The Game of Mao

This post breaks rule 4, you know the drill.

 

This game sure is "interesting". Wonder if it's still going on.

 

‭‭‭‭‭‭‭‭‭‭

 

One, two, three, four.

________________________________

Four, five, six, seven.

 

Guys, this post breaks rule 4.

Spoiler: posts that break nor pass the rule

note: this has been copied and broke the rule whilst copied, so it's not about the text.

Spoiler: posts that pass the rule

The __________________________'s are doublepost lines.

note: this has been copied and been wrong whilst copied, so it's not about the text.

Hint: "I’ll do it… but now isn’t the “right” time, per say."
"Look at everything. Don’t take something I say as a throwaway statement. Also, don’t just mindlessly copy my messages. Actually try things like LMiffy is doing."
note: LMiffy was posting timestamps

02:50 (UTC±00:00)
broke the rule

06:50 (UTC±00:00)
was not counted

10:50 (UTC±00:00)
was not counted


Since it appears like the actual thing said in the posts don't matter much, here's a list of non-context info in a comment by @TheLMiffy1111 :
List of non content post info:
Post time
(Has been explored and, assuming the original post was indeed posted at 02:50 (UTC±00:00), post time can not be the only thing that matters for the rule. Since Mac N Cheeseman states the rule really isn't that complicated, I don't think it involves posttime and something else, so I don't think this is it.
Dates themselves have not really been tested, but no two posts on the same day have been correct

Last edit time
Unless forums got updated w/o my knowledge making this visible elsewhere, the passing posts were not edited.

Post user (and user info)
Not all Mac N Cheeseman things have passed , so this def isn't the only part necessary

Post index in thread
Post id
(too lazy to figure these out)

posted 15:28 (UTC±00:00)
(edited a bit later, last edit at: 15:32 (UTC±00:00))


I'll also say, in the hint the word "right" was annotated, not the word time. My guess is that the word right has more to do with the answer than the word time. (idk how though.)

 

hmmm...

I tried the same post with and without the doublepost line so the line has something to do with it, also I copied the same text without it's italics and quotes, so there must be something to do with it. They also said that the rule is post to post based which kinda reinforces my point here

And they altered the rule at the very beginning so I doubt there are posts that neither passes nor breaks rule 4.

This post breaks rule 4.

 

This post breaks rule 4.
(I can still post stuff, it's just that my following posts the same day after a post does break rule 4 w/o saying it does, or breaks w/ saying it does will not be checked, right? )

They said
"Guys, I will say that I’ve just changed the rule a slight amount, but it still retains the same concept. And all of the previous posts are fine."

I personally interpret "all previous posts are fine" to mean "the way I checked all of the previous posts still applies". Mac N Cheeseman, can you comment on wether or not the first post at page 7 (the post that neither broke or passed the rule) actually passes (current) rule 4?

 

Mac N Cheese Man is busy enjoying his Mac N Cheese but will it be cannibalism because he is Mac N Cheese Man

uhh it breaks rule 4 whatever

 

‭‭‭‭‭‭‭‭‭‭

 

Rule Guess:
Each post should have 4 breaks (separated with commas or fullstops). The last word on each post should be the first word of the next post, and you need at least one doublepost.

 

This thread makes my head hurt.

Also this post breaks rule 4

 

This post breaks rule 4, but it’s been over a day since you posted this, so you’re technically fine. (For some reason this thread stopped sending me e-mails). I’ll do the rest soon.

 

(Responding to TheLMiffy1111’s post)
This is not a post. It is blank.

________________________________

This post breaks rule 4, but it’s been over 24 hours since you posted it. You’re fine.

________________________________

This post does break rule 4, but you’re fine. It has also been over 24 hours.

________________________________

This post breaks rule 4, but you’re fine.

________________________________

This post breaks rule 4, though it comes somewhat close to not breaking it, and you are fine.

Also, the first post I made for rule 4 neither breaks nor passes it, as it was the first post for this rule (this is a cross-post rule, as theorized earlier, so there was no earlier post for the rule to effect).

________________________________

This post breaks rule 4, but you’re fine.

________________________________

This, again, isn’t a post.

________________________________

This rule guess is incorrect, and the post breaks rule 4. Just wait 3 hours and you’ll be fine to post again.

________________________________

This post breaks rule 4, but you’re fine.

________________________________

4 hints is how many I can give, for now.

This is either the third or the fourth, I need to check. This also isn’t part of the “this post breaks/makes the rule,” I just don’t know how to separate the posts by not a double post line.

