Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Future of Phallas in Critical Failures

ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
edited November 2007 in Critical Failures
So, we seem to be having a thing where we're running two concurrent Phalla games at a time. 25-30 people is hardly what I would call "mini." So, here are a few of the ideas running through my head at this point:
  • Leave things as they are with two separate running lists, which really doesn't seem fair to the people who have been waiting to run their own Phallas on the first list, while others are getting to run theirs concurrently on the second list, even though they're the same size. Probably going to ban dead threads, though.
  • Allow two full-sized Phallas to run concurrently. This will make the Phalla thread population of the board even bigger. If we do this, I'm so banning dead threads.
  • Allow one full-sized Phalla and one mini-Phalla to run concurrently, but put a minimum size on the full-size Phalla (possibly 40ish) and a maximum size on the mini-Phalla (probably 15-20ish). Again, I'm so banning dead threads.
  • One Phalla at a time, period. I'm honestly kind of leaning towards this idea, if only to keep the number of Phalla threads on the front page down.
  • Something else I haven't thought of yet. Ideas?

In any case, I'm most likely banning dead threads, because really, even I'm starting to think the number of Phalla threads on the front page is overkill, and besides, it provides a good incentive to stay alive in the game. So, Phalla players, speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Thanatos on
«1345

Posts

  • HylianbunnyHylianbunny Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Will this include dead threads that have an effect on the game itself?

    Hylianbunny on
  • cj iwakuracj iwakura The Rhythm Regent Chantry of NightmaresRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    If worse comes to worse, dead threads can just be handled at a proboard. This also prevents metagaming.

    As to the other options, I think it should be kept to one mini(max 20) and one regular(min 30-40) at any given time(though with the addendum that the mini should wait until roughly halfway through the regular Phalla's duration). It can get cluttered very fast otherwise(as we've just seen, though I think this is the only time that two minis will ever both end in less than two days).

    As to the waiting, people who've been waiting on the long list know they're about to be running something major. The minis are like a sampling of running the real thing, at best, so they're not getting the full experience, per se.

    cj iwakura on
    9LlOwgn.png
    Well, good morning. Welcome to the new scenario. What should we do today?
  • B:LB:L Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Dead threads are actually vital for some game mechanics. The proboard option would help cut down cheating, but it can't prevent it of course.


    One mini with a max and one max with a mini.

    B:L on
    10mvrci.png click for Anime chat
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre @PixelateJake on TwitterRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    20 max is a good way of keeping mini-phallas in check.

    Dead threads can be removed from the PA boards. (Proboards are good for this.)

    Miniphallas and FullPhallas should be signed up (to be run) in the sign up thread, but you need to specify which you are signing up to run. No exceptions.

    TehSpectre on
    Sloth_Sig.png
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    This isn't one of the options offered but I think I'd rather see:
    • One "main" phalla. Should be upwards of 30 population. Could have a dead/"other" thread. Should have a window of exclusivity of around 3 days during which no other "Phalla" games may start and should avoid running.
    • As many "mini" Phalla games as people are willing to run. Must not start during the exclusivity period of a "main" Phalla. May never use more than a single thread.

    I guess I question why we would put a hard cap on the mini games number when we don't have any kind of cap on anything else. We have multiple PbP games and their have been attempts at multiple war doll threads but interest simply hasn't been sustained.

    Which I think is ultimately what is going to happen. We'll have a few weeks of a large number of mini-phalla games running concurrently and things will die down. That or else it will spike in popularity again and we'll all drown under the tsunami of success.

    I'm not certain how to handle the time frame of exclusivity. Ideally you wouldn't still be running a smaller game when a main game goes up but the ending of games can be uncertain even to the hosts. Further divulging that the game can end at a certain time can be damaging to the chances of some of the players.

    Edit: I knew I was forgetting something. I'm ambivalent on the population limit on mini's. I was thinking of the official game receiving extra consideration would be a better approach then enforcing arbitrary limits on the design on mini's.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    This isn't one of the options offered but I think I'd rather see:
    • One "main" phalla. Should be upwards of 30 population. Could have a dead/"other" thread. Should have a window of exclusivity of around 3 days during which no other "Phalla" games may start and should avoid running.
    • As many "mini" Phalla games as people are willing to run. Must not start during the exclusivity period of a "main" Phalla. May never use more than a single thread.

    I guess I question why we would put a hard cap on the mini games number when we don't have any kind of cap on anything else. We have multiple PbP games and their have been attempts at multiple war doll threads but interest simply hasn't been sustained.

