CBN SURVIVOR: Mission One
Started by
trs007
, Jun 08 2004 11:15 AM
40 replies to this topic
#31
Posted 10 June 2004 - 11:51 PM
India has the most English speaking people in the world, but their "official"language is Hindi. That is basically what gave it away.
#32
Posted 11 June 2004 - 12:04 AM
Ok, I got a question, trs007.
I have to assasinate one member of my team, AND a member on the losing team. Do I have a choice? Or do both?
I have to assasinate one member of my team, AND a member on the losing team. Do I have a choice? Or do both?
#33
Posted 11 June 2004 - 12:09 AM
My understanding is that you nominate a team mate for execution, AND we THRUSHians get together and decide which person from their team to eliminate.I have to assasinate one member of my team, AND a member on the losing team. Do I have a choice? Or do both?
#34
Posted 11 June 2004 - 12:50 AM
Correct!
#35
Posted 11 June 2004 - 01:34 AM
Where exactly do we THRUSians get together to decide? Or have we all ready?
#36
Posted 11 June 2004 - 01:50 AM
I'd just like to say someting about the idea of voting off one of the other teams members.....
I think it is a very bad idea. It akes away the fun of the game. That fact that your fate is not only in your own teams hands (where is should be), and also that the other team can take you off is unfair.
It isn't part of the game. The idea of tha game is to survive everyone else. I don't think that is is right that someone should be worried about being booted off by the other team. Naturally anyone who sticks their head up on the other team will get it chopped off, getting rid of the smart person is the way.
So because of that, I hope you re-think this rule.
I am quite fine with the idea of culling two members for the starting challenges, as it quickly gets rid of stragglers, but do you need to get rid of 3 people?
I know that if I was the one that got eliminated becuase the other team considered me a threat, but I survived my own teams votes, I would be very annoyed. I think this rule is bad for the game, and can only cause trouble. I hope you can at least look at the way that I see it.
I think it is a very bad idea. It akes away the fun of the game. That fact that your fate is not only in your own teams hands (where is should be), and also that the other team can take you off is unfair.
It isn't part of the game. The idea of tha game is to survive everyone else. I don't think that is is right that someone should be worried about being booted off by the other team. Naturally anyone who sticks their head up on the other team will get it chopped off, getting rid of the smart person is the way.
So because of that, I hope you re-think this rule.
I am quite fine with the idea of culling two members for the starting challenges, as it quickly gets rid of stragglers, but do you need to get rid of 3 people?
I know that if I was the one that got eliminated becuase the other team considered me a threat, but I survived my own teams votes, I would be very annoyed. I think this rule is bad for the game, and can only cause trouble. I hope you can at least look at the way that I see it.
#37
Posted 11 June 2004 - 10:52 AM
All Agents:
The Execution Branch has been busy. Also, it seems by the voting actions of the players, there is agreement with Astros post regarding other team assassinations. Therefore, the "other-team" assassination rule will be revoked. Only those "same-team" assassinations will occur; and have done so for Mission One.
Please see the attached memo from the Execution Branch. Then proceed to a new thread for MISSION TWO's briefing.
*Over and out*
The Execution Branch has been busy. Also, it seems by the voting actions of the players, there is agreement with Astros post regarding other team assassinations. Therefore, the "other-team" assassination rule will be revoked. Only those "same-team" assassinations will occur; and have done so for Mission One.
Please see the attached memo from the Execution Branch. Then proceed to a new thread for MISSION TWO's briefing.
*Over and out*
Attached Files
#38
Posted 11 June 2004 - 04:53 PM
That picture is great.
#39
Posted 11 June 2004 - 05:09 PM
Thanks.
#40
Posted 11 June 2004 - 10:23 PM
Shocking, postively shocking.
#41
Posted 12 June 2004 - 01:59 AM
Quite an interesting cat Blofeld now has.