EPT[T] MTG Mini Mafia II - Page 2
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 30 2013 07:53 (DontFear)ThePoster wrote: Well Nova, who do you think could be scum from the hydras? I.e who are you the most suspicious of them? /G Marv+ s&b | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 30 2013 09:53 Stutters695 wrote: Or you could attack someone for being scum and play to win? This post i agree with completely | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 30 2013 14:43 Crossfire99 wrote: I'm going to respond to the various comments/attacks on me in order (I've spoilered the quotes). Let me know if I missed you or something. + Show Spoiler + On January 29 2013 21:14 BinOnFire wrote: Well Crossfire's entrance is similar to marvs, I think this is weird though I only think a few mana total should be used on it because I don't think it is wise to discard so many cards because that's wasteful. And then he never mentions that again, even though I feel that its a good point if a bit vague, which means that he shouldve discussed it. I get generally noobness feel from him, not alignment indicative though I didn't elaborate on that because I thought I explained everything concisely. Basically, it doesn't seem like a good idea to get rid of a dozen cards so early in the game, which is why i wanted to only draw a few cards, so we don't have to discard many if any. + Show Spoiler + On January 30 2013 00:30 Clockwork Hydra wrote: -snipped- For the record, Marv is also forbidden from playing the noobie card. I was waiting for Xfire to respond, but the conversation died. I discussed it with Dandel in our tête-a-tête. There are three problems with Xfire's post. A)This is apologetic and defensive. I know Xfire is not too bad of a mafia player (Dandel played with him in WLIIA and I observed Parallel Universes), so this is an a priori cop-out for doing anything useful this game. There is no town reason for pre-excusing yourself for fucking up. B)So the next thing he does after saying he knows nothing about magic, is dive into a magic discussion. Regardless of whether he's wrong or right + Show Spoiler + 100% wrong. Pulling up a killer hand is absolutely worth discarding 3/4 of your deck (as long as there's no mill deck). There's a reason Demonic Consultation is restricted in Vintage and that exiles your cards, rather than putting them in the GY. But the worst part is the last bit: C)1. Can some over-eager townie please do all the hard work for me, by giving me a cliffnotes version of a long and complicated game? PS. All the time you spend summarizing that game for my lazy ass, you're not scumhunting, so doublescore one for me! 2. More MTG discussion, but this time with extra wishy wash! For the record: we focus down people. Why make it easier for the mafia creature to kill people? That is one of the mistakes made in the first game, which you would know if you had read it... like everybody has been telling you to. D)The entire post is completely useless. It contributes nothing, yet tries to sound as if he is actually contributing, with a "novel" point on the use of Minds Aglow and a pointless question about policy. If this post didn't put you on instant red alert, your scumdar needs fixing. A) I'm a noob when it comes to magic. I said that in thread so all of you know that I probably will be wrong at points in the game because I've only played 1 game of magic like 6 years ago and my friend was pretty much just telling me what to do. I was apologetic and defensive because I was having trouble following the discussion in thread and took me awhile to understand it. Should I have been falsely confident in my magic understanding and look like a fool when I say something retarded? B) I signed up for a MTG Mafia game, so I'm going to try and understand the magic part of it, so I can contribute. That is what I did there. I tried to contribute with my understanding at the time. Do you just want me to not try to understand the magic part at all and give opinions on it that mean nothing because I just made it up or do you want me to try to play the game? C) 1. This is the sequel to a heavily themed game. It is a good idea to learn from the past game, so we don't repeat past mistakes. I didn't (and still don't) have time to read the first MTG Mafia, so I asked about it in thread. The fact that you think that this is scummy is mindboggling. It's just terrible scumhunting. 