Randy, the floor is yours.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 1):

I always liked "Beating a dead horse to within an inch of its life"

Re: the subject of malapropisms, I ran across and interesting turn of phrase in my reading just today. The book is historical fiction, set in the New Mexico/Arizona territories during the time period of the Civil War/War Between the States.

The speaker is a Union officer, discussing orders to be given to his troops regarding what is to be done with Navajos who violate an agreement to stay westerly of a certain fort. ". . . order them to take no errant Navajo men prisoner. They are to shoot them on site. And then send their families back to Cubero."

The phraseology I have always seen is to shoot someone on "sight," so my first inclination is that this was a malapropism that was missed by the proofreader. But, after thinking about it, I started wondering if the spelling was correct (in which case it would be an interesting auditory twist on the customary phraseology), and that the character meant that the Navajo should be shot where they are captured, or in essence, "where they stand," as opposed to being moved to a different site and dealt with there.

Mayhaps this approaches the fabled "how many angels could dance on the head of a pin" discussion, but I mention it in view of Randy's recent comments, on the theory this is the sort of nuance that might interest erudite gentlemen such as yourselves. :)

By the way, I'm pretty sure that "consorting with known erudites" would get you tarred and feathered, or worse, back in the day (or even now, in certain localities). :)
This message was last edited by the player at 21:34, Mon 27 Jan 2014.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 3):

That's a good one.

In my opinion, "They are to shoot them on site" isn't what the character meant. The character meant "on sight," meaning whenever the soldiers saw them.

Now whether the author had a reason for the character's speech to use the word I don't think the character meant, I can't say. It could have been what the author wanted type the character's speech for a particular purpose. But to me, it is simply a mistake.

Also, the fact that you know what erudite means would be enough to warrant a beating in some neighborhoods. Today, or 150 years ago.

So, Ch13 is coming to a close and I've been thinking:

1. I have thoroughly enjoyed Ch 9-13. That's almost 5,000 posts of fascinating RP in a pseudo-historical town that I crafted. At least, it has been fascinating to me.
2. I sense that there is some desire--or at least consideration--for PCs to move on, i.e. to leave The Flat. I'm fine with that.
3. We have in-game threads that make it easy to move on, if PCs want to do so, but we also have in-game threads that would be unresolved if we moved on, or that would interrupt interesting character development that is directly connected to the town. Some that has occurred by PC choice; some that has occurred as a result of PC choice; some that the Judge has introduced for potential adventure hooks.

Those things considered, I wonder what the players are thinking. This game is our collective effort, so as we close this chapter, I would like to have a good idea of where PCs might like to go next. I realize these aren't exclusive questions, but to generate conversation:

4. Are you still enjoying play in The Flat and would prefer to continue toward some resolutions to existing plot lines?
5. Are you enjoying play in The Flat but don't care whether we resolve existing plot lines or start new ones?
6. Would you prefer to move on The Flat, with a "fade to black" and Judge narrative to fill gaps and resolve plot lines, in order to:
   a. Embark on a more "Judge-scripted" adventure, with less of the town RP feel and more of an action adventure?
   b. Continue with the current open-ended style, but in a different locale?
   c. Instruct the Judge as to a particular kind of adventure, or RP situation, resulting from a PC consensus?
7. Are you tired of the game, regardless of the style of play, locale, etc.?
8. (I think I know the answer to this, but . . . ) If you do want to continue play in some fashion, would you prefer to continue the same characters in a near-future or otherwise-future state? As opposed to new characters, I mean.

All thoughts are not only welcome, but encouraged.

I would like to resolve the plot lines and continue play with this character.  This may take us away from the Flat in a couple of days (2 or 3 years of gameplay) which I'm fine with.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 5):

Option #4.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 5):

Option 4 for me, as well.

In reply to Cole Trayne (msg # 8):

I'd like to see it through in the Flat as well.

I enjoy writing Jake as a character, and would prefer to continue so in some guise (as opposed to breaking in a new character).

I would probably prefer some variation of Option Number 6(a.). I find that I don't really relish playing out some of (what I consider to be) the ultra-mundane occurrences of day-to-day town life. The current plots also seem to primarily have Jake playing a tag-along roll role, doing little else other than following the other characters around as they deal with their own issues.

That said, I'll go with the majority opinion, which seems to be trending towards Option Number 4.

OOC: Edited as marked.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:26, Sun 02 Feb 2014.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 10):

I would welcome a 6a option after we tie things up.

After reading a bit more of the book, I now am firmly of the opinion that you are correct, and that the above-referenced faux pas was a mistake on the part of both the author and his editor. I have now found not one but several references to Robert E. Lee's Army of the Potomac. Sheesh -- very sloppy writing and editing.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 12):

Sloppy editing, seems to me. Stuff like that happens when writing. Editing is supposed to catch it.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 11):

Thanks to all for the input (Randy your thoughts are still wanted). Everyone, please feel free to elaborate further as you desire.

Part of the reason I asked was captured succinctly by Travis, who said maybe we could tie up loose ends in the Flat in a day or two game-time, which would be years in real-time. I think that is a fair assessment and I didn't want to drag on for a year or more to reach resolutions in The Flat if players weren't enjoying the RP.

Surely we can go from 4 to 6a, it's just a matter of time. I have no problems minimizing the mundane, but a lot of the time advancement of the plot has required the PCs to act and it wasn't the mundane that slowed us down, in my opinion, but rather the circumstances of events which required almost 24/7 usage of game time. Anytime you all want to accelerate play, that's fine with the Judge.

Another idea I had was to resolve (option 4) and then go back and re-boot from the moment Travis decided it was time to shoot it out with Rasmin at noon on Third Street, continuing with the gun battle as it was as that moment.

Traveling on business this week. I expect daily log in and activity barring any travel issues.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 14):

That's not necessary.  Now that JEB is done with duty and honor if Randy's plan does not materialize soon I'll advance the plot quickly.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 16):

Of course, I know going back to play the encounter with Rasmin isn't necessary. Just saying I would consider that an option, depending on how things end in the current stream.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 17):

If you don't care to read my whole post, here are the quick points: the play has become dull and repetitious, the PCs are backed into a corner, and a resolution needs to be addressed.

Ramblings, in no specific organization or order (please excuse any typographical, grammar, or formatting errors):

I had, to a lesser degree, this feeling some timeo. However, it's continued to grow since then. In general, there has been a lack of action and no real need for the rule book. There is always a potential for that to change, but it isn't likely.

Right now, the player-characters' behavior are akin to those of children playing the backseat "don't touch me" game. They are using their out-stretched fingers to move as close to the nose of the opposition without actually touching them. ("Goddammit, so help me, I'll turn this car around and go back home if you two don't stop it!")

As much dramatic tension as that builds, it isn't enough to maintain my interest. Character A walks over here while Character B talks to NPC at another location. Blah, Blah, Blah. SSDD.

In fact, I've said before, the prospects for the future of the characters are slim to nil, which makes it painful, not only for Randy, but for me as well. I find no joy in that.

I know this is really the doing--well, 60%--of the players. I have a some ideas.

I have truly thought about the game while I've not been involved. I stayed back from the Shadowrun game as well, because I didn't want to be obvious and offend the judge.

For Cole, someone could ask Rojas to contact the Governor's and/or Mayor's office in SF to dismiss the case based on the net result.

For Travis, have Rojas and the prosecutor enter into plea bargain negotiations to lessen the charges to dueling and perhaps incarceration to one month.

I rarely like the reset, fade-to-black, god-mode, or fuhgeddaboudit options if they can be avoided. Sometimes, however, the adventure or scenario needs editing and one or more of those options should be used.

Now that I've probably offended most or everyone, where to go from here? Well, there's got to be a resolution to everything, otherwise there's a gaping hole in many characters' story. Jake and ENS would come out alright, but probably not the Buffaloes. Travis and Cole just can't kill men and walk away. JEB, as a lawman, can't travel with men who do that. So, the two killers need to have their cases settled. The solutions don't have to make a whole helluva lotta sense because it still was a wide interpretation of the law back then, but some form of justice has to be served. Randy would never let Travis be put in prison for doing "the right thing," so that's a complication for Mr. Big'un. Randy would bust-up half of Frisco for Cole on account of his doing "the right thing" as well. I've read the posts from others that express similar sentiments.

It ain't a clean break.

Travis needs to own-up to his mistake as a first step. Cole should throw himself on the mercy of the court, perhaps in Sacramento instead of San Francisco. From there, some plausible resolutions to the cases can be made.

First, I  am not offended and have no reason to be. Neither should anyone else as far as I can tell.

