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

[Wickedestjr]

How is your situation any different?

it honestly isn't besides the fact many are considering lynching me, rather then the smallness of wolf's bandwagon.

That doesn't tell us anything. You were voting wolf because his activity rose when we started voting him. You did the same. What does the size of the bandwagon have to do with it?

[Wickedestjr]

@Wicked
Thanks for the PBPA. CB is a big endeavor.

@anyone
How do you make nifty charts like that?

Thanks, I'll finish it once I'm all caught up.

If you quote my post containing the PBPA, you'll soon understand how to make a table of your own.

[Wickedestjr]

His next move is to vote CoCo, after not saying word one about CoCo up until this post. Oh, and his justification is that it is a "WIFOMy mess". Really, lobster? You have to do better than that. I guess this is his attempt to further explain his bandwagony vote, but I'm not buying it. He seems too "padded"... too "nice"... too "I don't want to stick out with my case against CoCo".

CoCo had blatantly dug is own metaphorical hole. I was the second vote on him, which was more for pressure to get some (GASP) information out of him (also, do you remember how long it actually took us to get it out? L-1!). On the topic of CoCo votes, I'm curious why you're not skeptical of yourself: you voted for him right after me, however you gave no reasoning in the post with your vote. That seems more oportunistic than mine. And your unvote, and then prolamation that you will revote with the hammer...??

CB did not have many votes, and you didn't feel the need to pressure him?


[quote="Lobster]

Given the above, I'm going to Vote: Lobster. Let's see where this goes.

Let's see where this goes, indeed. Why even add that if you're confident in my guilt? You are pushing for a lynch to end the day and move into the night. You could care less about who gets lynched. Shame on you.[/quote]

This is a terrible point. The last two quotes of you have given me the impression that you want to deflect attention toward xRx.

For the purpose of me giving my own opinion on lobster, I thought it would be helpful to present a PBPA of him. Seriously? Go read it on page 25Overall, I have a feeling that lobster is scum and his scumbuddies are NHT and CB. I think this because lobster hesitated to vote for CB and gave an FoS to NHT when he wasn't voting anybody else. Lobster and NHT were also on three of the bandwagons. I think we should lynch lobster because it will tell us about CB and NHT more than a CB or NHT lynch would.


Vote: lobster

What I find interesting with your table's analysis is that you seem to agree with me on almost all of my posts. I do like your idea of lynching someone to gain info on others, but of course I perfer it to be someone else.

1: Agreeing with many of your points, does not mean I shouldn't encourage your lynch. It just means that either you have good points, or you are doing a good job of blending in as scum.

2: I would rather lynch CB than you.

I have seen RVS bandwagons and it's interesting that CB and lobster both put the second random vote on someone, considering the possible link, especially since CB later tried so hard to defend his random voting.
@CB or lobster
If there's anything to say about your random votes or anything you feel you can respond to in this, please do. To be honest though, I can't blame you if you have nothing to say about this.

I think we have already agreeed that CB had a very weird RVS.....both times. Even though my random vote was the second vote on wickedestjr, it was based solely on his avatar. I challange anyone who finds my random vote scummy to watch Salad Fingers and then not want to vote Wickedestjr for that avatar, lol.

[ChannelDelibird]

OK, the three page catchup. In chronological order:

604: CoCo's big post - at last! A coherent train of thought! HALLELUJAH!
This post is exactly what I have been waiting for, and explains a lot. A few comments:

-I'm not sure I agree with your DRK case so much. Much of it seems based on his "it would be nice to put someone at L-1" quote, which, while daft, seems like it is part of a town train of thought to me.

-You mention that in your 405 you "ask a few questions". In fact, you only ask one (twice), which is "how is stating I'm "very" pro-town different from stating I'm pro-town?". It's semantics, and I'm not really sure what purpose it serves in the "plan" you are talking about.

-The long-awaited explanation for 412! It's not much, really (by "scumtell

s

" you apparently meant the singular), considering that as you'd apparently only noticed the one thing (that he and NHT were on both wagons), I don't see why you couldn't have just said that specifically right then and there, and why you couldn't have mentioned NHT as well. But the train of thought is there, and that's what I wanted.