________________________________

This post does not break rule 4. I don’t know why I replied to all of that twice.

 

let me try

 

This post breaks rule 4.

Now we have this: "I made for rule 4 neither breaks nor passes it, as it was the first post for this rule (this is a cross-post rule, as theorized earlier, so there was no earlier post for the rule to affect)."

I could imply that, you need a certain post before you (or just post it yourself) to have some chance to pass the rule, because its uhh... a cross-post rule?

So the 2+ posts have to be somewhat related?

And why tf did Mac stressed that he was responding to LMiffy's post at the very beginning of his reply, and why does he have to quote it twice? It's nice to pass it as something so complicated and maybe I've been overthinking this during the time while I was typing this post, but.

 

This post breaks rule 4.

This is a post by you that did not break rule 4, and the post before it. Your post does not seem to be all that related. And it does not reply to anything with a box. Which means that the "cross-post" probably is in relation to the previous post.

"I don't know why I replied to all of that twice" tells me it's not important.

I'd like to highlight one thing:

"though it comes somewhat close to not breaking it"
The post was made 58 minutes later than the one before it, but sadly all "correct" posts were not made some multiple of one hour later than the post before it. So that isn't the rule.

Some other weird thing I just noticed, in the first post:

In the second quote, the part I highlighted with yellow is a part of the total quote. But whenever you press "reply" on a quote, if part of what you are quoting is already in a quote, it does not end up in the quote.

Meaning that
"rule 4 is now in effect
Well, I don't really have much to say for this rule other than it's "interesting." Have fun, guys."

was intentionally and manually put in the second quote.

Interestingly, in that comment that almost passed rule 4, I misqouted Mac N cheeseman.
I said they said
"Guys, I will say that I’ve just changed the rule a slight amount, but it still retains the same concept. And all of the previous posts are fine."
which is what they did say but later I used the words "all previous posts are fine" instead of "all of the previous posts are fine."[/quote]

 

This post breaks rule 4. At this point its like talking about the rule and evade that 24-hour ban by saying "this breaks rule 4" in the beginning. uhhhhhhhh

You have a point here, however, they also mentioned something:

I could think of it as he took my entire doublepost as one and quoted it, even tho they are two posts because the forums will merge two consecutive posts from the same person at almost the same time into one post. (And they technically are two posts)
So I am very certain that my latter post affected the former post in some way, but the question is "how"

Okay.
You couldn't quote a quote. But the "Rule 4 is now in effect" message is there from the beginning, so they actually didn't modify their quotes. I got the reason why I didn't pass the rule for copying his first message, as it can't affect the previous post in some way, but why doesn't it break rule 4 in the very beginning? There must be a pattern there as well and idrk honestly

But he could have deleted the duplicated quote instead of saying "idk why I quoted it twice". Maybe I was overthinking it but I will consider it as something intentional for now. Especially if you look closer, there is a difference between the two quotes, first one didn't mention "This also isn’t part of the “this post breaks/makes the rule,” I just don’t know how to separate the posts by not a double post line." but the second post actually did.

 

This post breaks rule 4, you know the drill.

________________________________

This post breaks rule 4, but you’re fine.

________________________________

This post breaks rule 4, but you’re fine.

________________________________

The two quotes is not part of it, I just didn’t want to delete that much on mobile.
Anyways, this post breaks rule 4, but you’re fine.

 

This post breaks rule 4, but you’re fine.

________________________________

4 hints is how many I can give, for now.

This is either the third or the fourth, I need to check. This also isn’t part of the “this post breaks/makes the rule,” I just don’t know how to separate the posts by not a double post line.

 

The game of Mao begins now.
Rule 1 is now in effect.

The game of Mao is simple. The game of Mao is based off of a card game. There is a secret rule which I have made active for every reply in this thread. You may guess the rule by saying “RG/Rule Guess/(anything like that):____________.” If your reply breaks the rule or is an incorrect guess, I will tell you. If your reply breaks the rule or is an incorrect rule guess, then none of your following replies will count for a day, and I discourage you from replying during that time. If you correctly guess the rule then you win, and I will come up with a new rule.

If you believe your post breaks the rule preface it with “This Breaks the Rule” (or something of the sort). This causes you to not be counted for a day if it doesn’t break it, and still be counted if it does.

Replies stating if a reply or rule guess has/has not broken the rule do not count for the rule.

This post does not break rule 1.