The man was sleeping and all this happened in his dreams. If the man was thwarted, he was thwarted intentionally by a human - his mom or dad who woke him up. The bombs didn’t go off simply because he woke up.
Can you define “thwart”?
to stop or prevent from happening
I can assume the truth concerning the “monetary bank” should be in red, correct?
Aside from that, guys. I think the game master is laughing at our expense right now. Very high up @PocketyHat posted a few blues, which were these:
These blue truths were considered shot down by Pictoshark, by the following red:
So seems that after all this time, The accomplice has been under the second set of orders, else the top blue would’ve still been live when pictoshark responded to them with the above.
Sorry about dragging everyone off track guys, hopefully this will make up for it.
Either way, @Pictoshark can you please explain why you haven’t drawn this to light yet? Is this an honest mistake or are you actively trying to ruin the game for us (because there were many different ways you could’ve responded to my
without just saying [quote=“pictoshark, post:38, topic:885”]
How did he attack him?
[/quote]
cryptically in lime). Sigh, whatever.
Well, I’ll try to come up with something but I think I’m out of stuff.
[color=blue]The man is colour-blind and missed an emergency exit as he mistook the green on the door for grey and assumed it a wall or something similar.[/color]
Very similar to above but I don’t have anything else to say right now…
…kidding.
The accomplice had a workplace friend on the inside of the building or any similar relation who aided him in entering the building, to which end the accomplice attacked and subdued the man.
Obviously this only applies if pictoshark admits he made a mistake with the above blues I posted from pockety.
The accomplice revealed himself during the incident and a bystander gave him money to give to the man. They both left the building entirely intact, their debt problems gone.
I don’t know about putting that conclusion in red rather than blue. No matter how confident you are it’s just a theory until confirmed by the GM. It’s equally likely they just made a small mistake.
Because if the accomplice had been included in that all along then a lot of stuff that could have been denied with that red wasn’t for some reason. Though if the accomplice was just intentionally left open as a possibility for this long then we sure did get trolled for a rather long period of time.
We either my red is true or an above blue is still live.
So regardless something has fucked up here
Also hey guys, I fixed the truth colors, they are now the official colors and dont look shit on mobile!
Who gave you the right to use the red in my territory you cur.
I gave you the lime of “How did he attack him?”, because your theory does not explain how he struck him from outside the bank, or how we got inside the bank to strike him.
If you use the red again you will be struck from this territory nary leaving a scrap where you sit.
I made no mistake you lowlife. I am THIS close to blasting you to pieces, after all you are of equal strength to me, and we are in MY territory.
Fool. The man’s “first set of demands” (the money and the car) were not met. Neither of them in that set were met!
As said by akafa in an earlier blue, the demands were directed towards everyone but the accomplice. And no one disobeyed the second set. One of the items in the second set was attempting to thwart the man.
Also,
#How did the accomplice enter the bulding without the man seeing him?
Oh what, you mean this blue?
It is not live.
#How did the accomplice enter the bulding without the man seeing him?
Alright now I’ve got that zashou out of the way…
Oh look! A cute theory that actually works!
Unfortunately…
The man lives alone.
Just to highlight akafa’s competence (and King’s incompetence for forgetting) here is the post.
See, this is why Aspi mod is best mod.
It was live until you posted those limes you ignorant fuck. Also I am not referring to my truths. I am referring to Pocketys, who said the accomplice attacked the man and you countered with the second orders. Can you not see why, before the limes were posted, this was live? if there’s some reason why this was dead (and I mean aaaallllll the way back then, not now) then please let me know. There are obvious reasons why I’m not going to talk to you about this face to face irl, I’ll just wait for response and comment in the morning.
Also good luck blocking a great KING from entering such a pathetic realm, you cur. I doubt you even have a method of weaponizing gold coins such as a coin crossbow, something every Ruler must have.
Anyway onto others. I don’t think Pictoshark made a mistake in the above when countering pocketys blues. So I’m going to have to tackle this from another direction.
