Mini 807 - Save the Mafia! (Game Over!)

[CoCo]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

Do the following now, or die:

1) Explain in detail your post noting lobstermania's "many scumtells", expanding on exactly what scumtells you are referring to and why you had not mentioned them before.

2) Address the case lobster made against you that you originally asked him to elaborate on, and then said nothing but "ok" to.

3) Claim.

I'm pretty sure I missed some things in between 2 and 3, but this will do for a start. If you're unable or unwilling to do all of the above then you will be lynched.

The appeal to emotion in the quoted post ("you

can't

make me claim! bad things will happen! very bad things!")

The evidence is all over this page. Now shut up and hunt some scum.
And I don't know if it was you or someone else that still claims I'm withholding information from the town, but that's a load of crap at this point as well.

[CoCo]

Well, the previous page now. :p

[ChannelDelibird]

The evidence is all over this page. Now shut up and hunt some scum.
And I don't know if it was you or someone else that still claims I'm withholding information from the town, but that's a load of crap at this point as well.

X

Seriously. If I'd seen an explanation I wouldn't still be asking for you to explain.

[DeathRowKitty]

The evidence is all over this page. Now shut up and hunt some scum.
And I don't know if it was you or someone else that still claims I'm withholding information from the town, but that's a load of crap at this point as well.

X

Seriously. If I'd seen an explanation I wouldn't still be asking for you to explain.

QFT. CoCo, if you've answered already, for each of CDB's requests, point us to one of your posts. Somehow, I doubt you'll find any such posts.

[DeathRowKitty]

To add to my previous post, cop claim or not, if you're going to continue blatantly avoiding questions (and accusing us of missing non-existent posts),

I WILL REVOTE YOU

to help you remember some of the answers we're waiting for. I expect answers

in your next post

.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'll admit I'm grasping at straws on this one but...

If L-2 isn't inherently dangerous, why are people touting it about as applying pressure? It seems contradictory to me. Something about this train of thought is disturbing.

I've played Mafia on a few other non-mafia based forums. I'd rather not name those forums to protect my anonymity.

Any chance he's a jester (or some reverse flavor equivalent)? It seems to me that someone who's played a few mafia games before shouldn't have any trouble with using L-2 as pressure and I find it hard to believe he thinks he's adequately responded to our questions, especially when he's barely answered anything. The only two options that immediately come to mind are jester or that he has no reasons. Any thoughts on this?

[CoCo]

@Lobstermania: Without simply rewording the allegations others have leveled against me, please explain why you jumped in with such a contentless post after your vote. If information gathering is a scum tell, wouldn't that make everyone scum?

My post that "information gathering is a scumtell!" wasn't content-less at all but a jab at your accusation:

it seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on

I interpreted that to be "info gathering is a scumtell." You accused nohands and DRK of being scum for trying to squeeze content and info out of people (like you). It seems to me the town would benefit from having content from as many players as possible instead of the reverse. Perhaps you can explain what you *really* meant.

Well, considering you're an expert at contradictions, I'll just let everyone else gather some info...

I hope this was sarcasm, because lately you haven't really been gathering info yourself. But don't quote me on this. I didn't bother to go back and research it.
Oh wait, yes I did. You spent half the time defending your crazy statements, and the other half postponing content and talking about your "feelings" without referencing anything. There was one post a few pages ago where you tried to make a case against Wicked, but that was after you placed a vote on him.

Does this help shed a light on my confusion/frustration with you?

WHAT THE FUCK IS THERE TO RESPOND TO HERE, CDB?

I'm the damn cop, and you'd rather nitpick the fact I didn't respond to someone that SHOULD be on the hook's remarks?

He's responding to the fact I'd said:

it seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on

Think about that. Real hard. Compare it to recent evidence.

Three people have been on every bandwagon. I've been pointing fingers at them for awhile now. Instead of thinking about it, you'd rather keep me in the hotseat? What gives?

DRK, really? Really? I'd say you're grasping at straws all right.

Unvote: Wicked

.

[stuntkeyboardist]

Three people have been on every bandwagon. I've been pointing fingers at them for awhile now. Instead of thinking about it, you'd rather keep me in the hotseat? What gives?

