The Manor: Chzo Mafia (Game Over!)
-
-
Pyromaniac
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
-
-
Pyromaniac
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Unless I am misinterpreting this, this is far more passive than I am.Naomi_Saotome wrote:
Probably because no one likes the idea of taking a risk/gamble that big...Nyx wrote:How come every time at least one person starts commenting about "no lynch" and always gets the same answer. BAD BAD BAD Day 1. You would think after a while people don't make the same mistakes.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
The person who said we should not lynch.Lamont_Cranston wrote:
LMAO! We all are the driver here not me. All I'm saying is that if you are a semi-lurker after awhile I am going to be mad with you and advocate your lynch. See my Wiki.Sajin wrote:@Lamont- Why do you think its ok to ever give an unclaimed unconfirmed entity the key to the town car?fos Lamont
@Pyro:What is your favorite lynch-candidate characteristic in Rd. 1?-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
We cannot do random. This is not because I was selected by the random but, even if shadow knight was selected I would say the same thing. There is one reason for this, the possibility of whomever does the random being scum. We would not get a random result, we would get a result that DEFIANTLY did not say to give it to one of their scumbuddies. There is only one thing we know for sure about each others roles, assuming hohum's role does not say that the goblet is not harmful, if he is scum then I am town. We cannot trust anybodies random. I think that the person who has the most votes, with FoS counting as half a vote, should be forced to drink it. I do not know much about Chzo manor but, they would probably not give us two lynches. Now, I also doubt that they would give us a broken ability. It would be bad if it gave some good ability and we guessed right about the scum. I would be willing to risk that. Anyways, it seems more likely that this is supposed to balance the village in a detrimental way.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
There are seven possibilities.Amished wrote:Ok, this might clear things up a bit:
Do I believe that there are more townies than scum? Of course.
Do I know what the decanter does? No
Being Chzo theme, do I see a definite bad outcome from drinking the liquid? Yes
With the bad that's very possible, and more likely to hit Townie on a random vote, would I want a random number roll? No
Care to elaborate? Does this mean that you think it'll help the side opposite to who takes it?Pyro wrote:Anyways, it seems more likely that this is supposed to balance the village in a detrimental way.
Bad...Hits town...bad
Bad...Hits mafia...good
good...hits town...good
good...hits mafia...bad
bad to some townie...hits those townies...bad
" " " "... hit mafia... nobody cares
" " " "...hits other townies...nobody cares
Look at these. If you made the town overpowered it would be easier to balance through detrimental ways.-
-
Pyromaniac
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Pyromaniac wrote:Code: Select all
[dice]1d19[/dice]
Original Roll String: 1d191 19-Sided Dice: (5) = 5
Heh. I wasn't supposed to post that. I tried to preview it but missclicked. In this preview is says 11.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Yes. Saying LYNCH HOHUM (not bolded because it is not real) is anti-town when not in the RVS. Explaining is pro-town. You would not be questioning (probably) this if I explained in the original post.Naomi_Saotome wrote:
No one asked you to explain yourself... but you felt the need?Pyromaniac wrote:Quick to defend? More like explain in other posts.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Your idea helps the mafia lynch power roles more easily. If you know who the regular townies than you know who isn't a power role. Also, if power roles claim that they are townies then that contradicts the point of you proposal. Thank you for pointing out that you volunteered, for this is evidence against you. Your proposal contradicts the volunteering system, this leads me to believe that the only reason why you volunteered is not look suspicious.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Lynching is a necessity in order to win the game. I am yet to see a good argument that these are, or even that using them randomly will help us more than it will hurt us.Xtoxm wrote:Thankyou for bringing some rationality to the game, AJ.
