Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 38

Author Topic: Beginners' XXVII - Imperishable Night - Game Over!  (Read 184121 times)

Dariush

  • Bay Watcher
  • I don't think I !!am!!, therefore I !!am!! not
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII
« Reply #405 on: October 01, 2011, 10:02:54 am »

Dariush: Does the "weekend time stop" rule apply to the current extension?
Yep.
Votecount:

  • ed boy: IronyOwl,
  • Mormota:
  • Shakerag:
  • Urist Imiknorris: Mormota,
  • Powder Miner: Jim Groovester, Urist Imiknorris,
  • Jim Groovester:
  • IronyOwl: Powder Miner,

Not voting: ed boy, Shakerag,

Extend:

The day will end Monday, 6PM GMT. You need (in total) 3 votes to extend and 5 to shorten.

LT for this game. (Mostly for myself, for easier votecounts, but feel free to use it)

Powder Miner

  • Bay Watcher
  • this avatar is years irrelevant again oh god oh f-
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #406 on: October 01, 2011, 10:28:39 am »

Funnily enough I did answer his question.
Also funnily enough, I never said "Ololololol If he werent an IC he wouldn;t be an IC therefore he is scum."
No. That is called twisting of words and that is what I referred to as misquoting because it's exactly that, putting a quote of mmine nup there and then attaching some ridiculous meaning to it. Get your facts straight.
Logged

Urist Imiknorris

  • Bay Watcher
  • In the flesh, on the phone and in your account...
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #407 on: October 01, 2011, 06:57:52 pm »

Huh. I wonder where Shakerag and IronyOwl went. They've both been online today, but they're being awfully quiet.
Logged
Quote from: LordSlowpoke
I don't know how it works. It does.
Quote from: Jim Groovester
YOU CANT NOT HAVE SUSPECTS IN A GAME OF MAFIA

ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME
Quote from: Cheeetar
If Tiruin redirected the lynch, then this means that, and... the Illuminati! Of course!

Powder Miner

  • Bay Watcher
  • this avatar is years irrelevant again oh god oh f-
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #408 on: October 01, 2011, 07:18:46 pm »

...Mm, They might just not have time for a full mafia post. It's happened to me.
Logged

Jim Groovester

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1P
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #409 on: October 01, 2011, 08:11:01 pm »

But if they're being attacked and not defending themselves, they're more likely to be lynched, which is bad for their side unless they're jester or something like that that isn't in this game. You'd expect a player to at least try to defend themselves, because if they don't it means they just don't care anymore, and won't contribute anyway.

Okay, it's bad play, but is it scummy play?

I unvoted him because I wanted to go back through everyone's arguments once I was done with the things I needed to do yesterday and start hunting other people in addition to him. I probably should have waited to unvote until I had gotten back home, because when I read his response I became fully convinced he was scum and that hunting other people could wait until D3. In fact, when I responded to his post I had completely forgotten that I had unvoted him (as evidenced by my thinking that his post was made with three votes on him). That's how bad I thought it was.

What about his response made you fully convinced?

Besides effort, there's not a whole lot different between Powder Miner before he threw up that wall of text and Powder Miner afterwards.

Hey Shakerag, where'd you go, dude? I hope you've got a case for me. And by for me, I don't mean on me.
Logged
I understood nothing, contributed nothing, but still got to win, so good game everybody else.

Urist Imiknorris

  • Bay Watcher
  • In the flesh, on the phone and in your account...
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #410 on: October 01, 2011, 09:26:53 pm »

But if they're being attacked and not defending themselves, they're more likely to be lynched, which is bad for their side unless they're jester or something like that that isn't in this game. You'd expect a player to at least try to defend themselves, because if they don't it means they just don't care anymore, and won't contribute anyway.

Okay, it's bad play, but is it scummy play?
After thinking about it for a second, I must concede that it isn't.

Quote
What about his response made you fully convinced?

Besides effort, there's not a whole lot different between Powder Miner before he threw up that wall of text and Powder Miner afterwards.

