I wouldn't use that as an argument and without talking too much OGI (out of game information) it's not true either. I sure hope you guys aren't scum together.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Archer [Mafia] |OT| Wait, I Had Something For This
- Thread starter Ourobolus
- Start date
I wouldn't use that as an argument and without talking too much OGI (out of game information) it's not true either. I sure hope you guys aren't scum together.
He could be part of the KGB. I'm not. I wipe my hands clean and state that my role is with the rest of the regular folks. I win as long as I don't get killed.
Also, a rabbi jinxed me. It seems from my character's description that he was awesome, but decided to follow the word of a rabbi which for some reason, makes me like a religious peaceful person? I don't know, never watched Archer nor intend to.
I can only vote like the rest of you. Which sucks.
so what you're saying is you're really bad at knowing who to trust?
I don't know if you're referring to me, but if so, I refuse!
In fact, Unvote: Haly
and
Obliterate: Haly
So I unvote and then (vote) again with obliterate.
Can I trust you? Can we trust you? You're so eager my fellow squidyj. I'd keep an eye on you.
I don't know if you're referring to me, but if so, I refuse!
In fact, Unvote: Haly
and
Obliterate: Haly
So I unvote and then (vote) again with obliterate.
Can I trust you? Can we trust you? You're so eager my fellow squidyj. I'd keep an eye on you.
That's just how I do.
no, we need to have control, any other system is simply unacceptable.
Are you sure that's how you do?
You seem nervous.
Sounds like it has been decided, but I am OK with not setting up a mission voting system after reading Palmers posts today. We will learn more from people arguing for or against to try and convince those who get in first.
I dont think I could have come up with a completely fair way of setting up this dynamic either, so we just have to live with how it is.
Now, because I didnt answer the question yesterday, I think that someone is more likely to be a townie if they pose logical theories on what the KGB would want to be doing for the current day/night phase, or trying to figure out who other KGB members are by probing other people. Thus, either Squidy is doing a really, really good job of trying to post a lot now to evade suspicion, or hes with the town (I believe you are with us). As for KGB, Id think someone was KGB if they werent trying to help the town in any observable way, whether that be by not posting much or by posting fluff most of all. And of course, if they volunteer for the mission within the first 10 minutes.
Apologies if anything I might have postulated yesterday seemed totally out there - I am new to this. The game does seem to encourage thinking out loud though, and I really do think that the KGB would have rushed to volunteer first this round for several reasons. But, those who are saying only 1 would volunteer for each mission make sense too. We really wont know for sure until at least midway through the game I guess.
So with that said, the only thing that makes sense right now is to vote for one of the first 4 volunteers in an attempt to see if they un-volunteer, which would hopefully tell us a lot and will immediately get my unvote.
Nothing personal, subject to change if someone is more suspicious later.
Vote: Mazre
I dont think I could have come up with a completely fair way of setting up this dynamic either, so we just have to live with how it is.
Now, because I didnt answer the question yesterday, I think that someone is more likely to be a townie if they pose logical theories on what the KGB would want to be doing for the current day/night phase, or trying to figure out who other KGB members are by probing other people. Thus, either Squidy is doing a really, really good job of trying to post a lot now to evade suspicion, or hes with the town (I believe you are with us). As for KGB, Id think someone was KGB if they werent trying to help the town in any observable way, whether that be by not posting much or by posting fluff most of all. And of course, if they volunteer for the mission within the first 10 minutes.
Apologies if anything I might have postulated yesterday seemed totally out there - I am new to this. The game does seem to encourage thinking out loud though, and I really do think that the KGB would have rushed to volunteer first this round for several reasons. But, those who are saying only 1 would volunteer for each mission make sense too. We really wont know for sure until at least midway through the game I guess.
So with that said, the only thing that makes sense right now is to vote for one of the first 4 volunteers in an attempt to see if they un-volunteer, which would hopefully tell us a lot and will immediately get my unvote.
Nothing personal, subject to change if someone is more suspicious later.
Vote: Mazre
Good idea, actually! Although, since YesNo already has some pressure on Mazre, it might be better to put pressure on one of the other 3 volunteers, seeing how Mazre's the only one with a vote in that lot.
