Why hello, rebel. *Hands over cheap feeling of exclusivity.*
Here be an overly complex game, intended to incite absurdism, and experience in stating facts of immaterial accuracy in order to warp reality to support your agenda. On the internet.
Posts will resemble the appendix for an elaborate, and mostly unclear contingency plan, with the building of addendum, giving a broadening but ever incomplete glimpse into what the plan entails.
How to Post:
Explore the recent posts with your reading organs. Decide what you think the implication of your subject post is. Think up 'findings' to state which make those implications superfluous. In doing so you get to imply why they found that information relevant in the first place, but only through the connection readers are forced to make. Your post should work like this:
*Please disregard this addendum:
[Indicate the means by which the facts were discovered/verified, if suitable]
[State the facts independently, and without directly indicating why they're relevant. They don't need to be accurate, just try to make them sound professional, and obviously avoid stepping in any controversy. They also should not contradict the subject disclaimer's facts, though I'm not sure that keeping all facts holistic is possible...]
-One asterix means that you are showing how the subject disclaimer is unnecessary (because it represents a false step in the plan, a needless precaution, etcetera). Each one of these disclaimers will cut back to the root of the plan, and they tend to be more taxing to think up. By default, the subject post is the last one, or the last one to be redeemed.
-Additional asterixes (one plus the number of asterixes on the previous post) indicates that your disclaimer is also supposed to be redeeming the disclaimer previous to the subject one (or the subject of your subject). Will feel more like "well, I do *this*". Tends to be a lot easier to do.
-Put one of these things (>) after the asterixes, to indicate that your disclaimer refers to one that is posted below it, as if to imply that the below post was made first, and someone went back to 'correct' it. In meta, this just means you get to troll/give-stimuli-to the next person who posts. (This disclaimer will stand as the last valid one, with the follow up reduced to a gag, or if this is given multiple asterix, it will redeem the disclaimer immediately prior, which the follow up is supposed to be 'addressing'.)
(Kindly let me know if you figure out a more concrete way to define this game's guidelines, or how this system can be broken by the perverted hand of man.)
Examples/Starter:
...
*Please disregard this addendum: Investigation of the local fishing communities social-media implies that on the proposed landing date, Hugh Morris will be attending a bachelor party in Bristol.
**Please disregard this addendum: Recent experimentation implies that recyclable plastic bottles will collapse so far as to lose all structural integrity in abundance of 800g of crushing force, when not sealed by a cap.
***Please disregard this addendum: A local expert on marine life has indicated that the box-ring jelly-octopus, whilst not submerged in water, is unable to produce more that 600g of force.
****Please disregard this addendum: Anecdotal evidence suggests that mature box-ring octopi are intelligent enough to interact with objects outside of the water in a controlled way, whilst remaining principally submerged.
*****Please disregard this addendum: The Marine Population and Quality of Life survey conducted earlier this year verified that the outbreak of severe STD in the Brinehaven lake box-ring population has left almost no mature specimen alive; and none will have developed until late winter.
*Please disregard this addendum: The initiation requirements deign that all field agents are able to traverse 20 yards of level ground in 0.7 seconds with minimal obstacles, regardless of weather or track conditions.
>*Please disregard this addendum: The public bathroom near the south-west side of the lake falls withing our >10-hour constant-habitation standards for any moderate wage agent, without need of additional resources provided the weather for the week is as predicted.
*Please disregard this addendum: The deployment of a single mobile-bivouac suit (commonly refereed to as a 'windman') would only increase our spending for the year by $70.