The post itself had an air of desperation about it when I read it, which felt to me like he was trying to convince the rest of us that IronyOwl is scum as a way of showing his towniness and getting us to not lynch him. There was also the fact that he had made several statements that were rather unclear, then instead of simply clarifying them or explaining what he meant to say when he was questioned about it, he accused IronyOwl of misquoting him, then explained his meaning.
Logged
Quote from: LordSlowpoke
I don't know how it works. It does.
Quote from: Jim Groovester
YOU CANT NOT HAVE SUSPECTS IN A GAME OF MAFIA

ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME
Quote from: Cheeetar
If Tiruin redirected the lynch, then this means that, and... the Illuminati! Of course!

Urist Imiknorris

  • Bay Watcher
  • In the flesh, on the phone and in your account...
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #411 on: October 01, 2011, 09:40:21 pm »

Wow, I suck at reading comprehension. I only just noticed the part where he said he's 13 (and thus probably in middle school), and realized that Mormota pretty much hit the nail on the head:
However, I see more arrogance and unexperience than scum behaviour in you now.

I need to rethink my argument.
Logged
Quote from: LordSlowpoke
I don't know how it works. It does.
Quote from: Jim Groovester
YOU CANT NOT HAVE SUSPECTS IN A GAME OF MAFIA

ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME
Quote from: Cheeetar
If Tiruin redirected the lynch, then this means that, and... the Illuminati! Of course!

Urist Imiknorris

  • Bay Watcher
  • In the flesh, on the phone and in your account...
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #412 on: October 01, 2011, 10:33:06 pm »

HOLD IT.

PFP:  Unvote.  I wasn't planning on letting that sit out there as long as it has, but stuff happens.  Yeah, I've still got a gut suspicion on Jim, but I suppose it doesn't warrant letting a vote sit on him for now.

Then why didn't you unvote until you had been called on it?
Yesterday evening I dropped my case on Jim; was going to look at the thread in the evening and didn't.  This morning, caught up on questions asked; was going to look over the thread in more detail and RL stuff happened.  This afternoon, I (along with a number of you) noted that I still had my vote on Jim, but lacking anything significant and still being RL busy, unvoted somewhat belatedly.  Had I known yesterday that I wouldn't have gotten around to finding my next-most-suspicious person until now, I would have unvoted then.
(emphasis mine)

Shakerag, you never said who your next-most-suspicious person was, you didn't vote them, and you didn't question them. I find this highly suspicious. Surely if you had someone new at the top of your "Who's Scum" list, you would at least say who. This is also your last post before the Powder Miner/IronyOwl thing (no idea what to call it) became the center of attention. Were you using it as an excuse to disappear and let us lynch an innocent townie? Did you perhaps feel lucky that you didn't even need to bother making a case against someone to get us to lynch?
Logged
Quote from: LordSlowpoke
I don't know how it works. It does.
Quote from: Jim Groovester
YOU CANT NOT HAVE SUSPECTS IN A GAME OF MAFIA

ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME
Quote from: Cheeetar
If Tiruin redirected the lynch, then this means that, and... the Illuminati! Of course!

Shakerag

  • Bay Watcher
  • Just here for the schadenfreude.
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #413 on: October 01, 2011, 11:43:59 pm »

Man, I have really got to check back in here more often. 

I had something better thought out on Friday, but either my browser or the forums ate it, and I never bothered to try and re-write it.  And Saturday is errand day, so I'm posting now.  I'm going to go tap my box o' wine and catch up on everything I've missed.