Vote: GreatLord Tiger
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
OHOHO~ fellow second timer! ^_____^
Good reply too! But, doesn't really convince me yet to take the heat off you.... yet! Why 3 more numbers? Why not 4 or 5 more? Theoretically, SW had 4... with additional 2 neutrals whose objectives were against town.
I mean, I'm not basing the SW as a template, just pointing out that it's not improbable to have a fair few anti-town roles in a game of 23 players. But you chose 3. *eyeball you hard*
Also, I like Assassinate as a Lynch Word, for an Archer theme game
.... oww i strained my eyeballs :<
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Oh, I just recounted! There were actually 3 Hutts, 2 Imperials, and 2 Neutrals whose objectives were against town, so.... at the least 5 baddies and if you count those dastardly neutrals.... 7. And I think it was also a 23 player game.
cooljeanius
Member
The most memorable mafia game I remember, it was the people at both the top and the bottom of the activity chart that were the mafia, while everyone in the middle was the town... So I'm suspicious of squidyj.
Vote: TheGoddamn
Inactivity has been common for Mafia in the two games I've played, and even an inactive drone can be more harmful to us than helpful.
For lack of anything else concrete, kill those with the least activity.
This is 100% solid logic, there was one time where this guy was mafia and his name started with the letter E. we should be careful around Enker.
I didn't post that much in the AC game either.
Also I've been working most of the time since the game started, along with cooking, playing actual games and you know, sleeping. My timezone is not really helping in this game.
I find it ridiculous that you are jumping at me for lack of substance when we have barely even started this game and have nothing to go on.
What's wrong with me discussing the mechanics of the game? It's something we need to talk about and the sooner the better.
Are you seriously shitting on me because I haven't voted wildly on a random person yet like you are? I vote later on when I have more to go on and have had chance to think about it. That's what I did last game and i'm not going to change it for this game because you've decided to bully me into action.
I laughed.
I may or may not use this logic at points in real life.
I'd just like to update what I said earlier in having 'good vibes' on YNONOY based on something she posted, but clearly having seen other posts this was me hoping for too much and she's back on the neutral list. I should've watched some Archer in preparation!
I'm going to turn the gas on for Mike_Hawk689
VOTE:Mike_Hawk689
He's been pretty darn quiet with only one real contribution since the game started.
What's up, buddy? talk to me. Opinions on the volunteer situation? any further strange comments making you nauseous?
I want to know you, brother
So I have decided to take a step back and look at what is currently being discussed in this game. (If you all decide to NOT lynch me the first day *looks at Haly and El Topo* you will soon notice that I like to summarize things and create structure, I am not a fan of chaos at all).
There seen to be roughly three discussions going on at the same time:
The method to be used to decide who goes on a mission.
I actually agree with Haly for a change: we should settle this as soon as possible. The back end of day 1 will be dominated by discussion about who to lynch, and the first half of day 2 will probably be spend discussion the things that happened during the night. So now is pretty much the only time to settle this. Out of my mind, these are the current proposals (if I missed some, please tell me):
- Interested people will come forward, we vote on 4 to pick, they volunteer.
- A "no base rush" type of agreement where nobody will volunteer within 24 hours, and we discuss who will go.
- "Moving down the list methode": nobody is allowed to volunteer twice, we will simply send the next up on the waiting list of the last day.
- "the top town and scum methode": everybody gives their top town and scum, people with the most top town votes are allowed to go.
- Put everybody that want to in an RNG and let fate decide (not a fan of this one at all).
- Leave it like it is, AKA people with the best F5 skillz and time zones will get it.
Almost all of them solve the problem that I have with the current system of people just rushing to the thread at the start of the day and posting volunteer without any form of discussion or control.
Figuring out what our tactic should be about who will go on a mission.
Here there is a lot of maybe's and speculation. We simply don't know enough about the missions and the players in this game to have a valuable discussion. It is clear there are a whole lot of things to consider when sending people on missions, but I personally think we should wait for at least one mission to complete before continuing.
Voting for someone to lynch
Alright, i still think the KGB will have at least one of their agent in the current mission, and the people that were incredibly fast with volunteering are:
Mazre
Palmer_V1
Arkos
Greatlord tiger
Haly
Then I did some math: The KGB will probably understand that quick volunteering makes suspect, so I think they would not sent more than 1 agent on that task. So that gives us a 1/5 chance to pick a KGB agent out of these 5. On the other hand, if we assume there are 5 KGB, that gives us a 4/18 chance if we pick from the not volunteers, this is roughly..... between 1/4 and 1/5. So actually the chance to pick a KGB agent would be almost equal between picking from a volunteer and not. So I have abandoned that way of thinking.