Okay, I know that by responding I'm digging a bit of a hole here, but I have to anyway. Why is everybody saying that we bandwagoned. I thought we went over that if you have your own reasons and evidence against a person, yeah you vote the same as other people, but you arent jumping on someone just for the hell of it.

And CoCo, that quote serves two purposes here. I think the point is that you are accusing people with no evidence/proof. You've been 'pointing fingers' and that's just it. What we have all been continually asking is: why do you suspect us? I think it was DRK, lobster, wicked, and myself who you've accused with no evidence. And that was far before the whole 'bandwagon argument' or even the existence of this evidence. At least, that's what I've been asking.

[DeathRowKitty]

If you're not jester, I see no reason you should get so annoyed about it. I've since realized that you didn't self-hammer when you were at L-1, making jester much less likely...


[sarcasm]Nice response CoCo. I really enjoyed reading your enlightening post. It told me everything I wanted to know.[/sarcasm]

WHAT THE HELL KIND OF POST WAS THAT??? You have CDB still with his vote on you because you won't respond. I just threatened to revote you if you didn't and that's the best you could come up with???

you'd rather nitpick the fact I didn't respond to someone that SHOULD be on the hook's remarks?

The only reason he would be on the "hook's remarks" is for those scum-tells you told us about earlier. Oh, wait, you didn't tell us about them. You seem to have ignored that part of CDB's post.

it seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on

I believe lobster addressed this one. You had nothing to say about his argument so I'm assuming you agreed with it, no?

You spent half the time defending your crazy statements, and the other half postponing content and talking about your "feelings" without referencing anything. There was one post a few pages ago where you tried to make a case against Wicked, but that was after you placed a vote on him.

That was also from lobster's post you have absolutely no problem with. If you agree with what lobster wrote, you should have no problem seeing why you're still on the hotseat. If you disagree, you should be arguing his post. Either way, you did

nothing

.

You unvoted Wicked. Great. WHY? You've been saying you think he's the scummiest player in the game. Now you unvote him without any sort of explanation. Unless you planned on voting for one of us scummy people you were ranting about, you gave absolutely no reason as to why you felt you should unvote him.

Conclusion: Posting at its finest.

I don't make empty threats.

Vote: CoCo

.

[PsychoSniper]

Vote Count:

CoCo – 5 (DeathRowKitty, lobstermania, Wickedestjr, ChannelDelibird, canadianbovine)
nohandtyper – 1 (qwints)


Not voting:

nohandtyper, ryan2754, Conspicuous_other, My Milked Eek, xRECKONERx, CoCo

[xRECKONERx]

>.>

Really?
My gut is giving me an odd read on lobster; will go back and re-read for more sometime tonight.

[DeathRowKitty]

Right...I was thinking it was Wicked with me and NHT on the wagons. Sorry.

That doesn't change the fact that CoCo was willing to go after lobster on scum-tells he wouldn't explain. Either way I'm still waiting on an explanation to that.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Reckoner
I think I was getting the same read on lobster earlier in the game, which is why I did the read-throughs of lobster's games. Then again, this could be completely different. If possible, try not to give CoCo too many ideas about lobster before he responds, but obviously don't hold back if you find something big.

[ryan2754]

To start off, since I replaced in,

Unvote

It seems when wolf flaked, there were a few questions that needed answered. Seeing as I am not him, I cannot answer for him, but if a certain question can apply to me as well, let me know.

if what conspicuous says is true, i will

unvote nohand

to keep him out of L-2

Why so scared of Lynch-2 right now? At this stage of the game a scum quicklynch would be utterly transparent, suicidally so from a scum point of view.

Good point. Worried at L-2, CB? Interesting...

Personally, I'm calling the informed minority the 'scum', and the uninformed majority is the 'town', but taking care not to use the word 'mafia' when describing the scum.

Got it.

thats good enough for me.

your logic isnt making sense to me, then. Its suicidal for the scum to lynch during this stage, because its transparent, as in you can't see whose scum by quicklynch

So by your logic, my removing my vote proves my townness?

Uh, no. Your logic on removing your vote was to make sure nohand wasn't on Lynch-2. I presume that was because you feared two scum piling on for a quicklynch.