    Which I think is ultimately what is going to happen. We'll have a few weeks of a large number of mini-phalla games running concurrently and things will die down. That or else it will spike in popularity again and we'll all drown under the tsunami of success.

    I'm not certain how to handle the time frame of exclusivity. Ideally you wouldn't still be running a smaller game when a main game goes up but the ending of games can be uncertain even to the hosts. Further divulging that the game can end at a certain time can be damaging to the chances of some of the players.

    Edit: I knew I was forgetting something. I'm ambivalent on the population limit on mini's. I was thinking of the official game receiving extra consideration would be a better approach then enforcing arbitrary limits on the design on mini's.
    We tried the free-for-all thing on the regular Phallas in the beginning, and it ended up with a couple of Phallas not getting any signups, a few getting only a few signups, etc. Organizing them into lists seems to have solved that.

    Not to mention, like I said, I'd rather not have the front page of the forum be all-Phalla, all the time.

    Thanatos on
  • FreeAgentFreeAgent Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    One mini-phalla and one main phalla at a time. Max on mini, min on main. When one mini ends, if the main is still going strong, I don't see a problem with bringing in another mini.

    I'm not too fond of the idea of only one phalla at a time (no mini-phallas), because in the case of games lasting as long as some have (Phallost, Death Note, etc), that leaves a lot of players with no games to play for quite a while. Mini-phallas let people try out games that aren't quite as intense as the bigger ones, and since they last such a short time, it gives people a chance to host something without having to wait in a year+ line, or try out ideas that they don't want to spend their big chance on.

    For the large mini number, as far as I remember, the only one that's been that big was set phalla, otherwise it has been in the 20 range, give or take a couple. Proboards are fine for dead threads, so if we're cutting those out, it won't be a major blow.

    FreeAgent on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I think circumstances have changed a bit since the inception. I really don't remember that phase of things though so I'm not certain if it was just a population issue.

    I can certainly understand not wanting the front page to be a wall of solid Phalla threads. I really do believe that a free for all will sort itself out given a little time. You'll likely have some people running near weekly games while others will run their game and be done with it.

    Part of my issue is that we have a month and a half wait time for a mini-phalla. If I wanted to grab 9 people to run a simple classic rule game we'd be talking about almost January. It's a bit odd that I could start up a PbP game tomorrow without any issues.

    This is a joke:
    Clearly it's time for: Phalla and Dragons. "You all meet in an Inn and decide to play a round of Mafia in character. Except when you're voted out your character dies."

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • FreeAgentFreeAgent Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I think circumstances have changed a bit since the inception. I really don't remember that phase of things though so I'm not certain if it was just a population issue.

    I can certainly understand not wanting the front page to be a wall of solid Phalla threads. I really do believe that a free for all will sort itself out given a little time. You'll likely have some people running near weekly games while others will run their game and be done with it.

    Part of my issue is that we have a month and a half wait time for a mini-phalla. If I wanted to grab 9 people to run a simple classic rule game we'd be talking about almost January. It's a bit odd that I could start up a PbP game tomorrow without any issues.

    This is a joke:
    Clearly it's time for: Phalla and Dragons. "You all meet in an Inn and decide to play a round of Mafia in character. Except when you're voted out your character dies."

    I would play that game, joke or not. And I'm not really sure what we could do about the whole classic idea. I'm willing to throw out ideas, good or not though:
    Hold classic phalla in another board, possibly SE++ since apparently our games have died over there. I know that kind of defeats the purpose, since ODaM is sort of the place where we do our thing, but it's something to consider if we want to lessen the amount of phallas here. If we're worried that we won't be able to get people from here that want to play (people not wanting games to fill up with the SE++ pool, if that's even a concern), a request for players could be made in the main phalla with the permission of the host.

    FreeAgent on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Ugh. I understand where you're coming from but another PA "Tree House" strikes me as a horrible answer.

    Oh, the SE++ games stopped because Bogey hasn't responded to the PM's about them (apparently). So that's a non-starter. Not really a polite thing to do off hand.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • FreeAgentFreeAgent Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Ugh. I understand where you're coming from but another PA "Tree House" strikes me as a horrible answer.

    Oh, the SE++ games stopped because Bogey hasn't responded to the PM's about them (apparently). So that's a non-starter. Not really a polite thing to do off hand.

    Oh, I know it's obviously not ideal. I just figure if we're putting a definite limit on what can and can't be run at the same time, we don't have a whole lot of options. Like you said, with the classics, it's rather absurd to wait until January for some 9 player game. Unless the powers that be want to allow 1 main, 1 mini, and 1 classic, but it looks like they'd prefer to cut down, rather than increase.

