 〜 霊界非表示普通村 〜 141570番地
 2日目 （終了[5分] 発言し放題 制限時間 昼：5分 夜：3分 投票時：3分 自動沈黙：120秒 役職表示なし 共有会話あり）
| ◆ゲームマスター | 「懺悔スレ書きこみ終了。
立て直してもいいんですが、こういうミスをしてしまった後なので控えます。」 | | ◆kariさん | 「おつかれくん」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「始まってると思わなかった」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「お疲れでした」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「１６時になったので、「更新確認１６：３０」と発言しようとしたんですが」 | | ◆kariさん | 「おつかれ」 | | ◆kariさん | 「早い夏だったよ」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「懺悔スレ行ってきます」 | | ◆kariさん | 「ずれちゃったんですね」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「手違いで開始してしまい、ご迷惑をおかけしました」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「俺達の夏が終わったな」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「それじゃkari吊って、CNあり占おうぜ！」 |  霊界非表示普通村は廃村となりました。(14/10/11 16:06:57) | | ◆走るドムさん | 「占い理由：伝統の左占い」 | | ◆kariさん | 「なんではじまってるの」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「占いCO：おうどん○」 | | ◆初日犠牲者さん | 「いつも狼に喰われてるけどさ、全体としての勝率はいいんだよ」 |  2日目の朝となりました。(14/10/11 16:06:37) |  初日犠牲者さんは翌日無残な姿で発見された・・・。 |  初日犠牲者さんを狙います。 >>> kari <<< | | ◆走るドムさんの独り言 | 「あ、これ村勝利やん（確信）」 | | ◆走るドムさんの独り言 | 「狩人いないから、狼２がいないという罠」 | | ◆走るドムさんの独り言 | 「占いCO：おうどん○
占い理由：伝統の左占い」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「あー、狼が両方とも赤くなってしまいました」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「プルダウンメニューから「弱く発言」を選ぶつもりが、ちょっとずれちゃったみたいで」 | | ◆kariさんの独り言 | 「どうやったら開始と発言間違えるんだ？」 | | ◆走るドムさんの独り言 | 「もしくは狩人が…狩人いたっけ？」 | | ◆走るドムさんの独り言 | 「狼役誰もいないんじゃね？」 | | ◆狼たち | 「「・・・・・・。」２分ほど時間が流れた。」 | | ◆走るドムさんの独り言 | 「あ、罠村や」 |  おうどんさんを占います。 >>> 走るドム <<< | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「狼さん、噛み実行お願いします。昼になったら廃村処理します」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「あ、ごめんなさい。発言するつもりで間違えて「開始」押しちゃいました」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「--- 発言し放題 昼:5分0秒 夜:3分0秒 投票:3分 沈黙:120秒 役職表示なし ---」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「 配役の人数は、村人5、狼2、占い師1、霊能者1、狂人1、狩人0、共有者0、妖狐0です。」 | | １日目の夜となりました。(14/10/11 16:01:52) | | ◆おうどんさん | 「案山子さんお疲れ様です」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「リアルしたいけど面と向かって罵倒されると立ち直れない…っていうチキン精神」 | | ◆案山子さん | 「早めに入る→揃ってないのに蹴られて入りなおせない
のコンボが嫌で様子見てたが
もう出かけるから遊べないので案山子置いとく」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「エキスパート人狼とかいう動画で、解説役がしきりに霊界で馬鹿と言わせようとしていて、なんという罠と思った。やっぱりリアル怖い」 | | かりさんが案山子に名前を変更しました。 | | 「かりさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 15:55:10) | | ◆おうどんさん | 「一線をおいてやらないと本当に友情破壊ゲーだからね
事前に理解ないとできないゲームだし」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「リア充はリアルでやっているのかもね。でも、本気でやったら人間関係崩れそうだけども」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「テレビでも人狼やってるからもっと増えてもいいのにね...対面式とかスマホのほうがにぎわってるのかしら」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「スレッガーさーーーーーーん！！！」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「悲しいけどこれ現実なのよね…」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「平日はともかく、土曜日の午前どころか午後の発進も危ぶまれるようでは重症ですね。」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「わかめても去年とか一昨年に比べたら過疎ってるよなぁ」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「過疎ってるわかめてよりも、もっと賑わってるとこの方が効果的じゃないですかね（どことは言っていない」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「GMの判断で発言消せればいいのにね…」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「蹴るのが遅れて申し訳ないのだ」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「こんなマジ基地を食べさせられる狼も可哀想」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「ごめん、日本語にしても何言ってるか分からないわ」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「お、間に合いましたね←結構傷は深い」 | | お前ら音読しろボケさんは都合により追い出されました。（狼の餌） | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「Coats and linen, however, are not merely values, but values of definite magnitude, and according to our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the ten yards of linen. Whence this difference in their values? It is owing to the fact that the linen contains only half as much labour as the coat, and consequently, that in the production of the latter, labour power must have been expended during twice the time necessary for the production of the former.