Maybe you misunderstand the word transparent - see-through. i.e., if scum piled on for the quicklynch at this stage (it's just random votes - no reasonable case on nohand whatsoever), they'd be making their anti-town-ness clear. Ergo, why, at this stage of the game, should we be scared of Lynch-2?

I don't necessarily think your unvote indicates town or scum...I was hoping to see deeper behind it by asking you about your reasons for it.

I don't know what i was thinking.. i took the opposite definition of transparency i guess. or i screwed up with my pseudo logic on how transparency would protect a scum.

This is my first game back in a while and i used to play newbie games a lot, where they'd be prone to doing something like quicklynching during RVS.

Now that i see it...The Vote Count was even more screwed, DRK had two votes.

Vote: Nohandtyper

he wasnt even at L-2

So you stand corrected, but revote a vote from RVS? Interesting move.

FOS: CB

Looks like in the very next post, ChannelDelBird agrees with me.

My logic still applies to newbie games. By 'this stage of the game' I meant the random voting stage, which was certainly true here and would be true in newbie games as well. I make the same point when I play as an IC - Lynch-2 is rarely that dangerous. (it's only really an issue in Large games, and not always then.)

What I do find interesting is your re-vote. As it was a random one, why did you feel it was important to put it back on after establishing that he wasn't at Lynch-2 after all?

because he still hasn't responded to how he can type without hands. I've put up a solid case on how hard it is to type with other body parts.

Basically i un unvoted. If i had noticed early the mod made a mistake I wouldn't of unvoted.

Terrible response for the revote.

Looks like I missed all the random voting.

Oh well,

Vote Conspicuous_other

for diverting an interesting subject.

And how exactly did he do that?

FoS lobster? I'm just all out

vote

ing

: canadianbovine

I wasn't so sure about voting him before, but his banter on sparking discussion sounds too much like every other person's nervous banter when they're playing scum and caught in their words (I've been VERY guilty of that myself). You wanted it, now let the game begin.

Agreed.

practically an OMGUS if i hadn't removed my vote.

What exactly do you mean by this?

unvote, vote: lobstermania

Why so reluctant to use your vote? You happily placed a random one, now something that you actually find suspicious turns up and you'd rather just unvote and wait to use it?

I can generally see both points of view. I am in the boat the town's best utility is the vote, and I personally don't like throwing it around based on one "nervous" scum tell, but on an accumulation of things. At the same time, I understand the concept of pressure.

If he was scum wouldn't he find pleasure in adding pressure to innocent townies to get them lynched.

If he thought that this was an issue that might snowball and get CBtown lynched without his vote, then he might well prefer to stay off the wagon so he could say "I told you so" later. Or, as I say, they could be scumbuddies (but I'm loath to look at this possibility too closely just yet as neither of their alignments are known).

Agreed.

For those wondering about why I said Conspicuous_other had diverted a discussion was because I was interested in how one can type without using their hands. Considering the game is no longer in the goofy/random stage, I'll just go ahead and

unvote

.

What?

@CoCo:
Umm... so you actually think it's a problem that Conspicuous_other was "diverting" the discussion away from a joke vote debate?

My feelings exactly.

L-2 is more of less the standard of putting pressure on someone...
It would be nice to be able to put someone at L-1 for pressure, but you then run the risk of someone who hasn't kept up with the posts accidentally hammering. L-2 is close enough to show that the town collectively wants an explanation without running the risk of L-1.

That's understandable, but as far as I'm concerned CB's explanations don't leave me feeling as though more reasoning is needed from him. I'm worried about people putting blinders on. It makes it very easy for scum to gain wiggle room and develop false and misleading evidence.

Agreed. I think there is some hardcore tunneling going on. At this point in the read of the game, I think CB has answered sufficiently. Granted, I don't LIKE his response because of the contradictions he's made, but it's sufficient.

Ok, I just re-read the entire game, and I've come to the conclusion that we're basically grasping at VERY VERY thin straws here.
The only thing that I noticed while re-reading was that CDB is the only person jumping on accusing people, and again, the accusations are for very weak mistakes. I'm going to put this out there now:

FoS CDB

.

You're appearing as desperate o find someone to lynch.

You say he's desparate, but even admit that we're grasping at straws? Contradiction? However, you explain it much more thoroughly in 207, and it makes sense.