In my opinion, there are many avenues to resolve the current situations. I disagree with Randy's statement:


The PCs futures can go in many different directions. I have several scenarios in mind; some of which are similar to things Randy suggests; others that are completely different. All of them stem from PC dialogue and actions--in my view they would be plausible ways to move forward, either by playing them out or fast-forwarding. Saying that the PCs are backed into a corner, with the implication that they don't have options about what to do, is in my opinion a statement lacking in imagination. Pretty much every western film has a piece of the plot where the heroes are in a fix. Sometimes a desperate fix. One of their pards is in jail, forced to go on the lam, beholding to someone in power, being cheated or set-up by an NCP, what-have-you. In my opinion, this is a classic western scenario that has numerous plausible resolutions.

I could certainly understand if players wanted to change things up, or push forward resolutions that they desire, or fade-to-black, or whatever. In fact, I encourage it. All of that said, I would be happy to see the PCs drive the plot to whatever conclusions they desire.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 19):

For the record: not offended either!

I'd say the play can be a little mundane, but that's more due to the medium (rpol). We could do bout after bout of combat, but we've all seen how that goes! I find the RP has been good and a lot of character development has occurred.

That being said, I think perhaps a few "fast-forwards" between action points could be in order.

No offense taken.  Travis has owned up to his mistake.  He's willing to do weeks/months but not years.

Travis's mistake was mine though.  I thought I read in Sidewinder or a supplement about a gunfight, in Texas, near identical situation, later in history, and there was no angst or mention about dueling and the "fair fight" doctrine prevailed.

Travis' plan was to skip court, turn outlaw, flee the Pythonesque local constabulary kill Rasmin and rescue Cole.

Regardless, I think the game would be served by a more structured adventure where Jake and the professor were equally involved.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 21):

I want to comment on a couple of things.

In my opinion, the professor has been heavily involved. His role in the investigation of Sun Mei Ling's murder was prominent, if not crucial. In many ways, the murder hook was perfect for the Professor.

I think it is fair to say that Jake has been less involved in some ways. But I will also say that the Judge gave him a couple of opportunities to grab an adventure hook but he essentially declined. That isn't a knock on the player, but rather the player playing the PC in a certain way, making it harder for him to bite the hook.

Here's another malapropism that I ran across today that both warmed the cockles of my heart and made me think of Randy, all at the same time. :)

So . . . to set the stage, today is National Signing Day, when the various high school seniors who wish to major in football in college send in their Letters of Intent to their school of choice. It is a day of high drama and suspense for those who care about such things.

A disgruntled poster on a recruiting site who was upset with one of these kids (undoubtedly for not choosing "his" team) referred to him as a "pre Madonna".

Amazing!

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 23):

That's hilarious.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 24):

Really? I could care less.

Therein is one of the oft mis-spoken expressions. Both, the judge and I, are annoyed by its fouled usage.

I couldn't care less about the people who speak so poorly.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 25):

There's no stigmata against those who speak poorly.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 26):

Another good one.

The PCs should be picking up hints in the recent RP (public and PM) about things that could be used to advance the plot in one way or another.

The judge and I have commented to each other over the use of a particular phrase. We each have a different interpretation of the syntax of "say your piece/peace."

JM contends it is proper to, or at least his encounters with the phrase, use "piece." I have only read the usage of "peace." I image there is no need for any arguments for either syntax--all of you are clever enough to figure each meaning from the bifurcated uses.

On a side note, I never thought of using "shoot on site," but that's an amazing turn of phrase.


BTW - Does anyone know what a waterslide moment is?
Is anyone else concerned about our society with all of these turnkey kids?

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 29):

I would clarify, Randy's statement, slightly. I think both uses of "say your piece" and "say your peace" are valid. I believe they had different valid meanings. In general, I find the former is superior--which is why Randy remembers our differing opinion--as it is a more general statement. In other words, to "give a piece of your mind" or "give your input" or "say your part" or "say what you have to say." Meanwhile, "say your peace" is more specific--and is probably an off-shoot of "hold your peace"--meaning "you need to say something to have peace of mind."

In my opinion, if you equate "say your piece" to "give a piece of your mind" then it's becomes more clear.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 30):

But, to counterpoint on "piece of his mind," one may have "peace of mind" in precisely the same manner as speaking one's peace.

At play is an unspoken indirect object. I am happy to speak my piece of this conversation. I am, additionally, happy to speak my peace as a counterpoint. I've read it is fine to use these phrases interchangeably, but I am so opined that it isn't. In fact, I feel it is better to "get it off one's chest" by speaking one's peace is a more cathartic process--release the emotion and cleanse the mind at the same time.

Whatever the outcome, there is little doubt this debate could rage on ad infinitum. Actually, I feel I would win quickly as the judge has given a piece of his mind so generously of late, he is likely scarce of the matter and ill-suited to continue.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 31):

My opinion is that your post has helped to prove that "say (or speak) one's piece" and "say one's peace" are two different things, to be used in particular context, but that the former has a broader meaning and is more correct, grammatically.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 32):

But, in fact, both mean to state an opinion. Were one to keep the opinion to oneself, that would mean the mind is in unrest. A restless mind is not at peace, ergo, speaking one's peace is grammatical correct. Speaking one's piece is the uneducated mass's bastardized, pasteurized simplification of the complex concept--that you support it is troubling. It's worse than AP style writing, where grammatical decisions are made on typographical conservation and maintaining the sixth-grade reading level status quo.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 33):

I can point to grammarians who side with the "speak one's piece" argument.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 34):

I can point to laundry baskets, but that doesn't mean they are correct.

If we reduce the argument to where we poke our fingers, the matter may soon get smelly.

Nevertheless, the grammarian would be weighing an opinion on the idiom and only "speaking her peace."

Factually, the origin of the idiom isn't known. Were we to find the origination, we would find the absolute truth. Since we don't have that information, we can only infer by intent. By the judge's definition, a person would spew his "pieces" anytime he spoke. I'm less messy and cynical. Certainly, not everything spoken is peaceful or tidy, or even worthwhile. The core for me is the philosophical nature of communicating.

I'm unwavering--even when faced with grammarians who were poked--that a person who expressed a view has said his "peace."

We both might be wrong and really need to say our peas, or forever hold our pees.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 35):

I have said my piece.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 36):

Just trying to get your goad.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 37):

Mayhaps you were trying to goad his goat down the road a fur piece.

A fur peace, thank you very much.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 39):

Jest don't let the goat wander off into ol' man McGillicuddy's fields, else he'll be shot on site.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 40):

I always liked Archie Bunker's "groin-acologist"

...anyone leaving?

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 42):

The four PCs out near the ridge with Travis Sunday should make a public post in Ch14 as to his disposition. It can be speech, narrative or whatever but should indicate the PC's intention.

Feel free to discuss here, too, if desired . . . but an in-game post is requested.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 43):

It has been two weeks RL, as of today, that the PCs have been talking near the ridge. Because the Judge is okay with conversation going on as long as the players desire, this is simply a reminder that the advancement of the plot is in the purview of the players at this time--at least until any other time-based actions would occur if indeed the PCs talk long enough. The Judge will intervene if that scenario occurs, at the appropriate time. Otherwise, it is up to the PCs to advance things.

The advancement should be stated as action when the PCs are ready (whether that action is "go back to the room and go to sleep" or "lock and load and approach X" or "pull my hogleg and blow out my brains" (or whatever). I should note that the Judge will require an action statement from each PC--no single PC will be able to speak for any other's actual action. That includes "going rogue" (if anyone decides to do that), because other PCs will have the opportunity to react to any given PC action.

Another reminder that the Judge won't proceed until all PCs post a statement of action (it can be a confirming reply to another PC who might be stating a plan) once the conversation at the ridge is complete.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 45):

I'm done.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 46):

Except that you didn't say what Travis is doing. So far, the closest thing to an action statement has been JEB's intention to go to the Beehive.

Will be hooking up a new computer tomorrow. Hopefully the transition will be seamless, but if I disappear for a short while, it will be because of technical difficulties . . .

on autopilot until game tomorrow.

Unless he sees Rasmin or Moreno

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 49):

The judge needs to know whether the players expect a judge-instigated incident to occur at the Beehive, or if the players had intentions of doing something in particular--beyond having a drink--upon their return to the saloon.

In-game or OOC, either way the judge requires some direction from the players in that regard.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 50):

ENS is just waiting for his irish coffee... and to see if they actually have absinthe! A couple folks seem to be absent... too much St Paddy's weekend perhaps?

I was in a group that got kicked out of the Denver parade!

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 50):

JEB is hoping for a quiet evening so he can turn in for the night.

I guess the Judge is just a little puzzled why the men returned to the Beehive, if they had nothing in mind to do other than have a drink and then turn in. We could have skipped right to the turning in.

