unforum

[casemyo]

if we started the "buy casemyo a slusho sweater" foundation id gladly confirm the memo to be IG or gamejack.

[xtom]

Looks pretty real to me. I would have to say I have a 90% level of belief these letters are genuine.

[Julia]

I'm convinced it's IG. And not just because I invested time into transcribing the memo. But what I think is irrelevant.

I understand the caution. Nobody likes gamejacks, and I'm sure those ARG veterans among you have encountered your fair share. But I don't see any reason at this point to doubt the memo. There's no real indication it's a gamejack; there's just the possibility that it could be, which means nothing and doesn't justify this level of suspicion.

What does it matter that the people who posted the clues hadn't posted before now? As someone pointed out, that's probably because they didn't have anything to post about. That's why I didn't post until now. When you look at the boards, the number of people actively solving clues is pretty small. Unless you see some way you could be uniquely useful, there doesn't seem to be much point in posting.

I just don't think we should risk running off new people just because there's a completely unsubstantiated chance that a minor clue isn't real.

[Lambo_Diablo_Svtt]

Patrick, Why does he need a scanner... All he is doing there is showing the letter WITH his slusho shirt and mail package, which was officially mailed to him.

[Slusho Addict]

[Patrick Star]

[Arkaham]

Someone came up and called us paranoid when the Posters Incident came up. It was a gamejack (ok, it was more of a innocent prank, but well). Someone came up and called us paranoid when the Colbyrook incident. It was a gamejack. Someone came up and called us paranoid when boldfutura.jp came up. It was a gamejack. Someone came up and called us paranoid when the fake I'm legend trailer came up. It was a gamejack.

Youy know, I think this game have had more gamejacks than real clues. So statistically, we are right to have our doubts. And sure, is not fair to say a lower post count means you're unreliable, but sadly its true. All gamejacks have came from people with very low post counts, who do their trick and leave never to be seen again, after making us waste a lot of time and crushing our hopes (yeah, buhu ).

So while no one attacks you directly, calling you a liar and such, we are more than entitled to our doubts. Like I've said before, hopefulle we'll be saying we're sorry soon.

[Slusho Addict]

OK, paranoia might be the wrong word.
I understand why everyone is very suspicious, and the reason behind that, I just think it's sad if half of the time spent in ARGs is working out what's genuine and what's pretending to be genuine. I don't know how you could put a stop to that though.

[W-Three]

I see no real reason to assume its a Gamejack. Like previously stated, there is a possibility.

Even so, I think its good to be paranoid, but not let it get in the way. For example, its worth pursuing, and possibly not considering it fact, but rather just use it in any speculation.

[TwelfthMonkey]

We got the poor guy risking his life at Chuai Station just to get out a message for us and we don't believe him.

=(

[TheAirman]

[Euchre]

I think the use of the word "trusted" here is a bit poor of a choice.
I think the word "tenured" would be more appropriate, for two key reasons:
1. Tenure does tend to build trust and credibility in any field
2. The timing of a member's presence does tend to help separate the gamejack from the genuine
The timing is most important, much like how it works with the creation of sites. If the whois discloses a site that has been created before the evidence leading to it, this makes it almost absolutely genuine, for the logical reasons that there's no motivation or information to invoke it's creation by a potential gamejacker (who would buy the domain tagruato.jp when nobody had ever heard of such a company in any frame of reference before?).

Evidence is proven true or false by means of forensics or reproducibility. As seen in scientific study a young researcher's findings are often not believed until reproduced by an experience researcher. The same is basically true here. New members here must have the patience to accept skepticism.

This brings me to another point - paranoid is hardly the word for the doubts we raise when presented with new evidence, especially by those with no tenure (and hence little if any established credibility). Skepticism is what we show, not paranoia. Nobody is out to 'get us' in a paranoid sense, they are just out to trick us in a skeptical sense. If you want to accuse the more established here of anything, accuse us of insane skepticism. I don't know that we'd deny that.

And, with this post, I become Euchre the Entrenched.

[konamouse]

[Euchre]

Hey kona, I was trying to catch you in IRC to congratulate you for literally having a mile of posts (5280).

I think everyone should congratulate kona on the insane devotion to this genre.

[Chrizzy]

I'll congratulate kona on having 1.609344 kilometres of posts
Congratulations!