(Q - immortal tofu: this means that for you there is not necessarily a term for the place where we will find markers to allow us to determine the cache, there is no
there is not a particular word in the vocabulary...)
MB : the only term that comes to mind is this famous notion of zone, but when I read, if you type zone in a madits search engine you will realize that zone is not always very bright, we don't always understand what Max means with zone.
(Q - immortal tofu: Max Valentin spoke of an area the size of a medium-sized city so we are no longer on a few square meters with landmarks, there are people who suggest the word spot)
MB : it's magical, you're telling me that Max spoke of the area as being the size of a medium-sized city..do you know the surface area of ??Mourmelon or other examples? [from 5 to 70 square km]. We are in direct contact with the poison that the madits represent, it has no meaning, no interest, in relation to what concerns us, namely the solutions. We don't care to think that the area could be the size of a medium-sized city, it takes you into a notion of an average city, of distance which is absolutely without interest.
(Q - immortal tofu: the problem is that you use the term zone, so with the weight of history, of the past, when you say zone people have in mind the definition accepted since 30 years)
MB : but there is no accepted definition, search in the madits you will not find the dimension of the zone.
(Q - immortal tofu: 5 to 70 square km is not that bad of a definition)
MB : it's reductive, the madits are much more interesting than that, they induce things much more complex than that.
(Q - immortal tofu: for an area where there would just be landmarks and a pile-up it seems to me, a few square kilometers very large...)
MB : well I will try to give you a specific example: if someone says I live in Paris, that defines an area. It's big Paris, if someone says I live in the 19th arrondissement, that defines an area, it's already smaller, in both cases it doesn't add anything to what interests us, we're looking for a precise location, with precise benchmarks, what do we care if these elements are located in a zone, then the zone could be the commune, the community of communes, the department, the region , it makes no sense, how could this notion be useful to you in solving the puzzles? This is absolutely the heart of the debate that occupies us today, you eliminate. You arrive at a place, I'm going to take a map to the 25,000th, it means that you are in an area but I don't care at all if your area is the size of a small town the size of a city average, of a department...that's not what concerns us, I will never give you as reference points the fact that anything is located approximately in the middle of the zone. What does that mean, it’s confusion.
(Q - immortal tofu: I understand but when you say there is an area, then you find the Sentinels in this area, that this area is admitted to be between 5 and 70 square km)
MB : no I don't admit it.
(Q - immortal tofu: no worries, for the coolies we think of this famous zone, when you say the zone it's the place where there are the landmarks that means that the Sentinels could therefore be in this area close to the pile-pile if the area is just 20 square meters, it is confusing to use this area term is not trivial because of the history of this term.... )
MB : for example I am organizing a hunt, the treasure is buried somewhere in Paris. from the moment you understand that it is in Paris, will you call up in your head the surface area of ??the commune of Paris? The fact of getting on board with the notion of the area's surface area is misleading, it's fog. We are taking you on a notion of the potential surface area of ??an area, of a city, we are capturing your neurons in a direction where there is nothing to find.
(Q - ??: the liability we're talking about is that we can't care about the size of the sector or the final zone)
MB : why?
(Q - ??: because we're talking about a 2nd map, a precise map at the end so it's not a field, nor Paris or something bigger than Paris, maybe a thing the size of a medium-sized city, there are also things that by going from 30 thousandth to 25 thousandth we start to have altitude points on the map that's very precise, so we don't care about the size of the area...)
MB : but if we don't care, when we take a trip, for example I'm going to Portugal, I crossed Spain, I'm going to take a map of France to go to the Spanish border, a map from Spain to cross Spain then after I'm going to go to Portugal so I'm going to have 3 cards what do I give a damn about the surface of the cards why does that interest me, what does it interest me? what interests me is the path to take and where I'm going, if I arrive at a certain place I don't care at all about the size of the town in which I arrive...why does that interest me.
(Q - ??: some say that there can be reference points like altitudes..)
MB : no it was Max who made answers, comments which suggest that... it's not the story of hunting, I'm sorry. You are relying on comments from Max Valentin which suggested that the size of the area was important.
(Q - ??: but it's indirect, the design of the maps means that they are precise to the point that we give altitude points...)
MB : but not at all, absolutely not, if you arrive, you make your way, you arrive at a place, at this place you take the map which corresponds to this place, which has a scale which will allow you to have more details, what do you care about the surface of the area, it's a parasitic notion, you don't want to understand, no interest in solving the puzzles
(Q - syn: for some it was a way to hack hunting)
MB : yes to say I take the right card, I show up in the middle am I going to find something? This is a very good remark, it offers a pseudo possibility of hacking, exactly as you say, of hacking the hunt and well that's bullshit, it has nothing to do with solving the puzzles.
(Q - ??: there is no need for a 2nd card then...)
MB : if there is a need for a 2nd map but there is no need to worry about the surface area of ??an average city or anything.
(Q - ??: I'm not fixating on the surface area of ??the zone, I'm just saying that the surface area of ??the zone, if we have a sector to find, it would be indirectly linked to the scale of the map and therefore in relation to the scale of the map, like 25 thousandths, there are certain points of precision which appear because the scale is large enough, like altitude points, altitude lines which obviously do not appear on a 989.)
MB : no, but we agree with that, but when the mind attaches itself to the notion of a certain surface corresponding more or less to a medium-sized town at the center of which whatever it may be, we are lost. When you go in there you get lost, that's what I'm trying to tell you.