Although not everyone has replied, so far it seems that the PCs didn't have anything in particular in mind, and so a Judge advancement is in order. I will wait a day for the stragglers.

I have sent out my annual invitations to those who play the NCAA men's brackets. The usuals should have received an invitation.

If anyone who declined in years past wants to play, just let me know.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 54):

I'll be signing in for the picks sometime tomorrow.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 53):

Advance away.  I went to the Beehive because there was a potential discussion to be had.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 56):

PCs are free to meet at a gathering place the morning of 2/1/1877 as desired. Assume that any arrangements were made before leaving the Beehive.  Even so, the Judge asks for explicit actions from the heroes.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 57):

Saw this and thought about you guys:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014...mid/?intcmp=features

I'll be traveling on business the coming week. I expect to log in and post as usual, just a heads-up.

For the record, the paraphrase of Twain is quite likely anachronism. Based on known sources, it is probable that Twain's famous quote happened after 1877.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 60):

Then Twain quoted Travis.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 61):

RIP Gabriel Garcia Marquez

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 62):

Never read him.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 63):

"One Hundred Years of Solitude" is the work for which I remember him, although I'm sure that he wrote others.

Thursday through Sunday I'll be heading out of town for a funeral.  I may post but likely will be offline.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 65):

Thanks for the heads-up.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 64):

I have read his major works (in translation). My favorites are:

One Hundred Years of Solitude
Love in the Time of Cholera
The General in His Labyrinth

still chatting with Rojas

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 68):

Travis has indicated RL business has hindered posting . . . we'll wait a little . . .

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 69):

. . . and a little more . . . .

The Judge is traveling on business this week. I expect login and post daily, but giving this heads-up because travel can sometimes interrupt or delay things.

On a different topic, I watched two western films recently on netflix that I enjoyed and would recommend.

Dead Man - a 1995 film with Johnny Depp (and other names you would know). A "psychedelic western," for which Neil Young did the soundtrack. Strange and fascinating tale. Some of you might have seen this since it's been around for a while. I had it on my list for a while and when I finally watched it, I wasn't disappointed.

Sweetwater -  a 2013 film with  Ed Harris, January Jones and Jason Isaacs. A standard vengeance theme, but well-done I thought. I have been a fan of Ed Harris ever since his role as King Billy in Knightriders (Romero, 1981) and he plays an awesome character in this film.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 71):

"Dead Man" has been on my list for over a year. I guess I'll step it up and actually watch it.

Not long ago, I watched the first two seasons of Hell on Wheels on Netflix. It's a series that airs on AMC. In the tradition of The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men, HoW is not short on character drama within the world of locomotion expansion.

Since I don't receive anything but terrestrial signal--by choice--I have to catch shows like that on other services. HoW will return in this Summer with season four. I won't be able to see season three until just before the new one begins. It's worth the effort for you if you have Netflix and AMC.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 72):

I have watched both seasons of Hell on Wheels. outstanding show.
This message had punctuation tweaked by the GM at 14:47, Sun 11 May 2014.

Back in the home saddle again.

From the Judge's perspective, all advancement is in the hands of the PCs for right now. There is some PMing going on, but that is also in the hands of the PCs right now.

I'm having a funked up time with my computer these days. It's caught on an update that won't take. It's annoying and troublesome when I want to log in on my free moments. I'm hope to find the fix in my elusive free time.

My daughter is wrapping up fifth-grade. My volunteering at the school seems at an all-time high. My father is moving from senior housing to assisted living. My brother is in Israel, so I'm tending his house. My mother has a mother's emergency semi-weekly. And ... my wife is wonderful.

So, forgive my 36 hours response sometimes, but know I've gotcha on my mind.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 75):

Thanks for the heads-up.

We've been pretty liberal with the 24 hour rule in the last couple of months, it seems to me. I, for one, am not in a rush. I just like to make progress.

It is nearing noon in game-time and things are still in the hands of the PCs. PMing continues and generally the PCs doing PM activities are ahead in time of others (or in Cole's case, unable to do anything but react to other stimuli).

The Judge has made efforts to allow PCs to advance, but I am now considering moving forward with plot. Before making any significant move ahead, I will give PCs who are active and have stated intended use of game-time to complete what they want to do (ENS and JEB for example).

I will monitor posting activity over the weekend and then likely move forward unless any PC is actively engaged in his own initiated actions.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 77):

Randy contacted me OOC. He is in the midst of an RL crisis -- not life-threatening -- that is demanding his attention. I can't say when he will rejoin the game but it sounds like he won't be participating regularly, as evidenced by this recent week of non-posting.

At the moment, it doesn't affect our game-play; Randy is simply not doing anything proactively IC. After Travis left, the Judge is ruling that Randy went to the Frontier House for rehearsal. Randy will be able to rejoin the IC play whenever the player is avaialable. If the game situation requires it the Judge will play the character temporarily.

Meanwhile, the PMing continues, now among three PCs who are actively engaged in proactive IC play. The Judge will let that play-out and advance appropriately whenever those PCs have completed their intended actions.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 78):

As the PCs reconvene, the Judge will allow free play without advancing the plot, as there have been PC-driven developments since my previous posting when I said I was considering advancing.

The Judge still has events scheduled to happen and they will happen as planned unless PC actions change that course of events; however, I will not advance to those events until the PCs declare they are ready, or the time comes regardless of PC readiness.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 79):

Really?  We couldn't arrange for a private conversation in one post.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 80):

The Judge apologizes for his attempts to maintain internal logic in the game. Obviously, hand-waving was in order.

Assuming anyone wishes to continue playing even though the Judge makes things too difficult, the PCs may now speak freely in any location in town without concern about being overheard. And Hatfield's restaurant will be open at any hour of the day for a hero looking for a meal. Even at lunch time.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 81):

So now that I've purged my need to be snarky . . . I will once again ask what PCs want to do. Any unanimous consent will be honored by the Judge.

Since my message #5 in this forum, and the player replies to that message, I have been continuing to play out this scenario in town to its logical conclusions (whatever they may be, as I still don't have an agenda as to how this should end). If the PCs want to end this without playing it out, and prefer to do something else, please make suggestions. If you are tired of this scenario, or the game in general, feel free to be honest. I have no desire to waste anyone's time.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 82):

New Picture.... It's been a while.

Hey all! It's been a while but I just wanted to stop by and say hello. Glad to see everyone still here and hope all are well. Take good care and many blessings. Cheers

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 84):

Nice to see you as well.  Visit more often amigo.

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 84):

A pleasure to see you drop by. You are always welcome.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 86):

FYI, I will be in the mountains this weekend. Should be okay, but I'm giving notice just in case I don't have coverage.

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 84):

Welcome back. Good to hear from you.

Been enjoying the World Cup. I know of at least two of you who have probably watched some matches (or would at least be following results).

For those of you who don't know: USA v. Ghana 6/16/14 at 6 pm Eastern.

Tonight, going to Women's MNT game at Ray Jay (exhibition v. France).

It's always a pleasure to hear from you, old friend. Hope that all is well with you and yours. :)

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 84):

Surely miss the feller what can't speak proper-like. Here's to wishin' you'd get back in the game.

Good to hear from you as well, Randy. Hope that things are going well for you.

Thanks all! The game looks great as always but the company is even better. Mayhaps when I'm settled a bit more I shall return. Please take good care all. Blessings

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 92):

Well, here's my catch-up that's not quite fresh by this point...

I'm back from the Safety Patrol trip to Washington DC and Williamsburg. My posting was severely limited because there were hundreds of pre-teens with internet devices devouring the broadband. On top of that, I chewed up my data for the billing period because of the lack of connectivity and my need to back off photos each day. Now that I'm home, everything should be better than my normal-of-late pattern. All my school stuff has run its course. My father is in his assisted-living facility. I've settled many of my mother's maternal emergencies. Finally, there's a summer of free-time ahead.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 94):

Yikes! You *have* had a lot on your plate. Hope that things will settle down for you now, and you can catch your breath.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 94):

I too hope things settle down for you my friend. You'll be in my thought and prayers. Take good care! Blessings

Happy Father's Day to all the Dads here! Hope your day is a special one. Many Blessings

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 89):

Here's hoping the US starts strong! It's a hard group but I think we have a good chance to surprise!

How about that Holland vs Spain game!

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 98):

USA 2 Ghana 1

3 points!

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 99):

YEAH USA! Though they had me worried for a bit!

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 100):

Take that Ghana!

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 101):

Traveling on business the rest of this week. I expect to log in morning and evening, barring unforeseen complications.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 102):

I will be travelling with family through Monday evening.  Posting will be sporadic.

USA v. Portugal, Sunday, 6/22 at 6 p.m. eastern.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 104):

I feel I have become the problem here.  I am ready to move to San Francisco and I assume consequently have our more structured adventure that we talked about months ago.  I just can't seem to escape the sandbox.