-Your 457 actually makes a decent point. This is the first thing I've seen that's genuinely scummy from DRK, IMO, but your explanation process at the time

was

terrible, even with hindsight. You'd made a post catching DRK covering all bases regarding contradictions (showing him accuse someone based on a contradiction and showing him saying "well...we can't put too much in contradictions". Allows him to play whichever side of the argument he wants), but you never rammed that point home, just that you thought he was "desperate for a lynch" or some such. Your point got lost in a sea of "seems like" and 'feelings'.

Overall, while I don't necessarily agree with your cases on, well, everyone except Wicked, I can finally understand why you've made the posts that I found scummy, and that is enough to stop me from wanting to lynch a claimed cop.

unvote: CoCo

Now, a quick rewind to discuss Reckoner's lobstercase:

-Why are you concerned that he removed his random vote while actually being on someone's case? I think he should have immediately voted, yes, but I've learned from experience that that's a null tell regarding playstyle rather than a scumtell for disagreeing with me on mafia theory.

-I actually think lobster's stance was reasonable, considering that at the time of his FoS it was just CB's weird unvote/revote, and since then he began to take credit for starting discussion. Increased weird behaviour -> upgrade FoS to vote. makes sense.

-182

is

an issue, however.

-Reckoner, you miss the crucial point that in between lobster's 230 and 237 was your 234, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit. Seeing as you've long since admitted that your "trap" and the reasoning behind it was rubbish, it's a bit rich of you to suggest that lobster is scummy for finding your terrible case on MME (and yet the lack of vote for him despite your apparent conviction in your trap) scummy.

-275 might be worth looking at if at some point lobster or qax flips scum. Not now.

-lobster's 408 is his first post after CoCo gets into the "I'm VERY pro-town" muddle, which WAS scummy, so it seems reasonable for lobster to then vote for him. You fail at context.

In short, your case has actually made me feel stronger about lobstertown. Thanks.

So, back into chronological order:

CB's 614 is terrible. "I don't care who we lynch, I just want this day to end". If you're town, you care. End of.

FoS: CB

ryan's point in 621 about Reckoner and informed lynches is a good'un.

Wicked's PBPA of lobster - meh. Doesn't pick out all of the important things - lobster's suggestion that we discuss definitions of pressure was IMO the scummiest thing he's done - and relies on some weird logic - Wicked, until you can give reasons why his

reasons

for being on the three wagons were faulty, you can't say that his being on them is scummy. I would quite like to hear lobster's explanation of his somewhat fluid FoS/vote policy. Wicked is far too hasty to paint lobster's scumbuddies as CB and NHT, though, especially considering that his entire case seems to be built around the scumbuddies theory (always bad if you don't know at least one alignment). It also seems like Wicked, who's been a fringe candidate for a lynch for a while, is trying to get a piece of the lobster action to make sure he's not up for the chop.

Uh, CoCo, I've been voting for you for the past six or seven pages now. I thought that much was pretty clear. Prior to my vote I'd kind of passed you by so DRK couldn't have been waiting for me to vote then.

NHT revoting CoCo

after

the Sufficiently Explanatory Post is really bad. It would have been a good, ballsy vote prior to CoCo's big post, but now it is just stupid. He doesn't get into enough detail in dismissing the big post to justify revoting the claimed cop.

FoS: NHT

MME needs to comment on the lobster case.

DRK's reasoning for not detailing his rebuttal of the lobstercase is terrible. If you think someone's case is flimsy, explain why, not say "well, I don't want to be accused of being his scumbuddy".

FoS: DRK

I kinda skimmed the last two pages. The quote wars are insane. I will go over it again in a few minutes.

[Wickedestjr]

Overall, I am happy with lobster's defense apart from a few pieces.

So I will

Unvote: Lobster

and

Vote: CB

.

@xRx - What do you think of CB?

@CB - Can you give me your top five suspicions starting with the most suspicious?

[ChannelDelibird]

So I'm not mad keen on Wicked's slide from his big PBPA in which he argues with some degree of confidence that lobster, NHT and CB are scumbuddies and votes lobster to now voting for CB. Strengthens my feeling that his lobstervote was more to do with it not being him than it was about lobster. I'm not saying the CB vote isn't justified, it's the getting there that worries me.

Regarding CB himself - the activity frequency is pretty interesting, particularly as he has a history of calling people out on the same thing (see wolfram). His trying to link Wicked's 3rd reason on lobster to the 1st reason on himself is bad, but suggests VI as much as it does scum.

