Expect a form of mafia that does not allow for any lying period. There is a form of compensation, I just have to think it through.
I really think this could be a not unpleasant thing.
Lying would be prohibited- so would asking a direct question like "are you (alignment)". The game would progress by evaluating how people vote.
Obviously you could get away with some lies (how could I possibly enforce unless I knew somehow, if a player was currently in Luxembourg and unable to play for the next 3 hours?) But lying about actions in game with the host could prove problematic. Asking directly whether someone performed X action at night would be allowed, as the likelihood of guessing rightly how to phrase a question such that a "no" was an invalid answer would prove difficult.
store a couple of minutes ago, so I guess I do resonate with this game thread on some level. However, I fear that it won't meet my standards as it's not optimality oriented. You'll post a video or remark about youtube each phase start and end; that's not going to synergize with the concept of mafia. Players will ignore the subject matter all but entirely if you don't integrate it, make it part of a criteria involved in attaining proficiencuy at the game; like for example if you share your link-wherewithal and clever commentary about this youtube policy curiosity with the informed minority a.k.a. mafia AND have nighttime elimination hit who doesn't seem to find his way around elaborating it then you may have uncovered some synergy.
In general there seems to be a stalemate between veteran posters who don't care much about synergies and would rather just host a game as if it's a chore (to host and play in) —for they objectively lack worthwhileness— AND games which get no traction even though they implement elements which harbor plenty such synergies, are, however, attempted to be hosted by 3-digit-max accounts and shunned by those who feel comfortable posting non-mafia-related stuffs in the community thread.
This subforum's newcomings will remain fortuitous if this doesn't change for the better.
Obviously you could get away with some lies (how could I possibly enforce unless I knew somehow, if a player was currently in Luxembourg and unable to play for the next 3 hours?) But lying about actions in game with the host could prove problematic. Asking directly whether someone performed X action at night would be allowed, as the likelihood of guessing rightly how to phrase a question such that a "no" was an invalid answer would prove difficult.
Why, oh why, oh why you tell me la-la-la-la-lies? Never ti-tin, ti-tin-tin-think that I woulda woulda rea-rea-rea-realize
Things you sa-ay a-ay ay-ay will make you fa-ay ay-ade aweeigh; Mbah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bye. Mbah-bah-bye, bye.
Things I would've spent effort for in order to fill your game by approaching people directly:
No lying, no consequentiality/mind paid to statements the veridicities of which are not verifiable (kind of what you said but not really). Mafia, anyone can lie about anything but I'm thinking punishing strawman arguments and false paraphrasing via instalynch, leaving no room (other than hypotheticality—clearly declared as such) for subjective interpretation of post content to the proficient player. This would work best with an open setup, imho, so the focus of the gameplay isn't watered down and shifted towards setup speculation.
Presence of an incentive to discuss/involve/add relevance to COPPA for the proficiency-seeking player (as elaborated on previously)
Dynamic site meta integration–a TLMafia trademark or two-, or a previously unmafiaized forum thread reference would be nice
Incentives to get creative in order to transcend the narrow, robotic constraints of internet forum strangerdom, while thus gaining insight into fellow lycanthroptimality game enthusiast's psyche via their input shared, synergizing within the context of a mafia game.
store a couple of minutes ago, so I guess I do resonate with this game thread on some level. However, I fear that it won't meet my standards as it's not optimality oriented. You'll post a video or remark about youtube each phase start and end; that's not going to synergize with the concept of mafia. Players will ignore the subject matter all but entirely if you don't integrate it, make it part of a criteria involved in attaining proficiencuy at the game; like for example if you share your link-wherewithal and clever commentary about this youtube policy curiosity with the informed minority a.k.a. mafia AND have nighttime elimination hit who doesn't seem to find his way around elaborating it then you may have uncovered some synergy.
In general there seems to be a stalemate between veteran posters who don't care much about synergies and would rather just host a game as if it's a chore (to host and play in) —for they objectively lack worthwhileness— AND games which get no traction even though they implement elements which harbor plenty such synergies, are, however, attempted to be hosted by 3-digit-max accounts and shunned by those who feel comfortable posting non-mafia-related stuffs in the community thread.
This subforum's newcomings will remain fortuitous if this doesn't change for the better.
Passé + Show Spoiler [this] + store il y a quelques minutes, donc je suppose que je résonne avec ce fil de jeu à un certain niveau. Cependant, je crains qu'il ne réponde pas à mes normes car il n'est pas orienté vers l'optimalité. Vous publierez une vidéo ou une remarque sur YouTube à chaque début et fin de phase ; cela ne va pas être en synergie avec le concept de mafia. Les joueurs ignoreront presque entièrement le sujet si vous ne l'intégrez pas, si vous ne l'intégrez pas dans un des critères impliqués dans l'acquisition de la maîtrise du jeu ; comme, par exemple, si vous partagez vos liens et vos commentaires intelligents sur cette curiosité de la politique youtube avec la minorité informée alias la mafia ET que vous avez un coup d'élimination nocturne qui ne semble pas trouver son chemin pour l'élaborer, vous avez peut-être découvert une synergie. En général, il semble y avoir une impasse entre les affiches de vétérans qui ne se soucient pas beaucoup des synergies et préfèrent simplement héberger un jeu comme s'il s'agissait d'une corvée (héberger et jouer) - car ils manquent objectivement de valeur - ET les jeux qui n'obtiennent aucun traction, même s'ils mettent en œuvre des éléments qui recèlent de nombreuses synergies, sont cependant tentés d'être hébergés par des comptes à 3 chiffres maximum et évités par ceux qui se sentent à l'aise de publier des éléments non liés à la mafia dans le fil de la communauté. Les nouveautés de ce sous-forum resteront fortuites si cela ne s'améliore pas.