Shakerag

  • Bay Watcher
  • Just here for the schadenfreude.
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #414 on: October 02, 2011, 12:28:53 am »

Shakerag, you never said who your next-most-suspicious person was
True.
Quote
, you didn't vote them, and you didn't question them.
True and true.
Quote
I find this highly suspicious.
Possibly.
Quote
Surely if you had someone new at the top of your "Who's Scum" list, you would at least say who.
Also true.
Quote
This is also your last post before the Powder Miner/IronyOwl thing (no idea what to call it) became the center of attention.
Clusterfuck works for me.  Anyway, any association there is coincidental, because (as I mentioned before) I'm available/PFP during the day, evenings are out, and nights are iffy.  So they finally decided to ... do ... whatever it was that was going on there at the time when I'm never going to be available. 
Quote
Were you using it as an excuse to disappear and let us lynch an innocent townie? Did you perhaps feel lucky that you didn't even need to bother making a case against someone to get us to lynch?
Well, this kind of ties in with your first few comments.  I found it amusing how IronyOwl answered my question of his voting ed boy over PM, because that pretty much sums up how I've been feeling about PM for most of the game now.  I think he's definitely the scummiest-looking person out there right now, but I can't quite convince myself that he's actually scum.  <joke>Of course, by stating that, Murphy's Law dictates that he will be scum, and I will be kicking myself in the ass later</joke>.  And outside of that, I haven't been able to find any substantial reading to condone a vote so far.  I'd say I'm most suspicious of "IDK my BFF Jim", but there's nothing definitive there.  Mormota feels town-ish to me, and maybe possibly IronyOwl too. 

Mindmaker was pretty suspicious to me at the time, but now I wonder if that just wasn't a whole lot of newtells instead.  And I'm not really picking up anything one way or another on you, Urist. 

And I was looking at ed boy's contributions lately, and that seemed to pan out too.  I'm fairly worried about one or both of the ICs being on the scumteam, because I think we'd be all thoroughly fucked if that happened. 

Mormota

  • Bay Watcher
  • Necron Lord
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #415 on: October 02, 2011, 03:43:34 am »

Clusterfuck works for me.  Anyway, any association there is coincidental, because (as I mentioned before) I'm available/PFP during the day, evenings are out, and nights are iffy.  So they finally decided to ... do ... whatever it was that was going on there at the time when I'm never going to be available. 

They decided to? What do you mean?

Well, this kind of ties in with your first few comments.  I found it amusing how IronyOwl answered my question of his voting ed boy over PM, because that pretty much sums up how I've been feeling about PM for most of the game now.  I think he's definitely the scummiest-looking person out there right now, but I can't quite convince myself that he's actually scum.  <joke>Of course, by stating that, Murphy's Law dictates that he will be scum, and I will be kicking myself in the ass later</joke>.  And outside of that, I haven't been able to find any substantial reading to condone a vote so far.  I'd say I'm most suspicious of "IDK my BFF Jim", but there's nothing definitive there.  Mormota feels town-ish to me, and maybe possibly IronyOwl too. 

Mindmaker was pretty suspicious to me at the time, but now I wonder if that just wasn't a whole lot of newtells instead.  And I'm not really picking up anything one way or another on you, Urist. 

And I was looking at ed boy's contributions lately, and that seemed to pan out too.  I'm fairly worried about one or both of the ICs being on the scumteam, because I think we'd be all thoroughly fucked if that happened. 

You nicely explained your views on everyone, but are you going to ask questions anytime soon? Your main reason for attacking Mindmaker was that he wasn't scumhunting. Neither are you.
Logged
Avid Aurora player, Warhammer 40.000 fan, part-time writer and cursed game developer.
The only thing that happened in general was the death of 71% of the fort, and that wasn't really worth mentioning.

ed boy

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #416 on: October 02, 2011, 12:53:29 pm »

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to request a replace.
Logged

IronyOwl

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nope~
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith (one replacement needed!)
« Reply #417 on: October 02, 2011, 08:03:43 pm »

Sorry about that, been busy.


Powder Miner:

I quoted you in the quote you're quoting here.
No, you didn't. Explain what you meant by this.

Also, I love how you say your gut was the only thing keeping me from being a guaranteed lynch. That both means you'd be willing to stake a lynch on nothing but your gut
If my gut says you're not scum, I'm not going to lynch you for being a shitty player. What about this is scummy or a bad idea to you?

AND that you'd be willing to use your IC status to manipulate everyone else.
You don't even know where you're going with this, do you?