Before that I want to know what I forgot, I don’t think there was any formatting errors before. Or did I forget about a red truth way up in the thread?
I’m about 80% certain that pictoshark has the red “the second set of orders apply to the accomplice” ready else he very nearly ruined his game and he isn’t the sort of person to overlook that - like if I hadn’t posted the footer to my accomplice theory way up the top of the thread he would’ve shot it down with the above red - I would know, he did so in the room with me at the time!
Still, though, we know the man was thwarted by a man, on purpose, so I’ll go with The man was incapitated due to withholding the second set of orders from someone, inside or outside the bank. I won’t explain how yet.
My blues are losing their backbone - at this point I don’t feel they’re making an impact, so I’ll only bold decisive blues that I have faith in. After all, since Aspy changed the Mobile blues it’s not like we need a bold to read them easily anymore.
Lemme search to see how this was countered last time to see if I have to add anything to this…
Also, in regards to this…I use the blue regarding the accomplice entering the building to counter your large text lime. What’s that? You have it locked down by red? sorry, but someone who is in the building and lets the accomplice in does not know the accomplice’s intentions and is not attempting to thwart the man, so please give us another red regarding that. Unless you intend to say that the man’s second set of orders were followed, but also not broken accidently too? These are separate things: a man ordered to protect points A and B still protected them and didn’t disobey orders if there was an unknown point AB he should’ve been defending too, but had no knowledge about. He did not disobey hos superiors: this is the same.
Still not in bold since its easy to shoot down.
I was about to post that in red tbh, decided not to trigger you tho
Hmm neither of his first demands I’ll have to think differently than, seems I didn’t see that until now
Also his first set of demands is £100,000 from the bank and a vehicle to ensure his getaway. So from now that includes all money he gathers as a result of this incident, even life insurance or money in the glovebox of a car that didn’t start or something?
So why didn’t the bank try to give him a car and send him on his way? surely they have a van somewhere.
This isn’t a theory so it’s not blue, I just want an explanation here, it makes little sense.
Wait I think i was unclear so let me interate:
An entrance to the man would not be a barred (or reinforced), locked window. This is something that is also not an exit as an employee would need to use a key. If the accomplice used an inside man to enter who happened to be an employee, he could enter through such an entrance and the man would be unaware.
Still no bold, I will await a response. Probably will respond in the morning since I’m about to sleep
Okay last thing I promise…
No I don’t promise, fuck you
I think I know what you’re talking about me forgetting now, so I’ll respond: just because there’s a blue you can counter with red, it doesn’t mean you can’t use the lime instead and bide your time. You’ve shown this time and time again. I’m assuming you are doing this and have been from since my post concerning the accomplice theory.
Why bold this? If anything that makes the gap before you decide to take action larger, surely? If I write “your ego” in really big letters that can easily show how I think of you, and equally so in small letters.
Mind you I don’t know the formatting for subscript and superscript so I couldn’t do that either.
Anyway I am pretty close to giving up the board temporarily, but obviously if other people start to throw in the towel after me I’ll come back in to ensure the board never ends with a victory to such a foolish sorcerer.
Edit: realised bolding this makes it easier to understand my dumb jokes
It is the player’s responsibility to then propose the theory that the red does not apply to the accomplice. If they do not I cna get away with it. A bit of a dirty trick I’ll admit that, but i was seeing how long it would take all of you to catch on.
Then there is no need for me to respond.
Okay, then give me more details. What method did they use to have the accomplice enter without the man seeing him, and why would they take measures to prevent the man from seeing him if they were not trying to thwart the man?
Not a single window was opened after the start time of the incident.[quote=“King_Titanite_XV, post:277, topic:885”]
Why bold this?
[/quote]
For emphasis you fool. I guess low IQ genes like that really are common with inbreeding royaaaaaaaaaaaals!
This applies to you too you know.
I argue that the countered theory could be valid if the window was open before the incident began.
But then why did the man not see it?