I'm basically done.  The Judge will eventually decide to tell us about our companion who has been gone for years RL so I can close that character action and move on.

I'm not standing trial.  I might have if Cole hadn't put his head in a noose and said "save me."  That's OK because apparently my lawyer won't be there either.  I offered an action alternative.  It was declined by the party.  So, I can ride away whenever.

This plan of action is not my rodeo so I will be present, enthusiastic and participative.  I look forward to our continuing adventure but I can't lead.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 105):

I shall be the first to reply.

I don't think Travis is a problem. And I definitely don't think you, the player, are a problem.

Having said that, I think it is fair to say that the decisions Travis has made have prompted some extremely high quality roleplaying. I had just last night commended Jake and ENS for their well-crafted, detailed and entertaining conversation. Some PM by every other player has also been quite interesting for the Judge. I mentioned to Cole that I found it interesting that the person in jail has the most power to resolve the adventure. Travis' comments above seem to add credence to that idea.

I also think it is fair to say that Travis' decisions made it difficult for the party to move forward. But he was not alone in that regard.

As it stands, I think the RP has been excellent and I think it is being worked out in-game just fine. It is helpful to read your OOC comments and I suspect also helpful for others moving forward.

The Judge knows when Travis will receive the news of Ayasha. We can skip right to that anytime; however, earlier when I asked for input on doing such, people continued to RP and it was really enjoyable RP. Presently, in any case, in my opinion the actions of the professor and the wrangler will push this forward easily to a logical conclusion.

Whenever ALL of the PCs are ready to skip forward, the Judge is ready. Meanwhile, when PCs are posting fascinating reading for the Judge (publicly and privately), my selfish inclinations are to let it continue.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 106):

Out of curiosity, has there been any RL update on Ayasha?

And, FWIW, I don't see the actions of Travis (or anyone else) as a problem... the characters are understandably stressed! It's a great end-of-2nd-act situation! Here's hoping the 3rd act resolves it all!

Not to my knowledge.

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 107):

In my view, I don't see how the actions of any one character can be a problem. I find it interesting that some of the players seem to think that consensus is required to move things along. Lacking that, everyone seems to be stuck. If a consensus can't be reached then it seems entirely reasonable for a single player, or a subset of like-minded players, to strike out on their own and do what they wish. Note, this does not preclude other players from reacting to that and adjust their play accordingly. What's wrong with that?

The "reboot" situation was a perfect example of that. Now what Travis did may have been a less then optimal choice, for some players. But I, for one, was happy to adjust and react accordingly. I thought, and still do, that the "do-over" was a bad idea. Players should feel free to play their characters the way they wish. Anyone who has a problem with the choices a player makes, should address it in the game. Now that, to me, would make for some interesting roleplay.

To address Travis specifically: You seem to imply that you are waiting for some one else to take the lead, since your own idea was resisted. Why not a third choice. I don't think the other players have to like it. They simply have to adapt to it in the roleplay. Isn't that is what the game is all about?

That same sentiment, by the way, goes for all the players. Not just Travis.

When did this game become so binary? We either all reach some consensus, or we do nothing.

I would say that it has in fact NOT become binary. What Cole argues for happening, in my opinion, is exactly what has been happening. PCs acted and PCs reacted. LIke I said, I have found the resulting RP fascinating (public and private). Not problematic in any way. When I said I would skip ahead, I said I would want that to be unanimous ONLY because I don't want to skip ahead if any of the PCs are enjoying the RP as it is (in other words, I don't want to disrupt what is already happening if players are enjoying it). But if NOBODY is enjoying it and there is a consensus to move on, I have no problem with that.

I tend to agree that the do-over was a mistake. I offered it so that we could head-off a potentially more serious mistake. At the time, I did not insist. I stated that either way was okay with me, and I meant that. A few months ago, I offered to reboot to that incident and continue from there. That idea is still valid to me.

One of the things I was thinking is that it would be fun to resolve this timeline as it stands, and then go back to the timeline where Travis skinned his hogleg against Rasmin and play out that scenario. A sort of quantum mechanic approach to the game (multiple and parallel realities that we play out).

If anyone is interested in that, please say so.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 110):

Instead of that, and I'll expand on why in a moment, I propose a meaningless side "module": the ubiquitous cinematic saloon brawl. It would take quite a while to resolve and would be endless action (until it ends). The game mechanics involved are very interesting and can get complex.

Another nice reason is for the non-stop action it offers juxtaposed against the last many months of not cracking open the book for reference.

Why I'm against the alternate reality? Well, my primary argument is the advance knowledge of the reality: Rasmin's hires, Mansfield's stink is on him, other sundry items I can't recall, but others might. Then there's the "is this the real life, or is this just fantasy?" idea. As players, knowing the parallel reality is temporary, we might adjust our behavior to be more or less extreme--I know I'd play Randy as the tank to a greater degree, ignoring the prospect of death. Finally, to what end? How would it actually provide any greater enjoyment than what we've already experienced by exploring the unraveled skein?

2¢

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 111):

That's a fair argument, but I doubt those concerns would make a big difference. I'm sure all of the players could put aside foreknowledge to a viable extent, for example.

I will reiterate that I consider the idea of going back to play the shoot-out with Rasmin as something that would happen after we conclude the current reality. That is, not instead of playing out the current reality, but in addition to that, because it sounds like fun to me. This is our game and we can do whatever we want. Once this thing has played out, we can figure out what we want to do and the "is this reality" is a moot question to me.

Having said that, I'm open to things like a barroom brawl and I welcome suggestions about avenues of game-play. It seems evident from player postings (IC and OOC) that there is still a desire to continue playing out the current scenario.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 112):

I can't believe that the US dropped that win yesterday! Talk about a jaw-dropping cross... they should have just dog-piled Ronaldo to prevent him from touching the ball!

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 113):

Yeah, well, considering US was down 1-0 at half-time, the fact that they were about to win the match was tremendous. Disappointing to allow the last minute goal, but a tie was still a good result (just could have been even better). Still, it was the most heartbreaking 1 point ever earned.

USA is still in good shape to advance; fivethirtyeight.com has them at 75% chance to advance to the next round.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 112):

A reboot of the reboot. I like it.

In reply to James E. Beauregard (msg # 115):

I'll digest and chime in later today.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 114):

USA vs. Germany, 12 noon eastern, 6/26/14. Should be a national holiday, at least for two-hours. I have already scheduled a meeting in front of my television and informed clients of my non-availability.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 117):

Unfortunately, I have a telecon (that I have no control of) right at the same time! Guess I'll have to be satisfied with text updates... at least for the first half!
This message was last edited by the player at 21:47, Wed 25 June 2014.

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 118):

That's a bummer. Text updates better than no updates.

I believe that we will win (repeat).

America is the land of the free because we use our hands and can come from behind.  No competitive World Class athlete should do anything but kick into touch with 30 seconds left.  Shame on team USA.
-----

OK... no need to reboot the reboot.  I can always shoot Rasmin.  All I was saying is Travis has heard everyone and isn't going to argue or pitch his case anymore.  When you're ready to act let Travis know.  He can't ride the train because he'll be with a bounty hunter when the court issues a bench warrant.

So lead on... but if everyone decides the reboot of the reboot is best Travis will happily shoot Rasmin again.

USA advances. Hard fought loss today, but the overall group results of 1 win, 1 tie, 1 loss (and tiebreaker on goal differential, largely because of keeping Germany to a single goal today) good enough to advance from the group of death.

USA plays Tuesday 7/1/14 at 4 p.m. eastern; opponent to be determined in the next 15 minutes.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 121):

I think yellow cards generally only look like yellow cards at full speed and not in slow-motion replay.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 121):

In sports today two Michigan players taken in the first round of the NBA draft.

In soccer, USA loses and advances which is all you really need to know about the World Cup.

That's true. It demonstrates the beauty and the balance of the group play formula, in which no single game determines which two teams advance. It is the overall performance in the three matches that matters. Just like the NFL, where the full regular season results determine the teams that advance to the playoffs. And just like the NFL where teams reguarly lose their last game of the season and still move on to the playoff rounds.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 124):

Nicely put Judge!

I'd rather them going into the Hex a bit stronger but we'll see. Belgium's been on a tear in their group... if we get by them I think we'll be in good shape!

A quick note of congrats... 17,000 messages and building.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 126):

I'll second that Randy! Good job everyone!!!! Cheers

It is CONCACAF day in Brasil. Rooting for Mexico and Costa Rica today.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 128):

Ha! Screw Mexico! But Costa Rico? Yeah!