I mean, what is your argument here, exactly? That I'm scum attempting to manipulate the Town into not mislynching you? Or that it's only manipulation if I say you are scum? Or that with two ICs saying you're scum and four players voting you, I'd need some sort of elaborate gambit to get you lynched?

This has the classic signs of low-level tunneling and terrible, shitty arguments- it made sense in your head and sounds bad when you say it out loud, but doesn't make any goddamned sense when you actually plug it into the fantasy you've created for yourself. It's the throw-everything-without-looking-at-it approach, which is a clear sign that you're making arguments to support your case, not prove it.


Furthermore, this doesn't address my question. Even if you had quoted me in that prior post, I don't see how one quote for a two-sentence response invalidates the simple fact that you've been practicing none of what you preached. And what you've used as an excuse to not explain yourself.

So I'll ask you again, because apparently just once doesn't stick: Why have all of your prior posts been extremely brief, undetailed, and quoteless if "backing it up" is so important?




On Timing And Such:


Quote from: IronyOwl
So, here we go:
Point One:
One: Why did it take you so long to mention this part? As I've said (repeatedly) this question has been out to you for a long, long while, and you've just now gotten around to saying this part. Why? You've given very brief, vague versions before, mainly consisting of "Why can't you do both" or "You should scumhunt too" or similar, but this is the first time you've explained yourself fully, and the first time you could be interpreted as responding in a concrete way to the explanations I gave for it much, much earlier.

I first asked this question way, waaaaay the fuck back here:

I ANSWERED THAT. I SAID THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION BECAUSE I NEVER FOUND AN ANSWER OF YOURS TO MORMOTA UNSATISFACTORY!
Yes, but that was, what, four days ago (as of this quote)? My explanation was not long after, but your response certainly was.

And mind you, this was after blatantly ignoring the question when you didn't understand it, rather than bothering to ask about (or even acknowledge) it.




On Noobs And Scum:


Quote from: IronyOwl
That was six days ago. The response in question had been given seven days ago:


Twelve hours ago, you finally got off your ass and gave an answer that wasn't uselessly vague. It took you a fucking week to answer a question and provide an explanation for your case.

Why?
Reading that quote now, I'm going to facepalm. That not finding anyone suspicious even though tey were lurking/active lurking/questionable tactics-using was what made me suspicious in the first place. How would you expect me to get off of your case for what made me suspicious? Yay emphasis stacking.
If this was the original reason you were suspicious of me, why is this the first time you've ever mentioned it?

Also, I've explained this in fairly elaborate detail by now, but here's a particularly concise example:

What makes a bandwagon or lack of scumhunting a sign of scum and not proof of not being sure what they're doing?

If you still don't understand the concept, why didn't you call me out on thinking your play was crap yet still thinking you were town? Wouldn't the two be mutually exclusive?




On Logic and Such:


Quote from: IronyOwl
Point Two:
Two: "If you weren't doing X you'd be doing nothing therefore you're doing nothing" does not work as an argument, because they're not not doing X. It can have merit as a show of tunneling or lack of activity, but "1 = 0" just isn't going to fly.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was all you're doing is handing out advice and pretending that's an acceptable excuse to be not scumhunting. That's hat I said, scum.
Well, which is it, said or meant? If it's said, why isn't this a careful dissection of what words mean instead of vague accusations of misinterpretation? If it's meant, why are you phrasing your inability to communicate what you mean as a scumtell from me?



Quote from: IronyOwl
This is a logical argument. Yet you've refused to answer it because:

Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.
This is known as "unacceptable bullshit," as it's a completely irrelevant excuse to avoid answering. If for some reason you need proof that you actually said that, that's also unacceptable bullshit, but I'll provide it anyway because I'm tired of you wriggling out of doing anything at the slightest excuse.
I fail to see how misquoting my meaning is a logical argument. Try again.
I went through very elaborate efforts to explain, in detail, the logic of your argument and why it was worthless. If that hinged on misquoting your meaning, your response would have been a rather simple dismantling of my interpretation by pointing out what those words and phrases actually mean. Instead you've got a fairly emotional rant about how I've been misquoting you, without really bothering to explain why, and not explaining why at all until later on. Why?