Instead, I agree with palmer_V1 idea of picking a very inactive player. Because, well, lets face it: we are more than likely going to execute one of the town members. By picking an inactive member, we will make sure that even if we kill one of our own, we don't lose one of our best players.So for now I will go with:
VOTE: Mike-hawk689
Not very active and hasn't contributed a lot yet. If The goddamn is really away currently, that could be an acceptable reason to not be very active (OR a ruse to hide he is mafia, but I want to wait and see if he becomes more active later)
There seen to be roughly three discussions going on at the same time:
The method to be used to decide who goes on a mission.
I actually agree with Haly for a change: we should settle this as soon as possible. The back end of day 1 will be dominated by discussion about who to lynch, and the first half of day 2 will probably be spend discussion the things that happened during the night. So now is pretty much the only time to settle this. Out of my mind, these are the current proposals (if I missed some, please tell me):
- Interested people will come forward, we vote on 4 to pick, they volunteer.
- A "no base rush" type of agreement where nobody will volunteer within 24 hours, and we discuss who will go.
- "Moving down the list methode": nobody is allowed to volunteer twice, we will simply send the next up on the waiting list of the last day.
- "the top town and scum methode": everybody gives their top town and scum, people with the most top town votes are allowed to go.
- Put everybody that want to in an RNG and let fate decide (not a fan of this one at all).
- Leave it like it is, AKA people with the best F5 skillz and time zones will get it.
Almost all of them solve the problem that I have with the current system of people just rushing to the thread at the start of the day and posting volunteer without any form of discussion or control.
Figuring out what our tactic should be about who will go on a mission.
Here there is a lot of maybe's and speculation. We simply don't know enough about the missions and the players in this game to have a valuable discussion. It is clear there are a whole lot of things to consider when sending people on missions, but I personally think we should wait for at least one mission to complete before continuing.
Voting for someone to lynch
Alright, i still think the KGB will have at least one of their agent in the current mission, and the people that were incredibly fast with volunteering are:
Mazre
Palmer_V1
Arkos
Greatlord tiger
Haly
Then I did some math: The KGB will probably understand that quick volunteering makes suspect, so I think they would not sent more than 1 agent on that task. So that gives us a 1/5 chance to pick a KGB agent out of these 5. On the other hand, if we assume there are 5 KGB, that gives us a 4/18 chance if we pick from the not volunteers, this is roughly..... between 1/4 and 1/5. So actually the chance to pick a KGB agent would be almost equal between picking from a volunteer and not. So I have abandoned that way of thinking.
Instead, I agree with palmer_V1 idea of picking a very inactive player. Because, well, lets face it: we are more than likely going to execute one of the town members. By picking an inactive member, we will make sure that even if we kill one of our own, we don't lose one of our best players.So for now I will go with:
VOTE: Mike-hawk689
Not very active and hasn't contributed a lot yet. If The goddamn is really away currently, that could be an acceptable reason to not be very active (OR a ruse to hide he is mafia, but I want to wait and see if he becomes more active later)
Actually, that was exactly what kingkitty did in ONUW game 2, he never posted except for "I am on a train, can't post yet!" and in the end he turned out to be a wolf. He said he got the idea from Toma from the animal crossing game, apparently he did the same thing there.
I am not saying anyone here is doing it, but I also don't think we can ignore the possibility.
I'm going to briefly offer my opinion of these handily summarized solutions to the volunteer situation.
1. Seems a simple enough system, and allows it to be the choice of the volunteer, which I like. I'm just an ordinary drone, and my current mindset is to stay away from the missions because a more important role could be placed in there to offer a decent chance of safety. I'm pretty much against any system that cycles through every person to stick them on a mission. Ouro set it up as voluntary, I believe strongly that is how it should remain.
2. I agree with this, pro-town behaviour is essentially keeping up as much useful discussion as possible, and it immediately set up red flags in my head when I saw the initial batch volunteer without a word said. I was hoping for a similar first post to my own, where I'd offer my opinion on volunteering, then perhaps choosing to afterward.