2. Sorry, but I don't have all the time in the world to read a previous MTG Mafia game which would be very hard for me to follow not really knowing about magic and all (hint that's why said what I said earlier). I think it is better for me to use my limited time to follow this game and play this game, not the previous one. D) The entire thread up until that point must have been useless then because most of it was about the previous game, people saying how much they do or do not understand mafia, policy discussion, and the whole Minds Aglow issue. Did you just want me to ignore the entire thread when I entered? + Show Spoiler + On January 30 2013 00:50 Clockwork Hydra wrote: Oh, and I forgot to mention that the rest of his posts are not much better. I'm Acro, btw. I might chalk this up to a lack of game knowledge, but this is a pretty serious misrepresentation of what Gonzaw said. He didn't say you can't block. He said that if you're wasting mana on shitty chump blockers instead of doing something useful with it (like contributing to a Minds Aglow, for instance), he considers policy lynching you. We need to grow town players to a point where we can fight back. Not play shitty chump blockers that serve no purpose beyond delaying your death (and cannot stop the mafia beast). Not to say that if you have a shitty chump blocker that you played for its useful side effect (mogg fanatic or so), that you can't use it to chump block if someone decides to attack you. The no-blocker policy is unenforceable anyway. In general townies should always favour attacking over blocking, but I can definitely agree with a townie defending against some giant beast with some chump, rather than doing 1 measly damage themselves (unless that 1 damage is enough to kill scum). /Acro I wasn't trying to misrepresent what Gonzaw said. I didn't understand his point, but he eventually clarified and I understood. I thought he was saying people shouldn't defend themselves (blocking) against this games version of a lynch (people attacking). See these posts: + Show Spoiler + On January 29 2013 14:27 Crossfire99 wrote: Uh, yeah unless I'm not understanding the magic part correctly. Basically, what you seem to be advocating (feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you) is that people shouldn't play cards which can keep them alive longer. This would be the equivalent of someone fighting to survive a mislynch in a regular game. You don't just want to roll over and die. That only helps scum. On January 29 2013 14:38 Crossfire99 wrote: Oh I understand what you mean now. Yeah people should definitely take a stance and attack a scum read if given the chance. I probably won't be as harsh as you in saying that no one should play defensive creatures, but if someone only defends himself and never attacks, that will definitely play an important part in how I view them. + Show Spoiler + On January 30 2013 04:53 (DontFear)ThePoster wrote: I'll add something else about Cross I put the "U serious mate?" thing, because it seemed to me he was thinking I was suspicious because of it or something? I mean, that's the feeling I get with "I don't like this post by gonzaw". Generally when you post something like that, it's to express your doubts about someone's alignment, which Cross failed to demonstrate in this post and the following ones. Also this post seemed like filler, or not that thought out. He concludes with stuff like "we should lynch someone by attacking someone, if scum can withhold that then how is the game balanced lol", which to me doesn't have anything to do with the "townies should not put out useless 0/X monsters" idea he was supposedly attacking earlier. It would in fact be the opposite of what I'm saying. If we "policy lynch" people that put out useless 0/X monsters, then scum won't put out 0/X monsters in fear of the policy, thus it'll be easier to attack them or "lynch" them. I don't get the point of this post by Cross, again, it just seems like filler so it appears he's active and discussing stuff. Of course, him asking "simple" questions does not bode well with me, specially if he AFKs later and doesn't contribute anything related to who he might think is scum, etc. /G Maybe I'm just terrible at explaining my thoughts when they relate to magic but I'll try to explain better what I meant. First, me saying I don't like this post is just me not liking the post. I don't know if it is scummy or not yet, just weird. I said that to make a note of it and see what other people thought. Second, about the whole contradiction, basically I was trying to say that 0/X creatures can defend you from attacks (lynch) and usually lynches are not unanimous. I didn't spell this out in that post and I can see why you were confused, but I was thinking of contested "lynches" when talking about the blocking part (where multiple people are attacked) and thinking of uncontested "lynches" when talking about the 7v1 part. Hope that helps explain what I meant. Now onto some scum hunting. Let's take a look at Clockwork shall we. Look at the contradiction at how he responds to virtually the same question: + Show Spoiler + On January 30 2013 00:30 Clockwork Hydra wrote: -snipped- But the worst part is the last bit: 1. Can some over-eager townie please do all the hard work for me, by giving me a cliffnotes version of a long and complicated game? PS. All the time you spend summarizing that game for my lazy ass, you're not scumhunting, so doublescore one for me! 2. More MTG discussion, but this time with extra wishy wash! For the record: we focus down people. Why make it easier for the mafia creature to kill people? That is one of the mistakes made in the first game, which you would