[Shinrei]

Fine by me.

Vote Trull's Son

Because I'm a tenacious SOB.

[Hugin & Munin]

will need drek for a proper ruling, but as far as i can see, ive deceded to let shin of with a warning on this one,

as has been pointed out any reference to when a player posted is not allowed, drek may over rule me in this but untill shes back in charge no more references about this

Roldom ( sorry it took me so long to reply, was busy watching House)

[Tapper]

Silencer, on 23 February 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 23 February 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

Ok, there are two things that I don't like about the train. One is The Dude voted for Silencer with less than a half an hour left, and then didn't change/wasnt around to change. He may have decided to leave believing that it was for sure a lynch, but PS posted about 9 minutes after his last post with the info Roldom was dead.

I know, Shin, but there is a lot of reference to time, posting, and participation in there. "Wasn't around", "decided to leave", "9 minutes after his last post", "half an hour left".

I don't think you should be modkilled for it, and hell, I'd hate it if you were, but it's the latest in a series of posts by various people which is, to my mind, skirting the line of the WORD of the rules. I'm using it to illustrate that we're being careless about this stuff.

You know, if we quote someone, there is automatically a post time in the quote reference. That makes it totally irrelevant to not discuss post times (as in, someone posted this and this at that and that point in time). Times are also important regarding context - who said what when, when came a reaction and when did a person change his mind. Hours of game time between someone changing his mind are completely different from someone switching twice in five minutes time.

I'm sure D'rek is not intending to rob us of that. I rather think she does not want us to use time and time count for meta arguments but wants a game driven on content.

[Silencer]

drinksinbars, on 23 February 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

I think if people were modkilled for that it would be ridiculiously harsh. but lets put that aside and focus on the game.

I agree on both counts. XD

[Tapper]

Hugin & Munin, on 23 February 2011 - 11:08 AM, said:

will need drek for a proper ruling, but as far as i can see, ive deceded to let shin of with a warning on this one,

as has been pointed out any reference to when a player posted is not allowed, drek may over rule me in this but untill shes back in charge no more references about this

Roldom ( sorry it took me so long to reply, was busy watching House)

sorry, I cross-posted with you.

In other news... hmmm, donuts!

[Shinrei]

Donuts in the shape of boobs?

[drinksinbars]

Silencer, on 23 February 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:

Specifically, I'm referring to this line:


ALL DISCUSSION OF WHEN PLAYERS ARE ACTIVE ON THE THREAD IS STRICTLY NOT ALLOWED BY ANY PLAYER.


Granted, saying you're not going to be here is toeing the line. But talking about being suspicious of someone BECAUSE OF WHEN THEY VOTED is beyond that, it's pushing the line. *shrug*

for someone who says not to do this you are ramming the point home pal. if shin posts a case with a quote showing dude voting 30 mins before thats not meta arguing on times that a case with evidence to support it. end of. it shouldnt even matter if he has the quote - he is making reference to something on thread then its valid. if you were modkilled for that it would be time to stop playing mafia as there wouldnt be any point making any arguments. now i dont know why you seem so focused on our play and whether we are goign to break the rules, if we do its our fault and our modkill. ease off there big fella, if drek has an issue with what we said or did they will sort it out.

plus an indefensible argument isnt always right.

[drinksinbars]

Tapper, on 23 February 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

Silencer, on 23 February 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 23 February 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

Ok, there are two things that I don't like about the train. One is The Dude voted for Silencer with less than a half an hour left, and then didn't change/wasnt around to change. He may have decided to leave believing that it was for sure a lynch, but PS posted about 9 minutes after his last post with the info Roldom was dead.

I know, Shin, but there is a lot of reference to time, posting, and participation in there. "Wasn't around", "decided to leave", "9 minutes after his last post", "half an hour left".

I don't think you should be modkilled for it, and hell, I'd hate it if you were, but it's the latest in a series of posts by various people which is, to my mind, skirting the line of the WORD of the rules. I'm using it to illustrate that we're being careless about this stuff.

You know, if we quote someone, there is automatically a post time in the quote reference. That makes it totally irrelevant to not discuss post times (as in, someone posted this and this at that and that point in time). Times are also important regarding context - who said what when, when came a reaction and when did a person change his mind. Hours of game time between someone changing his mind are completely different from someone switching twice in five minutes time.

I'm sure D'rek is not intending to rob us of that. I rather think she does not want us to use time and time count for meta arguments but wants a game driven on content.

exactly - its meta reasoning which is rightfully banned. We should be allowed to discuss the tiems of peoples postings as we can quote said posts and indicate when someone did something. Linking that to an action two days later and saying someone posted on monday at 1, but on wednesday at 1 they didnt post but xxxx died instead means they could be the killer is clearly meta and bullshit and should be and is against the rules.

[drinksinbars]

Shinrei, on 23 February 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

Donuts in the shape of boobs?

its an obsession isnt it shin

[Hugin & Munin]

your probably right but the argument is built on posting times which is spercificly mentioned as a no no in the rules, if drek comes back and decides its ok then awesome, if not, then a little discretion now stops the mod hammer of the future

[Tapper]

Shinrei, on 23 February 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

Donuts in the shape of boobs?

Throughout my sexing career, I have come to the conclusion that boobs as a rule of thumb don't have holes in the middle

[Hugin & Munin]

It is Day 2. 16 hours and 35 minutes remaining
14 Players still alive: Ace Hunter, ansible, dibs, Grief, HiddenOne, Lizra, Mentalist, MTS, PB, Shinrei, Silencer, Tapper, The Dude, Trull's son,

7 votes to lynch, 7 votes to go to night.