That is more or less what Google translate does; it makes anything longer than a few words incomprehensible. I am myself a walking Google translate from Borg to English, so
Was there ever an official statement attesting to the creation or attempted creation of a fictitious language the Borg supposedly spoke? If not and this post would be part of an afoot game —following aforementioned desired ruleset addition— you would be liable for a donezo upon your error/falsehood-bearing post getting pointed out and voted Yay(for donezo) by let's say 3 players or 1/3 of remaining players at any time +mod decision.
Attempting to emulate a first-time-encounter-with-the-text frame of mind, on an entirely different note, I think it's plausible to steadily make out the meaning behind the translation; can't be certain though, as I'm prone to overestimate my abilities to play forgetting well.
Meditating on your claim, Charles Freck getting ostracised and made fun of by Barris, Luckman and Keanu's character comes to mind.
featuring supremely COPPA-conforming trialogue, I have to say My hébergement in Camon happens to be on rue Charles Flet nr. 13. Again I resonate—=> good quote for signature, note to selves.
Obviously you could get away with some lies (how could I possibly enforce unless I knew somehow, if a player was currently in Luxembourg and unable to play for the next 3 hours?) But lying about actions in game with the host could prove problematic. Asking directly whether someone performed X action at night would be allowed, as the likelihood of guessing rightly how to phrase a question such that a "no" was an invalid answer would prove difficult.
Why, oh why, oh why you tell me la-la-la-la-lies? Never ti-tin, ti-tin-tin-think that I woulda woulda rea-rea-rea-realize
Things you sa-ay a-ay ay-ay will make you fa-ay ay-ade aweeigh; Mbah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bye. Mbah-bah-bye, bye.
Things I would've spent effort for in order to fill your game by approaching people directly:
No lying, no consequentiality/mind paid to statements the veridicities of which are not verifiable (kind of what you said but not really). Mafia, anyone can lie about anything but I'm thinking punishing strawman arguments and false paraphrasing via instalynch, leaving no room (other than hypotheticality—clearly declared as such) for subjective interpretation of post content to the proficient player. This would work best with an open setup, imho, so the focus of the gameplay isn't watered down and shifted towards setup speculation.
Presence of an incentive to discuss/involve/add relevance to COPPA for the proficiency-seeking player (as elaborated on previously)
Dynamic site meta integration–a TLMafia trademark or two-, or a previously unmafiaized forum thread reference would be nice
Incentives to get creative in order to transcend the narrow, robotic constraints of internet forum strangerdom, while thus gaining insight into fellow lycanthroptimality game enthusiast's psyche via their input shared, synergizing within the context of a mafia game.
There are a number of things in here that are not actually words
Anyway PM me if interest forms, I expect it might not
Obviously you could get away with some lies (how could I possibly enforce unless I knew somehow, if a player was currently in Luxembourg and unable to play for the next 3 hours?) But lying about actions in game with the host could prove problematic. Asking directly whether someone performed X action at night would be allowed, as the likelihood of guessing rightly how to phrase a question such that a "no" was an invalid answer would prove difficult.
Why, oh why, oh why you tell me la-la-la-la-lies? Never ti-tin, ti-tin-tin-think that I woulda woulda rea-rea-rea-realize
Things you sa-ay a-ay ay-ay will make you fa-ay ay-ade aweeigh; Mbah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bye. Mbah-bah-bye, bye.
Things I would've spent effort for in order to fill your game by approaching people directly:
No lying, no consequentiality/mind paid to statements the veridicities of which are not verifiable (kind of what you said but not really). Mafia, anyone can lie about anything but I'm thinking punishing strawman arguments and false paraphrasing via instalynch, leaving no room (other than hypotheticality—clearly declared as such) for subjective interpretation of post content to the proficient player. This would work best with an open setup, imho, so the focus of the gameplay isn't watered down and shifted towards setup speculation.
Presence of an incentive to discuss/involve/add relevance to COPPA for the proficiency-seeking player (as elaborated on previously)
Dynamic site meta integration–a TLMafia trademark or two-, or a previously unmafiaized forum thread reference would be nice
Incentives to get creative in order to transcend the narrow, robotic constraints of internet forum strangerdom, while thus gaining insight into fellow lycanthroptimality game enthusiast's psyche via their input shared, synergizing within the context of a mafia game.
Be honest, which one of you would've connected Starcraft Remastered progamer Rush with Four Rooms' Chester Rush portrayed (written, directed and acted) by Quentin Tarantino --rocking a checkered shirt in the picture that comes up first upon search-engine-ing him--, integrated the reference to keep the Bannon meta (among other examples, the checkered shirt gang reference) snowball rolling using an account named Quentowntino, with ties to mafiascum's trollaholics anonymous --arguably their most worthwhile-- thread? If your answer is affirmative, you have no business coming to Royaume de France, and none to stay if you are here; because failing to (prove one wrong) speak frankly ought to be an elimination criteria.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WJAkvBD.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/gn4lhgm.jpeg)