Do you support no lynching on D1? This is THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Jesus.If it is random or nothing, which it does appear to be, we have a larger chance of hitting town. I am now convinced that it has a negative effect.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
So you are saying that you are contradicting yourself and then pointing it out? Not likely. Seems more like a Freudian slip. Also, how do we know that those are regular townies? They could be masons or power roles not wanting to look obvious. Or mafia.Pablo Molinero wrote:
Hah, yeah, because speculation in my motivation is real accurate. Sorry, fellas, there is no underlying sinister motivation here, chalk it up to plain curiosity. There's an easy way to check this after all: call my "bluff". I'm wondering why Lamont is so adamant about the idea of it changing people's alignment. That's only one of many, many possibilities.Your idea helps the mafia lynch power roles more easily. If you know who the regular townies than you know who isn't a power role. Also, if power roles claim that they are townies then that contradicts the point of you proposal. Thank you for pointing out that you volunteered, for this is evidence against you. Your proposal contradicts the volunteering system, this leads me to believe that the only reason why you volunteered is not look suspicious.
However, I do see your point in exposing the volunteering townies making it easier for mafia to pick off PRs, so it's obvious that we shouldn't have a whole lot of people raising their hands and saying "pick me!" A few have done it already, no need for any more.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Let me get this straight. So, your saying that in all probability this will have a negative effect. And that it is likely it will be given to the town. So that there is a good chance that the town as a whole or individually will suffer because one of us drinks it. Yet, you are advocating that we should drink it. We do not know if we need these to win, chances are we don't.Yes, I think it's probable to assume that it would likely kill someone. Though I'm sure there are an infinite number of other possibilities. Since we don't know what it is, it could be wine, or some kind of truth serum. Seeing as we don't 'what' the item does, I think it plays more value by being here then it does by being used or not being used. I think the decanter has caused quite the stir, and we can't agree on what to do with it. Which creates a major problem. Since we all can't agree on it, the decanter is next to worthless. Which is why I suggested someone else make the call.Unvote, Vote: Naomi-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
What is so suspicious is that Naomi wants to use it but, she does not want to be she responsible.Amished wrote:@Sironigous: If hohum uses it on his own, how does Naomi have any misdeeds to wash her hands of in the first place? She isn't deciding what to do with the decanter so there's no "deed" ascribed to her. Therefore if it turns out bad, it won't be *her* misdeed, it'd be hohum's.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
In the first part of the post she says that it should be entirely hohum's decision. This is incredible scummy, would it make sense to put the fate of the village into one random person's hands? No. We should not even attempt to control what he does with it. Yet in the second part of the post she says that Xtoxm should drink it, even though she should be in no way responsible for suggesting the idea. If you don't get it, then it is like suggesting a lynch and not being responsible if it kills you vig. Basically, she wants to have her cake and eat it too.Naomi_Saotome wrote:I say let him make the decision because then he alone is responsible for the outcome. If we sit around bickering about whether or not to use it, we're all still just pointing a finger at each other.
But then again, pointing the finger might help us all... so if we all agree to use it, I think Xtoxm should drink it, seeing as he volunteered.
In this post Naomi states that it will probably kill someone or do something bad for them. She still says that we should drink it.Yes, I think it's probable to assume that it would likely kill someone. Though I'm sure there are an infinite number of other possibilities. Since we don't know what it is, it could be wine, or some kind of truth serum. Seeing as we don't 'what' the item does, I think it plays more value by being here then it does by being used or not being used. I think the decanter has caused quite the stir, and we can't agree on what to do with it. Which creates a major problem. Since we all can't agree on it, the decanter is next to worthless. Which is why I suggested someone else make the call.
In this post she says that it is not likely that it will be given to a townie. Remember that in the first quote she said that she someone should drink it because they volunteered?No I did not say that its likely to be given to a townie. So, you're contradicting yourself in your statement. We don't know what it's affects are. Good or bad. Yet you assume I think it's bad for the town. Which really means you think it's bad for the town. I did not say 'in all probability' I said that it's likely to have a negative affect, but it is also likely that it can help us. And I do believe I stated that we don't know what these items do many times. I do believe that using it will help us, regardless of what the decanter's contents actually do.