[Wickedestjr]

Overall, while I don't necessarily agree with your cases on, well, everyone except Wicked, I can finally understand why you've made the posts that I found scummy, and that is enough to stop me from wanting to lynch a claimed cop.

unvote: CoCo

What exactly have I done that was scummy?

Wicked, until you can give reasons why his

reasons

for being on the three wagons were faulty, you can't say that his being on them is scummy.

None of my top three reasons for suspecting lobster included him being on all the bandwagons. I don't really find it that scummy at all. It just means some players are in agreement.

Wicked is far too hasty to paint lobster's scumbuddies as CB and NHT, though, especially considering that his entire case seems to be built around the scumbuddies theory (always bad if you don't know at least one alignment).

I admit, I am not so sure about NHT, but I do think CB and lobster are linked.

It also seems like Wicked, who's been a fringe candidate for a lynch for a while, is trying to get a piece of the lobster action to make sure he's not up for the chop.

When have I been "up for the chop". Hasn't the largest bandwagon on me been like three votes? I still don't understand why people are suspicious of me. If somebody could give me a list of reasons, that'd be great.

[Wickedestjr]

So I'm not mad keen on Wicked's slide from his big PBPA in which he argues with some degree of confidence that lobster, NHT and CB are scumbuddies and votes lobster to now voting for CB. Strengthens my feeling that his lobstervote was more to do with it not being him than it was about lobster. I'm not saying the CB vote isn't justified, it's the getting there that worries me.

Regarding CB himself - the activity frequency is pretty interesting, particularly as he has a history of calling people out on the same thing (see wolfram). His trying to link Wicked's 3rd reason on lobster to the 1st reason on himself is bad, but suggests VI as much as it does scum.

I would have never noticed CB's scumminess unless I had investigated lobster. And it turns out, that we might have never noticed it unless I had brought up that PBPA.

[ChannelDelibird]

So here's where I am at the moment, generally:

CoCo:

Sufficiently satisfied with his train of thought to ignore for today's lynch.

Wicked:

Scummy. Has been caught in contradictions before and his lobster case seemed both convenient and flawed. I'll be digging deeper into Wicked in the coming couple of days, but I could see myself lynching Wicked today.

NHT:

I don't like his CoCo revote at all, but that's the only thing that's really bothered me. I probably wouldn't be beinhd an NHT lynch.

lobster:

Slightly town leaning solid town because of the amount of bullshit being thrown at him. I am not interested in a lobster lynch today at all.

CB:

Much of his behaviour says VI to me as much as it says scum. I am hesitant, because I think a CB lynch would be a bit of a soft lynch, but it's a possibility.

ryan:

Didn't like wolfram before he replaced out but so far the replacement has been excellent. Probably wouldn't lynch ryan today.

qwints:

I am still suspicious of qax's response to Reckoner's claim, but so far qwints has been OK. The claim reaction alone seems more important to me than a lot of CB's silliness, but I admit it would be a relatively uninformed lynch.

DRK:

I didn't like DRK's reasoning for not detailing his rebuttal of Reckoner's lobster case at all. I might have to reread DRK, but I would put him on a par with CB right now in terms of quality of lynch.

Reckoner:

Not a good lynch for today, but I feel less confident about Reckoner than I do about CoCo now. The "trap", the interrupting my CoCo interrogation, the utter bullshit he's been throwing at lobster.

C_o:

I guess he's not going to catch up after all. Sigh. Never had enough on him for a read.

MME:

Solid town.

[ChannelDelibird]

Overall, while I don't necessarily agree with your cases on, well, everyone except Wicked, I can finally understand why you've made the posts that I found scummy, and that is enough to stop me from wanting to lynch a claimed cop.

unvote: CoCo

What exactly have I done that was scummy?

On top of everything I've mentioned in this post and my last couple, your contradiction when you said you'd never said CB's unvote/revote was scummy sticks in my mind. Can't think why you would have said it as town.

Wicked, until you can give reasons why his

reasons

for being on the three wagons were faulty, you can't say that his being on them is scummy.

None of my top three reasons for suspecting lobster included him being on all the bandwagons. I don't really find it that scummy at all. It just means some players are in agreement.

