By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Fire Emblem Mafia - Game Thread - Concluded

Smeags said:
I was Stannis (town) and I was killed by Kantor the first night, aye.

Yep, and I remember because it was one of my win conditions to kill you. I was all too happy to find out who you were.



Around the Network
theprof00 said:

Yep, and I remember because it was one of my win conditions to kill you. I was all too happy to find out who you were.

*laughs*

So you and Kantor were kingslayers eh? Yeah, I was a Vanilla townie, so my thinking was to give enough information to be seen as bait. Guess it worked too well. @_@

@Spurge

Taking the "me against the world" stance already?



theprof00 said:

Shall I spare you and repeat myself then?

You asked why I thought negatively about outlaw. I answered by asking outlaw if he's gotten around to looking into sparks. I thought poorly of him because he said he would do something and didn't follow through. I was suspicious of fake-activity. He comes back to say he knows sparks previous alt. That's confirmation of fake-activity. Instead of simply telling you, I gave you the opporunity to look at what I was looking at. I'm guessing you didn't bother...just like you didn't bother to read my posts that also explained this already.

Second question was about confirmation but non-confirmation of day talk.

I'm assuming this was in reference to Ike. I'm not sure what was so hard to figure out. A person who claimed to be following along doesn't correct me on known information....twice even.

So regarding outlaw it's egocentrism and impatience, and regarding day talk it may be because you're unable to keep track of who said what when, or because I missed the part when the mafia's ability or inability to talk during the day became "known information." Either way, got it, glad we're on the same page now. Albeit probably just for now. Please, carry on.



Wright said:
Smeags said:
I was Stannis (town) and I was killed by Kantor the first night, aye.


If you were killed, how come you're speaking now.

Because R'hllor



theprof00 said:

Because R'hllor




Around the Network
Wright said:
theprof00 said:

Because R'hllor


Funny, I was this close to making that my sig.



"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"

Cont. - the other day.



"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"

noname2200 said:
theprof00 said:

Shall I spare you and repeat myself then?

You asked why I thought negatively about outlaw. I answered by asking outlaw if he's gotten around to looking into sparks. I thought poorly of him because he said he would do something and didn't follow through. I was suspicious of fake-activity. He comes back to say he knows sparks previous alt. That's confirmation of fake-activity. Instead of simply telling you, I gave you the opporunity to look at what I was looking at. I'm guessing you didn't bother...just like you didn't bother to read my posts that also explained this already.

Second question was about confirmation but non-confirmation of day talk.

I'm assuming this was in reference to Ike. I'm not sure what was so hard to figure out. A person who claimed to be following along doesn't correct me on known information....twice even.

So regarding outlaw it's egocentrism and impatience, and regarding day talk it may be because you're unable to keep track of who said what when, or because I missed the part when the mafia's ability or inability to talk during the day became "known information." Either way, got it, glad we're on the same page now. Albeit probably just for now. Please, carry on.

What do you want from me? You want me to carry on, or shut up, because you're clearly not interested in anything I, or others, have to say.



padib said:

@2. That's exactly what I'm trying to do with noname.

@bold. That might make the game more fun and you'll be able to notice more things without making users get scared about it, then bring it up when it matters most. Like bam! You have a complete case with a list of OBJECTIONS! :P

Ok sure but for the sake of my own neck, let's try talking to the suspicious lurkers about something other than how I'm harmful to town.

For the record, I have no problem sitting back while other people talk and I listen. The only problem is that nobody ever seems dedicated enough to actually get people talking. Although sparks and spurge seem interested in creating discussion.



theprof00 said:

What do you want from me? You want me to carry on, or shut up, because you're clearly not interested in anything I, or others, have to say.


I expressly stated what I want from you, albeit to padib instead of you to: keep going. It's been helpful. I like the results you've achieved so far. None of the above is sarcasm. But understand that your tactics will lose people very often, that your style of play sometimes revolves around paying more attention to small details than other players do, and that what you see as significant or noteworthy will not always be so universally regarded, so occasionally you may have to stop and explain your reasoning to others. Or at least accept that not everyone is going to follow you.

That's all.