In this post, Naomi is agreeing that the volunteering system is anti-town. Yet, in the first post she suggests Xtoxm because he was a volunteer, supporting the volunteering system.Agree'd once again... seeing as I've said this once already
From these post, you can conclude that Naomi:
A. Supports the volunteering system
B. Is against the volunteering system
C. Thinks we should all be sheep to hohum
D. Wants an opinion, but does not want to be responsible for it
E. Admits that the item will probably be bad, yet wants us to drink it anyways
I missed several posts.
Also Naomi, Lamont asked.-
-
Pyromaniac
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Naomi_Saotome wrote:
By this point I've noticed you're putting words in my mouth and you seem like you're trying to steer the game in favor of your vote.Pyromaniac wrote:
In the first part of the post she says that it should be entirely hohum's decision. This is incredible scummy, would it make sense to put the fate of the village into one random person's hands? No. We should not even attempt to control what he does with it. Yet in the second part of the post she says that Xtoxm should drink it, even though she should be in no way responsible for suggesting the idea. If you don't get it, then it is like suggesting a lynch and not being responsible if it kills you vig. Basically, she wants to have her cake and eat it too.Naomi_Saotome wrote:I say let him make the decision because then he alone is responsible for the outcome. If we sit around bickering about whether or not to use it, we're all still just pointing a finger at each other.
But then again, pointing the finger might help us all... so if we all agree to use it, I think Xtoxm should drink it, seeing as he volunteered.
I didn't say we should let him have his way with every single point in this game. Simply that from where I stand, in THIS instance, I think it's the best choice.
In this post Naomi states that it will probably kill someone or do something bad for them. She still says that we should drink it.Yes, I think it's probable to assume that it would likely kill someone. Though I'm sure there are an infinite number of other possibilities. Since we don't know what it is, it could be wine, or some kind of truth serum. Seeing as we don't 'what' the item does, I think it plays more value by being here then it does by being used or not being used. I think the decanter has caused quite the stir, and we can't agree on what to do with it. Which creates a major problem. Since we all can't agree on it, the decanter is next to worthless. Which is why I suggested someone else make the call.
So would lynching someone... we have no choice but to vote for someone... are you saying that it's a bad idea to lynch then?
Lynching is a necessity in order to win the game. There is no argument or evidence that these items will be anything but bad for he town.
In this post she says that it is not likely that it will be given to a townie. Remember that in the first quote she said that she someone should drink it because they volunteered?No I did not say that its likely to be given to a townie. So, you're contradicting yourself in your statement. We don't know what it's affects are. Good or bad. Yet you assume I think it's bad for the town. Which really means you think it's bad for the town. I did not say 'in all probability' I said that it's likely to have a negative affect, but it is also likely that it can help us. And I do believe I stated that we don't know what these items do many times. I do believe that using it will help us, regardless of what the decanter's contents actually do.
Yes, I said he was the first person to volunteer... and that if the town thinks it should be used
a) volunteer
b) lynch suspect
I don't agree with the town randomly picking who drinks it... because we get no information about why it was used. An I did not say that it won't be a townie, now you're putting words in my mouth. I said that we don't know who it'll be used on.
I am not putting words into your mouth. I am making logical deductions.
Agree'd once again... seeing as I've said this once alreadyyes, I repeated the fact that I think it might be a good idea to pick someone else as an option. Only for everyone to have a different idea to go off of, not to make a contradiction with my earlier statement. I'm entitled to my opinion on the matter, as I have already stated. But I also have the right to say if I agree or disagree with the ideas someone else. Seeing as we've all done that, I don't understand how you find that scumie...
Your also have to be responsible for your own actions.
In this post, Naomi is agreeing that the volunteering system is anti-town. Yet, in the first post she suggests Xtoxm because he was a volunteer, supporting the volunteering system.
From these post, you can conclude that Naomi:
A. Supports the volunteering system
B. Is against the volunteering system
C. Thinks we should all be sheep to hohum
D. Wants an opinion, but does not want to be responsible for it
E. Admits that the item will probably be bad, yet wants us to drink it anyways
I missed several posts.
