rule!

So what are the different categories of rules?

For instance, we have "simple inclusive rules": These are rules that require something to be present in a post, and only rely on the items inside of a post.

Copying a post that passes with a simple inclusive rule will always pass that rule.

Conversely we have "simple exclusive rules": These are rules that prohibit something to be present in a post, and only rely on items in the post.

Copying a post that breaks a simple exclusive rule will always break that rule.

What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?

So what are the different categories of rules?

For instance, we have "simple inclusive rules": These are rules that require something to be present in a post, and only rely on the items inside of a post.

Copying a post that passes with a simple inclusive rule will always pass that rule.

Conversely we have "simple exclusive rules": These are rules that prohibit something to be present in a post, and only rely on items in the post.

Copying a post that breaks a simple exclusive rule will always break that rule.

What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?

This post breaks every rule!!

"What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?"

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't; see BUDDY."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

"Another rule type is counting rules, which count something in the post and requires that count to meet some condition. Rules which require a count GREATER THAN a number are also simple inclusive; rules which require a count LESS THAN a number are simple exclusive. However, there are rules which have both GREATER THAN and LESS THAN requirements, which do not cleanly fit into either category. Additionally, there can be more complex counting-based rules, such as 'the number of e's in the post must be a prime number', which is not a simple greater than/less than comparison."

"And then, of course, there are meta rules which take into account the fact that this takes place on a forum. We have seen plenty of examples. Or perhaps the forum-specific rules should be considered separately from rules about rules? I'm not sure offhand."

"What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?"

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't; see BUDDY."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

"Another rule type is counting rules, which count something in the post and requires that count to meet some condition. Rules which require a count GREATER THAN a number are also simple inclusive; rules which require a count LESS THAN a number are simple exclusive. However, there are rules which have both GREATER THAN and LESS THAN requirements, which do not cleanly fit into either category. Additionally, there can be more complex counting-based rules, such as 'the number of e's in the post must be a prime number', which is not a simple greater than/less than comparison."

"And then, of course, there are meta rules which take into account the fact that this takes place on a forum. We have seen plenty of examples. Or perhaps the forum-specific rules should be considered separately from rules about rules? I'm not sure offhand."

This post breaks rule 4. That's right, this is the first post to pass rule 3!

"What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?"

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't; see BUDDY."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

"Another rule type is counting rules, which count something in the post and requires that count to meet some condition. Rules which require a count GREATER THAN a number are also simple inclusive; rules which require a count LESS THAN a number are simple exclusive. However, there are rules which have both GREATER THAN and LESS THAN requirements, which do not cleanly fit into either category. Additionally, there can be more complex counting-based rules, such as 'the number of e's in the post must be a prime number', which is not a simple greater than/less than comparison."

"And then, of course, there are meta rules which take into account the fact that this takes place on a forum. We have seen plenty of examples. Or perhaps the forum-specific rules should be considered separately from rules about rules? I'm not sure offhand."

"This post breaks rule 4. That's right, this is the first post to pass rule 3! "

"What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?"

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't; see BUDDY."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

"Another rule type is counting rules, which count something in the post and requires that count to meet some condition. Rules which require a count GREATER THAN a number are also simple inclusive; rules which require a count LESS THAN a number are simple exclusive. However, there are rules which have both GREATER THAN and LESS THAN requirements, which do not cleanly fit into either category. Additionally, there can be more complex counting-based rules, such as 'the number of e's in the post must be a prime number', which is not a simple greater than/less than comparison."

"And then, of course, there are meta rules which take into account the fact that this takes place on a forum. We have seen plenty of examples. Or perhaps the forum-specific rules should be considered separately from rules about rules? I'm not sure offhand."

"This post breaks rule 4. That's right, this is the first post to pass rule 3! "

This post breaks rules 2 and 3.

"What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?"

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't; see BUDDY."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

"Another rule type is counting rules, which count something in the post and requires that count to meet some condition. Rules which require a count GREATER THAN a number are also simple inclusive; rules which require a count LESS THAN a number are simple exclusive. However, there are rules which have both GREATER THAN and LESS THAN requirements, which do not cleanly fit into either category. Additionally, there can be more complex counting-based rules, such as 'the number of e's in the post must be a prime number', which is not a simple greater than/less than comparison."

"And then, of course, there are meta rules which take into account the fact that this takes place on a forum. We have seen plenty of examples. Or perhaps the forum-specific rules should be considered separately from rules about rules? I'm not sure offhand."