And I did say that. I won't deny that, nor would I ever need to or want to deny that. I wanted posts linked to because you were misquoting what I was trying saying and that was unacceptable. That's harder to do with the words up there and me here to advance them.
So you saw me doing something scummy, and instead of calling me out on it and explaining why it was baseless and thus a scum ploy, you kicked the can down the road and insisted I fancy up my posts more. Why?


So I'll go with that it's just compltely unacceptable to misquote my meaning. How's that for you as logical arguments go?
It's a lot of text for saying absolutely nothing, except that you're emotional and defensive.




On Scumhunting And Such:


Quote from: IronyOwl screws up
[misquote]
If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't get away with not scumhunting, you wouldn't be able to IC.
"If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't be ICing."[/misquote]
Are you done misquoting me yet? No? Fine. That's about the most ridiculous misquote in here. I'm not sure if you edited tht there, if that was part of something else, or that was me trying to post int he ten minutes before my bedtime,
So you consider this a laughable, scummy misquote, but admit that you might have posted it and can't be bothered to click on the link to check.

It's a direct quote. It's trimmed, but there was no context to remove. I'll once again remind you of your claim that:

Irony, here's a little lesson I learned when I got lynched last game. You can call someone's argument crap and bull all you want but you need to back it up. Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.
I see no links proving I've misquoted you. Why is that?


Spoiler: On Logic And Points (click to show/hide)


Quote from: WordTwistingOwl
Thus we get:
So, with my defense we get the truth, which is what I actually said, scum:

Quote from: WordTwistingOwl
1. If you weren't ICing right now you'd be doing nothing
1. If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't have the excuse of being the ohso benevolent IC that just sits around and hands out advice, and you'd be recgonized as active lurking.
Quote from: WordTwistingOwl
2. You're doing nothing anyway
2. Even if you do have the excuse, it doesn't change the fact that you're active lurking.
Nope. ICing is useful, as you later admit.


Quote from: WordTwistingOwl
3. You're doing absolutely nothing for the town
3. If you're ICing, YOU NEED TO SCUMHUNT. Not scumhunting means not finding scum. Not finding scum means losing.
You've said this, but you've also said this:

It really doesn't matter if we're too noobish, or if we need lots of ICing, if you're only being an IC, you're not doing a single thing for the town.
Plus, accusations of active lurking are pretty much this by definition, so basically the entirety of your case is "you're doing nothing," not "scumhunting is important." The two might look similar, but they're not the same thing.


With regards to your "intended" point, ICing is largely concerned with getting other people to scumhunt and scumhunt well, and the BM format's entire point is helping others improve. Even if it were more efficient for me to attempt to win the game single-handedly, it'd completely defeat the purpose.


Thus, I stand by my statement:
Quote from: WordTwistingOwl
Thus we get my original interpretation: "If you weren't an IC you wouldn't be doing anything right now, thus you're not doing anything right now." In other words, (1 = 0).






On ICing:

Quote from: IronyOwl
Point Three:
Three: I feel my ICing is helping quite a bit in some areas. Would you care to point out an example or two where it's been completely worthless?
Helping Shakerag to avoid crippling assumptions, break out of his complacency, and refine his case. He took some further convincing for the theory part, but admitted most other points were not just good, but helpful to improving his game.

Helping ed boy explain his case on Jim. Note the improved specifics of the response relative to the vagueness of the explanation I was objecting to.
Your ICing does help. But if you don't scumhunt, we lose. Scumhunting is needed.
That's not what you've been saying all game. Your entire previous section is centered around claiming that I've been active lurking and that my ICing is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide that fact. Which is it?


