EPTNoir Mini Mafia: Chapter 1
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
I agree to all the rules and activity requirements in the OP. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
Wait til Day imo imo. Thx though Prom. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
 | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
 | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
 | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
![[image loading]](http://prod.figment.s3.amazonaws.com/covers/430254/normal/sf_pinky_swear.jpg?1347819768) </3 | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
Lazer can I clarify a couple of things about your policy post? 1) 24 hours from when? Someone giving intent to hammer? I'm not sure what this limit is designed to accomplish, given your second point. 2) This is basically stating the obvious. Are you going to find anyone who hammers instantly scummy? | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
I don't support your policy. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
On April 02 2013 07:36 Lazermonkey wrote: My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that. I still don't support your policy. For my part I don't intend to defend anyone who hammers using that logic. Hammering without explanation is a scummy move no matter who does it, especially considering the silencing effect it has on the town - but I will not agree with making it policy to lynch someone for hammering someone else. That just smacks of trying to make town afraid to be decisive, and I'll have no part of it. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
On April 02 2013 09:10 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Not yet but I'm sure it will happen. Just taking precautions. I hate you so much. Like it could be argued that your style of play (popping in once a cycle to provide reads and fucking off the rest of the time) is IMPOSSIBLE without people like me actively engaging others to PUT the information you use IN the thread in the first place. But whatever if you want to policy lynch me for being me, go right ahead. I'm confident that others in town will disagree with your limited view of my play. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
On April 02 2013 09:19 risk.nuke wrote: Think RoL just set of the old kenpachi trap. Elaborate. There are so many "rules" and "traps" that I can't keep them all straight. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
On April 02 2013 09:25 risk.nuke wrote: The legend goes...+ Show Spoiler + Kenpachi claims vanilla townie and the first person to contest it is mafia. Ah I see. So does this make RoL scum to you? | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
On April 02 2013 09:45 risk.nuke wrote: VE, RoL. If you're going to tunnel-bitch-argue in the thread atleast argue about something remotely relevant. If you're going to criticize me for anything, you should answer questions posed of you first. Do you think RoL is scum for "contesting" my "claim" a la Kenpachi Rule? | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
1) Scum trying to incriminate RoL innocuously by "joking" about Kenpachi Rule. 2) Town trying to trap someone into agreeing with his assessment and voting RoL. I ruled out 2 by asking him if he thought RoL was scum because of it, and he doesn't, which leaves 1). ##Vote: risk.nuke Conversely I'm very null on RoL. Abhorring my play-style is very NOT alignment indicative for that guy. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
| ||
| ||