    Though with the removal of dead threads, maybe a compromise could be worked out. Doubtful, but then again, I'm no mod.

    FreeAgent on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl He/Him Neutron Nerd Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Since now there's a thread where people are forced to consider my opinion, I like this:

    One Main phalla
    One mini-phalla at a time, 20-player max.

    I don't see the need for a minimum requirement for this. If somebody wants to run a Main phalla with only 20 people, well, they're the one who wasted half a year waiting for their turn on what is essentially a mini-phalla.

    I think there shouldn't be a waiting list for mini-phallas. That, in my opinion, was the whole point. Basically, I come up with a theme on a whim and grab some random people to participate. Whoever gets permission from the person running the main phalla first gets to run theirs. If somebody's been sitting on an idea for awhile and is just never on at the right time, we'll let them go, because we're not douchebags.

    I don't have an opinion on dead threads, I can take 'em or leave 'em.

    visiblehowl on
    vxsHp3F.gif
    I die evry tiem in Sekiro on Twitch
  • cheezcheez Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Yeah, I touched on this briefly in the signup thread, but I really don't like the idea of limiting minis. I think it should be a prospective host's call on when to run it (with the permission of the main game's host, of course). Maybe back when Phallas were new, there weren't enough players to sustain multiples at once, but that certainly isn't the case now. We've got main games filling up in half a day and minis filling up in six hours.

    I get the feeling, however, that the inclination is to cut back on Phallas in one way or another, which I don't really agree with. Phalla threads certainly do end up swarming the forum, but... isn't that just indicative of their popularity here? It's never really seemed to me that the Phalla threads drown out the other current threads either, it's just that a lot of the other activity in the forum occurs within dedicated threads that don't expire after a couple weeks, like Phallas do.

    I do think we've got enough demand at this point to start running two main Phallas simultaneously (ideally in a half-overlap setup), so if I had to pick one of the options presented, I'd go with that one. However, I think the "one main, unlimited minis" system is perfectly workable.

    cheez on
  • NearNear Registered User
    edited November 2007
    I think either way there is no real need for dead threads. If there are mechanics involved, you probably don't want a public thread anyways. Yeah, we trust people not to cheat, but if it prevents meta-gaming and cleans up the forum it's probably worth it.

    Plus the proboards with alt-accounts give you more options in dead mechanics. :)

    Near on
  • M.D.M.D. and then what happens? Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Yea, dead threads and such could be handled outside the forum.

    Also, I thought mini phallas could be alright without a list as long as you had permission from the currently running game.

    M.D. on
  • ArdorArdor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    To keep from cluttering up this forum, I do agree that we should use proboards for dead threads. Whether the dead thread has a vital role in the normal game or not wouldn't matter as long as it exists.

    As for the SE games, Bogey has responded to people and he does have a running list. I told him we'd be ready to go in December sometime, probably early, to run a game, but he'd mentioned that there was a line but people might not be ready. CJ can probably elaborate more on this.

    If the SE games have stopped completely, we'll discuss whether we want to run on proboards or something since that's a bit more cumbersome to use for a full game.

    Ardor on
  • thorgotthorgot Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I agree with visiblehowl.

    But if we keep the list, it is much too long. If we get rid of it, there are eight people who want to run their mini at the same time and have to PM each other and the current game host to figure out who will go. Neither solution is optimal.

    How about limiting the mini list to 2 games?

    thorgot on
    campionthorgotsig.jpg
  • precisionkprecisionk Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I say keep one full Phalla and one mini phalla limited to say 15 people.


    I also should be the moderator of this forum as the people look to me as their God-Emperor of Phallas.

    precisionk on
  • SquashuaSquashua __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Thorgot,

    I think you need to actually LOOK at the current mini-Phalla (Zot's Phalla).

    Everyone was a vigilante and there was a very large number of deaths on night one.

    Which essentially pared it down in one day to mini-status.

    In addition, the larger phalla had lost many players by that time and the next sign-up had not been posted.

    Squashua on
    humebackgroundcj5.jpg
    [size=-2]WII 8980 7585 1015 3348 BRAWL 3909 7191 9283 STRIKERS 124661 822404[/size]
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    The current 8 people would be an anomaly if this was a permanent solution.

    Though to a certain extent I think it'd work itself out. If you are the 5th person to start a mini-phalla at the same time you've got to expect a lower population to pull from. You'd have an incentive to not be the fifth if you're concerned about drawing a significant population. Giving you an incentive to wait a bit.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • SquashuaSquashua __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Also, regarding alternate threads, some mechanics rely on it.

