[Fener]

Im thinking Tiams reveal is probably fake....but since faction revealing is allowed it still makes sense.

Didint mean to get your panties ina bunch PS...i just wanted some simple clarification...no where am i trying to "bend the rules"

My mention of my leader was a simple statement when musing on possible cult.

[Tapper]

Try and mod if you want to understand where I am coming from.

It has been made absolutely clear that there is to be no quoting (or paraphrasing) from PMs on thread, see below. Since there is no specification of what is allowed or what is not allowed per PM, no quote goes for everything. Since it is specified that there is to be no quoting on thread, it is allowed in off-thread comms.

We've answered PMs about this and we've mellowed our stance on faction alignments. The reason for that is that this is a game that features recruitment and thus, today's alignment can be different from tomorrow's or yesterday's. Nowhere else did we budge or create muddied waters.

As for the anger, well, we've had three modkills for meta play last game, I've seen my spycraft 2.5 broken because of a breach of the reveal/quote rules that could not be rectified by a modkill. All in games within the 70s bracket.

Path-Shaper, on 12 June 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

Game set up

Four teams, the Amnion (cult), the crew of the trumpet, The U.M.C. and The U.M.C.P.

several victory conditions means that more than one team can win.

No quoting PMs on thread.

[Fener]

Tapper, on 17 June 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Try and mod if you want to understand where I am coming from.

It has been made absolutely clear that there is to be no quoting (or paraphrasing) from PMs on thread, see below. Since there is no specification of what is allowed or what is not allowed per PM, no quote goes for everything. Since it is specified that there is to be no quoting on thread, it is allowed in off-thread comms.

We've answered PMs about this and we've mellowed our stance on faction alignments. The reason for that is that this is a game that features recruitment and thus, today's alignment can be different from tomorrow's or yesterday's. Nowhere else did we budge or create muddied waters.

As for the anger, well, we've had three modkills for meta play last game, I've seen my spycraft 2.5 broken because of a breach of the reveal/quote rules that could not be rectified by a modkill. All in games within the 70s bracket.

Path-Shaper, on 12 June 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

Game set up

Four teams, the Amnion (cult), the crew of the trumpet, The U.M.C. and The U.M.C.P.

several victory conditions means that more than one team can win.

No quoting PMs on thread.

piss on that!
you contradict yourself...then get angry at us for asking to clarify?

i was confused because of the reveal thing and how strict it seemed you guys where actually taking the pm thing.
god forbid i fucking ask for clarification again.

i feel like quiting now...seriously.


Feels like im getting the 3rd degree when i didnt even break a rule.

[Fener]

and "no quoting pm's on thread" is a pretty fucking broad statement... technically that could mean that i can still reveal a specific role as long as its not actually verbatim.

[Alkend]

are you still going on Fener? can you not just let it go? i'd prefer you to get back to looking through the thread for yourself, i mean cult.

[Fener]

Alkend, on 17 June 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

are you still going on Fener? can you not just let it go? i'd prefer you to get back to looking through the thread for yourself, i mean cult.

eat a cock!!

[Path-Shaper]

Fener, on 17 June 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Tapper, on 17 June 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Try and mod if you want to understand where I am coming from.

It has been made absolutely clear that there is to be no quoting (or paraphrasing) from PMs on thread, see below. Since there is no specification of what is allowed or what is not allowed per PM, no quote goes for everything. Since it is specified that there is to be no quoting on thread, it is allowed in off-thread comms.

We've answered PMs about this and we've mellowed our stance on faction alignments. The reason for that is that this is a game that features recruitment and thus, today's alignment can be different from tomorrow's or yesterday's. Nowhere else did we budge or create muddied waters.

As for the anger, well, we've had three modkills for meta play last game, I've seen my spycraft 2.5 broken because of a breach of the reveal/quote rules that could not be rectified by a modkill. All in games within the 70s bracket.

Path-Shaper, on 12 June 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

Game set up

Four teams, the Amnion (cult), the crew of the trumpet, The U.M.C. and The U.M.C.P.

several victory conditions means that more than one team can win.

No quoting PMs on thread.

piss on that!
you contradict yourself...then get angry at us for asking to clarify?

i was confused because of the reveal thing and how strict it seemed you guys where actually taking the pm thing.
god forbid i fucking ask for clarification again.

i feel like quiting now...seriously.


Feels like im getting the 3rd degree when i didnt even break a rule.

Sorry if you feel like that and perhaps I overreacted. If so, apologies. But I feel our stance is/ was clear and I think I explained comprehensively why we didn't modkill or acted on the faction thing.