1 vote: Trulls son -Shinrei


Players not voted: Ace Hunter, ansible, dibs, Grief, HiddenOne, Lizra, Mentalist, MTS, PB, Silencer, Tapper, The Dude, Trull's son

Roldom

[Silencer]

My final post on the issue...then I'm sleeping, so dibs can vote me in safety.

Tapper, on 23 February 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

Silencer, on 23 February 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 23 February 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

Ok, there are two things that I don't like about the train. One is The Dude voted for Silencer with less than a half an hour left, and then didn't change/wasnt around to change. He may have decided to leave believing that it was for sure a lynch, but PS posted about 9 minutes after his last post with the info Roldom was dead.

I know, Shin, but there is a lot of reference to time, posting, and participation in there. "Wasn't around", "decided to leave", "9 minutes after his last post", "half an hour left".

I don't think you should be modkilled for it, and hell, I'd hate it if you were, but it's the latest in a series of posts by various people which is, to my mind, skirting the line of the WORD of the rules. I'm using it to illustrate that we're being careless about this stuff.

You know, if we quote someone, there is automatically a post time in the quote reference. That makes it totally irrelevant to not discuss post times (as in, someone posted this and this at that and that point in time). Times are also important regarding context - who said what when, when came a reaction and when did a person change his mind. Hours of game time between someone changing his mind are completely different from someone switching twice in five minutes time.

I'm sure D'rek is not intending to rob us of that. I rather think she does not want us to use time and time count for meta arguments but wants a game driven on content.

I agree, but until the wording is fully resolved, I'm going by the word of the rules. I don't think it was D'rek's intention to prevent us from making reference to when someone voted, but then again the sentences used were pretty air-tight in regard to references to lurking, leaving, normally being online at a certain time, so on and so forth. The first rule was referencing meta, the third did not. Ergo, caution is required.

drinksinbars, on 23 February 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

Silencer, on 23 February 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:

Specifically, I'm referring to this line:


ALL DISCUSSION OF WHEN PLAYERS ARE ACTIVE ON THE THREAD IS STRICTLY NOT ALLOWED BY ANY PLAYER.


Granted, saying you're not going to be here is toeing the line. But talking about being suspicious of someone BECAUSE OF WHEN THEY VOTED is beyond that, it's pushing the line. *shrug*

for someone who says not to do this you are ramming the point home pal. if shin posts a case with a quote showing dude voting 30 mins before thats not meta arguing on times that a case with evidence to support it. end of. it shouldnt even matter if he has the quote - he is making reference to something on thread then its valid. if you were modkilled for that it would be time to stop playing mafia as there wouldnt be any point making any arguments. now i dont know why you seem so focused on our play and whether we are goign to break the rules, if we do its our fault and our modkill. ease off there big fella, if drek has an issue with what we said or did they will sort it out.

plus an indefensible argument isnt always right.

See above RE: the concern over meta/non-meta time arguments. Again, I'm sure D'rek doesn't meant to screw us over. On the other hand, you never know, until you ask. I merely raised the issue, hoping that people would be more careful until such time as we got mod clarification. Then someone went and responded, so I had to elaborate, then someone got upset that I was using their post as an example because they couldn't see the meta aspect (again, see above), and so I had to make sure the point was rammed fucking home because the idea was that everyone cut it out until the mods weighed in.
I get what you're saying. I really do. But in case you didn't notice that's why I said we should be careful - I wasn't and still am not out for blood over the issue or anything. Stop using this as a means to make yourself look aggressive to counter the accusations of being calm and reserved.
Why am I concerned over other player's play and breaking of rules? Last time someone got modkilled for breaking a rule it affected scum in a major way. I'd rather not see town get hurt over a stupid issue of talking about when someone was fucking online or not. Is that concern wrong? Would you rather I didn't bring it up and let one or more townies (or scum, because that hurts the game as much as anything) just waltz around making mistakes that get them modkilled? Mistakes that get them lynched is one thing. Ones that result in mod action are another.

And finally, your last sentence hits the nail on the head of why I brought the damn issue up in the first place - SO THE MODS COULD SORT IT OUT and to avoid THE GAME GETTING HURT OVER IT because no-one said anything. Again, if people didn't complain about my first post it never would have become nearly a page's worth of back-and-forth.


Good night, all.

[Tapper]

I like page long back-and-forths. Except with dkt.

[Shinrei]

Don't worry Silencer, I'll still play miniature golf with you on weekends.

[Silencer]

Hugin & Munin, on 23 February 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

your probably right but the argument is built on posting times which is spercificly mentioned as a no no in the rules, if drek comes back and decides its ok then awesome, if not, then a little discretion now stops the mod hammer of the future

THANK YOU. THIS. THIS THIS THIS THIS. XD

[Silencer]

Shinrei, on 23 February 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

Don't worry Silencer, I'll still play miniature golf with you on weekends.

Awww, glad to see there's no hard feelings there Shin. >.<

[Hugin & Munin]

anytime silencer

Roldom

[Silencer]

Anyway, now, bed, fo' realz. Third time lucky. Away!

[drinksinbars]

Tapper, on 23 February 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 23 February 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

Donuts in the shape of boobs?

Throughout my sexing career, I have come to the conclusion that boobs as a rule of thumb don't have holes in the middle

not all donuts are rings some are -

best just stop there