3. As previously stated, I'm completely against methods which try to introduce missions as a compulsory exercise for every player. Don't really see any issue with multiple volunteers either.
4. I think this issue can have merit, but later on when we have some solid information. Top town and top scum lists in the first two days would consist mostly of hunches and patchy guesswork.
5. This essentially nullifies missions as a mechanic. It's just another pot where you might get chosen. Definitely think this is a weak solution.
6. This is just unfair to most people in the thread, we've already touched on a few posters being on rather different time zones, fastest first would mean you'd be setting your alarm clock or pulling a Tom & Jerry esque skit of tweezers on eyelids. I would vote down this proposal.
Wow. That is a dick move. Can't believe he hasn't been lynched yet.
I don't know. To be completely honest, I don't even really care. If someone is inactive, just lynch or replace him. This game thrives on player participation.
To be clear, this method doesn't force people, it works like this: 10 people will volunteer for the mission, the first 4 will go. Then the next day, number 5 6 7 and 8 are allowed to volunteer first if they still want to, or else it will move further down the list to 9 and 10. People that already went on a mission will not be allowed to re-volunteer until we made it though the list.
Not saying that this is my preference, but I just wanted to make it as clear as possible to avoid confusion.
I think in every system there is room to override it when the need arises, for example because we really want to protect somebody. However, i fear that if we uncover a powerful town power, that person will be pretty much dead meat. We could try to put him on a mission with only trusted people or even alone, but this will effectively nullify his ability. Keep him in the same group as suspected mafia gives him the possibility to use his ability, but it will also make him a target. Every option has a lot of things to consider and both benefits and negatives.
I think a combination of solutions is the best option.
I definitely like the 'no base rush' rule, and I'd say maybe day two we enact just accepting interested parties and voting on them (barring any really useful information over the night period) and from day three onwards, stick mostly to top town, top scum.
I definitely like the 'no base rush' rule, and I'd say maybe day two we enact just accepting interested parties and voting on them (barring any really useful information over the night period) and from day three onwards, stick mostly to top town, top scum.
Visualante2
Member
While I agree that inactive posters have a responsibility to pull their weight. New comers should be given a break. A good portion of the discussion so far has been about previous games which some of us weren't part of. What do you expect us to say? Not to mention all the people double posting to correct errors is shifting the balance.
Palmer_v1 raises some good points about the mission, but what rubs me wrong is the tone of his posts. Could just be an experienced player throwing his weight around I guess.
I think Enker is on the money tonight, but I anticipate other problems coming after the fact. Besides we should get some interesting information in the mean time.
Thanks for the summary roytheone. Cabbeh on your first point, Ouro set it up as voluntary to make the game more interesting to watch, and perhaps to play. Subverting that to gain a competitive advantage is completely within the rules. In my opinion after the first night we should be ignoring the mission until we have a good reason to use it. Any sort of delay just kicks the can down the road in my opinion. If people want in on the mission they will do it at hour 1 or hour 24. One key thing I'm struggling to see is where player's personality is shining through rather than their role. Some people just like to have things nice and neat, while some roles will prefer predictability or chaos.
This probably counts as fluff. Sorry, it's hard for me to know what's going on without a list of roles. I'm used to knowing there is a mafia, town, cop, fool, doctor etc.
Palmer_v1 raises some good points about the mission, but what rubs me wrong is the tone of his posts. Could just be an experienced player throwing his weight around I guess.
I think Enker is on the money tonight, but I anticipate other problems coming after the fact. Besides we should get some interesting information in the mean time.
Thanks for the summary roytheone. Cabbeh on your first point, Ouro set it up as voluntary to make the game more interesting to watch, and perhaps to play. Subverting that to gain a competitive advantage is completely within the rules. In my opinion after the first night we should be ignoring the mission until we have a good reason to use it. Any sort of delay just kicks the can down the road in my opinion. If people want in on the mission they will do it at hour 1 or hour 24. One key thing I'm struggling to see is where player's personality is shining through rather than their role. Some people just like to have things nice and neat, while some roles will prefer predictability or chaos.
This probably counts as fluff. Sorry, it's hard for me to know what's going on without a list of roles. I'm used to knowing there is a mafia, town, cop, fool, doctor etc.
