Talking in code...

[Caesar K]

Of course the reverse is true. Anyone I find someone posting gibberish is going straight to the lynch pile.

[sidenote]Somehow I don't think IS and Rocky would play well together [/sidenote]

I think it all depends on whom you're playing with...some get frustrated by it and so then maybe it's not a good idea to continue. If it affects people's enjoyment of the game negatively, that's bad. If everyone's a puzzler who likes the challenge of finding and decyphering messages, then it will add to the fun.

CK

[Caesar K]

There's no way to get the actual role from the message.

As it was, actually, MMCL and Recky were a mason team who together were a 1 shot vig and the writer was a claimed 1 shot doc. Recky was dead, thus clearing MMCL (they had claimed together), and the 1 shot doc wanted to mislead the scum into thinking he was going to protect some person that night while still letting MMCL know not to depend on the protection.

It was complicated

CK

[Caesar K]

Lots of big words cam ={

I think we're pretty much assuming that, as long as a decent attempt is made, no one is going to crack the encryption. These aren't top-secret messages on which the fate of the world rests - it's just a game.

Thus MMCL brought this up as a simple solution for the problem of how to establish communication without a pre-discussed "code word" or "encryption key" or some such thing.

However, this "two locks" procedure depends on the encryption being commutative, does it not? I know very little about cryptography and so forth, but I imagine there exist some non-commutative encryptions, and so these would have to be avoided.

CK