know if you had read it... like everybody has been telling you to. The entire post is completely useless. It contributes nothing, yet tries to sound as if he is actually contributing, with a "novel" point on the use of Minds Aglow and a pointless question about policy. If this post didn't put you on instant red alert, your scumdar needs fixing. On January 29 2013 08:59 Clockwork Hydra wrote: -snipped- Well, you mentioned quite a bit of it. They/you spent a LOT of time bickering about useless stuff (not just setup, but completely pointless stuff about setup) and town didn't play as a team (mainly due to everybody mistrusting each other for stupid shit). This game is fundamentally different from normal mafia games not just in that we kill with magic, but because we don't actually have a town-controlled KP. It is thus twice as important to be an active townie, because we are a town TEAM. We need to work together, because our strength is in numbers. This turn people may be able to play one creature, which is a bit of a wimp. But if next turn we can all attack one player with wimps, that will be a healthy chunk of damage. If everybody goes off attacking their own favourite target without reasoning it out properly (like happened in the first 3 turns or so of the previous game), then we have lots of players at 16 life and one dead townie due to mafia creature. That is pointless, and last game was in fact harmful, because the mafia creature could one-shot people sooner than should have been possible (although mafia derped too when they missed an attack). Yes, they're more elaborate forms of our own policies, with some stuff we forgot about. /Acro Also, look at this post where they advise caution when powering up a single person + Show Spoiler + On January 29 2013 09:07 Clockwork Hydra wrote: rhetorical questions, already? huh. As for your points, they're fairly straightforward. The thing about #4 (also kinda applies to #5): Sure it's a townies job to establish his townieness - but if everybody did that properly, we wouldn't need any policies in the first place, now. I shall be reluctant to participate in plans when they result in a favorable position of somebody whose alignment I have no clue about. And I advise everybody to use the same caution in regards to this. On the other hand, I won't have any problems cooperating with people whose townieness I am sure of. (or at least if acro is, that's fine too) ~dandel On January 29 2013 11:00 Clockwork Hydra wrote: Okay so here's the thing: We are running Zombie Infestation. (this badboy right here:+ Show Spoiler + For that reason, we would have prefered Minds aglow next turn (and given all 3 mana, too!), but it seems like like it would be more beneficial to town in general this turn, than delaying until next turn  So if it's going to be today, we would REALLY like to cast zombie infestation this turn (instead of contributing mana). And of course still ask everyone else to use as much mana as humanly possible! Not just the lurkers/scum! Everyone! Think of it as a group project! I promise we're not crazy (or scum) ~dandel (with acro's consent) Lastly, I already showed before how their attack on me was bad and all of this definitely has me thinking Clockwork is the first scum. Im not finding this to be particularly indicative of CH's alignment. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 30 2013 15:54 (DontFear)ThePoster wrote: I find these 2 consecutive "fluffy" posts of Suck and Cross where both come out of seemingly nowhere to then go AFK, both attack CH for (IMO) weak reasons, yet neither of them even mention the other.....weird, and that's an understatement. /G This this this this 1000x. Bothers me way more than aperture/igrok and his pms or whatever. Im going to try to get a short analysis of why i find suck to be scummy during work. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
1.I did not find the case to have done anything to my thoughts on CH, therefore not alignment indicative. 2. Obviously it makes more sense to play to win 3. While i found igrok's outburst unnecessary and dumb, i did not find that it made him more or less scummy in any way 4. Analysis coming soon™ 5. RH said that i found CH scummy, which was false and I hadnt given any logic for him being scummy. Therefore i made sure he knew that i did not find him scummy. 6. CH asks for my stance on theposter, who is currently the most pro-town in the game. I say leaning town, because that is my stance on him. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 31 2013 05:53 (DontFear)ThePoster wrote: I find this post townie for a reason. I don't get the feeling scum Nova would jump on it like this, just to get "enthusiastic" about it and then promise the "analysis" on Suck I find it more likely townies jumping on posts like mine that way, while scum would say something like "Hmm, I agree with you bla bla bla I think they are both indeed suspicious bla bla bla". It's the way he did it basically. I don't really see anything that can tell you "Yes he's surely scum" like you guys say. Yes, he "barely" called you out....but he's Nova. You guys are "vets" and thus finding evidence to point you as scummy is not as easy as saying "Fulla/Zealos is not doing shit kill him", which is pretty easy to do and effortless, and he in fact did last game. You can in fact see him thinking Grey is scum but never really posting anything about it (in the last game). He did in fact "promise" to make an analysis on you guys, and IRL stuff kicked in and he couldn't, so him not making a case yet is not alignment-indicative Like...I can't see why you guys are "so convinced" about him being scum. /G Hes "so convinced" because im calling him out on being scummy, and therefore has to make a move to make me look less credible before i can get the analysis (which is my fault, got delayed by all this shit). | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On January 29 2013 09:31 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: I would not use minds aglow right now, I think you should maybe save it until people have more mana and fewer cards in hand. start of game. Not being helpful, posting for the sake of posting, wishy washy maybe. On January 29 2013 09:39 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: collective voyage never seen that card before but holy ass thats ridiculous indeed a much stronger turn1 play but mulliganing does hurt you for later Discussion of mtg card, fluff, posting for the sake of posting On January 29 2013 11:38 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: marv here. s&b has been hilariously absent of late and was supposed to teach me magic and hasn't. I plan to nag him though. In other news, why are you telling mafia how they might look more townie? I don't understand the motivation behind saying what I bolded at all. You're doing an awful lot of talking about what mafia should and will be doing. Needless nitpicking, seems as though someone spoke up and said HEY MARV you need to actually look like you're trying to scumhunt, so nitpicking is done. Fluff On January 29 2013 11:49 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: I haven't posted much because I literally found out the deck s&b submitted two hours ago. In case you aren't mafia, here's a pro-tip: don't tell mafia what to do to make you consider them as townies. It should be fucking obvious, but here I am saying it. Suddenly out of nowhere, marv starts to get his metaphorical panties in a bunch while going completely overboard nitpicking. It is a completely valid point to make that scum will want to donate to seem townie, but this makes marv irritated (angry?) On January 29 2013 11:58 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: It wasn't a bad post at all. It was a good post. It's not my fault if you're too stupid to comprehend this. The intentions behind my post were perfectly clear. I find it suspicious. Marv gets called out on a less than perfect post and immediately flies to call the accuser an idiot, insanely defensive reaction for no real reason? Furthermore his finding it suspicious that someone thought that his intentions were less than clear? Knee jerk "you accuse me you're scum" type reaction. Its as if hes trying to avoid scumhunting by saying something is suspicious without logic. On January 29 2013 12:02 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: you'll have to excuse me if i'm talking nonsense right now (magic noob  ), but this post is what resonates with what i've been saying. Clockwork provided a framework for mafia to contribute in a sense they would find townie, and in a way (presumably) that could even be beneficial for mafia. I don't understand the townie motivation behind thisHey look, its back to smilies and excuses about being a mtg noob ( when its been his non-mtg behavior that has been less than satisfactory) On January 29 2013 12:03 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: No not really, I gave up trying to understand right away. Which is why i'm genuinely quite annoyed s&b hasn't been speaking to me recently. On the bright side, I've already posted twice as much as I did the whole last game :D Fluff Skipping a couple posts about a misunderstanding, On January 29 2013 12:15 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: No, he seems to be posting too much to be mafia right now. I mean, he could be trying to take some weird control as mafia, but probably not. Begrudgingly accepts that poster is probably town, posting too much to be mafia but could anyway but probably not. This is just weak, and not the way i think a helpful town marv would play. On January 30 2013 02:06 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: Sup bros i'm back @marv sorry about not talking to you T_T I promise I'll do better from now on A few things: (1) Last game we tried a "town beast" strat where everyone gave their mana to one or two people to cast big things, on the understanding that those big things would be controlled by the town as a collective. This strategy failed miserably, and I propose we don't do it again. Problems