|
On November 15 2011 02:44 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 01:45 wherebugsgo wrote:
Have like 4-5 factions lol. That'll be nuts. Madness!
MADNESS YOU SAY?
|
On November 15 2011 09:55 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 02:44 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 01:45 wherebugsgo wrote:
Have like 4-5 factions lol. That'll be nuts. Madness! MADNESS YOU SAY?
MADNESS?!?!
|
I think if we play an 80 person game more than one scumteam will be necessary. It would get very stale otherwise.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On November 14 2011 16:00 Ace wrote:
The strength of Post Game Analysis isn't just the writeup. It's for the players to discuss with a neutral parties (the host and observers) why they made the choices they did.
Yes but this is a step in the right direction is it not?
On November 14 2011 22:10 GMarshal wrote:
I have bad news about our ability to host in S&G, it seems like it isn't going to be allowed.
There are two ways we can reasonably proceed,
1.) Host a massive game, here, and just advertise as much as possible(apparently recruitment posts would be ok)
or
2.) Ditch the idea and just have me host a regular normal. Mass advertisement anyway, because we can!
Sounds like options 1 and 2 are the same thing 
I also agree with Ver in that you should not have 2 (or more) mafia factions. You can always advertise for a certain number of players (say 50) and adjust accordingly depending on how many people actually sign up.
Edit: GMarshal and co. have the go ahead to put up their game.
|
I'm just going to ignore the preceding discussion and put this
[M] Faction Mini Mafia: Due to start after Miss Marple Mafia (LSB is host, GreYMisT is cohost)
|
On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking.
I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches.
|
On November 15 2011 10:09 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 09:55 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On November 15 2011 02:44 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 01:45 wherebugsgo wrote:
Have like 4-5 factions lol. That'll be nuts. Madness! MADNESS YOU SAY? MADNESS?!?!
LUNACY!!!!!
|
United States22154 Posts
On November 15 2011 20:55 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking. I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches.
Actually, I had a brilliant idea. Or maybe its stupid, but hey, I'll ask for your guys feedback. What if I take the wisdom of the masses idea that someone proposed as an alternative to the banlist, and sort of apply it as a mechanic for dealing with lurkers.
That is, if I get more than say 33% of the people in the game to PM me that they think someone is lurking (and can support it, obviously) that person dies at lynch time, in addition to whatever lynch may be going on.
|
On November 15 2011 21:53 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:55 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking. I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches. Actually, I had a brilliant idea. Or maybe its stupid, but hey, I'll ask for your guys feedback. What if I take the wisdom of the masses idea that someone proposed as an alternative to the banlist, and sort of apply it as a mechanic for dealing with lurkers. That is, if I get more than say 33% of the people in the game to PM me that they think someone is lurking (and can support it, obviously) that person dies at lynch time, in addition to whatever lynch may be going on.
Lets test it... not in a recruitment game
|
On November 15 2011 21:53 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:55 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking. I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches. Actually, I had a brilliant idea. Or maybe its stupid, but hey, I'll ask for your guys feedback. What if I take the wisdom of the masses idea that someone proposed as an alternative to the banlist, and sort of apply it as a mechanic for dealing with lurkers. That is, if I get more than say 33% of the people in the game to PM me that they think someone is lurking (and can support it, obviously) that person dies at lynch time, in addition to whatever lynch may be going on.
WHAT NO, LURKING IS A VIABLE STRATEGY AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES AGAINST IT. People only have to post as much as the activity requirement says they do. GM that would have to be a special mechanic in a game, and not an actual rule.
|
United States22154 Posts
On November 15 2011 22:22 redFF wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 21:53 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 20:55 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking. I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches. Actually, I had a brilliant idea. Or maybe its stupid, but hey, I'll ask for your guys feedback. What if I take the wisdom of the masses idea that someone proposed as an alternative to the banlist, and sort of apply it as a mechanic for dealing with lurkers. That is, if I get more than say 33% of the people in the game to PM me that they think someone is lurking (and can support it, obviously) that person dies at lynch time, in addition to whatever lynch may be going on. WHAT NO, LURKING IS A VIABLE STRATEGY AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES AGAINST IT. People only have to post as much as the activity requirement says they do. GM that would have to be a special mechanic in a game, and not an actual rule.
