[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 11748155 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null Wavelength |||game over||| - Mafiascum.net
I have no knowledge of annadog so if you feel you have a good metaread on her than
maybe
we go higher. I think lower is safer because of the overall reputation of being a box office hit and the relatively high (>6.5) ratings online.
pops' anecdote made me laugh. I've never been able to nap inside a movie theatre - it's just too loud - unless it's after hours and I've managed to sneak in for a free place to stay.
On the other hand, an Olympic Swimming pool is 3m deep, and a teaspoon is 1mm deep. An Olympic Swimming Pool is 3000x deeper than a teaspoon. We lock in 100.
I've changed my mind after hearing pops' case actually. There's a lot of easy things that come to mind that are more shallow. The range of numbers you'd consider the sea is like 0 to 10, a lake maybe 10 to 20, and rivers 20 to 30. So an Olympic swimming pool would be 30 to 40.
I'd say a swimming pool would be about midway. An Olympic swimming pool has a larger depth than an average swimming pool so I think she's trying to make us go 55 to 65 (deeper side).
But you two overrule me if you're convinced it's on the other end.
It really depends if she considered stuff like bowls/pans/saucers.
If she was thinking entirely in terms of obvious things you associate with "deepness", like puddles/ponds/pools/rivers/lakes/seas then I'd say a lake is 70ish.
If she considered household stuff like the aforementioned and stuff like sinks/bathtubs, then I think lake would be more at 80ish.
In post 140, popsofctown wrote:I need a llama though because when I was lying in bed fatigued i asked my alexa to play random NPR stuff and they told about a farm that will let you pay for a cute farm animal to cameo in go-to-meeting conferences calls and now i need a llama to audiobomb one of my calls
No need to contact that farm, I'm sending you one over now. It's terrified of cats though which might pose a problem.
I don't think that's how people have been playing the game though? As far as I can tell, pops would put the Sun at 0, and a floor tile/still water (can't think of anything flatter right now) as 100.
Oh, are you saying something that's round but not flat would be closer to 0, like a mace head. But something that's BOTH round and flat should be close to 50?
ALSO, what if pops was talking about one of these fancy ultra balls:
In post 156, Knightmare491 wrote:Nah I'm saying that don't look at the scale as a whole. Look at it as two parts, 0-50 and 51-100 of two different things.
Do you have reason to believe pops would view it like this though? Her earlier posts indicate she's been viewing it as a 1-100 scale and not splitting it into 50s and differentiating each half like that.
Actually, if you look really closely at them, the stripes are very slightly indented, which make the ball less perfectly round than I thought. However, that doesn't make them "flatter" either. I think by having the button/indent, it retains its roundness while not being perfectly flat.
No, but I just asked someone I know who has. Apparently, he's pretty funny and says/does outrageous things, but isn't self-aware. She said she'd put him as 10 on the scale.
I was kidding about 73 lol. That's a very interesting take, Isis. This is a difficult one actually; I might have to read some shiki games to see how she would interpret it.
We can interpret "dark" in a figurative sense, but "colourful" isn't used often as antonym of that interpretation. But if we follow Isis' line of thinking and go by the author's comments, I would say 40 to 50. If we judge it in a literal sense of colours, I would say 30.
enomis and Kanna seem to agree on ~40. If it's much higher, Isis, we can all change our avatars to Puzzle & Dragons characters for a minute of respect.
The round would be over if it was 56-61 for the 4 point range. I don't think you ever say rug for below 50. So as long as we don't think it's 50 to 55, it's an easy right.
@lilith: If we submit 3 Lefts, would you accept that as a Right?
In post 348, shiki wrote:the same would apply if the intended range were 61-66 in terms of the round being over, so i think you've narrowed the range too far. however, i agree that it's a pretty easy right.
Good point. It's probably around 70 and we're fineee. Happy for you to submit Right.
Lilith, I think I enjoyed the discussion phases for more of the straightforward cards than the wacky cards (colourful/dark was fun though). That might just be the topics and how they turned out however.
Never heard of him, I haven't watched the shows he's from either.
There's probably a running gag in his shows where he's made fun out of for being short despite being a perfectly normal height. Since you did the work for Brooklyn 99, shiki, I'll do it this time and binge all of Lost real quick to check. I'll report back soon.
In post 372, Hectic wrote:While standing, he is 1.77m or 5ft 9.7in tall. 58.
While sitting, he is 3ft tall. 29.
While lying down, he is 0.5ft tall. 10.
not sure how .5 ft when applied to a human's height could correlate to 10.
I'm back from my Lost binge. I can confirm there is no running gag about Ian's height in any of the episodes.
I love the research about acting roles and perception of good/bad characters, but don't you guys think enomis would've also searched up Ian's height and average human male heights? Probably.
I think unicorns are a strong, sturdy, safe, solid, sound, secure, sure 100. Therefore, we should be going Right.
Isis' interpretation was a little flawed however. Unicorns are actually a cross between a Komodo Dragon (also has 4 legs), a Werewolf (also has fur), and a Cyclops (also has at least 1 eye). As all of these creatures are real, this should be fine.
I think it's quite an interesting clue tbf. There's obvious mythical creatures you can put for 0, like Llamas, but what if you get 45 to 55? Platypus isn't a bad shout from shiki. Maybe you just go for real animals that are in popular TV shows. So: Great Dane, Pink Panther, Pink Pig, Purple Dog (are these allowed?).
In post 430, Isis wrote:For 45 I would use a Pokemon that is based on a real animal like keldeo
This is becoming the Isis equivalent of a rickroll
Also, good point. I was completely tunnel-visioned on using animals/creatures. It'd be hilarious if Xtoxm submitted something like the moon landing and then we'd have to debate whether he was a conspiracy theorist or if he's doing a meta thing...etc
...I love the conspiracy theory but I'd be pretty surprised if she didn't mean the sword. Searching "Katana" doesn't yield any results related to the rendering software on the 1st page for me, so she'd be putting a lot of faith in us to take the far more obscure interpretation.
HOWEVER, I just noticed a distinction between this clue and all the others. We've been provided
speechmarks
around the clue this time. I assumed those were provided by Lilith, but since this isn't the case for any of the other clues, it seems that Kanna included them intentionally.
Wait, the fact she's given the speechmarks probably indicates she's referring to the name of something specific, and suddenly that rendering software looks a lot more plausible, shiki!1