Also Naomi, Lamont asked.
I find that scumie behavior...-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
If that happens, then we would have been better off not lynching and ignoring the item. I don't really see that being one of the good scenarios.Lamont_Cranston wrote:
Well if they flip scum then who cares, we got scum D1, WOOT!Pyromaniac wrote:What I think he is saying is that if we force it upon a L-1 scum then they would suicide rather than give us the info.
Also it has been advocated that the results could be expected to be visible. So even if they are actually scum they might be forced to reveal the effects regardless if they want to or not. But who cares, they're scum -- WOOHOO!
Also on your Naomi it is very clear she is very inconsistent and all over the map.
Does this mean she is scum though?-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Shadow knight.Lamont_Cranston wrote:So far according to my memory there have only been two people that advocated d1-no-lynch as go poof:
Xtoxm & Sironi
I don't think there is a 3rd person...
And btw what do you think about random assignment vs. town-wide voting?
Would you accept a two-phase voting where the two top town chosen people are identified and then everyone votes on A or B?-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Yeah I reread rule 13.hohum wrote:Anyone who is basing their argument on the notion that the town is over powered is either scum or bread crumbing that they have a power role. Stop it. Now.
I was merely making it absolutely clear that I would not voluntarily drink.
Sounds like you're setting yourself up for deniability later. Definitely a scum tactic. I would put you in the former category for this post.Pyromaniac wrote:I will not be responsible for any sanity flips, killing of useful role, removing power or roleblocking that I may or may not receive from drinking the it. I will not be responsible for any harm that comes to the town from me drinking.
Her accusation was that I explained myself in other post. That is SO scummy. Only a scum would forget to post their explanation and immediately post it in a different post.
Translation:Pyromaniac wrote:Also,FoS Naimoi.for 287, giving one person to much power this early in the game is just a bad idea. I didn't see this until now.
Naomi is building a case to advocate my lynch. Let me go back and re-read her in isolation and see what I can pick out to discredit her
Let me remind that I was not the first one to vote Naomi, although I think I might have been the first to do it for that particular post.This and the justification for your Pablo vote are a very knee-jerk reactions.
Then you jump back onto Naomi with some more weak reasoning.
Summary:
Pyromaniac is obvscum, naomi comes off as looking slightly noobtown and Sajin's lynch can be postponed for now.
Unvote, Vote: Pyromaniac
The reason why I don't find this particularly scummy is because I have yet to look at your other games, to see if you usually try to lead the town.What hohum is doing, scummy style wrote: He is trying to prevent me from infiltrating the town! MUST LYNCH!-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
I was saying that Shadow Knight advocated no lynching day one. I have already voted for him.Lamont_Cranston wrote:
Could you put that in blue if you are voting for Shadow Knight?Pyromaniac wrote:
Shadow knight.Lamont_Cranston wrote:So far according to my memory there have only been two people that advocated d1-no-lynch as go poof:
Xtoxm & Sironi
I don't think there is a 3rd person...
And btw what do you think about random assignment vs. town-wide voting?
Would you accept a two-phase voting where the two top town chosen people are identified and then everyone votes on A or B?-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
I said, sometime in that post era, that I would not drink it voluntarily, if you are lynched if you do not drink it, it is not voluntarily.Lamont_Cranston wrote:Pyromaniac wrote:
I will not be responsible for any sanity flips, killing of useful role, removing power or roleblocking that I may or may not receive from drinking the it. I will not be responsible for any harm that comes to the town from me drinking.
Sounds like you're setting yourself up for deniability later. Definitely a scum tactic. I would put you in the former category for this post.
I was merely making it absolutely clear that I would not voluntarily drink.
This is incorrect. The quoted post came right after you said you WOULD voluntarily drink. Why do you misquote it now??