Yes, thats what I'm saying, as a mechanic to deal with lurkers...
|
On November 15 2011 23:27 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 22:22 redFF wrote:On November 15 2011 21:53 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 20:55 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking. I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches. Actually, I had a brilliant idea. Or maybe its stupid, but hey, I'll ask for your guys feedback. What if I take the wisdom of the masses idea that someone proposed as an alternative to the banlist, and sort of apply it as a mechanic for dealing with lurkers. That is, if I get more than say 33% of the people in the game to PM me that they think someone is lurking (and can support it, obviously) that person dies at lynch time, in addition to whatever lynch may be going on. WHAT NO, LURKING IS A VIABLE STRATEGY AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES AGAINST IT. People only have to post as much as the activity requirement says they do. GM that would have to be a special mechanic in a game, and not an actual rule. Yes, thats what I'm saying, as a mechanic to deal with lurkers...
I prefer lurker-vigilantes, because then there´s one person involved, the lurker-vigi has to decide for himself if the lurker is a bored townie or a lurking scum, and if a lurker wants to avoid the kill then there´s only a few that needs to be convinced.
|
On November 15 2011 23:27 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 22:22 redFF wrote:On November 15 2011 21:53 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 20:55 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking. I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches. Actually, I had a brilliant idea. Or maybe its stupid, but hey, I'll ask for your guys feedback. What if I take the wisdom of the masses idea that someone proposed as an alternative to the banlist, and sort of apply it as a mechanic for dealing with lurkers. That is, if I get more than say 33% of the people in the game to PM me that they think someone is lurking (and can support it, obviously) that person dies at lynch time, in addition to whatever lynch may be going on. WHAT NO, LURKING IS A VIABLE STRATEGY AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES AGAINST IT. People only have to post as much as the activity requirement says they do. GM that would have to be a special mechanic in a game, and not an actual rule. Yes, thats what I'm saying, as a mechanic to deal with lurkers...
We should change the rules to at least x characters per 24h or something imo
this post is 74 words: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=285690#17
So asking people for 400-500+ seems acceptable to me as well.
The thing with asking for posts is they could contain anything.
|
On November 16 2011 02:20 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 23:27 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 22:22 redFF wrote:On November 15 2011 21:53 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 20:55 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking. I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches. Actually, I had a brilliant idea. Or maybe its stupid, but hey, I'll ask for your guys feedback. What if I take the wisdom of the masses idea that someone proposed as an alternative to the banlist, and sort of apply it as a mechanic for dealing with lurkers. That is, if I get more than say 33% of the people in the game to PM me that they think someone is lurking (and can support it, obviously) that person dies at lynch time, in addition to whatever lynch may be going on. WHAT NO, LURKING IS A VIABLE STRATEGY AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES AGAINST IT. People only have to post as much as the activity requirement says they do. GM that would have to be a special mechanic in a game, and not an actual rule. Yes, thats what I'm saying, as a mechanic to deal with lurkers... We should change the rules to at least x characters per 24h or something imo this post is 74 words: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=285690#17So asking people for 400-500+ seems acceptable to me as well. The thing with asking for posts is they could contain anything.
Lol i'm not counting a player's characters.
The lurker rules are fine. People just don't pressure
|
Man GM just got promoted to wraith icon, how the hell am i supposed to ID his posts now?
