Keirador wrote:Agree with condude that I don't love Telleo's opening of "the hard part is finding the Insider, now let's get to work solving the puzzle," but condude then you go and do the same thing, no?
I almost posted a follow-up explaining why my post is different. The way I'm asking questions is qualititative. If someone starts pinging the right questions to narrow down the phrase this way, we can get suspicious. For example, say it's a word, and the word is dynamite. If someone asks "Is it explosive?" out of the blue, that's a massive red flag. This means that the insider has to play a game of chicken, giving us as little information as possible, while making sure we solve the puzzle.
Telleo's method is so terrible because we get no information about the insider. Her questions are over/unders effectively. What do we learn if the phrase has fewer than 5 words? If it has more than 5 words? Nothing either way.
The reason we can't just do nothing to solve this and let the insider guide us is the following rule:
The Rules wrote:The GM reserves the right to award the game to the Insider if he feels a sufficient effort to guess the word or phrase was not made by the Commons.
. We need to make a sufficient effort after it. That's why my method is superior to Telleo's - we don't run afoul of this rule, and we give the insider enough rope to hang themselves.