While, therefore, with reference to use value, the labour contained in a commodity counts only qualitatively, with reference to value it counts only quantitatively, and must first be reduced to human labour pure and simple. In the former case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How much? How long a time? Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value.
If the productive power of all the different sorts of useful labour required for the production of a coat remains unchanged, the sum of the values of the coats produced increases with their number. If one coat represents x days’ labour, two coats represent 2x days’ labour, and so on. But assume that the duration of the labour necessary for the production of a coat becomes doubled or halved. In the first case one coat is worth as much as two coats were before; in the second case, two coats are only worth as much as one was before, although in both cases one coat renders the same service as before, and the useful labour embodied in it remains of the same quality. But the quantity of labour spent on its production has altered.
An increase in the quantity of use values is an increase of material wealth. With two coats two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man. Nevertheless, an increased quantity of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in the magnitude of its value. This antagonistic movement has its origin in the twofold character of labour. Productive power has reference, of course, only to labour of some useful concrete form, the efficacy of any special productive activity during a given time being dependent on its productiveness. Useful labour becomes, therefore, a more or less abundant source of products, in proportion to the rise or fall of its productiveness. On the other hand, no change in this productiveness affects the labour represented by value. Since productive power is an attribute of the concrete useful forms of labour, of course it can no longer have any bearing on that labour, so soon as we make abstraction from those concrete useful forms. However then productive power may vary, the same labour, exercised during equal periods of time, always yields equal amounts of value. But it will yield, during equal periods of time, different quantities of values in use; more, if the productive power rise, fewer, if it fall. The same change in productive power, which increases the fruitfulness of labour, and, in consequence, the quantity of use values produced by that labour, will diminish the total value of this increased quantity of use values, provided such change shorten the total labour time necessary for their production; and vice versâ. 」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「日本語でおｋ」 | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「By our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the linen. But this is a mere quantitative difference, which for the present does not concern us. We bear in mind, however, that if the value of the coat is double that of 10 yds of linen, 20 yds of linen must have the same value as one coat. So far as they are values, the coat and the linen are things of a like substance, objective expressions of essentially identical labour. But tailoring and weaving are, qualitatively, different kinds of labour. There are, however, states of society in which one and the same man does tailoring and weaving alternately, in which case these two forms of labour are mere modifications of the labour of the same individual, and not special and fixed functions of different persons, just as the coat which our tailor makes one day, and the trousers which he makes another day, imply only a variation in the labour of one and the same individual. Moreover, we see at a glance that, in our capitalist society, a given portion of human labour is, in accordance with the varying demand, at one time supplied in the form of tailoring, at another in the form of weaving. This change may possibly not take place without friction, but take place it must.
Productive activity, if we leave out of sight its special form, viz., the useful character of the labour, is nothing but the expenditure of human labour power. Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human labour power. Of course, this labour power, which remains the same under all its modifications, must have attained a certain pitch of development before it can be expended in a multiplicity of modes. But the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. And just as in society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere man, on the other hand, a very shabby part,[14] so here with mere human labour. It is the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone.[15] The different proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom. For simplicity’s sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction.
Just as, therefore, in viewing the coat and linen as values, we abstract from their different use values, so it is with the labour represented by those values: we disregard the difference between its useful forms, weaving and tailoring. As the use values, coat and linen, are combinations of special productive activities with cloth and yarn, while the values, coat and linen, are, on the other hand, mere homogeneous congelations of undifferentiated labour, so the labour embodied in these latter values does not count by virtue of its productive relation to cloth and yarn, but only as being expenditure of human labour power. Tailoring and weaving are necessary factors in the creation of the use values, coat and linen, precisely because these two kinds of labour are of different qualities; but only in so far as abstraction is made from their special qualities, only in so far as both possess the same quality of being human labour, do tailoring and weaving form the substance of the values of the same articles. 」 | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「Anyhow, whether the coat be worn by the tailor or by his customer, in either case it operates as a use value. Nor is the relation between the coat and the labour that produced it altered by the circumstance that tailoring may have become a special trade, an independent branch of the social division of labour. Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made clothes for thousands of years, without a single man becoming a tailor. But coats and linen, like every other element of material wealth that is not the spontaneous produce of Nature, must invariably owe their existence to a special productive activity, exercised with a definite aim, an activity that appropriates particular nature-given materials to particular human wants. So far therefore as labour is a creator of use value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and Nature, and therefore no life.
The use values, coat, linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements – matter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter.[13] Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother.
Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use value to the value of commodities. 」 | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use values, so also are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and weaving. Were these two objects not qualitatively different, not produced respectively by labour of different quality, they could not stand to each other in the relation of commodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value is not exchanged for another of the same kind.