Quote from: IronyOwl
Point Four:
Four: I am scumhunting. Saying blatantly, demonstrably false things tends to ruin your case, so unless you'd care to explain why I'm not actually scumhunting ed boy or why we should all live in the past for a moment, I'm pretty sure you should just admit to spouting bullshit and move along to real arguments.
Bouncing around an occasional question to look active (A bit hypocritical, I'm sorry, but I didn't do that on purpose- I just couldn't find anything suspicious) while not following up on it doesn't count. I;m sorry.
I thought we'd established that you needed quotes to do stuff, rather than more vague, pointless garbage?



At this point I take it back about you scumhunting ed boy.But it's too little, too late, and only after I launched a savage attack on you.
So you admit to being wrong, but shrug and say it's "not enough" without going into any detail. This is both in grievous violation of your now-infamous wisdom, and a very definite sign of tunneling.


Quote from: WordTwistingOwl
I look forward to your detailed and well-thought out explanations for all of this, in addition to why you needed this before you could field any responses of your own. And yes, that last part is a real, genuine question that you will need a fucking awesome explanation for.
You also seem to have forgotten something. I pretty much knew you would, but that doesn't really make it better.



Well. This has become an atrocity.




Unvote ed boy. Quite unfortunate, as I had a few more things to ask him. Mostly about who he suspected now.

Shakerag, what's the scummiest thing you've seen in this game so far? I mean that both in the "why would you ever do that as either alignment" sense, and the far more useful "this made me suspicious of that person" sense.

Mormota, what's your current list of suspects?
Logged
Quote from: Radio Controlled (Discord)
A hand, a hand, my kingdom for a hot hand!
The kitchenette mold free, you move on to the pantry. it's nasty in there. The bacon is grazing on the lettuce. The ham is having an illicit affair with the prime rib, The potatoes see all, know all. A rat in boxer shorts smoking a foul smelling cigar is banging on a cabinet shouting about rent money.

Urist Imiknorris

  • Bay Watcher
  • In the flesh, on the phone and in your account...
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith
« Reply #418 on: October 02, 2011, 08:32:15 pm »

Shakerag, you never said who your next-most-suspicious person was
True.
Quote
, you didn't vote them, and you didn't question them.
True and true.
Why not?
 
Quote
"IDK my BFF Jim"

...

I'm fairly worried about one or both of the ICs being on the scumteam, because I think we'd be all thoroughly fucked if that happened.
...Does BFF mean scumbuddy? If not, why are you trying to buddy up to him?
Logged
Quote from: LordSlowpoke
I don't know how it works. It does.
Quote from: Jim Groovester
YOU CANT NOT HAVE SUSPECTS IN A GAME OF MAFIA

ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME
Quote from: Cheeetar
If Tiruin redirected the lynch, then this means that, and... the Illuminati! Of course!

Mormota

  • Bay Watcher
  • Necron Lord
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 2 - Mountain of Faith (one replacement needed!)
« Reply #419 on: October 03, 2011, 09:48:46 am »

Mormota, what's your current list of suspects?

On this note, Urist, your answer was satisfying.

I personally try concentrating on fewer people at once, so I can keep my case collected and not spread out in a large pile of junk like what Powder Miner is doing. As per this, my main suspect right now is Shakerag, for the questions I asked him here are still unanswered. He's just going to say "I'm only available at night" whatever I would ask him though.

Powder Miner is getting ridiculous, but I see more arrogance, stupidity and newbie play in him than scum behaviour.

I do not like the fact ed boy asked for a replace, but there's nothing I can do about that.

Urist is doing his job and is thorough with his questions, except the one occasion which I pointed out. Were I the doctor, I wouldn't protect him, but other than that, he's not going to be my next target.

IronyOwl is currently locked trying to knock some sense into Powder Miner. Futile try, as we saw with me and him in the last game.

Anyways, I find your question sort of pointless.

Jim Groovester, what is your opinion on Powder Miner? Don't you feel like you should be trying to nudge him in the right direction along with IronyOwl? Or did you already do that somewhere we can't see?
Logged
Avid Aurora player, Warhammer 40.000 fan, part-time writer and cursed game developer.
The only thing that happened in general was the death of 71% of the fort, and that wasn't really worth mentioning.
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 38