Thing is, when I get PMs from people saying 'he's mentioning leaders zomg modkill him', it starts to snowball. Look at the discussion we're having, it's what, an hour or more real time, around 15 posts going back and forth at each other, and we both feel snubbed and misunderstood.

It's not a good thing. Then again, I think the rules we made are as they should be to make the game challenging. It stiffles some aspects of mafia (reducing the value of finder reveals and making (fake) reveals impossible) while protecting others (the cult, and preventing the snowball reveal chain when there are 3-7 players left).
Whether or not that is worth it, time will tell, but please wait till you see SH with your final judgment.

This post has been edited by Path-Shaper: 17 June 2011 - 11:01 AM

[Fener]

i kid...i kid

[Path-Shaper]

Fener, on 17 June 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

Alkend, on 17 June 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

are you still going on Fener? can you not just let it go? i'd prefer you to get back to looking through the thread for yourself, i mean cult.

eat a cock!!

I bet I can eat 100 cocks.

I understand frustration and neither statement is exactly proactive. Keep it civil guys, it's bad enough that Fener and I felt the need to have a go at one another for someone to meddle. Best to get the thread back to positive stuff and the game asap.

[Eloth]

Fener, on 17 June 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Tapper, on 17 June 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Try and mod if you want to understand where I am coming from.

It has been made absolutely clear that there is to be no quoting (or paraphrasing) from PMs on thread, see below. Since there is no specification of what is allowed or what is not allowed per PM, no quote goes for everything. Since it is specified that there is to be no quoting on thread, it is allowed in off-thread comms.

We've answered PMs about this and we've mellowed our stance on faction alignments. The reason for that is that this is a game that features recruitment and thus, today's alignment can be different from tomorrow's or yesterday's. Nowhere else did we budge or create muddied waters.

As for the anger, well, we've had three modkills for meta play last game, I've seen my spycraft 2.5 broken because of a breach of the reveal/quote rules that could not be rectified by a modkill. All in games within the 70s bracket.

Path-Shaper, on 12 June 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

Game set up

Four teams, the Amnion (cult), the crew of the trumpet, The U.M.C. and The U.M.C.P.

several victory conditions means that more than one team can win.

No quoting PMs on thread.

piss on that!
you contradict yourself...then get angry at us for asking to clarify?

i was confused because of the reveal thing and how strict it seemed you guys where actually taking the pm thing.
god forbid i fucking ask for clarification again.

i feel like quiting now...seriously.


Feels like im getting the 3rd degree when i didnt even break a rule.

watching you go off on the mods reminds me of day 1. take a chill pill and just accept that the mods dont want a revealfest. Rightly so as it generally ruins a game. There is abig difference from saying "i am in faction XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" and actually proving it by quoting your pm. Mostly because people dont believe it. The op and the scenes give us plenty to speculate from without needed to refer to a role pm.

@tap - thx for modding, please dont modkill anyone!!!

[Alkend]

Vote Anomandaris



His first vote i believe?

[Fener]

Path-Shaper, on 17 June 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

Fener, on 17 June 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Tapper, on 17 June 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Try and mod if you want to understand where I am coming from.

It has been made absolutely clear that there is to be no quoting (or paraphrasing) from PMs on thread, see below. Since there is no specification of what is allowed or what is not allowed per PM, no quote goes for everything. Since it is specified that there is to be no quoting on thread, it is allowed in off-thread comms.

We've answered PMs about this and we've mellowed our stance on faction alignments. The reason for that is that this is a game that features recruitment and thus, today's alignment can be different from tomorrow's or yesterday's. Nowhere else did we budge or create muddied waters.

As for the anger, well, we've had three modkills for meta play last game, I've seen my spycraft 2.5 broken because of a breach of the reveal/quote rules that could not be rectified by a modkill. All in games within the 70s bracket.

Path-Shaper, on 12 June 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

Game set up

Four teams, the Amnion (cult), the crew of the trumpet, The U.M.C. and The U.M.C.P.

several victory conditions means that more than one team can win.

No quoting PMs on thread.

piss on that!
you contradict yourself...then get angry at us for asking to clarify?

i was confused because of the reveal thing and how strict it seemed you guys where actually taking the pm thing.
god forbid i fucking ask for clarification again.

i feel like quiting now...seriously.


Feels like im getting the 3rd degree when i didnt even break a rule.

Sorry if you feel like that and perhaps I overreacted. If so, apologies. But I feel our stance is/ was clear and I think I explained comprehensively why we didn't modkill or acted on the faction thing.

Yes...you explained...like just now....3 days into the game by the way!!