I don't believe that's an option. 4 players must be on the mission. I think trying to protect people this way will be a losing battle.
Visualante2
Member
My mistake, misread the rules. First of up to 4 volunteers. That becomes more interesting especially in the late game.
I've thought about it more and think we should kill someone on the mission. I think the mafia would definitely have tried to get one person onto it, and could coordinate ahead of time so someone in the right timezone was able to jump in immediately. If i'm right, we have a 1 in 4 chance which is better tha. Most Day1 lynches. This puts a target on me as well, but i'm not a power role, so its worth the risk. If we ge the mafia, it make it much safer to divulge info at night.
Ill go through the volunteers and place my vote later.
Ill go through the volunteers and place my vote later.
TheGoddamn
Member
Hey now, if you're going to kill me, do so for a valid reason. Every single one of my four posts has been either quoted or replied to directly. But I definitely will start spending the majority of my NeoGAF time on this thread. I'm glad that you do seem to be changing your mind!
Thank you squidyj for understanding my situation. In addition to my being 12 hours apart from America, my work schedule is also quite erratic. I'm working now at nearly nine in the evening, but as soon as I make my deadline I'll catch up fully and post more. I understand that this is a commitment, after all.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens on a mission. We've still got plenty of time before the first night phase. Given the access to the night chat (that I posed a few pages back and was later clarified by Ourobolus)
it is very probable that the at least one of the first people to volunteer are Mafia. However, we should also remember that the Mafia have had time ahead of game-start to strategize, and have likely already thought of these possibilities that we only really focused on once the game began.
Thank you!
Oh and
WOMP WOMP said:
Good morning everyone, gonna skim last night's stuff and get ready to head out.
UNVOTE: roytheone
I'm for looking at the volunteers instead, myself included.
How will you handle players who think like Palmer? Just vote for volunteers around him? You're speaking only of what you want, not what's practical.
I appreciate it, and then I unappreciate it!
Fair enough.
UNVOTE: roytheone
I agree with this. It's no coincidence that it's usually the newbies who are at the bottom of the list, or people with real time commitments, as far as I can tell. In the long term, it's not good for us (this entire community) if we make it a habit of kicking out new/inactive players. We made a big deal of emphasizing the time commitment specifically because we didn't want to resort to this.
I'm for looking at the volunteers instead, myself included.
Ouro said:
LaunchpadMcQ
Banned
Sorry to nofunallowed.jpeg this shit, but
28. Outside of votes and explicit allowances made by role PMs, the use of the highlight tag is strictly the game-runner's prerogative. Do not use it.
28. Outside of votes and explicit allowances made by role PMs, the use of the highlight tag is strictly the game-runner's prerogative. Do not use it.
Okay so, here's what II think of the propositions so far.
1. This one could work, but I think it takes too much of time and focus from the actual lynch-voting, especially if it's a version where everyone tells four people they want to go. So at this moment I would say no for this, unless we figure out a way to make it less time-consuming, since four days is not much in the end.
2. This one is kinda problematic as well, since if we don't come into concensus in 24 hours (Which I can very easily see happen), it ends up being a race of who is the fastest to volunteer again (and it gives KGB a bigger chance to get spots at the chat).
3. This one is better than the two previous, I think, because as I said earlier, it does give KGB less possibility to make things go the way they want. On the other hand, if it does make going to missions compulsory, then the system won't work that well, since it shouldn't be a forced mechanic. So it would need to tweaked.
4. I agree with cabbeh that in the beginning this system would mostly result in guesswork, but otherwise it could work,
5. Yeah, not fan of RNG as well.
6. Not fan of original method since it's not good for lot of the players, aka some people would have much higher possibility to get to the missions.
-----
It's very possible that at least one of the people in the mission right now is in KGB.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Guys, whilst I think it is an understandable happening that we ended up discussing the mechanic of volunteering in great length, I'm sort of getting a little concerned by this point in time (mid-point ish of Day 1) that we are not focusing on our Day 1 votes for lynching ...
There are slightly more votes now compared to yesterday (24 hours previous) but compared to the other two running games, we are not generating as much reads as we can on each player's stances. IMHO~
I think all of the 6 potential methods addressed above have merits. If someone asks me which one would be my preference, it would be no 3 but nothing really would work unless we all are for it, and Palmer has made his stand quite clear on the matter previously.... which is to keep the mechanic of volunteering as is (first come, first serve)... and that's okay with me. I mean it probably mean I will never get on a mission due to my Australian time zone but ... eh. I'll cope. In all honesty, I'd rather focus on the core function of the game and treat the mission stuff as a great and entertaining side thingy....