Did you hear all the disclaimers about the Mexican fan's use of the word "puto"? PC comes to the World Cup :/

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 129):

Well, looks like you got the results you wanted yesterday . . . still wondering how Mexico lost that match.

Interestingly, FIFA's investigation cleared fans of any wrongdoing in the use of that word, citing context.

Ah, good. So that means that we are cleared to use it in this non-Mature-rated game, si? Depending upon the context, of course. :)

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 130):

I can't believe the Netherlands pulled that out! Basically beat Mexico at their own game with the PK (there was definitely contact but Robbins sure sold it!).

I thought Costa Rico showed a lot of heart to stick it out with 10 men for 60 mins! Don't think they have much chance in the next round... but we'll see!

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 132):

Totally agreed on Costa Rica. Holding an opponent to 1 goal for almost sixty minutes while playing a man down is a feat in itself. In hockey, with a two-minute one-man advantage, goals are often scored. Even more difficult a man down in futbol, where the side is permanently down, not just for a few minutes but for the remainder of the match and goals are usually scored in that scenario . . . most impressive in CR's case holding for 25 minutes in regulation and 30+ in extra time to hold the opponent to a single goal and force the PK's.

I was watching the Mexico match and I still can't figure out how they lost. Robben's PK at the end might not have been deserved. But he was denied what appeared to be a clear penalty in the box at the end of the first half. Either way, that's one goal on a bonafide PK in the match . . . and in this case done the hard way because they had to score the equalizer first . . .

Well, it's word any 12 year old with a smart phone can look up with a few thumb wags . . .

USA gave a valiant effort. Fought until the end. Hear, hear.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 135):

Yeah, that was a heart-breaker... I hope Wondo has bad dreams for a week about missing that open goal at the end of the 2nd half!

Jake is opening a discussion about shortened shotguns in msg #552 of Chapter 13. Before the judge tosses his pennies in the pool, I'll cast in my three.

I'd like to mention, firstly, that no rules can include all historical items. I  lobbied for a few items back during the cattle drive. I researched them and proved they were historically accurate and the judge said, "meh, fine." Actually, the judge was fair and allowed the items and established his fair price.

Secondly, the coach gun sounds much like the Loomis, including the muzzle-loading from the early period.

Finally, a recommendation for the prof might be to purchase a used master-crafted weapon, such as a Remington-Whitmore M1873 with a shortened or sawed-off barrel. This would assume a couple of things, however, that he can shoot the scatter-gun and that a specialty armorer could be found in the town. While I would imagine one would exist, the map doesn't reveal it. The weapon isn't cheap; new, it's $105.

Does anyone know why the antsy hunter is carrying his dead?

Travis Sunday is on the clock.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 139):

I will be out of town until August 4th.  I will try and keep up but am not hopeful.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 141):

Funny.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 140):

A scheduled Judge event would occur shortly after JEB and Travis return to town after the meeting with Selman.

JEB can lead the narrative for those two pards, if Travis (the player) isn't able to log in and keep up, whether that means returning to town and waiting around for sundown or doing anything else needed (in summary narrative or RP, as needed).

As the Judge has said a few times, we can skip ahead to the event whenever PCs desire, but there is still some RP going on so the Judge will be monitoring and responding from NPC perspectives as appropriate. PCs should feel free to summarize mundane actions in their narrative, or initiate RP with each other or NPCs as desired. The RP with Jake and ENS at Y&M Outfitters started in a summary fashion but shifted to RP based on the PC posts. That may certainly continue, or can shift back to summary as desired.

My suspicion is that PC preparations and such in the IC game-time leading up to this event can be concluded during Travis' (the player's) absence and that we would be naturally advancing to that event in game-time around the RL time of the player's return. I would suggest everyone keep that in mind and wrap things up in town soon, but as I have also said before, I don't want to cut off enjoyable or otherwise interesting RP until PCs are ready. And if anyone else is expecting to be unavailable for any length of time in the next several weeks, it would help to know that now. Thanks in advance.

I quite purposefully did not write "other men's guns."

I am mindful of the following refrain from "Battle Cry," courtesy of Leon Uris, which was designed to teach World War II-era Marine Corps recruits not to call their rifle a "gun":

"This is my rifle," <Points.>
"This is my gun." <Points.>
"This one's for fightin'," <Points.>
"This one's for fun."<Points.>

PCs have a little more time before the next Judge-event. Jake and ENS have stated some tasks that will require a little time, as has Randy. Please continue to summarize in narrative and prompt the Judge anytime NPC or other Judge response is required, or engage in PC conversation as desired. The Judge is ready to move to the next event whenever the PCs are ready, but I don't want to cut off any PC conversation or RP, so please prompt me as appropriate.

Two PCs are waiting for Randy Oldman's response. The Judge hasn't seen a log in for Randy since last Thursday, waiting a little longer before advancing.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 146):

Didn't log due to illness. I'm almost positive I logged since Thursday, though.

Hope you feel better! Blessings

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 148):

Had a dab of the ole heat stroke. La la la, all is better now.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 147):

As of the time I made that post, RPoL said Thurs 8/7 was your last login.

The Judge will be traveling on business this week. Regular log in and post is still expected.

The following quote is perhaps the most fascinating statement the Judge has read in this game, in the context of the current in-game situation and the history of the town (which has been alluded to in-game numerous times).

Maybe a typo, maybe not. I would ask JEB to clarify.


Vigilant - adverb, alertly watchful especially to avoid danger
Vigilante - noun, a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly:  a self-appointed doer of justice

Around the dinner table we all would have said well done to Randy and while I went to get another Mountain Dew I would have asked for a recap of the private sessions with the judge.

Since none of that has been proffered I will just say.  The longer you keep everyone in the fucking dark in a dangerous situation the more likely I will take a giant shit on your plan and start shooting.

...and I won't be sorry, I'll just be acting in character.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 153):

To whom is msg 153 directed? I ask because of the "you" and "your plan" references. If Travis wants to start shooting, go ahead.

This message was deleted by the player at 02:35, Fri 29 Aug 2014.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 155):

Travis has the options of asking a question in game or waiting for facts to reveal themselves.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 152):

The text is correct as written.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 156):

Travis will consider option 3.  Doing as Cole asked him to do.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 158):

If Travis is taking the third alternative, why did you need to make threats about starting to shoot?

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 159):

Lost in the long form of a bulletin board game is the out of game discussions which substitute for in game small talk.

When we don't have chances to speak out of game we forget that things may be at cross purposes.  Easily solvable with a narrative paragraph or having your private discussion on the main board.

For example I've been asked to rescue Cole after we left town but before we get to the train, if that's Rasmin's preferred mode of transportation.

So once the Sheriff leaves I'm going to kill Cole's captors unless someone else extends me the courtesy of letting me know what they're plan is.  As I am extending you this courtesy.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 160):

Seems like a good topic that should be address in-game, to me.

In reply to Cole Trayne (msg # 161):

Bingo, Mr. Trayne.

And, Mr. Sunday is assuming a lot. The clues are in the text.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 162):

The Judge will award one extra level to the first character who posts what the sheriff has had in mind the entire time, before it is revealed in game.

For the record, Randy has no better chance to answer this than any other PC. And I thought it was plain as day.

I will post the answer no later than 23:59 Sunday August 31.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 163):

The Sheriff is going to shoot the professor for his chess prowess... kiss Randy... challenge Jake to a horse race.... reveal Jake is a US Marshall. ...throw in with the James Younger gang.... .

The sheriff is going to arrest Rojas for bearing false witness... JEB for impersonating a lawman...Travis for conspiracy to obstruct justice ...Rasmin for kidnapping conspiracy to commit murder ... animal cruelty.

Final answer

The Sheriff, a terrible lawman based on the amount of crime in his town,... having killed Johnny Moreno,..   is joining Rasmin to get a cut of Cole's bounty.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 164):

Personally I could see any or all of those happening ole chap! Spot on! Cheers

LOL -- that's a very shrewd guess, Travis. It would also go a long way towards confirming Jake's IC opinion of Cruger. :)

I'm going to come down on the other side of the fence than Travis, however.

Perhaps having soured on wearing a tin star in The Flat (and enduring all the headaches that come along with it) for the pittance that he is paid, and also motivated by an inner desire to "do the right thing and see this through" (much like Pete Haverty), Cruger will be turning in his badge and joining our little caravan with an eye towards seeing [:)] that Cole makes it safely to California.

After all, the 'Frisco of this day and time is a great place to start over again, iff'n a man's of a mind to.

Perhaps one of his telegrams is an answer to his inquiry about a job of some sort out in 'Frisco . . .

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 167):

After further checking (vis a vie the telegrams) he'll reveal Rasmin to be a fraud

-or-

he has arranged to have extradition cancelled.

