04/10/2022 - Enregistrement n° 43 - 15:10 : IS - Anecdotal and subsequent to the creation of hunting
(Q - ariburte: my comment in fact, I am quite new to hunting and so as far as I am concerned and I imagine that there are still a lot of owls in this case, it is necessary
not to rehash the question too much, the legitimacy, because there are a few empty barrels that are making a lot of noise, but I think you are the leader of the hunt and most people want to play with the rules such as
'they are, that's a little comment.
But on the other hand, I'm afraid that you fall into the same trap as Max, for me you can't say everything, so your Midits, even without your knowledge, even when trying to be clear, are often interpretable and therefore I there is a real risk and so my question is instead of sometimes adding little things like chess... you don't realize but there are the little bikes that spin... every word you say generates this kind of thing, so for me I have a real question, which would be very simple, since why are people so obsessed with the Madits, with everything there is around the book, even if everything is in the book, it's because it's not enough for us, we can't do it, there are too many open doors, and so I have the impression that something would move things forward without distorting the game , it would perhaps be to give a kind of validation on the IS.
The IS are part of the game, it was intended like that, so it's a failure because in fact some IS are misleading, you wrote it, I believe that if we want to move things forward, perhaps be that at some point we should prune, close the doors and we will get there, I find it honest in fact, to simply say, let's put our cards on the table, we are removing certain elements from the game, as you have done elsewhere and perhaps another question for the intro, I went looking for this description of Coco's treasure, I found that there were lots of interpretable elements in there, you removed it from the 6th edition, I concluded that it was useless. So at some point, shouldn't we prune rather than add Midits, that's it, I've said it all, thank you)
MB : thank you for your intervention, there is just one thing that is inaccurate in what you said, which is that the Additional Information was not intended, the Additional Information was added piecemeal, at the request of the media. There was never any question of additional indications, there were none prepared at the time the game was launched, that I can tell you. so everything was done piecemeal, the more interesting the media were, the more Max Valentin went for Additional Information.
And the first time, I can tell you, the first discussion I attended was in 1993 from the start of the game with the editor-in-chief of the Express who received us at the headquarters of the Express with all his staff and we were there Max Valentin and I, the owl under our arm because we placed it on the desk, so that he could clearly see that it existed, and that it was in good condition. However, they were very impressed and it is thanks to that that we initially had the first Additional Information with the Express and that we started the 4 issues of the Express.< br /> It was the same thing with Figaro Magazine and many others. Each time there was Additional Information, it was grafted to be able to obtain media space, it was the bargaining chip.
So on this point, my point today is to say that well, the Additional Information is relatively anecdotal in relation to the game, it doesn't add much and I didn't spend too much time on it, actually. I read comments where they explain that I didn't do it...that I'm not a cool person, that I didn't research enough, that I didn't draw the lines on the map, that I didn't do here, that I didn't do that and that I can't understand.
Well, I'm leaving this debate aside, but to come back to your intervention, you say we're putting our cards on the table, we're taking stock a little, the state of affairs and then the way to continue, I'm not saying that I I won't do it, but what you also need to understand is that I don't have infused knowledge, I have the solutions to the game, but I don't have total and sufficient knowledge; still today of the state of progress of the different players, that's why the exchanges I listen to interest me enormously, the way people reason. When I say that I'm passionate about it, it's not unhealthy voyeurism, it's just that I'm trying to understand how this passion translates, and through exchanges like this evening, before I was spotted, I was interested to hear each other with their arguments, their way of positioning themselves in relation to this young boy. All this brings me a better knowledge of the community of owls and the moment when I am going to make this clarification which I think will occur in the relatively near future, I think that at that moment, I will know exactly what what I do and who I address.
But on the other hand, I'm afraid that you fall into the same trap as Max, for me you can't say everything, so your Midits, even without your knowledge, even when trying to be clear, are often interpretable and therefore I there is a real risk and so my question is instead of sometimes adding little things like chess... you don't realize but there are the little bikes that spin... every word you say generates this kind of thing, so for me I have a real question, which would be very simple, since why are people so obsessed with the Madits, with everything there is around the book, even if everything is in the book, it's because it's not enough for us, we can't do it, there are too many open doors, and so I have the impression that something would move things forward without distorting the game , it would perhaps be to give a kind of validation on the IS.
The IS are part of the game, it was intended like that, so it's a failure because in fact some IS are misleading, you wrote it, I believe that if we want to move things forward, perhaps be that at some point we should prune, close the doors and we will get there, I find it honest in fact, to simply say, let's put our cards on the table, we are removing certain elements from the game, as you have done elsewhere and perhaps another question for the intro, I went looking for this description of Coco's treasure, I found that there were lots of interpretable elements in there, you removed it from the 6th edition, I concluded that it was useless. So at some point, shouldn't we prune rather than add Midits, that's it, I've said it all, thank you)
MB : thank you for your intervention, there is just one thing that is inaccurate in what you said, which is that the Additional Information was not intended, the Additional Information was added piecemeal, at the request of the media. There was never any question of additional indications, there were none prepared at the time the game was launched, that I can tell you. so everything was done piecemeal, the more interesting the media were, the more Max Valentin went for Additional Information.
And the first time, I can tell you, the first discussion I attended was in 1993 from the start of the game with the editor-in-chief of the Express who received us at the headquarters of the Express with all his staff and we were there Max Valentin and I, the owl under our arm because we placed it on the desk, so that he could clearly see that it existed, and that it was in good condition. However, they were very impressed and it is thanks to that that we initially had the first Additional Information with the Express and that we started the 4 issues of the Express.< br /> It was the same thing with Figaro Magazine and many others. Each time there was Additional Information, it was grafted to be able to obtain media space, it was the bargaining chip.
So on this point, my point today is to say that well, the Additional Information is relatively anecdotal in relation to the game, it doesn't add much and I didn't spend too much time on it, actually. I read comments where they explain that I didn't do it...that I'm not a cool person, that I didn't research enough, that I didn't draw the lines on the map, that I didn't do here, that I didn't do that and that I can't understand.
Well, I'm leaving this debate aside, but to come back to your intervention, you say we're putting our cards on the table, we're taking stock a little, the state of affairs and then the way to continue, I'm not saying that I I won't do it, but what you also need to understand is that I don't have infused knowledge, I have the solutions to the game, but I don't have total and sufficient knowledge; still today of the state of progress of the different players, that's why the exchanges I listen to interest me enormously, the way people reason. When I say that I'm passionate about it, it's not unhealthy voyeurism, it's just that I'm trying to understand how this passion translates, and through exchanges like this evening, before I was spotted, I was interested to hear each other with their arguments, their way of positioning themselves in relation to this young boy. All this brings me a better knowledge of the community of owls and the moment when I am going to make this clarification which I think will occur in the relatively near future, I think that at that moment, I will know exactly what what I do and who I address.