Path-Shaper, on 17 June 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

Thing is, when I get PMs from people saying 'he's mentioning leaders zomg modkill him', it starts to snowball. Look at the discussion we're having, it's what, an hour or more real time, around 15 posts going back and forth at each other, and we both feel snubbed and misunderstood.

Many people have mentioned leaders or "captains"...whats the dealio.
And besides...who says i have a leader?....maybe i am lying....whats wrong with these people? this is mafia right?

Path-Shaper, on 17 June 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

It's not a good thing. Then again, I think the rules we made are as they should be to make the game challenging. It stiffles some aspects of mafia (reducing the value of finder reveals and making (fake) reveals impossible) while protecting others (the cult, and preventing the snowball reveal chain when there are 3-7 players left).
Whether or not that is worth it, time will tell, but please wait till you see SH with your final judgment.

ok fair enough....i took the no pm reveal thing to mean what it usually does.
Which is you can reveal your alliance.
And your role.
but you cant reveal the name given to you in order to reiforce your reveal with no counter reveals and such as proof you are not lying.

So thats where the confusion stems from..

the rest is all circumstantial and shouldnt effect the game...what i am and what i say i am could be two entirely different things entirely.

[Fener]

Eloth, on 17 June 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

Fener, on 17 June 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Tapper, on 17 June 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Try and mod if you want to understand where I am coming from.

It has been made absolutely clear that there is to be no quoting (or paraphrasing) from PMs on thread, see below. Since there is no specification of what is allowed or what is not allowed per PM, no quote goes for everything. Since it is specified that there is to be no quoting on thread, it is allowed in off-thread comms.

We've answered PMs about this and we've mellowed our stance on faction alignments. The reason for that is that this is a game that features recruitment and thus, today's alignment can be different from tomorrow's or yesterday's. Nowhere else did we budge or create muddied waters.

As for the anger, well, we've had three modkills for meta play last game, I've seen my spycraft 2.5 broken because of a breach of the reveal/quote rules that could not be rectified by a modkill. All in games within the 70s bracket.

Path-Shaper, on 12 June 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

Game set up

Four teams, the Amnion (cult), the crew of the trumpet, The U.M.C. and The U.M.C.P.

several victory conditions means that more than one team can win.

No quoting PMs on thread.

piss on that!
you contradict yourself...then get angry at us for asking to clarify?

i was confused because of the reveal thing and how strict it seemed you guys where actually taking the pm thing.
god forbid i fucking ask for clarification again.

i feel like quiting now...seriously.


Feels like im getting the 3rd degree when i didnt even break a rule.

watching you go off on the mods reminds me of day 1. take a chill pill and just accept that the mods dont want a revealfest. Rightly so as it generally ruins a game. There is abig difference from saying "i am in faction XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" and actually proving it by quoting your pm. Mostly because people dont believe it. The op and the scenes give us plenty to speculate from without needed to refer to a role pm.

@tap - thx for modding, please dont modkill anyone!!!

i never said anything about a reveal fest.

i just wanted clarification...then i get the mod god tearing me a new one for asking.

crap on a stick!!

[Fener]

Alkend, on 17 June 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

Vote Anomandaris



His first vote i believe?

say what now?

[Eloth]

i am just cautioning a little restrain, there is no reason to quit just because tapper was worried about something and wanted to steess a point. Its only a game, and the purpose is enjoyment. its tap and roldoms game so lets give them a little leeway to be modlike.

[Eloth]

Alkend, on 17 June 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

Vote Anomandaris



His first vote i believe?

a case or some background is called for here.

[Fener]

Eloth, on 17 June 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

i am just cautioning a little restrain, there is no reason to quit just because tapper was worried about something and wanted to steess a point. Its only a game, and the purpose is enjoyment. its tap and roldoms game so lets give them a little leeway to be modlike.

ok fine...ill take the blame...im the bad guy.
I should not have gotten all huffy when tapper got all huffy when i did not break the rules

kapeesh ?


lets move on

[Fener]

Eloth, on 17 June 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:

Alkend, on 17 June 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

Vote Anomandaris



His first vote i believe?

a case or some background is called for here.

super weird

[Fener]

besides...i have to keep up appearances or you guys will start shouting "shenanigans!" and what not about me not playing the same anymore. so i need to have at least one pissing match a day in order to look "normal"... might as well be with PS

[Barghast]

To be fair, I understand exactly where Fener is coming from, since I thought exactly the same thing about the PM rule. I think it's sufficiently clarified now that no quoting PMs means no revealing any off thread info other than alignment for us to drop it and go back to the game at hand.