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 168):

Travis' posturing seems a bit premature to me... is he going to try to rescue Cole here in front of the Sheriff?

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 169):

Travis doesn't want to get shot.  Most likely nothing will happen but if there was a time for misunderstanding and things to get out of control it's now.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 163):

Cruger, methinks, has wired to see if Cole's trial might be held in Texas.

As it happens, Jake and Travis had the closest guesses. It turns out that this is just a partial reveal, at this time . . . being that the Sheriff has intended to accompany Cole, just like everyone else gathered here. As I have said many times, I post everything extemporaneously. I didn't have a series of posts mapped out; the Judge knows what NPCs are thinking and planning to do, but he doesn't know whether or how PC actions--even as simple as RP speech--will affect the flow of the game. In this case, the flow ended with the partial reveal at this moment.

The question of Cruger's motive(s) remains unclear IC, which is why I say now that Jake and Travis offered the closest guesses--they both said that Cruger would be joining the party making the journey, but each of them had a different slant on why. More will come out in RP, but the Judge wants to give the PCs opportunities to react to this plot element, in-game.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 163):

Rojas filed a petition to have Cole testify in Sunday's trial. Per an agreement between Cruger and the bounty hunter, Rasmin is taking Cole to Albany for the trial.

So, Travis and Jake each get a half-level's worth of XP? Hey, you can't blame a guy for askin' . . . :)

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 174):

No Jake we each get a level.

Cool! I like the way that you think! :)

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 176):

Think all you want, but so far neither of you has been proven correct.

Judge,

Given the time of day, how much daylight is left?

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 178):

Roughly an hour.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 179):

So Randy implied that there was no grazing for the horses, but is that true for north Texas? Even in the winter?

I bring this up because ENS hasn't stocked grain like Randy (has anyone else?), but I would have hoped someone would have told him to get some if it was needed.
This message was lightly edited by the player at 03:14, Wed 03 Sept 2014.

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 180):

Grazing is definitely more difficult in the winter months of this region. Farther south, it is more hospitable. That doesn't mean there are no grazing opportunities for the horses. It does mean that the opportunities will be limited, especially as the men move north. It likely means stops to re-supply for hay or grain or both, as long as men remain on horseback.

The Judge doesn't intend to press the point at this stage of the journey. However, feeding horses in winter is surely a real concern.

See in-game related post.

Advising ENS on this point would have been Jake's job (IC), I think. Unfortunately, these are some beans that I (OOC) did not think to count. (If it is any consolation, I didn't specifically have Jake buy any feed for Ghost, either.)

Meh, I have never been to Texas, and I don't ride horses. I simply didn't think of this little detail.

Mea culpa.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 182):

No worries... I mainly wanted the Judge's call. We're aware of it now and we're bound to have an opportunity to supply at some point.

Judge, here are the two requested d20 rolls for Jake:

09:21, Today: Jake Richardson rolled 12 using 1d20 with rolls of 12. Misc. d20 Roll (#1).
09:22, Today: Jake Richardson rolled 14 using 1d20 with rolls of 14. Misc. d20 Roll (#2).

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 184):

BTW, everyone had made the generic rolls and reported results, except for JEB (who rolled but didn't report, I wonder why), and Randy, who didn't roll at all. I made the rolls for Randy.

I may ask for two or three more. You may some in advance, if desired, or wait for my prompt.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 184):

Sorry Jake.  I missed commenting.  Don't get killed.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 186):

Hopefully not! :)

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 187):

I guess I was thinking that Jake and Haverty were apart from us a bit and we didn't hear their plan.

The Judge will be traveling on business for two weeks. Daily login/post is expected to continue as usual.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 189):

Catching up....

Sorry for absence.

Judge, when timing is appropriate, would you post the weather conditions for the night? It is helpful to know if it is a clear, starry, and moonlit night or a cloudy and overcast one.

In other words, is it an evening Travis would just snuggle with Horse or find the ambiance as more amorous.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 191):

Deus Misereatur! That might get PETA involved Randy. *Crosses himself*

In reply to Nathaniel Deeds (msg # 192):

I figured Travis liked it to be more intimate, but if PETA wants to get involved... the more the merrier!

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 193):

Touché Ole Chap!

The Judge is traveling on business this week . . . didn't have adequate time to advance the plot this a.m. That, combined with some PC conversation continuing, I am delaying the advancement until this evening.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 195):

And based on PC posts yesterday, delaying a little longer, until it is clear that the men intend to continue with an overnight camp and the standard watch pattern set by Jake, without instigating any incident of their own making. Sunday's dialogue with Rasmin made that unclear at the moment.

For the record: the Judge has no objection to PC-instigated action. I simply don't want to advance until it is appropriate based on PC activity.

Judge,

Since no cavalry bugles were referenced in your latest post, I assume that none were heard, correct?

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 197):

Correct.

13:12, Today: Jake Richardson rolled 6 using 1d20+3 with rolls of 3. Initiative.

Jake's still snoozin'. :)
This message was last edited by the player at 17:25, Fri 26 Sept 2014.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 199):

Jake, d'ya have the Improved Initiative feat? If'n ya do, it ain't bump you over the log all it's own, but it'll get ya dang close. Check all your facts an' figgurs.

I find it funny the intervention is credited to Trayne and Richardson. Randy, in fact, interceded in msg #931. Cole attended to Travis at the next message, posted an hour and a half after Randy's. Obviously, Randy's intercession was the alkali for the acidic interaction of Travis and Garrett--perhaps not the neutralizer, but at least weakened the acid for the time.

No, I never got around to taking Improved Initiative. So many cool feats to choose from! :)

But thanks for reminding me -- that was a good thought.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 202):

Randy doesn't have it yet either. It's one to steer toward, assuredly. Feats are amazing. I think the inherent nature of feats make them more valuable than skills. The argument, though, could be made for the other direction.

The very first edition for the Fort Griffin Echo (http://www.doghouserules.net/articles.php?article_id=9) has some feats and mastercraft items I really want. Rather than tell you what I want, I'll list the SIDEWINDER: EYE-TALIAN STYLE cinema styles and who they apply to the most.

Bad Translation - Jake or ENS
Man with No Name - Cole
Offscreen Reloading - Travis
Ringing Spitoon - Randy (by history and future)
The Rope Always Breaks - Travis
That Was My Best Hat - JEB
Theme Song - Choice/Everyone

As for Mastercraft Equipment, which follows the feats directly, I'm of certain mind...

Cigarillo of Intimidation - JEB
Poncho of Protection - Randy
Ammunition of Riochet - Jake
Spurs of Silence - Travis, with the Theme Song feat to boot

If any of ya'll have forgotten to spend time with the FGE's, ya'll's a dang fool. You're bound to find some useful stuff in there. If not just for the glimpse of Billie Van Sant's derriere, then perhaps for the information on the Comanche in that first edition. Still, Billie's butt is breath taking.

A few PCs haven't logged in since the Judge post asking for Initiative. Another has logged in but not rolled. The Judge will wait a little before moving forward and rolling for the PCs.

Travis, it's a dang good thing there's no Crit on Initiative. Were that the case, Randy and Travis would start each round poking themselves in peculiar places.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 203):

I liked the FGE very much.

Unless the Judge missed it, JEB never made his role for expediting the saddling up, which means he would be among the last of the men ready to ride . . . meaning that technically everyone would be waiting for him, not the other way around. The Judge will make the roll this morning to determine timing, and then it will be up to PCs and NPCs who finish earlier than others in regard to whether they wait until everyone is ready, or ride out in groups.

Please make a final post in Ch14, indicating each PC's intent on approaching the battle sounds that awoke them (with any narrative included as desired). Include whether the rider goes immediately when ready, or waits for another PC or NPC, as well as a direction (follow Rasmin who appears to be taking a beeline, circle north or south, or what-have-you). Lastly, include any actions taken while riding and movement rate. Distance estimates by Randy and ENS would indicate that it could take up to a couple of minutes at full gallop to reach the action. Maybe less depending on the actual distance, maybe more.

A reminder that everyone should re-familiarize himself with the rules of mounted combat pages 224-225. And Movement/Pace pages 231-232 because full runs may require constitution checks on the horses based on actual distance.

The Judge will then close that chapter and open the next.

For the record, the AP roll that the Judge just made, listing 'Rojas AP' as the reason, was supposed to be "Rasmin AP'. Rasmin was within striking distance of his horse making the check so an AP made sense for him. I just typed the wrong name and realized it as soon as I saw the reported result.