I don't like wolf's play.

Vote: Wolframnhart

I have my reasons.

I know I'm voting wolfram, but that's an incredibly scummy post.

FoS: Reckoner

Agreed.

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

By that reasoning, scum can choose not to give evidence and just say 'they have their reasons' and avoid having to explain themselves to the town. Scum explaining their logic to the town is how the town catches scum, so scum don't explain if they don't have to. Town shouldn't need to hide away from that.

Agreed...again.

I definitely don’t like how Wicked gave a reasoning/answered for Reckoner.

[My Milked Ekk] voted me because [he] wanted me to explain myself; [he] also had no real case against me, other than "That post was scummy". Completely disregarded all my other posts. [He] just hoped that one post would catch fire and wind up having me lynched.

So [he's] the one my "trap" ensnared

.

Unvote: canadianbovine
Vote: xRECKONERx

.
You can't create a scummy post and not expect people to call you out on it. Your justification that it was actually a fake vote to catch scum is bogus. Why is your vote still on wolf if you've blown the cover on your 20/20 expose?

Good points.

I don't really know what I need to respond to after that re-read. All the constant quoting and whatnot confused me more than helped. If someone could lay out what they want me to respond to, I will.

I still feel like MME was just waiting for a chance to direct attention away from wolf, and jumped on the chance. Even if people felt like my post was scummy, they didn't immediately jump to voting me. He did.

Sorry, just got back in. I only had minute to talk before, but I finally got around to reading everything closely. It seems that DRK has taken over the xReckonerx argument, but I'm just puzzled by this quote. Before this, there were about 3 posts directed solely toward you, mine being one of them. How hard is it to see your name and respond to that post? Especially when you say "after that re-read." It should have been fresh in your mind.

To quote myself:

I'm going to put an

FoS xReckonerx

on you. Please try again to explain yourself. If you dont want to, I'd be happy to upgrade that FoS.

I think I'll upgrade.

vote: xRECKONERx

Respond to post #247 and I might downgrade it. But you'd better respond quickly. That vote puts you two away from lynch.

"Ooooh, the bandwagon got going. My turn to hop aboard."


Believe Reckoner’s claim. The indepth flavor rings truth moreso than lying bad guy.

I got through page14 and am spent. I will address the rest of thread tomorrow or friday. Thank you for your patience: this was one of my harder replacement reads. Many posts have multiple topics, quotes, and lines of thought, and there are a lot more indepth gamerelated posts than most games.

[ChannelDelibird]

@Lobstermania: Without simply rewording the allegations others have leveled against me, please explain why you jumped in with such a contentless post after your vote. If information gathering is a scum tell, wouldn't that make everyone scum?

My post that "information gathering is a scumtell!" wasn't content-less at all but a jab at your accusation:

it seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on

I interpreted that to be "info gathering is a scumtell." You accused nohands and DRK of being scum for trying to squeeze content and info out of people (like you). It seems to me the town would benefit from having content from as many players as possible instead of the reverse. Perhaps you can explain what you *really* meant.

Well, considering you're an expert at contradictions, I'll just let everyone else gather some info...

I hope this was sarcasm, because lately you haven't really been gathering info yourself. But don't quote me on this. I didn't bother to go back and research it.
Oh wait, yes I did. You spent half the time defending your crazy statements, and the other half postponing content and talking about your "feelings" without referencing anything. There was one post a few pages ago where you tried to make a case against Wicked, but that was after you placed a vote on him.

Does this help shed a light on my confusion/frustration with you?

WHAT THE FUCK IS THERE TO RESPOND TO HERE, CDB?

I'm the damn cop, and you'd rather nitpick the fact I didn't respond to someone that SHOULD be on the hook's remarks?

He's responding to the fact I'd said:

it seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on

Think about that. Real hard. Compare it to recent evidence.

Three people have been on every bandwagon. I've been pointing fingers at them for awhile now. Instead of thinking about it, you'd rather keep me in the hotseat? What gives?

DRK, really? Really? I'd say you're grasping at straws all right.

Unvote: Wicked

.

You are unbelievable.

The quoted post from lobster contains the following:

• A request to explain what you really meant when you suggested that "info gathering" was a scumtell.
  