with the "everyone contribute to one person" that arose last time: - The whole thing was subject to one person's judgement. Instead of having a vote or anything, the person who we gave power to (I think it was gonzaw? Not sure) listened to the people who he thought were town. Turns out at least one of those reads was wrong. I don't want to trust any one person to have "good reads", and there's no way of enforcing a "do what the majority tells you to" plan. - The above is an even worse problem if the person we give power to is mafia. - having one powerful person is easier to defend against (whether through persuasion or through MTG-playing) than having a lot of people who are slightly less powerful but who have a lot of different types of power (ie, decks) - IMO the power of the town overall suffers as well, most mtg decks ramp over the course of a few turns So, I don't like ideas where one person gets a shitload more powerful than everyone else. Regardless of whether or not they're mafia, they are likely to be wrong a lot of the time. We tried it last time and it didnt work. Next, on the drawing cards thing: - holy fuck that card is powerful. I thought each person only got as many cards as they paid for but if each person gets the total number of cards then holy fuck. Like, shit. - I still think we should maybe wait a turn until everyone has played more cards and has more room in their hands, but given how much more powerful it is than I thought I guess I could see the motivation to do it this turn. We won't spend our mana until we talk about this more, at least. Finally, a policy proposal. I proposed this last game and people kind of ignored it but I still think it's a good idea. My proposal is to attack every turn with all your creatures. This does a number of things: (1) It's kind of like voting, in that it forces people to take stands they can be held accountable for. In a way these stands are even firmer than normal votes, since they result in lasting damage to people and you can't do a throwaway vote at your scum buddy. (2) It gets damage down early and stops blocking. Since the mafia monster gets more powerful each turn, blocking hurts town more than scum. People should not block ever. If you have an ornithopter, it should be tapped and attacking for zero damage. -snb This post bothers me. S&b reappears to make a massive policy post that seems premade with current non-scumhunting topics added in before making a ridiculous policy to add to the lack of scumhunting discussion. On January 30 2013 02:08 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: oh also i really like the new attitude out of gonzaw - last game i had a huge problem with his "you're either with my ridiculous plan or you're scum" attitude, and it turned out he was wrong as well. if he was scum he could have just stuck with that same attitude, it would've given him plenty of cover to attack townies and suchlike, so i'm feeling townish about that (somewhat, at least). Now a slightly more valid reason for trusting ThePoster is given, i feel that it seems a cover-up for marvs reasoning for poster being town before. On January 30 2013 04:36 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: Put it this way, Artanis didn't even really know we were hydraing until after the game started, and didn't know our hydra name (nor did I). On January 30 2013 05:00 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: well that attitude isn't going to get you anywhere, dear. what did you think of s&b's policy post? Fluff and more redirection to policy discussion On January 30 2013 05:08 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: Yeah, I can't add too much more to what's been said about Crossfire, I generally agree. I especially noted how Crossfire called himself a magic noob (like me) but then proceeded to wade in with some strange Magic waffle (unlike me). I'm also not sure whether iGrok is on menopause, or maybe mafia: Given he said this, all he's done is shout at people. This post from Grey rubbed me the wrong way, although I'm not sure how warranted I am to think so: Like, gosh guys, I'm so excited to be playing, except I can't play for another 3 days yet, so definitely keep me around till then guys, right? And now this. Oh, someone was scumhunting? Great, now i can seem like im actually helping and not discussing policy by agreeing and adding as little as possible. Another interesting tidbit is that he said that he generally agrees about their reasons for XFire being scummy, and then he quite recently nitpicks me for doing that as well. Ooh, lets further redirect flow backwards to igrok and make no judgements about him. Tldr: read it, it isnt long. Suck's play is weak on both heads and seems to be purposely leading us nowhere. Marv in Particular has seemingly insane mood swings between happy smiley lets talk about how im an mtg noob mode, and his defensive you're dumb and it makes you scummy mode. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 31 2013 06:16 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: ah yea, i forgot that famous mafia rule where you're not allowed to call out your accuser who randomly calls you mafia while providing no reasons *slaps hand* must do better marv -marvelbabe You obviously need to reread your complimentary rulebook | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 31 2013 05:03 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: this is silly, someone else pointed it out before, but life gain is so weak in this format that i doubt scum would be worried, still that could be explained by him not knowing much about mtg, null leaning scum a little bit tell. sucking up to gonzaw, who has a history of being partial towards people who suck up to him (see last mtg mafia), this is scummy. also misunderstanding the importance of card advantage but that's okay because not everyone has studied mtg theory, this is null. not wanting acro to get zombies is fine but not a towntell or a scumtell/ what what "powering up town is bad because town can kill people more easily and they might be wrong" the solution to that is to not be wrong. it's okay to oppose powering up individual players if you think they might be scum or if you think they are likely to use that power impulsively to kill townies. it's not okay to oppose powering up town as a whole. nice jumping in to share widespread town sentiment without providing any reasoning. like, i dont see anywhere above here in your filter you saying that crossfire is scum or explaining this suspicion. ditto the above, way to not actually say anything. "marvs typical posting style" lolwut, there's no way you havent seen at least a couple other games from him, hes ubiquitous. also there's literally no explanation of what nova finds scummy about marvs posts so far. and how the crap was my policy post cut and pasted? except that its the same policy i proposed last time i was town in an mtg game? okay reasons would be nice lolk well this sucks we should wait a few days before we kill him. good thing we have to. also note that this is only an explanation for his recent absence not for his earlier terrible and scummy posting. I'll try to answer some of this sillyness piece by piece 1. weak. If i recall correctly, this was a topic last game. I've played like 8 games of mtg, ever. Very weak point. 2. Sorry, did i read correctly that you find it suspicious that i said to gonzaw that hes doing well? Go read your own (and marvs) wonderful logic. Weak 3. Thats great and all that you feel that we wont be wrong once we're all uber powerful, but i'm more realistic and realize the probability of error, especially when dealing with humans who have outbursts occasionally (most if not all of us). For instance, i do admit that there is a good chance that you are not scum, and yet i would still attack you with whatever number of powerful creatures because i have the gut feeling that you are. Good chances of people going rambo in that manner when nobody seems to listen/agree with them. 4. What does this seem similar to? Oh thats right, what you did as well, minus the redirections to policy. Weak 5. Okay, then let me say that i find it was quite weak play from marv who is better than that. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 31 2013 07:23 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: I don't think I've ever read anything that less demonstrates how someone is mafia. For that, I congratulate you. -marvelbabe Howbout this: nonsense is displayed, reacts extremely defensively in slight circumstances, leads the town in circles back to policy, adds little to nothing to town scumhunting. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 31 2013 07:31 (DontFear)ThePoster wrote: This is all nice Nova, but I agree it doesn't convince someone Suck is scum. Nice effort I guess though. What do you think about the other stuff said about him? You can check my filter if you want to find some of that stuff I'm kind of here just waiting until: -NMM 4's Day Phase ends so we can discuss shit with Prome -At least one of Stutters/Crossfire/Rock/Aperture decide to contribute anything at all. Like...it's even likely the 2 scum are in that group of 4, and at worst I'd bet my life that at least there is 1 scum in that group. Stutters, where the hell did you go? You just came out of your lurkiness to call me out, and that's it. Why "actively lurking"? /G Even if you cant find a scum motivation in some of it, you sure as hell cant find a town motivation there either. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
On January 31 2013 07:33 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: not alignment indicative, not alignment indicative, untrue, our position on many players is a great deal clearer than yours glad we sorted that so fast -marvelbabe I find that posting nonsense and reacting defensively for no reason are things that scum do more than town. Sorry that you're a hydra, but s&b's actions (ie leading the town in circles back to policy) apply to you anyway. Deal with it. No, i feel that my positions are quite clear. | ||
| ||