But, anyway, I totes appreciating all the efforts and thoughtfulness that go into analysing and discussing the volunteering mechanism, but if it is possible, would we be able to wrap the matter soon? ish? ly?
:3
However, if you guys think the volunteering mechanism discussion actually generates lead for future votes, I'm all ears.
But I get this feeling that the line of questioning has been more of a slog so far in this game compared to the other two games ...with more than a few times players who should have been put in the hot seat being able to slunk away since the discussions curved back towards the topic of how to best address the volunteering mechanism :x
There are slightly more votes now compared to yesterday (24 hours previous) but compared to the other two running games, we are not generating as much reads as we can on each player's stances. IMHO~
I think all of the 6 potential methods addressed above have merits. If someone asks me which one would be my preference, it would be no 3 but nothing really would work unless we all are for it, and Palmer has made his stand quite clear on the matter previously.... which is to keep the mechanic of volunteering as is (first come, first serve)... and that's okay with me. I mean it probably mean I will never get on a mission due to my Australian time zone but ... eh. I'll cope. In all honesty, I'd rather focus on the core function of the game and treat the mission stuff as a great and entertaining side thingy....
But, anyway, I totes appreciating all the efforts and thoughtfulness that go into analysing and discussing the volunteering mechanism, but if it is possible, would we be able to wrap the matter soon? ish? ly?
:3
However, if you guys think the volunteering mechanism discussion actually generates lead for future votes, I'm all ears.
But I get this feeling that the line of questioning has been more of a slog so far in this game compared to the other two games ...with more than a few times players who should have been put in the hot seat being able to slunk away since the discussions curved back towards the topic of how to best address the volunteering mechanism :x
IIRC, Makai did the same thing, too, where he said he'd post his reasoning but never showed up.
I almost made this my Archer avatar, but then I thought I remembered someone of GAF having it, so that slight uncertainty gave me the All-Ray-gator. Oh well.
Killing inactives makes sense, but I also want to put pressure on the volunteers. Oh, what a conundrum... I'm sticking with Tiger until now.
I'm assuming the first to die in the day will get the "Bunson Award for General Magnetism," barring someone somehow surviving multiple assassination attempts?
Are people irritated that it's first come first serve? Or that they they're in the wrong timezone to have easily taken advantage of first come first serve?
I'm not intending to sabotage any attempts at organization. I just think efforts to regulate it will be harmful to Town in the long run. There's very little info today to base any decisions on, but we should have more tomorrow. If we use some arbitrary system instead, it will just stifle potentially useful arguments and probably detract from the most important voting: who to lynch.
QuantumBro
Banned
So, I spent most of yesterday reading this thread and not working much, and now I have a bunch of stuff in my backlog to get done. I'll post up my thoughts on who to vote for later tonight, I'm going to try to make myself stay out of this thread as much as possible till then. Hopefully you all will figure out the volunteering process by then. I'm either for option 3 above, or first come, first serve; mainly since I don't see myself going on any missions so it doesn't really affect me.
Till tonight.
Till tonight.
QuantumBro
Banned
Last post for now, I promise. Voting for who to go on missions is not going to work well; I doubt more than half will actually vote and the opinions for who to vote on will change at the last minute due to some unforeseen event happening. Unless we have a reason to object from someone going on the missions, just let them go and see what happens.
I'm basing this entirely off my voting system for guns and shields from the Star Wars game.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
I dont think people are irritated, as far as I can tell. I am a little sad that I'm in the wrong timezone to probably experience the excitement of going on a mission, but I'm not playing GAFia for the side games, so I'm good (overall)
And no I dont think you're intending to sabotage any attempts at coordination/ organisation. I just used your posts as a pointer that any attempts at coordination will need everyone on board.
I agree with all of bolded parts. Veriverily.
blah blah blah but I'm not playing GAFia for the side games, so I'm good (overall)
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
XD I saw your post wanting to make "GAFia" happens <33333333
<3 You're the best!
It's in our interests, yes.