(Q - ??: is a precise map necessary at the end or useless)
MB : yes it is necessary, we need it in the end
(Q - ??: we could see the change of map as the change of gear)
MB : first we change scale to have access to details, changing gear is another concept
MB : the only term that comes to mind is this famous notion of zone, but when I read, if you type zone in a madits search engine you will realize that zone is not always very bright, we don't always understand what Max means with zone.
(Q - immortal tofu: Max Valentin spoke of an area the size of a medium-sized city so we are no longer on a few square meters with landmarks, there are people who suggest the word spot)
MB : it's magical, you're telling me that Max spoke of the area as being the size of a medium-sized city..do you know the surface area of ??Mourmelon or other examples? [from 5 to 70 square km]. We are in direct contact with the poison that the madits represent, it has no meaning, no interest, in relation to what concerns us, namely the solutions. We don't care to think that the area could be the size of a medium-sized city, it takes you into a notion of an average city, of distance which is absolutely without interest.
(Q - immortal tofu: the problem is that you use the term zone, so with the weight of history, of the past, when you say zone people have in mind the definition accepted since 30 years)
MB : but there is no accepted definition, search in the madits you will not find the dimension of the zone.
(Q - immortal tofu: 5 to 70 square km is not that bad of a definition)
MB : it's reductive, the madits are much more interesting than that, they induce things much more complex than that.
(Q - immortal tofu: for an area where there would just be landmarks and a pile-up it seems to me, a few square kilometers very large...)
MB : well I will try to give you a specific example: if someone says I live in Paris, that defines an area. It's big Paris, if someone says I live in the 19th arrondissement, that defines an area, it's already smaller, in both cases it doesn't add anything to what interests us, we're looking for a precise location, with precise benchmarks, what do we care if these elements are located in a zone, then the zone could be the commune, the community of communes, the department, the region , it makes no sense, how could this notion be useful to you in solving the puzzles? This is absolutely the heart of the debate that occupies us today, you eliminate. You arrive at a place, I'm going to take a map to the 25,000th, it means that you are in an area but I don't care at all if your area is the size of a small town the size of a city average, of a department...that's not what concerns us, I will never give you as reference points the fact that anything is located approximately in the middle of the zone. What does that mean, it’s confusion.
(Q - immortal tofu: I understand but when you say there is an area, then you find the Sentinels in this area, that this area is admitted to be between 5 and 70 square km)
MB : no I don't admit it.
(Q - immortal tofu: no worries, for the coolies we think of this famous zone, when you say the zone it's the place where there are the landmarks that means that the Sentinels could therefore be in this area close to the pile-pile if the area is just 20 square meters, it is confusing to use this area term is not trivial because of the history of this term.... )
MB : for example I am organizing a hunt, the treasure is buried somewhere in Paris. from the moment you understand that it is in Paris, will you call up in your head the surface area of ??the commune of Paris? The fact of getting on board with the notion of the area's surface area is misleading, it's fog. We are taking you on a notion of the potential surface area of ??an area, of a city, we are capturing your neurons in a direction where there is nothing to find.
(Q - ??: the liability we're talking about is that we can't care about the size of the sector or the final zone)
MB : why?
(Q - ??: because we're talking about a 2nd map, a precise map at the end so it's not a field, nor Paris or something bigger than Paris, maybe a thing the size of a medium-sized city, there are also things that by going from 30 thousandth to 25 thousandth we start to have altitude points on the map that's very precise, so we don't care about the size of the area...)
MB : but if we don't care, when we take a trip, for example I'm going to Portugal, I crossed Spain, I'm going to take a map of France to go to the Spanish border, a map from Spain to cross Spain then after I'm going to go to Portugal so I'm going to have 3 cards what do I give a damn about the surface of the cards why does that interest me, what does it interest me? what interests me is the path to take and where I'm going, if I arrive at a certain place I don't care at all about the size of the town in which I arrive...why does that interest me.
(Q - ??: some say that there can be reference points like altitudes..)
MB : no it was Max who made answers, comments which suggest that... it's not the story of hunting, I'm sorry. You are relying on comments from Max Valentin which suggested that the size of the area was important.
(Q - ??: but it's indirect, the design of the maps means that they are precise to the point that we give altitude points...)
MB : but not at all, absolutely not, if you arrive, you make your way, you arrive at a place, at this place you take the map which corresponds to this place, which has a scale which will allow you to have more details, what do you care about the surface of the area, it's a parasitic notion, you don't want to understand, no interest in solving the puzzles
(Q - syn: for some it was a way to hack hunting)
MB : yes to say I take the right card, I show up in the middle am I going to find something? This is a very good remark, it offers a pseudo possibility of hacking, exactly as you say, of hacking the hunt and well that's bullshit, it has nothing to do with solving the puzzles.
(Q - ??: there is no need for a 2nd card then...)
MB : if there is a need for a 2nd map but there is no need to worry about the surface area of ??an average city or anything.
(Q - ??: I'm not fixating on the surface area of ??the zone, I'm just saying that the surface area of ??the zone, if we have a sector to find, it would be indirectly linked to the scale of the map and therefore in relation to the scale of the map, like 25 thousandths, there are certain points of precision which appear because the scale is large enough, like altitude points, altitude lines which obviously do not appear on a 989.)
MB : no, but we agree with that, but when the mind attaches itself to the notion of a certain surface corresponding more or less to a medium-sized town at the center of which whatever it may be, we are lost. When you go in there you get lost, that's what I'm trying to tell you.
(Q - ??: is a precise map necessary at the end or useless)
MB : yes it is necessary, we need it in the end
(Q - ??: we could see the change of map as the change of gear)
MB : first we change scale to have access to details, changing gear is another concept