FoS Pyro-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
You were originally the one who began the talk about no lynching. I would say that equals suggesting it. Asking how everybody feels about it in that way implies that you support it.Shadow Knight wrote:First- I asked what others thought about no lynches, where does this say "I likez noe lynches, we shud doo that!"?? Misrepping and do so badly. Reading is tech.
Pyromaniac wrote:
Shadow knight is a LYAR!Shadow Knight wrote:So, uh what did I miss? Nothing. Nothing at all.
*plays a little jazz flute to liven up the room*
we need to generate discussion. how does everyone feel about no lynches?-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
As I have already explained I didLamont_Cranston wrote:Pyromaniac-- Has both volunteered to drink and advocated dumping the liquid entirely. I have found his logic to be confusing to me on other positions and so it doesn't seem suprising that his elixir positions would change as well. Didn't seem to be steering. Neutral read.notvolunteer. For a while it looked like I was going to be forced to drink it because I was randomly selected, or at least to me it did. I made it clear, or so I thought, that I did not approve of this but, would drink it if I had to.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
I find this hypocritical. Your entire reasoning for voting for me is based on a few posts that would not have been made if it were not for the decanter. In this post and in other posts you appear to not like the decanter, say it causes regress in our lynching attempts.hohum wrote:Yes. This whole discussion was pointless and distracting. We should be looking for clues that the people who were largely steering it were also purposefully introducing confusion into the mix.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
What point in 684? As far as I can tell, there is not point in 684.Naomi_Saotome wrote:Hohum, you've brought up some very good points to think about, he's likely to be as defensive as anyone else. While I see both your arguments as valid, it seems a bit distracting from the point you stated in 684. Why do you feel the need to pick him apart now, if you feel Pyro is a more important target?
I think that there is a post accusing me of changing my views from "vote" to "no use". This convinced me.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
Hypocritical may not be the correct word. Maybe contrary would be better. It IS contrary. He says it did not contribute to scum hunting the scum hunting on me would not occurred if it was not for the decanter. So it does contribute to scum hunting.Amished wrote: @Pyro in 710:
What type of BS reasoning is this? Who cares what caused you to post, but the fact of the matter is that it came about and you posted. You're also avoiding the point of the quote you responded to. Hohum did not really participate in the debate about the decanter, so for him to comment on those who were trying to steer it is not hypocritical in any way. I believe it's a valid concern, especially as confusion heavily benefits scum more than town.I find this hypocritical. Your entire reasoning for voting for me is based on a few posts that would not have been made if it were not for the decanter. In this post and in other posts you appear to not like the decanter, say it causes regress in our lynching attempts.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
First of all, he didn't "catch me being scum", you try to catch someone who isn't stealing stealing. My point is this: hohum says that the decanter does not contribute to scum hunting, yet he uses it's contributions. Therefor, he admits that they exist.Amished wrote:@Pyro: So what's your point? He obviously caught you being scum because of your responses. You would've had to respond to something eventually, and you probably would've then been caught later. WIFOM'ing it up though severely muddied the waters and got everyone running in circles, which delayed the scumhunting. Now that Hohum drank the decanter, that portion of the day is over with and we can finally get back to really scumhunting again.
Besides, what does it matter how he caught you being scum?-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
I am saying the decanter caused some scum hunting, however bad it may have been. Hohum is saying the opposite.Amished wrote:So in your eyes, the contributions exist and you admit that the contributions led hohum to you. I'd say that turned out rather well then. There's still a lot of back and forth wifom that retarded scumhunting, no?-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
I am saying this for the last time. Because hohum is innocent the point no longer matters. Hohum was saying that the elixer did not contribut to scumhunting. Yet he was using it's contributions.Nyx wrote:@Pyro
I'm not following you. You're saying that if the decanter wasn't in play you wouldn't have made the "scummy" comment thus he wouldn't have voted for you ? This is a horrible excuse. Fact is you made "scummy" looking posts that made Lamont vote for you.-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
Pyromaniac Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 710
- Joined: April 26, 2009
-
-
-
-
-
-
-