Well, Steganography was sort of assumed already, and I haven't found anything useful with that, nor have I found anything that seems more likely to be anagrammed than anything else
I mean, you see where I am in my partial answer, I've deciphered the encoded message, and mapped the letters back to keys on the console, but nothing I've tried from there has gotten me anywhere that feels useful
but the first h's in the inscriptions were something like letters 46, 20, and 19, in words 11, 4, and 4 (don't exactly remember) which didn't seem to mean anything
@Sconibulus I think it's pretty clear that YHWMNBN either (1) doesn't exist, in which case the only relevant comparison is to the "discovery" dates of other deities, or else (2) is the only one to exist, as claimed pretty much unanimously by his worshippers, in which case "first" is true but kinda misleading :-)
well, you have to distinguish between (1) actual deities, if any there be, and (2) believed-in ideas of deities. The commandment in question says "don't worship any other #2 ahead of me" and that makes reasonable sense even if there are no other #1. Or, for that matter, if there are no #1 at all; I claim atheists are keeping that commandment perfectly.
of course maybe we can do the metapuzzle first and then reverse-engineer the vowels of your puzzle and perhaps everything will become obvious then. (Vowels or embedded IVXLCDM or whatever it turns out to be; I think vowels are distinctly more likely at present.)
@dcfyj I don't think that is offensive. What is offensive is when a few people begin to talk about what "God" wants from his "children" or something like that.
@Sid It does. The correct answer should be obvious (in a "damn, why didn't I think of that earlier" way and possibly a "damn you Rand, you sneaky bugger" way) once you see it. Perhaps I should add another hint ...
The site's highest rep-holder Rand Al'Thor claims that he has a well-formatted, bullet-ed list that contains information which apparently shows that some users were engaged in sock-puppetry.
Of course, such a claim would need to be verified. And if it is true, Then, it has far-reaching effects o...
@PuzzlingMeta On the one hand, I want to know all the things; on the other, I don't know if I approve of the practice of trying things in the court of public opinion
@LukasRotter well, what gives a few people the right to claim what God wants? Also, how do they even know what God wants? It insults the intelligence of people. At least, that's what I feel
@Sid Well, it's just what they believe. As long as they don't force/hurt/make religious laws/take rights away/etc. I personally don't care (but I can see your point).
Heres what I know: Related to either Harry Potter, Divergent, Life of Fred, Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit. Its a short word, a medium word and a long word
I saw Bad Cursed Child a while back and thought that might be the answer, but didn't say because you said the words were in a different order and that seemed the correct order to me. Damn.
Okay
@Mithrandir I'll complete my answer and then tidy it up with the correct images
OK, so the answer is indeed TEMPTATION (sorry, Lukas) and the reason is (in my opinion, at least) substantially more convincing than the ones given so far. Would you (pl.) like (1) a full explanation, (2) a hint, or (3) neither?
Can the "divider" of a cryptic clue be at an arbitrary point or does it have to be between two words? E.g. would "Casual act|or engaged in seduction" be valid? Not sure if the same applies in English, but "the act" in German can be a synonym of coitus. A more "casual" form of it might be temptation.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. (Near enough.) Volatility has it basically right, except that ON is clued by "engaged in" rather than just "engaged". And yes, "casual" = "temp" as an adjective rather than a noun.
I hadn't expected this to be anywhere near as hard as it was; I'm guessing Jacques Tati is less well known than I thought.
Incidentally, I've seen "in" used to link definition and wordplay quite often, but I consider it an unsatisfactory way to do it.
So, @Volatility, time for you to set the next one.
@LukasRotter Breaking in mid-word like that would be distinctly naughty. I would expect a clue that did that to have a "!" or "?" at the end as a little indication that there was something a bit nonstandard going on, and even then I'd regard it as pretty dicey.
Finally! :P And yeah, I didn't even know who Tati was. But that's probably because A) I'm young, B) I hardly watch movies and C) thought "engaged in" is ION, therefore not googling TATI.
OED, "on (prep.)", sense 12a: With nouns of action (especially nouns derived from or closely related to verbs) or state, indicating the activity, state, or condition of a person or thing; = upon prep. 10. Also (with nouns denoting a subject of study, etc.), indicating the sphere of activity of a person.
but maybe it's a little bit of a stretch, in which case I do apologize.
Ok, here's one I wrote the other day, it's possibly a bit rule-bending, because I was playing around with structural ideas... (though not rule breaking I think, and probably very easy):