To all the different varieties of values in use there correspond as many different kinds of useful labour, classified according to the order, genus, species, and variety to which they belong in the social division of labour. This division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labour. In the primitive Indian community there is social division of labour, without production of commodities. Or, to take an example nearer home, in every factory the labour is divided according to a system, but this division is not brought about by the operatives mutually exchanging their individual products. Only such products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from different kinds of labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private individuals.
To resume, then: In the use value of each commodity there is contained useful labour, i.e., productive activity of a definite kind and exercised with a definite aim. Use values cannot confront each other as commodities, unless the useful labour embodied in them is qualitatively different in each of them. In a community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, i.e., in a community of commodity producers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of labour that are carried on independently of individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system, a social division of labour. 」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「GMさん、早く蹴るんだ（たぶん不在）」 | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「SECTION 2
THE TWOFOLD CHARACTER OF
THE LABOUR EMBODIED IN COMMODITIES
At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things – use value and exchange value. Later on, we saw also that labour, too, possesses the same twofold nature; for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this twofold nature of the labour contained in commodities. As this point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns, we must go more into detail.
Let us take two commodities such as a coat and 10 yards of linen, and let the former be double the value of the latter, so that, if 10 yards of linen = W, the coat = 2W.
The coat is a use value that satisfies a particular want. Its existence is the result of a special sort of productive activity, the nature of which is determined by its aim, mode of operation, subject, means, and result. The labour, whose utility is thus represented by the value in use of its product, or which manifests itself by making its product a use value, we call useful labour. In this connection we consider only its useful effect. 」 | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.)[12] Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value. 」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「三度目は流石に慣れてきました」 | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]
The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. [A] 」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「二度もビックリして草」 | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.
We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.
A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value. 」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「発言したとたん、下の英文で誤爆したかと超ビックリしました」 | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.
A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.
This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says,
“one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”[8]
As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract. 」 | | kariさんがお前ら音読しろボケに名前を変更しました。 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「百合と聞いてPlease save 百合を思い出しました」 | | ◆お前ら音読しろボケさん | 「The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.[2] Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.
Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history.[3] So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention.
The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.
Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort,[6] a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.[7] Let us consider the matter a little more closely.
A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold, &c. – in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions. Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it. 」 | | 「kariさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 15:27:06) | | ◆おうどんさん | 「百合展開は嫌いではないぞ」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「更新確認１５：３０」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「どうせ、「でも彼女ならいる」というオチなのだ。お見通しなのだ。」 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「どうせ彼氏なんていないのだ、いないのだ…」 | | kariさんがおうどんに名前を変更しました。 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「いらっしゃいなのだ」 | | kariさんが木瓜の花に名前を変更しました。 | | ◆おうどんさん | 「こんにちわんこそば」 | | 「kariさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 14:56:59) | | ◆kariさん | 「こんにちは」 | | 「kariさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 14:53:16) | | ◆走るドムさん | 「つまり今参加している人は…ごにょごにょ」 | | ◆木瓜の花さん | 「こんにちは」 | | 「kariさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 14:46:12) | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「みんな彼氏彼女といちゃいちゃするのに忙しくて人狼してる暇がないのだ」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「土曜日午後がこんなに閑散としてるなんて…三連休でリア充が多すぎたんだ」 | | kariさんが走るドムに名前を変更しました。 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「更新確認１４：３０」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「いらっしゃいなのだ」 | | ◆走るドムさん | 「おはよう」 | | 「kariさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 13:45:06) | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「更新確認１４：００」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「いらっしゃいなのだ」 | | ◆kariさん | 「こんぬつわ」 | | 「kariさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 13:27:20) | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「いらっしゃいなのだ」 | | ◆kariさん | 「こんにちは」 | | 「kariさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 13:12:15) | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「更新確認１３：３０」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「いらっしゃいなのだ」 | | ◆kariさん | 「kon」 | | 「kariさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 12:32:50) | | ◆kariさん | 「よろりく」 | | 「kariさん」が村へやってきました。(14/10/11 12:30:06) | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「更新確認１３：００」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「テンプレ借りたのだ」 | | ◆ゲームマスター | 「【この村の約束】
・wikiのアクセス禁止行為に準ずることは全面禁止なのだ
http://jinrou.dip.jp/~jinrou/pukiwiki/
・村人騙りは全面禁止なのだ
・初日の早噛み禁止なのだ
・昼間や前日に初心者であることを明かさないでほしいのだ
・シスコピで真証明することは絶対にやってはいけないのだ
・入村したら一言挨拶よろしくなのだ
・あからさまな悪意のある暴言は禁止なのだ
・ゲーム開始後にURLを貼ることも禁止なのだ
初心者の人は過去ログからちょっとだけプレイをみてみると
良いかもしれないのだ」 |
|