UnMasking The Cabal

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

Seriously, we keep on doing this. Does it really make sense to hint at something but not say it, or say it but ninja-edit it out?

...in other news, we should re-rail this thread by now.

[Dryunya]

You know, getting a private chat room and only giving passwords to those who joined before the Cabal could have found the forum would be far more secure and productive than what we're doing now.
However, the game is set on this forum, and I don't think the GMs would appreciate leaving it and all the new Metaguards who may or may not be Cabal members in disguise behind.

[JackAlsworth]

You're not being paranoid enough. jmartysknight2e4 posted on September 26th on Holmes' blog. He's clearly been here for slightly longer than that (it took Holmes long enough to figure out how to work the internet). Ergo, any user who doesn't have a history before the ARG could be a Cabal member in disguise. Hell, they've already hacked us once; any or all of our accounts could be compromised.

I feel like we should operate under the assumption that the Cabal is reading everything we say (especially in their section), but not take any more security measures than that, because it's possible to form a logic chain that would implicate pretty much everyone.

I think this topic should be locked (since we have their identities confirmed, albeit slightly suspiciously), and a new, all-purpose discussion thread should be opened. Any objections?

[Sicon112]

You're not being paranoid enough. jmartysknight2e4 posted on September 26th on Holmes' blog. He's clearly been here for slightly longer than that (it took Holmes long enough to figure out how to work the internet). Ergo, any user who doesn't have a history before the ARG could be a Cabal member in disguise. Hell, they've already hacked us once; any or all of our accounts could be compromised.

I feel like we should operate under the assumption that the Cabal is reading everything we say (especially in their section), but not take any more security measures than that, because it's possible to form a logic chain that would implicate pretty much everyone.

I think this topic should be locked (since we have their identities confirmed, albeit slightly suspiciously), and a new, all-purpose discussion thread should be opened. Any objections?

Not particularly. Go for it.

[JackAlsworth]

All right, locking up.