|
On November 16 2011 05:12 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 02:20 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On November 15 2011 23:27 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 22:22 redFF wrote:On November 15 2011 21:53 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 20:55 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking. I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches. Actually, I had a brilliant idea. Or maybe its stupid, but hey, I'll ask for your guys feedback. What if I take the wisdom of the masses idea that someone proposed as an alternative to the banlist, and sort of apply it as a mechanic for dealing with lurkers. That is, if I get more than say 33% of the people in the game to PM me that they think someone is lurking (and can support it, obviously) that person dies at lynch time, in addition to whatever lynch may be going on. WHAT NO, LURKING IS A VIABLE STRATEGY AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES AGAINST IT. People only have to post as much as the activity requirement says they do. GM that would have to be a special mechanic in a game, and not an actual rule. Yes, thats what I'm saying, as a mechanic to deal with lurkers... We should change the rules to at least x characters per 24h or something imo this post is 74 words: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=285690#17So asking people for 400-500+ seems acceptable to me as well. The thing with asking for posts is they could contain anything. Lol i'm not counting a player's characters. The lurker rules are fine. People just don't pressure
|
Does XLVII have a chance of filling up without people playing in two games at once? 40+26+9 are a lot of players.
|
United States22154 Posts
On November 16 2011 09:21 Forumite wrote:
Does XLVII have a chance of filling up without people playing in two games at once? 40+26+9 are a lot of players.
There are no rules against playing multiple games.
Plus its not 40+26+9, the sign up portion of my thread is pretty specific, we'll take as many people as sign up.
|
On November 16 2011 02:20 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 23:27 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 22:22 redFF wrote:On November 15 2011 21:53 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 20:55 Forumite wrote:On November 15 2011 08:48 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 06:34 GMarshal wrote:On November 15 2011 06:16 Ver wrote:On November 15 2011 02:00 Incognito wrote:
As Qatol previously pointed out, now is probably not the best time for a massive game, given that this is a busy time with exams and holidays coming up. There's no reason we can't do more than one massive game fueled by recruitment. While not many regulars might be able to do it atm, I doubt we'll have any difficulty filling it up if we recruit in general/s&g/blogs. I say start it soon. We need more people period, and the sooner the better. I also vote to keep the game normal and simple so people don't get turned off; elections would be a good conversation starter and give people an additional opportunity to showcase themselves. Thats more or less what we are looking at right now, no overly complex roles (so no trackers or watchers, *maybe* jacks), no pms, no clues, elections day 1. The only "advanced" thing we are considering is two mafia families, since with so many players it should help stop the 1 active scum + 21 lurking scum issue. Why not go with several 1 shot lurker vigilantes to help fight that. i,e can shoot any player who has posted less than 'x' times per cycle at night. Keep the 'x' hidden from the general description. Allow the player to make a case for a lurker who may not quite fit the requirement as well if they are clearly lurking. i,e provide severe disincentives for lurking. I agree with this, allow Town to deal with their own lurkers without having to resort to lynches. Actually, I had a brilliant idea. Or maybe its stupid, but hey, I'll ask for your guys feedback. What if I take the wisdom of the masses idea that someone proposed as an alternative to the banlist, and sort of apply it as a mechanic for dealing with lurkers. That is, if I get more than say 33% of the people in the game to PM me that they think someone is lurking (and can support it, obviously) that person dies at lynch time, in addition to whatever lynch may be going on. WHAT NO, LURKING IS A VIABLE STRATEGY AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES AGAINST IT. People only have to post as much as the activity requirement says they do. GM that would have to be a special mechanic in a game, and not an actual rule. Yes, thats what I'm saying, as a mechanic to deal with lurkers... We should change the rules to at least x characters per 24h or something imo this post is 74 words: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=285690#17So asking people for 400-500+ seems acceptable to me as well. The thing with asking for posts is they could contain anything.
wat lol
Let's not try to control how people play the game. Townies need to learn to get rid of lurkers or at least highly discourage the play.
Complete inactivity ruins games but lurking scum who damage games often do it because they know they won't get lynched.
|
Lurker vigilantes are a good idea. I wouldn't go with some character counting mechanic, as that gets too tedious. A hidden PM mechanic gives mafia too much influence, as they already can comprise a large section of the secret vote.
Lurker vigilantes will work best because nobody can slack off knowing that they are "safe" (which is the basic problem with a general anti-inactivity rule). Having lurker vigilantes also gives the players the power to choose who to eliminate rather than forcing the host to have a single hard and fast rule about it.
I'd use Ver's suggestion, except you may want to make 'x' different for every vigilante to prevent that information from leaking (not that the lurker vigilantes have an incentive to leak that information, but just to be on the safe side).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