    For PhalLOSt, I had players trade between threads. I know ElJeffe did something similar at the same time in D&D. I didn't ALSO have a dead thread b/c I hosted that offsite because it was ALSO a mechanic. Phalliad was another Phalla that relied on it's dead thread as a mechanic. A generic "dead thread" for chatting hasn't seemed all that necessary lately.

    Squashua on
    humebackgroundcj5.jpg
    [size=-2]WII 8980 7585 1015 3348 BRAWL 3909 7191 9283 STRIKERS 124661 822404[/size]
  • thorgotthorgot Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Squashua wrote: »
    Thorgot,

    I think you need to actually LOOK at the current mini-Phalla (Zot's Phalla).

    Everyone was a vigilante and there was a very large number of deaths on night one.

    Which essentially pared it down in one day to mini-status.

    In addition, the larger phalla had lost many players by that time and the next sign-up had not been posted.

    First of all, I won Zot's game (according to him, anyway).

    Second of all, what's your point? That minis will be faster, so a long list is fine? That can't be, because most take 4+ days. Or that we need more games?

    People complained that Zot cut in front of the "line." Which is a bad reason to make a list, but reason enough.

    thorgot on
    campionthorgotsig.jpg
  • Shorn Scrotum ManShorn Scrotum Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'd say 1 main and 2 minis. The sign up for playing a mini fills up FAST, sometimes within a couple of hours, and I can't afford to spend every minute watching the forums to get in one.

    Shorn Scrotum Man on
    steam_sig.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I think 26 should be the max pop for mini-phallas.

    Because my mini-phalla requires exactly 26 people.

    Seriously, though, I think there should be a hard MAX of 30 people for a mini-phalla but I think the most important aspect is time-expectation. No more than, say, 5 days allowed. That's how I balanced my Digital Devil Phalla mini-game. I mean, I think my v2 (that I ran here in ODaM) lasted four days with 25 people. Wouldn't that be fine?

    Drez on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    If you run a "normal" phalla without a vigilante you couldn't include more then 10 people, less if you have guardians you want to worry about.

    I'm leery of imposing mechanical limits that could be irrelevant given the wide variation in the mechanics we've seen.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Here's my proposal:

    - 1 main Phalla: No minimum or maximum signup restriction and no minimum or maximum time restriction (though anything over 10 days can be a chore).

    - 1 or 2 Mini-Phallas: Maximum signup allotment is 30, maximum number of days allowed is 6 (game must end no later than 6th day regardless of where it stands...if you fucked up and didn't balance it out to end within 6 days, tough titties).

    - Dead threads go away. They can be moved to proboards, and should be run by the Phalla host. This is beneficial not only to remove thread clutter but also to prevent metagamery or even just accidental viewage through ego searching.

    - Caveat: IF the main Phalla host requires a dead thread for game purposes (like the Phalliad, I think it was?), then one less Mini-Phalla can run during that period (this will alleviate phalla thread clutter). If are allowed only one concurrent Mini-Phalla, then if a main Phalla requires a dead thread, no Mini-Phallas are allowed while the main Phalla and its dead thread are active. If we're allowed two Mini-Phallas, then if the main Phalla requires a dead thread, only one concurrent Mini-Phalla can be allowed to run.

    I'm not sure how I feel about the exclusivity period. There's some logic to it, but Mini-Phallas aren't necessarily only for dead players of the main Phalla.

    Drez on
  • SquashuaSquashua __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Here's my suggestion:

    Re-name the forum "Yarmouth", then re-name this thread.

    I'm not sure how to keep track of mini-phalla games, but it seems like a lot of work.

    Squashua on
    humebackgroundcj5.jpg
    [size=-2]WII 8980 7585 1015 3348 BRAWL 3909 7191 9283 STRIKERS 124661 822404[/size]
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    This may be an oversimplified solution, but what about adding a "Phalla" subforum specifically for IC stuff, and have all OOC/signup threads in the main CF forums?

    This would mean that people could conceivably run as many games as they want without impacting too much on the main forum, and there would even be room for extra threads if people wanted. There could be a 1 main and 3 mini limit (or whatever), and the only things that would be cluttering up the main forum would be the OOC posts and signup threads... which would generate less trafic on the main board than we have now with all OOC, IC, signups etc in one place, along with all the other tabletop stuff.

    Edit: Or have only signups in the main CF forum. That'd work too.

    Or am I missing something?

    El Skid on
    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • precisionkprecisionk Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I also think Phalla's should be run by a council of the original gansters of Phalla. I of course would lead the council, but I would pick some 5-8 able veterans to run Phalla Bartertown. We would then be able to run Phallas and have order to this chaos without mod intervention.