So you don't find it scummy, yet you include it in your case against lobster? Another one of your contradictions. The fact that some players apparently agree on it doesn't make it valid. Town players can have bad reasoning, but only scum players need to use other people's bad reasoning.

Wicked is far too hasty to paint lobster's scumbuddies as CB and NHT, though, especially considering that his entire case seems to be built around the scumbuddies theory (always bad if you don't know at least one alignment).

I admit, I am not so sure about NHT, but I do think CB and lobster are linked.

Which is based on your theory about lobster's FoS/vote policy, which has been explained rationally.

It also seems like Wicked, who's been a fringe candidate for a lynch for a while, is trying to get a piece of the lobster action to make sure he's not up for the chop.

When have I been "up for the chop". Hasn't the largest bandwagon on me been like three votes? I still don't understand why people are suspicious of me. If somebody could give me a list of reasons, that'd be great.

Way to misrepresent my post. The phrase "fringe candidate" is kind of my point here. You've frequently had one, two, three votes for a while, from different people. I never said you'd been run up to L-2 or anything like that. My point is that you've clearly been at the back of people's minds for a while, you

must

be aware of that, and the fact that your lobster case was largely made of fail strongly suggests to me that it only existed because Reckoner's (also made of fail) lobster case did, and you thought that it was better than risking people finally building on those one, two, three votes, which scum would worry about after a bandwagon stalls.

[ChannelDelibird]

So I'm not mad keen on Wicked's slide from his big PBPA in which he argues with some degree of confidence that lobster, NHT and CB are scumbuddies and votes lobster to now voting for CB. Strengthens my feeling that his lobstervote was more to do with it not being him than it was about lobster. I'm not saying the CB vote isn't justified, it's the getting there that worries me.

Regarding CB himself - the activity frequency is pretty interesting, particularly as he has a history of calling people out on the same thing (see wolfram). His trying to link Wicked's 3rd reason on lobster to the 1st reason on himself is bad, but suggests VI as much as it does scum.

I would have never noticed CB's scumminess unless I had investigated lobster. And it turns out, that we might have never noticed it unless I had brought up that PBPA.

Way to not actually respond to my real point, which is that your lobstervote, and indeed case, was a bad one made in self-serving circumstances.

[PsychoSniper]

Vote Count:

CoCo – 1 (nohandtyper)
nohandtyper – 1 (qwints)
lobstermania – 1 (xRECKONERx)
canadianbovine – 1 (Wickedestjr)


Not voting:

ChannelDelibird, ryan2754, Conspicuous_other, My Milked Eek, DeathRowKitty, canadianbovine, CoCo, lobstermania

[PsychoSniper]

Prod has just been sent out to Conspicuous_other

[ChannelDelibird]

Oh, and I meant to

Vote: Wicked

[Wickedestjr]

Okay, I would finish the PBPA, but there is a lot of useless information to include so instead I'll do another chart that will be more revealing.

[mrow] Day [col] How many posts he made that day. [col] Before/During/After we were suspicious of him June 11th [col] 2 posts [col] Before June 12th [col] 2 posts [col] Before June 13th [col] 19 posts [col] Before/During June 14th [col] 4 posts [col] During June 15th [col] 8 posts [col] During June 16th [col] 3 posts [col] During June 17th [col] 4 posts [col] After June 18th [col] 2 posts [col] After June 19th [col] 1 post [col] After June 20th [col] 2 posts [col] After June 21st - June 26th [col] 0 posts [col] After June 27th [col] 1 post [col] After June 28th [col] 3 posts [col] After June 29th [col] 0 posts [col] After June 30th [col] 5 posts [col] After July 1st [col] 1 post [col] After July 2nd [col] 2 posts [col] After July 3rd [col] 2 posts [col] During July 4th [col] 5 posts [col] During

Notice how the number rose once we started suspecting him.

[Wickedestjr]

Scummy. Has been caught in contradictions before and his lobster case seemed both convenient and flawed. I'll be digging deeper into Wicked in the coming couple of days, but I could see myself lynching Wicked today.

Contradiction

s

? I thought I only made one contradiction. What were the flaws in my lobster case?

[ChannelDelibird]

Read 703.

[ChannelDelibird]

Multiple contradictions are mentioned in 709.