In case PCs have forgotten, action point usage can be helpful. Any d20 roll a PC needs to make (even for his horse) can be modified by an AP. Characters 8th and above may roll 2d6 and choose the highest roll for AP boost (Captain Travis Crunch has done that a few times). Page 49.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 209):

Thanks for the reminder/hint about being able to apply AP usage for the benefit of a character's mount. I just used one on behalf of Ghost. :)

We are waiting for Cole. He was the first PC on the scene so the Judge was giving him the first chance to act.

Cole didn't log in yesterday. I'll give him a little more time before having either Rojas or Rasmin act to move things forward.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 210):

The Judge is puzzled by a couple of PC's use and non-use of AP. Que sera sera.
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:31, Fri 03 Oct 2014.

C'est la vie. :)

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 213):

La vida loca!

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 214):

Nacho Libre'!

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 215):

Shouldn't that be:
"Nachooooooooooooo Libre'!!"

Could be. Truth be told, I never saw the movie. :)

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 217):

<shakehead> Broken thread. </shakehead>

Thanks to the judge for the Theodore Winters post. With only a few words, the story is pulled together nicely.

The riders found a day back were supposed to get help for these settlers crossing the marauding Indians' path. Simple, direct, meaningful.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 219):

You have no idea how much that statement amuses me. Someone does.

Sorry judge wrote...



Travis is going after the Indian seen on North side of the Wagon

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 221):

That's true. I wrote "at least one more mounted Indian" on the north side of the wagon. That means there is one more than one Indian, so Travis' statement wasn't explicit enough for me to understand which Indian he meant. Consider Travis' position slightly to the west of JEB, then. Doesn't change much else.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 220):

I guess, then, the compliment was misguided.

Pausing a little longer for Travis' action, and clarification from JEB after my response to his stated action.

I didn't make a post from ENS' perspective, because nothing has really changed as of this round. The wagon was further behind in time than Jake's group . . .

I've been noodling something in my, well, in my noodler.

Back at a previous campsite, a brand-new axe was found. Randy also owns a new axe. The following has a relevance to some, but not to all.

There is an "ax" referenced in table 5.13: Melee Weapons on page 151 and furthermore described on page 152. Then an "axe" is listed in the table 5.24: Tools and Kits on page 160 without any further description.

An "ax" is used to clear the forest and prepare firewood. It is made of a heavy cleaving head affixed to a long handle. It is expressly intended for two-handed use. Because of the simplicity for its manufacture, the one dollar cost fits.

I contest the "axe" is an archaic weapon. It should cost two dollars for the fact it is likely shaped differently than those found in the general store and balanced for fighting. It is shorter than the conventional long-handled wood-chopper, yet a little longer than a non-weaponized hatchet. The things that define the fighting axe are the lighter weight, a shorter handle for single hand use, a broader blade, and the definitive "e."

So, why, why, why?

Well, any person without an Archaic Weapon or Improvised Weapon Proficiency feat would be at a -4 to pick up either, right?

It makes little to no sense that an Archaic could grab a wood-chopper from the smokehouse and win the day, when an Improvised could not.

I think there should be a clear distinction between the two types of cleavers, and their roles in melee.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 225):

It's probably good that you axed about it . . .

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 226):

Go to your room!

Or you can come to mine ole chap. We're watching westerns you see? Cheers

...said Raj Koothrappali

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 229):

I'm trying to fit in a Beaver Cleaver reference but can't quite find the merge lane.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 230):

...as long as you're no too hard on the Beaver.

Ba-dum-dum-KSSShhhhhhh

This brings to mind "A horse is a horse, of course, of course . . ."

Although now that I think of it, that little ditty might be more appropriate for Travis's mount:

"Horse is a horse, of course, of course . . ." :)
This message was last updated by the player at 17:38, Wed 15 Oct 2014.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 232):

You grabbed the brass ring.

Thank you, sir. Your efforts have long been the gold standard in this sort of thing, and have served as my inspiration. :)

The Judge is traveling on pseudo-business for a few days. Last couple of days have been swamped with actual paid work and my attention to the game has suffered. I expect to post an update tonight and will log in daily during travel.

Waiting a bit for Randy's actions.

Good shootin', Randy! :)

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 237):

It's all up to Range at this point.

Now that some time has passed since the introduction of Old Man Winters into the mix, I want to extend a welcome to the player playing that character.

Ahem,
Welcome back.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 239):

Teddy, my good man, or woman, or hermaphrodite, welcome back.

Alas, I recall all the good times, forget the bad, and muddle through the inbetweens. It's so refreshing you've rejoined to bring your flair or sarcasm, your wisdom or idiocy, your bashfulness or boldness.

Hell, I dunno who you are. And danged if I don't like it that way.

_{Actually, I've an inkling.}

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 240):

A comment: the player's posting style offers prominent clues.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 239):

Jolly good, old chap! Glad to have you back in the saddle! :)

Spot on Jake! Spot on ole chap! Its good to be back!!! Thanks for the welcome back guys. Cheers

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 243):

No, really, who is it?

I thought it was quite clear upon quiet reflection. Blessings

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 243):

Woot!

Thanks Travis! Its great to be on board. Cheers

Dang Randy! Just ah few years away from the cattle drives yew done gone n' got ah fancy eastern education.

Ah herma... morpho... dite? Clear as mud ta me. N' I don't care wot Rojas says I ain't as dumb as I look. Even'n

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 247):

Dag nabbit, I'm getting down right flustered. At first I didn't want to know now it seems everybody be me knows.

Is it Ayasha? Is she back? Maybe it's Silas or Artie. Other than that, I can't think of who might be playing Theodore Winters.

It will remain a mystery.

Oh, by the way, how have you been Meri?

Quite well ole chap! Quite! Hope the same for you my friend. Cheers

Welcome back, to the trail!

Thanks Cole! It great to be back! Cheers

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 252):

We've never played together before (I think), but welcome back anyway!

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 253):

That's because he fell victim to stunningly dramatic but meta-gamewise unsatisfactory character death.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 254):

Of his own choosing, as Travis always seems to overlook.

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 253):

Thanks ENS! I have been following the game off and on for some time now so it seems like I know you. Love your character BTW! I am really looking forward to writing with you. Cheers
This message had punctuation tweaked by the player at 22:19, Fri 24 Oct 2014.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 255):

Once you "crit"ed me out in the first action of the first round, you could have dug into your GM bag of tricks.

I really have to admit that I miss playing Meri. However, the Judge is correct. He PMed me to let me know that Meri was near death and would most likely succumb if he was hit again. At that time I did have a choice to back out and I did think hard on it. However, Travis was down at the time and the rest of the party was not nearby if I can remember correctly though they were closing. I put myself in Meri's shoes (Boots?) and thought he could not retire from the field when one of his pards was down and could have been killed if he did so. So I took my chances and it was my choice to do so, and would do it again. Though I do miss him, I am quite proud of his stand and they way he went out... with his boots on.

The Judge and I have talked on this subject several times and believe me there are no hard feelings or regrets on my part. Judge you've always been fair and up front. Thanks for this game and my opportunity to play in it! Thanks to all my Pards on here who voted to let Meri shine in the first place as when it was started it was a private game methinks. I have enjoyed it and writing with you all so much! Cheers
This message was last edited by the player at 22:22, Fri 24 Oct 2014.

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 258):

Take it from someone who plays the character to the hilt; even I felt you took that too far, Meri. I'm not criticizing your gameplay, so please don't take it that way. I am just stating my player's opinion.

Each of us, though, have a code our character will follow. We define that consciously or subconsciously. In my case, I set out with the code at the same time I roll the character.

Never would I think less of a person for sticking to that code under any and all circumstances. In that same breath, I say the same for swaying from the code for the sake of preserving the character.

Randy misses the "fancy talker," though.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 259):

Hey there! No worries Randy. I could see someone seeing it that way. Like I said I do miss Meri but to me its all about the enjoyment you get while roleplaying the character. For me that's why I role play. I did give it some thought and I knew the consequences, the Judge was up front. However, to me, if Meri took off and in the off chance the Indian had come back and finished off Travis... well I do not think my enjoyment of playing Meri would have been the same to me. I guess what I'm saying is for me its not so much how long the character is around but how much you enjoy him/ her while he/ she is around.

Yet, I do understand your take and I'm fine with it. I know you didn't mean it in a bad way just stating an opinion. No worries my friend. Cheers

Nothing if not consistent...



Talk about playing by a code? Travis is a Rottweiler with a human femur in his jaws.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 261):

"Never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake."  Napoleon

The Judge is traveling on business this week. Morning and evening log ins.

For the record, the Judge is happy to continue offering NPC opinions and dialogue; however, for the purposes of this adventure, the Judge doesn't want to have NPCs making decisions about the direction of play, if the PCs can do so.