    I feel this is the best solution.

    precisionk on
  • SquashuaSquashua __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    El Skid wrote: »
    This may be an oversimplified solution, but what about adding a "Phalla" subforum specifically for IC stuff, and have all OOC/signup threads in the main CF forums?

    Yeah, I really don't understand why Gabe gets his own creepy poke-forum or whatever that is and yet... Phallas.

    You know, other than the fact that he's GABE.

    Squashua on
    humebackgroundcj5.jpg
    [size=-2]WII 8980 7585 1015 3348 BRAWL 3909 7191 9283 STRIKERS 124661 822404[/size]
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Yeah, I think paying for the whole shebang means you get what subforums you want.

    Our path is clear, somebody needs to infect Tycho with the Phalla virus.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Day 1 bandwagon on Tycho? That would be priceless

    El Skid on
    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • precisionkprecisionk Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I feel the Phalla Council would be the best way.

    precisionk on
  • SquashuaSquashua __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    I've been under the (probably false) impression Tycho has been playing here under an alt account and has not mentioned it in the daily post for fear of a Phalla n00b onslaught.

    Squashua on
    humebackgroundcj5.jpg
    [size=-2]WII 8980 7585 1015 3348 BRAWL 3909 7191 9283 STRIKERS 124661 822404[/size]
  • SquashuaSquashua __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Also, what's the deal with Phallas in other forums? SE++ seems to have died out (thanks, Bogey!) and the D&D ones just appear out of thin air with no fanfare?

    Squashua on
    humebackgroundcj5.jpg
    [size=-2]WII 8980 7585 1015 3348 BRAWL 3909 7191 9283 STRIKERS 124661 822404[/size]
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Squashua wrote: »
    I've been under the (probably false) impression Tycho has been playing here under an alt account and has not mentioned it in the daily post for fear of a Phalla n00b onslaught.

    Is that so....Kira? I mean....Tycho? :P

    El Skid on
    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • Look Out it's Sabs!Look Out it's Sabs! Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Squashua wrote: »
    Also, what's the deal with Phallas in other forums? SE++ seems to have died out (thanks, Bogey!) and the D&D ones just appear out of thin air with no fanfare?

    Phallas are more strict in D&D and are spread out, it was dominating the forum too much when phalla games first started.

    Also yea, the last few phallas there have been kind of blah.

    Look Out it's Sabs! on
    NNID: Sabuiy
    3DS: 2852-6809-9411
  • DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited November 2007
    Since now there's a thread where people are forced to consider my opinion, I like this:

    One Main phalla
    One mini-phalla at a time, 20-player max.

    I don't see the need for a minimum requirement for this. If somebody wants to run a Main phalla with only 20 people, well, they're the one who wasted half a year waiting for their turn on what is essentially a mini-phalla.

    I think there shouldn't be a waiting list for mini-phallas. That, in my opinion, was the whole point. Basically, I come up with a theme on a whim and grab some random people to participate. Whoever gets permission from the person running the main phalla first gets to run theirs. If somebody's been sitting on an idea for awhile and is just never on at the right time, we'll let them go, because we're not douchebags.

    I don't have an opinion on dead threads, I can take 'em or leave 'em.

    This echoes my sentiments exactly.


    I look at mini phallas as a way to spend 3 or 4 days working out mechanics for a larger game, or a time to grab a few people who died in the main game and give us something to do until the next one starts.

    Now that we have a list, and mini-games are getting bigger (and longer) it kinda defeats the purpose. And this is coming from someone who would rather play/host a mini game, because if the game gets stale, it's over by the end of the week anyways.


    edit; PK: as the Right Hand of the God-Emperor, I require an honorary seat on this council.

    Unknown User on
  • Look Out it's Sabs!Look Out it's Sabs! Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Well we can blame Zot.

    It's fun.

    Look Out it's Sabs! on
    NNID: Sabuiy
    3DS: 2852-6809-9411
  • FunkyWaltDoggFunkyWaltDogg Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    precisionk wrote: »
    I also think Phalla's should be run by a council of the original gansters of Phalla. I of course would lead the council, but I would pick some 5-8 able veterans to run Phalla Bartertown. We would then be able to run Phallas and have order to this chaos without mod intervention.


    I feel this is the best solution.

    I endorse this plan, but if the rest of you fail to see reason then I like all of Drez's ideas.

    FunkyWaltDogg on
    Burnage wrote:
    FWD is very good at this game.
This discussion has been closed.