[DeathRowKitty]

I didn't like DRK's reasoning for not detailing his rebuttal of Reckoner's lobster case at all.

What would I have to gain from not going into detail on that as scum? My reasoning wasn't "I don't want to be labelled as his scumbuddy." (that part of my post is just my posting style) I would appear more so connected to lobster by not giving reasons. There have been at least a few times in this game where someone's been accused of defending someone or putting words in someone's mouth and I figured I should let Reckoner get his response from lobster first, especially since all Recknoer'd asked was what we thought of his case.

I did give some of my reasoning in my next post, when I was directly asked about parts of the case.

Reckoner

: Not a good lynch for today, but I feel

less

more

confident about Reckoner than I do about CoCo now. The "trap", the interrupting my CoCo interrogation, the utter bullshit he's been throwing at lobster.

At least I'm assuming that's what you meant.

None of my top three reasons for suspecting lobster included him being on all the bandwagons. I don't really find it that scummy at all. It just means some players are in agreement.

So you don't find it scummy, yet you include it in your case against lobster? Another one of your contradictions. The fact that some players apparently agree on it doesn't make it valid. Town players can have bad reasoning, but only scum players need to use other people's bad reasoning.

I didn't think much of that until you pointed out that Wicked said it wasn't that scummy. I figured it was bad logic (IMO at least), but logic nonetheless. If Wicked was using something he disagreed with as part of his case, that changes things for me. I'll have to look back at Wicked's recent posts.

[Wickedestjr]

Overall, while I don't necessarily agree with your cases on, well, everyone except Wicked, I can finally understand why you've made the posts that I found scummy, and that is enough to stop me from wanting to lynch a claimed cop.

unvote: CoCo

What exactly have I done that was scummy?

On top of everything I've mentioned in this post and my last couple, your contradiction when you said you'd never said CB's unvote/revote was scummy sticks in my mind. Can't think why you would have said it as town.

I don't know why I said that I found the revoting scummier, because I don't now and I don't ever remember thinking it in the first place.

Wicked, until you can give reasons why his

reasons

for being on the three wagons were faulty, you can't say that his being on them is scummy.

None of my top three reasons for suspecting lobster included him being on all the bandwagons. I don't really find it that scummy at all. It just means some players are in agreement.

So you don't find it scummy, yet you include it in your case against lobster? Another one of your contradictions. The fact that some players apparently agree on it doesn't make it valid. Town players can have bad reasoning, but only scum players need to use other people's bad reasoning.

Can you please show me where I found him being on the bandwagons scummy, because I don't recall saying so.

Wicked is far too hasty to paint lobster's scumbuddies as CB and NHT, though, especially considering that his entire case seems to be built around the scumbuddies theory (always bad if you don't know at least one alignment).

I admit, I am not so sure about NHT, but I do think CB and lobster are linked.

Which is based on your theory about lobster's FoS/vote policy, which has been explained rationally.

I wasn't convinced.

It also seems like Wicked, who's been a fringe candidate for a lynch for a while, is trying to get a piece of the lobster action to make sure he's not up for the chop.

When have I been "up for the chop". Hasn't the largest bandwagon on me been like three votes? I still don't understand why people are suspicious of me. If somebody could give me a list of reasons, that'd be great.

Way to misrepresent my post. The phrase "fringe candidate" is kind of my point here. You've frequently had one, two, three votes for a while, from different people. I never said you'd been run up to L-2 or anything like that. My point is that you've clearly been at the back of people's minds for a while, you

must

be aware of that, and the fact that your lobster case was largely made of fail strongly suggests to me that it only existed because Reckoner's (also made of fail) lobster case did, and you thought that it was better than risking people finally building on those one, two, three votes, which scum would worry about after a bandwagon stalls.

1: I apologize, I misunderstood your post. I thought you said I was a big candidate for a lynch.

2: I was a part of the CoCo bandwagon. Then he claimed cop, and I didn't want to lynch a cop, so I took away my vote. Then xRx pointed out his suspicion of lobster. So, I started looking at Lobster's posts (shouldn't I?). I found him to be scummy, and I found CB and NHT to be linked to Lobster. (NHT not so much.) Then it was brought to my attention by others that a CB lynch would be better. I planned to unvote once I was satisfied with Lobster's defense. Meanwhile, CB was only making me more and more suspicious of him. I even started noticing more scummy things that he was doing (some of which were brought to my attention by DRK). So once lobster gave his defense, which I was satisfied with, so I voted CB instead. If it looks like I was trying to start another bandwagon, then why would I vote CB? If I were scum, and you think I was jumping on bandwagons. Why would I waste time trying to get another one going, while I hadn't even given the first a chance. I'm not saying this makes me pro-town, but I don't think it makes me scummy either.

