(Q - Xavier D'Homan: That's very good, - I wasn't for it at the beginning - but now, I tell myself that given the number of people who leave without knowing, who spend money
'money, good... But that won't stop us from digging, so here it is, from that moment on...)
MB: I will be completely frank with you, first of all thank you for this understanding that you show, but I am convinced that when the trigger is going to happen, first of all I am convinced that it will happen . Indeed, I'm working on it a little... I don't like to say an additional indication, because in fact what I'm going to give you is not an additional indication, it's downright clarification, it's a new light on the outcome of this hunt. I think that all of this should lead us towards much healthier functioning.
At one point, I found it funny, at the beginning when I remember, when Florence Aubenas had written her article in “Libé” saying “the researchers with the heads of owls hundreds of thousands of people who search etc..” C It was fascinating, it was funny, it was interesting. We thought of all the people who were going to dig everywhere to find the owl. Today, it has taken on a very different connotation because first of all we care much more about the environment than 30 years ago, it has nevertheless taken on much more significance and importance in our daily lives. Then, it costs a lot of money to travel, etc...
So out of consideration for players today, frankly, I think this system is essential. I think it must be put in place, but for all that I remain convinced that the moment the winner really clicks, I think that at that moment it will not result in an online submission, it will translate into “I jump in my car, I'm going”...I still believe that the person who will find it will first go digging, we'll see if I'm wrong or not, but I believe it.
(Q - ??: It's paradoxical since in these cases, what's the point, if you ever say that the person will go digging anyway, so it will happen again for so many people, does that mean that if there are 100 people there will be 100 people who will dig first before sending a solution?)
MB: What you say is true and at the same time, I am alluding to the fact that the trigger I am talking about - we can call it whatever we want - is both so luminous and, so luminous, it wants say that it sheds light on the end of the game in a fairly specific way. It's so bright, it's so... It's never been considered and therefore it's so innovative, that the person who is really going to think that is going to say to themselves “It's not possible”. There, the person will go there I think anyway. I think it will fit into these levels of conviction where we will first dig, then we will talk.
(Q - Velch: But they all already think they are innovative, in any case…)
MB: It’s not very innovative. Frankly, in everything I see, it's not very innovative... There's always a deciphering side, there's always a slightly basic side, a bit 'déjà vu', it's already been done, what, that’s already done…
(Q - Velch: We agree, but they don't think that.)
MB: Well, they don't think that because they have a lack of knowledge of what has already been done, but there is a lot of 'already done' all the same, whereas for the golden owl, it's 'never did'.
MB: I will be completely frank with you, first of all thank you for this understanding that you show, but I am convinced that when the trigger is going to happen, first of all I am convinced that it will happen . Indeed, I'm working on it a little... I don't like to say an additional indication, because in fact what I'm going to give you is not an additional indication, it's downright clarification, it's a new light on the outcome of this hunt. I think that all of this should lead us towards much healthier functioning.
At one point, I found it funny, at the beginning when I remember, when Florence Aubenas had written her article in “Libé” saying “the researchers with the heads of owls hundreds of thousands of people who search etc..” C It was fascinating, it was funny, it was interesting. We thought of all the people who were going to dig everywhere to find the owl. Today, it has taken on a very different connotation because first of all we care much more about the environment than 30 years ago, it has nevertheless taken on much more significance and importance in our daily lives. Then, it costs a lot of money to travel, etc...
So out of consideration for players today, frankly, I think this system is essential. I think it must be put in place, but for all that I remain convinced that the moment the winner really clicks, I think that at that moment it will not result in an online submission, it will translate into “I jump in my car, I'm going”...I still believe that the person who will find it will first go digging, we'll see if I'm wrong or not, but I believe it.
(Q - ??: It's paradoxical since in these cases, what's the point, if you ever say that the person will go digging anyway, so it will happen again for so many people, does that mean that if there are 100 people there will be 100 people who will dig first before sending a solution?)
MB: What you say is true and at the same time, I am alluding to the fact that the trigger I am talking about - we can call it whatever we want - is both so luminous and, so luminous, it wants say that it sheds light on the end of the game in a fairly specific way. It's so bright, it's so... It's never been considered and therefore it's so innovative, that the person who is really going to think that is going to say to themselves “It's not possible”. There, the person will go there I think anyway. I think it will fit into these levels of conviction where we will first dig, then we will talk.
(Q - Velch: But they all already think they are innovative, in any case…)
MB: It’s not very innovative. Frankly, in everything I see, it's not very innovative... There's always a deciphering side, there's always a slightly basic side, a bit 'déjà vu', it's already been done, what, that’s already done…
(Q - Velch: We agree, but they don't think that.)
MB: Well, they don't think that because they have a lack of knowledge of what has already been done, but there is a lot of 'already done' all the same, whereas for the golden owl, it's 'never did'.