My opinion now is that PCs have as much say in this situation as NPCs (especially because the NPCs don't all agree on a course of action). I would much prefer to see the PCs decide what to do next--or at least to have significant input into any decision.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 264):

But, by offering NPCs' opinions, you are helping get PCs to take action--something a precious few haven't expressed. Any idea what's happened with JEB. I can't say anything about dropping out, but is it time to say he follows X person's lead or such? The plot must go on.

"Slowly shaking his head, the wrangler turns away and walks towards the old man."

"Cole shrugs and lifts the brim of his hat so as to see those around him better."

"Cole appears to begin to respond, but as Randy intervenes, The wrangler simply shrugs and makes sure Bess is properly saddled and watered."

"For a few moments, Cole gazes at the woman holding the shotgun. Eventually he slowly turns away, slowly shaking his head."

"A slight frown momentarily appears on the wrangler's face, "

"The wrangler allows a subtle grimace to appear on his face "

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 266):

Not at all.

I've always maintained that I think players should be totally free to play their characters any way they choose.The only objection I've ever expressed is when players attempt to influence game play with OOC commentary. Cosequently, I wasn't a fan of The Rasmin reboot,

To that end, I've not seen that recently. So, I'm good.

With the possible exception of this most recent post. If Travis has an issue with Cole's behavior, take it up with Cole, in-game. We are roleplaying after all, right?

In reply to Cole Trayne (msg # 267):

I was just saying...  :)

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 268):

Nothing to note.

I noted nothing! Cheers

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 270):

I notehing not.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 271):

I just noted that in the main menu, this game has 18000 posts!

...well, 18001 now.

That is a testament to the fine group of players here and one of the best GM's I ever had the privilege to write with! Keep up the good work folks. Cheers

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 271):

I note naught, I dread naught . . .

H.M.S. Notenaught? Nah . . .
H.M.S. Dreadnaught? Eureka!

Hey everyone! Sorry for delays but had to work the weekend and work overtime due to the upcoming holidays. Will try to update later today. Thanks for your patience. Cheers

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 275):

Thanks for your post. There are a couple of PCs who haven't logged in and posted since Sunday. The Judge is giving another 24 hours for PC posts, before advancing.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 276):

Guilty!

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 276):

I'm logging and reading. There's nothing for Randy to add at this time. I'm unsure if you can tell if I log from my table since I keep the page loaded all the time.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 278):

Usually, the log-in report shows me activity (e.g. you opened a thread to read messages) even if you have maintained log-in. Thanks for the update.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 279):

Mondays are always bad for me.  Apologies.

LOL. Well, considerin' that John Wesley Hardin shot a man for snorin' too loud . . .

Ouch! I don't believe that I've ever seen a 0 on Initiative before.

He could have had a -1 Initiative. He'd have had to go last round.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 283):

As the editor of our DHR products often said, paraphrased: the lowest roll for initiative just means you get to go first in the second round.

Now that all PCs have rolled initiative, the Judge is preparing the start of this scene. Stand by.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 284):

It just might be the third round ole chap!

Just got home and will get a post up in about hour. Cheers

FYI, Travis Sunday hasn't posted actions for round 3 yet. Although I don't want to determine Sunday's actions under the current circumstances, I will do so if Travis hasn't posted by 18:00 today, as that would be a full 48 hours since his last log in (which was after the Judge's request for round 3).

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 288):

Travis contacted me . . . I am expecting his post today.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 289):

Apologies.  Family and real life intruded on my virtual capabilities.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 290):

Hope you and yours are well! Cheers

In reply to Meriwether Lewis Smythe (msg # 291):

Everyone is well.  My "dad" bandwidth was overcome with school projects, school concerts and play rehearsals and a three hour trip after work to help parents with technology.

I wouldn't change it for the world.

Good to hear! Glad everything is good my friend. Family time is the best time. I have a son about to graduate high school so will most likely be somewhere else this time next year. So I'm trying to spend as much time as I can with him now. Take good care! Hope everyone else is having a great weekend! Blessings

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 292):

Been there, done that! My two are both college age now, one an hour away at school and one going to a local school but still living here. They are both very independent now, which is both great and a little saddening!

I've been sketchy at posting the last few days... I was at the Cape to watch the Orion test launch! Awesome good time! But I'm home now so posting will be more regular.

The Judge is traveling on business again.

Nice Fortitude save, Travis. :)

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 296):

It seemed appropriate.  Judge rolled a 20 to hit and 20 on 2d10 to damage.

I think I did it wrong by adding the three but it succeeded anyway.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 297):

Travis is correct to say that the +3 for IDT feat should NOT have been added to the Fortitude Save, but the Save was still successful.  The feat increases a hero's MDT, but does not add to the Fort Save itself.

The Judge will be traveling today. I expect to post the R5 narrative Saturday morning.

Meanwhile, JEB is on the clock. As earlier with Travis, the Judge is reluctant to move forward in the current situation without the PC's actions clearly stated; however, by Saturday morning it will be more than 72 hours since JEB's last log-in so I will proceed.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 299):

He did tell us of he dad-ly duties of last week at this time were suppressive. Perhaps the same is true of this week.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 300):

I contacted JEB offline and he said he would post today. So you should expect the Judge's R5 narrative sometime Saturday.

At a Christmas party. Will post later though. Cheers

There are three red and one blue square north of me. Who are they?

There is one blue square south of Travis. Who is that?

Are the two squares south of the white picture with green border NE of Travis the people shooting at him?

Who of the aforementioned squares is coming after Travis and who is going after Haverty/Cruger?

Is Cruger the white picture mostly east of Travis?

Is there any maneuverable area which can cut off line of site to the ridgeline or is Travis simply exposed?

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 303):

There is a raspberry dodecahedral in front of Randy.

There is a lime ellipses surrounding Rojas.

There is a sapphire rhombus hovering in proximity to Winters.

Which tesseract contains the recipe for ice water?

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 303):

Frankly, I'm a little surprised by these questions.

As per my public post, in the OOC section requesting R6 actions, any Comanche warriors with bold outlines are incapacitated (please pardon my spelling error in that OOC word). That includes all of the chits around Travis that he is asking about, because he has taken down 5 of them (and Cruger took down one of them). And because they are all killed or unconscious, none of them are shooting at Travis, except the two on the hill that have regular outlines on the chits. They are not coming towards Travis.

Cruger's white chit has been next in the party's line alongside Travis the entire battle. That white chit was right next to Travis in the first round and as per the Judge's sequential maps and descriptions has moved a little bit east each round, until joining his friend Pete Havery in R5. Makes me wonder if you have looked at any of the previous maps (all of which have links that are still available for use).

The two Indians that shot at Travis in R5 are on the hill north of Travis. One of them is the Bugler, as described in the narrative. They are the only Comanche alive near Travis, who is exposed to their fire (and they to his). All of the ones near Cruger and Haverty (and Jake) are attacking them or heading southwest towards the wagons.

A tip: you should be able to download the map and then zoom in with any image viewer to see more up-close views if the thickness of the outlines isn't obvious from the default view. I know it gets a little fuzzy the more you zoom in and of the chits are hard to decipher in detail, but this is a combat situation and discerning detail isn't easy in such a battle, so that seems fitting.

EDITS: A few edits intended for clarity.
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:51, Sun 14 Dec 2014.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 305):

My bad.  I missed the whole border thing.  Hopefully that should clarify the need for information.  I was looking for lancers vs shooters and incapacitated vs active vs dead.  I can't see the pictures very well and wasn't sure if the selected function (four white circles mattered).  I knew it was Cruger but I wanted to make sure.

The Judge is planning to post the R6 narrative summary this evening.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 307):

While adjudicating the round 6 results, and making the NPC and Comanche die rolls, I realized that ENS stated an attack for this round but didn't make the roll. Waiting for the professor to make his die roll before posting full narrative summary and new maps; the Judge doesn't want to take away the professor's fun with his new weapon . . .

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 308):

I've edited my msg#462 to add the rolls... sorry for the delay!

Everyone logged in yesterday. Everyone except JEB posted, so we are waiting for JEB.

The Judge will be adjudicating results tonight.

Wishing everyone the joys of the season, and happy times with family and friends.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 312):

A fitting quote from one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time.

"Yippee ki yay mother fucker."

Thanks Jake and Travis. Wishing each and everyone a very happy holiday and very merry Christmas for those who celebrate. I hope all find joy, health and peace. Many Blessings! Its nice to be back here once more.

Giving Randy and Cole extra time to post for the current round.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 315):

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and a Happy, Prosperous New Year to you all!

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 315):

Giving Randy a little more time.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 317):

Holiday, family, minutia

In reply to E.N.S. Ringgenberg (msg # 316):

Thanks ENS! Cheers

Giving Travis and JEB a little more time for R11 actions.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 320):

Sorry traveling.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 321):

Be safe pard! Cheers