[DeathRowKitty]

Your 457 actually makes a decent point. This is the first thing I've seen that's genuinely scummy from DRK

I explained my Wicked vote in 449. I didn't feel his contradiction was a big deal and I voted him because not enough people were posting (he was one of the non-posters) and because he'd disappeared while people were suspicious of him. I didn't vote him for his contradiction.

[ChannelDelibird]

I didn't like DRK's reasoning for not detailing his rebuttal of Reckoner's lobster case at all.

What would I have to gain from not going into detail on that as scum? My reasoning wasn't "I don't want to be labelled as his scumbuddy." (that part of my post is just my posting style) I would appear more so connected to lobster by not giving reasons. There have been at least a few times in this game where someone's been accused of defending someone or putting words in someone's mouth and I figured I should let Reckoner get his response from lobster first, especially since all Recknoer'd asked was what we thought of his case.

Well, yeah, you didn't use the scumbuddy angle in the first post, but as you say, in the post afterward, you elaborate and

then

you cite the scumbuddy angle. Point stands - no need to give credence to this lazy "oh look they were all on the wagons, let's assume they're buddies before we consider

why

they were on the wagons" theory.

Reckoner

: Not a good lynch for today, but I feel

less

more

confident about Reckoner than I do about CoCo now. The "trap", the interrupting my CoCo interrogation, the utter bullshit he's been throwing at lobster.

At least I'm assuming that's what you meant.

No, my wording was correct, but my meaning was that I am less confident about Reckoner being town than I am about CoCo.

[DeathRowKitty]

I thought by "confident" you meant for lynch. Sorry.

[Wickedestjr]

So I'm not mad keen on Wicked's slide from his big PBPA in which he argues with some degree of confidence that lobster, NHT and CB are scumbuddies and votes lobster to now voting for CB. Strengthens my feeling that his lobstervote was more to do with it not being him than it was about lobster. I'm not saying the CB vote isn't justified, it's the getting there that worries me.

Regarding CB himself - the activity frequency is pretty interesting, particularly as he has a history of calling people out on the same thing (see wolfram). His trying to link Wicked's 3rd reason on lobster to the 1st reason on himself is bad, but suggests VI as much as it does scum.

I would have never noticed CB's scumminess unless I had investigated lobster. And it turns out, that we might have never noticed it unless I had brought up that PBPA.

Way to not actually respond to my real point, which is that your lobstervote, and indeed case, was a bad one made in self-serving circumstances.

Well, I felt the case helped, not so much the vote, only because CB was a much better lynch candidate. If you didn't like the case, then too bad, there isn't really any way that I can change your opinion for that matter. Honestly CDB, it looks to me like you are grasping at thin straws trying to accuse me of every strange thing that wasn't meant to be strange. For example, when I do not respond to a point the way you like, you accuse me as if I did it on purpose. How would I even benefit from ignoring points or answering them the wrong way anyway? I would have to respond to them anyway.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked's PBPA of lobster - meh. Doesn't pick out all of the important things - lobster's suggestion that we discuss definitions of pressure was IMO the scummiest thing he's done - and relies on some weird logic - Wicked, until you can give reasons why his reasons for being on the three wagons were faulty, you can't say that his being on them is scummy. I would quite like to hear lobster's explanation of his somewhat fluid FoS/vote policy. Wicked is far too hasty to paint lobster's scumbuddies as CB and NHT, though, especially considering that his entire case seems to be built around the scumbuddies theory (always bad if you don't know at least one alignment). It also seems like Wicked, who's been a fringe candidate for a lynch for a while, is trying to get a piece of the lobster action to make sure he's not up for the chop.

This was the part you wanted me to read right? Again, I don't ever remember saying that him being on the bandwagons was scummy. I might have at first, but I didn't use it in my case. I admit, I was a bit quick to assume that NHT was Lobster's scumbuddy but, I think Lobster and CB have a link.