• An accusation that instead of posting content you were "defending your crazy statements" and "talking about your "feelings" without referencing anything".

Both are points you failed to address. I cannot spell this out any clearer. Address them in your next post.

The other thing I asked you to do was explain in detail what you meant by your earlier statement that lobstermania had been dropping "lots of scumtells", which you said despite never having mentioned them before. Explain that in your next post.

Now just because you've claimed Cop, that doesn't mean you can get all high and mighty and avoid having to explain your behaviour. Your actions so far have all suggested you're scum, and until they are sufficiently explained I'm going to believe what I've seen over what is a convenient claim. Nobody gets a free pass.

[Wickedestjr]

Notice the bold. Three people who were on both wagons to lead up to the two claims. NHT, DRK, and lobster.

Good observation. Until now, I wasn't really suspicious of any of those three.

I don't remember nht joining the lobster bandwagon, but I think lobster joined the nht wagon at the very beginning of the game.

we need to figure out who is driving these wagons to L-1 for the claims.

You asked CoCo to claim.

You weren't confident with the wagon on Coco, but you were about to hammer him, AND you were a part of the wagon before.

i'm getting sick of your contradictions Reckoner

.

What other contradictions has reckoner made?

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

Do the following now, or die:

1) Explain in detail your post noting lobstermania's "many scumtells", expanding on exactly what scumtells you are referring to and why you had not mentioned them before.

2) Address the case lobster made against you that you originally asked him to elaborate on, and then said nothing but "ok" to.

3) Claim.

I'm pretty sure I missed some things in between 2 and 3, but this will do for a start. If you're unable or unwilling to do all of the above then you will be lynched.

The appeal to emotion in the quoted post ("you

can't

make me claim! bad things will happen! very bad things!")

The evidence is all over this page. Now shut up and hunt some scum.
And I don't know if it was you or someone else that still claims I'm withholding information from the town, but that's a load of crap at this point as well.

Thanks CoCo. I'm not unvoting because he isn't answering any questions asked of him. I've claimed cop in a game that I was scum before. I also don't like how CoCo didn't include much flavor in his role.


Post 563 looks like ryan buddying with CDB.

FoS: ryan

[stuntkeyboardist]

Post 563 looks like ryan buddying with CDB.

FoS: ryan

Okay, I can generally see what you mean if you're looking at it from an 'agreeing' Pov, but I wouldnt call it buddying by far. CDB is an experienced player. He generally does have good points that I would say most people agree with. So IMO, ryan responding 'agreed' or anything of that nature is NOT buddying. And let's not forget the fact that he agreed with many of us as well. This really was, to me, just ryan catching up and stating his opinions on the topics presented.

Wicked, I used to just think you were a confused noob trying to make your way through the game, but that's becoming less and less apparent. I'm

FoS

ing you

wicked

[CoCo]

The quoted post from lobster contains the following:

• A request to explain what you really meant when you suggested that "info gathering" was a scumtell.

it seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on

Think about that. Real hard. Compare it to recent evidence.

Three people have been on every bandwagon. I've been pointing fingers at them for awhile now. Instead of thinking about it, you'd rather keep me in the hotseat? What gives?
[/quote]

[*]An accusation that instead of posting content you were "defending your crazy statements" and "talking about your "feelings" without referencing anything".[/list]

So what? All of that has given us three good candidates. They are not crazy statements when they produce results. How is it three people being on three bandwagons not a scumtell to you? Its how I play. I've said this time and time again, yet you continue to stick your nose in the air and expect me to keep explaining myself. Fuck off.

[qwints]

Post 563 looks like ryan buddying with CDB.

FoS: ryan

Okay, I can generally see what you mean if you're looking at it from an 'agreeing' Pov, but I wouldnt call it buddying by far. CDB is an experienced player. He generally does have good points that I would say most people agree with. So IMO, ryan responding 'agreed' or anything of that nature is NOT buddying. And let's not forget the fact that he agreed with many of us as well. This really was, to me, just ryan catching up and stating his opinions on the topics presented.

Defending other people like this is scummy. Let him defend himself.

[stuntkeyboardist]

Post 563 looks like ryan buddying with CDB.

