Mini #509: Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, Game Over!

[originality]

vote Flameaxe

because he's modding me in another game and I'm a rebel.

[originality]

Why the suspicion, Peers? I turned up town in that other game. And a warning for what, mr. meta man?

[originality]

I'm confused.

So all the votes here are based on who we like the least? In that case,

unvote

because I hate everyone the same!

[originality]

Peers has no sense of humor.

[originality]

It looks to me like all discussion/voting going on here is based on "DURR YOUR POST IS POINTLESS! NO YOURS IS SHUT UP" which is no good. There definitely are no grounds for a serious vote on anyone right now, unless you are satisfied with a random lynch for day one. So try not to let you being mad at someone else dictate your votes. I can't believe I just said that.

[originality]

Heres the show's normal sequence of events. Study this, for our game may turn out much the same:

1. Rangers are seen in everyday life with a dispute to resolve.
2. Rangers are attacked by an evil foe's minions/footsoldiers.
3. Rangers fight minions/footsoldiers.
4. Rangers morph.
5. Rangers defeat the minions/footsoldiers.
6. Evil enemy strengthens the minion and makes minion grow to gigantic proportions, followed by Rangers summoning giant machines known as Zords and/or their combined form, the Megazord.
-----------------A. Optional: Rangers find that their current powers are insufficient to defeat minion and discover a new power, such as a Battlizer, or a sixth Ranger.
------------------B. Optional: Rangers find or receive new Zord/s, new Megazord or Megazord combo.
--------------------C. Optional: Friends or allies show up to offer help or support.
7. Rangers fight and defeat that particular giant minion.
8. Rangers are shown back in everyday life, having learned a life lesson which solves the earlier dispute.

Attention: we may face Zord(s)

[originality]

It's not true, the mod posted the townie PM in the opening in which Putty Patrollers were described. So we know multiple people (vanilla townies) are Putty Patrollers.

Unless, of course, nobody received that PM because nobody is a vanilla townie. It'd be a little high-powered for a small game, but this -is- Power Rangers...

Holy crap, page 6 and power claims everywhere. (you just admitted having a special role, if you didn't notice, Peers.)

[originality]

If he suggested that there might be no vanillas in this game, then by default he has to be one of those non-vanillas, otherwise his theory is invalid.

[originality]

Top 3:


2. Originality- You seem more interested in outing power roles than finding scum. You didn't have to call attention to what Peers said, regardless of whether that is true.

Unvote, Vote: JMar

Those 5 posts could and should have been one, are you trying to look more active then you really are? I'm not outing powerroles, I'm just confused as to why all this powerrole talk is going on so early in the game.

Also, you seem to be trying hard to find things that just ain't there. Really, no one made any logical mind blowing post yet, not even close.

[originality]

Why are you guys ganging up on Peers? Now I bad for pointing him out. Let's not forget that the mafia will do whatever they can to lynch a possible powerrole, so FoS everyone against Peers for crappy reasons.

[originality]

Meh, why not, I havn't done anything yet.

vote jmar

.

[originality]

Oh crap, I didn't see he already had two votes on him.

unvote

[originality]

with only, what you thought was 2 votes in a 7 vote lynch (It was actually 3). I mean, 3 votes is not going to kill jmar. Yeah it would have been actually putting him over 50% but no scum will quicklynch with L-3 unless they have a death wish.

Unvote, Vote: originality

Nope, he had 3 votes in him already, with me it would make it 4. When I say I hadn't seen he already had two votes I meant the votes on the previous page, because one of them was right above me. There was no sense of me putting him at -3.

Also, lol@one person saying I'm suspicious for bandwaggoning and another saying I'm suspicious for not bandwaggoning.

[originality]

1. originality -- Jumping on a bandwagon for the sake of jumping on a bandwagon, then jumps off when he realizes he's in the "position of suspicion".

unvote, vote: Originality

What? You jumped in right before I did. You have no right to accuse me of bandwagoning just for the sake of it. I jumped off because there were too many votes on the dude, why would I keep my vote on him, its not like he had anything substantial against him anyway.

[originality]

What? You jumped in right before I did. You have no right to accuse me of bandwagoning just for the sake of it. I jumped off because there were too many votes on the dude, why would I keep my vote on him, its not like he had anything substantial against him anyway.

Too many votes on him to what? Lynch him? 4 out of 7? Are you saying that you seriously believe that we were too close to a lynch?

If JMar had 5 or 6 votes, I would understand you unvoting. Hell, I would be unvoting. But 4 (or 3 like you thought) is not a danger zone number.

You look like someone who is doing his damnedest not to look like scum. Why?