"This post breaks rule 4. That's right, this is the first post to pass rule 3! "

This post breaks rules 2 and 3.

"I don't understand anything any more."

"What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?"

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

Categories:

• Simple Rules [inclusive and exclusive]
  
• Counting rules [greater than, less than, ranged continuous, ranged sporadic]
  
• Post specific rules [Post contextual, thread contextual]
  
• Self-referential rules
  

Post specific rules are rules that take into account things that are not within the poster's immediate control. Post contextual are things within a user's post like, post number, username, date/time stamps. Thread contextual are rules that take into account aspects of posts outside of the post being evaluated: the post before this one, the first post on the page, etc.

Self-referential rules are those that reference the ruleset itself. Rules are self-referential if their condition is dependent on the outcome of other rules. Non-self-referential rules are all evaluated independently of each other. Things like rule 3 is only broken if rule five is broken and x happens. DF's "post a zero if you don't break any rules." is an example of this, and one that can be difficult to identify.


Of course, the follow up for this is to see if we can come up with a reliable litmus test for each of these categories.

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't; see BUDDY."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

"Another rule type is counting rules, which count something in the post and requires that count to meet some condition. Rules which require a count GREATER THAN a number are also simple inclusive; rules which require a count LESS THAN a number are simple exclusive. However, there are rules which have both GREATER THAN and LESS THAN requirements, which do not cleanly fit into either category. Additionally, there can be more complex counting-based rules, such as 'the number of e's in the post must be a prime number', which is not a simple greater than/less than comparison."

"And then, of course, there are meta rules which take into account the fact that this takes place on a forum. We have seen plenty of examples. Or perhaps the forum-specific rules should be considered separately from rules about rules? I'm not sure offhand."

"This post breaks rule 4. That's right, this is the first post to pass rule 3! "

This post breaks rules 2 and 3.

"I don't understand anything any more."

This post breaks rules 3 and 4.

"What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?"

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

This post breaks rule 4.

Categories:

• Simple Rules [inclusive and exclusive]
  
• Counting rules [greater than, less than, ranged continuous, ranged sporadic]
  
• Post specific rules [Post contextual, thread contextual]
  
• Self-referential rules
  

Post specific rules are rules that take into account things that are not within the poster's immediate control. Post contextual are things within a user's post like, post number, username, date/time stamps. Thread contextual are rules that take into account aspects of posts outside of the post being evaluated: the post before this one, the first post on the page, etc.

Self-referential rules are those that reference the ruleset itself. Rules are self-referential if their condition is dependent on the outcome of other rules. Non-self-referential rules are all evaluated independently of each other. Things like rule 3 is only broken if rule five is broken and x happens. DF's "post a zero if you don't break any rules." is an example of this, and one that can be difficult to identify.


Of course, the follow up for this is to see if we can come up with a reliable litmus test for each of these categories.

This post breaks every rule!

"What if I was to say Buckle Up Mother Fuckers!?"

"This thread is killing me, so with my dying breath I shall declare:"

"Fuckle Mupp, Buther Uckers"

"goDD DDamnit aks"

"What if I was to say Buckle Up Mother Fuckers!?"

"This thread is killing me, so with my dying breath I shall declare:"

"Fuckle Mupp, Buther Uckers"

"goDD DDamnit aks"

This post breaks rules 2, 3, and 4.

I also have to say that I am very worried about what kind of troll would have the typing quirk you are affecting.

"I "can't believe" Sruix is the new Sol"

"Team Protect Sruix™"

"xazhaf was fine it was her towering multititted lusus that got the threaDD lockeDD"

"I "can't believe" Sruix is the new Sol"

"Team Protect Sruix™"

"xazhaf was fine it was her towering multititted lusus that got the threaDD lockeDD"

This post breaks rules 2, 3, and 4.

this is DDiscrimination i am outrageDD

this is DDiscrimination i am outrageDD

This post breaks every rule under what I guarantee you are the same conditions as everyone else.

"What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?"

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

"What do you guys think? Are any of Akumu's rules simple exclusive or simple inclusive? How would you categorize some of the other possible rules?"

"1 and 5 seem to be simple inclusive, and I'm pretty sure this post will pass them."



"At a glance 4 seems to be simple exclusive, as blank posts pass it. However, combining posts that pass it has produced posts that don't."

"We had a theory on 2 that would be simple inclusive but it isn't working consistently."

This post breaks rule 4.

You must be registered to view this content.

This post breaks every rule! Also, I don't think that updates continuously, as this thread is into the 1700s in replies already.

You must be registered to view this content.