FoS: ryan

Okay, I can generally see what you mean if you're looking at it from an 'agreeing' Pov, but I wouldnt call it buddying by far. CDB is an experienced player. He generally does have good points that I would say most people agree with. So IMO, ryan responding 'agreed' or anything of that nature is NOT buddying. And let's not forget the fact that he agreed with many of us as well. This really was, to me, just ryan catching up and stating his opinions on the topics presented.

Defending other people like this is scummy. Let him defend himself.

Just to be clear, I wasnt trying to defend Ryan as much as I was saying that Wicked's FoS on Ryan was a bit unreasonable. Yes it sounds like I was defending him, but when I made the post, that was not my intention.

[DeathRowKitty]

They are not crazy statements when they produce results

I know you have a tendency to miss questions, so I'll put this one in capital letters for you. WHICH STATEMENTS OF YOURS HAVE PRODUCED RESULTS??? Your only reasonable posts have been on Wicked, which were mostly Reckoner's thoughts, not yours.

When you convince me you're not just hiding behind your claim, I'll unvote. No sooner.

[canadianbovine]

You weren't confident with the wagon on Coco, but you were about to hammer him, AND you were a part of the wagon before.

i'm getting sick of your contradictions Reckoner

.

He made a triple contradiction involving Coco.

He unvoted when CoCo was first at L-1, claiming that it "doesnt feel right"

The very next day, the next post he makes, he tells Coco to claim or hammer.

The final contradiction was when he said

We need a mass unvoting, and we need to figure out who is driving these wagons to L-1 for the claims. I was never confident on the CoCo wagon.

for one thing, he was on the wagon that originally drove CoCo to L-1. And he wasnt confident with the CoCo wagon, but wanted to hammer him?

[DeathRowKitty]

Just to be clear, I wasnt trying to defend Ryan as much as I was saying that Wicked's FoS on Ryan was a bit unreasonable. Yes it sounds like I was defending him, but when I made the post, that was not my intention.

At the risk of doing the same thing NHT just did, I do see a difference between defending someone and saying accusations are unreasonable. The fact that he voiced suspicions against Wicked in the same post leads me to believe he really was just saying Wicked's complaint was unreasonable.

If I felt NHT was trying to make Ryan's arguments for him, I would agree it was scummy, but NHT's post IMO only explained how Wicked was being unreasonable, not why Ryan said what he did.


As for the other arguments on NHT, obviously I don't think having been on all three wagons is that scummy, since I was there too. I do think it

appears

scummy. I just don't think it is. When I was on one of the wagons, I always had a reason. As NHT's pointed out, so did he. If I was getting an overall scummy vibe from NHT, I would think much more of it, but to me, it seems he's been consistent in taking everything into consideration and gauging the situation before saying anything. Plus, IIRC, in the one game I did read of his (the one with lobster), he jumped around a bit with his vote (IIRC, he was actually cop in that game), so if nothing else, he seems to be following his meta.

[CoCo]

They are not crazy statements when they produce results

I know you have a tendency to miss questions, so I'll put this one in capital letters for you. WHICH STATEMENTS OF YOURS HAVE PRODUCED RESULTS??? Your only reasonable posts have been on Wicked, which were mostly Reckoner's thoughts, not yours.

When you convince me you're not just hiding behind your claim, I'll unvote. No sooner.

Pay attention instead of asking me to repeat myself. Or should I just quote every one of my posts so you can see how it all fits together?

[havingfitz]

Post 563 looks like ryan buddying with CDB.

FoS: ryan

Okay, I can generally see what you mean if you're looking at it from an 'agreeing' Pov, but I wouldnt call it buddying by far. CDB is an experienced player. He generally does have good points that I would say most people agree with. So IMO, ryan responding 'agreed' or anything of that nature is NOT buddying. And let's not forget the fact that he agreed with many of us as well. This really was, to me, just ryan catching up and stating his opinions on the topics presented.

Wicked, I used to just think you were a confused noob trying to make your way through the game, but that's becoming less and less apparent. I'm

FoS

ing you

wicked

Okay, first of all, it was an FoS. It wasn't the best evidence, but I found it a bit strange and I felt it would be something good to point out. Second of all, I wanted to see what his reaction would be. Third of all... (see my next post)