He might not have been dangerously close to a lynch, but why would I keep a fourth vote on someone I don't find especially suspicious? Now if he had some sort of case against him thats a different story, but it was a pressure thing anyway, and 3 votes are enough for some pressure. I don't know how to answer your last question, I haven't been voluntarily doing anything of the kind.

[originality]

And you thought your vote was the third one. So, why unvote?

Because I had just gone back and looked at the last postcount, which to my surprise showed that there was one vote more then I had previously thought. Pretty implied. Did you even read my unvoting post? It says there, "I didn't see the votes". You then are supposed use logic to understand that I did see them later.

[originality]

And you thought your vote was the third one. So, why unvote?

Because I had just gone back and looked at the last postcount, which to my surprise showed that there was one vote more then I had previously thought. Pretty implied. Did you even read my unvoting post? It says there, "I didn't see the votes". You then are supposed use logic to understand that I did see them later.

This is what I read:

Oh crap,

I didn't see he already had two votes on him

.

unvote

To me, that implies that you realized your vote was the third one and decided to unvote. If you decided that three votes were enough for pressure, why unvote?

Or am I misreading this?

with only, what you thought was 2 votes in a 7 vote lynch (It was actually 3). I mean, 3 votes is not going to kill jmar. Yeah it would have been actually putting him over 50% but no scum will quicklynch with L-3 unless they have a death wish.

Unvote, Vote: originality

Nope, he had 3 votes in him already, with me it would make it 4. When I say I hadn't seen he already had two votes I meant the votes on the previous page, because one of them was right above me. There was no sense of me putting him at -3.

Also, lol@one person saying I'm suspicious for bandwaggoning and another saying I'm suspicious for not bandwaggoning.

[originality]

Aaand,

Unvote

, since Peers is no longer on top of my scumlist.

Mind if we ask who is?

I believe c'est moi.

Sorry for stealing your thunder.

[originality]

Either you're scum, or you're a poor town player who distracts the rest of us from finding scum. Either way, you need to go.

I'm going to agree with the logic behind this statement.* What I don't agree with is whether Flameaxe is as you say. So far he has not proved to be a super efficient scum catching machine, true, but nor has he been a burden to the town in any manner.

I doubt you really share my philosophy in this case, you look like you are just coming up with whatever you can to throw the hate on someone else, now that you're cornered. I am aware this will put you at -1, but this is probably the only truly scummy thing I actually caught someone saying in this thread yet, so I'll go with it.

vote Peers

*Let me elaborate, because a lot of people misunderstand me when I say this. I do not advocate lynching townies in any shape or form, but you have to put into consideration how good of a townie the person is when you think of lynching, because that might tip the balance between two equally scummy people on the decision of a lynch, or something like that. Not that it matters in this situation, but I will probably refer to this disclaimer if I ever mention something like this in the future.

[originality]

It was hypothetical. I reserve the right to claim Putty as my role in the future.

I don't think Peers would've ever said this if he wasn't in fact a townie,

What? How does that work? I'm not against evidence supporting anyone's towniness, but pretty sure you just made that up.


Also, we are getting way up in the wifom:

Also note that Vanilla Townies tend to play more aggressively.

@Jmar: You are using my words for evil.

[originality]

I voted for you over different reasoning. I don't like people messing with what I say, it always ends up biting me in the ass.

[originality]

Hey. I haven't been posting because my computer went south. Right now I'm posting from my wii. The ole computer will hopefully be OK way before the deadline, but we will see. There's time anyway. Ok so I'll try to do some reading (and posting) from here if computer doesn't get better soon.

[originality]

Back and checkin in, what up.

[originality]

In before prod.

I'd love to hammer Peers already, but sadly I am currently voting for him. Someone hammer him so tomorrow comes quicker, this is accomplishing nothing and he's dead meat tomorrow anyway.

[originality]

Last: "he's dead meat tomorrow anyway". Care to explain...a little?

Tomorrow is the deadline. Peers has 6 votes on him. 4 votes are required for a deadline lynch. Capisce?

So you don't want to discuss who else might be scum, either?

Sure, bring a good case against someone and discuss away. But there isn't any, because you are the scummy one here. (or did I miss something? I don't think so)
Anyone has a better case then Peers?



I was just trying to make up for my not posting by going all assertive on your asses. You guys seem to think that I should have just kept my mouth shut till tomorrow when Peers is dead. Sorry for trying to contribute, I promise not to do it again.

I kid, I kid.

[originality]

Welp, about the not posting thing, I'll try to remedy that.

I admit I didn't read much of what has been going on lately, because it all seems so angry (Like, 80% of posts are some sort of personal insult or something.) The other 20% seems Peers (weakly, IMO) defending himself.
Through my skimming I saw little that was worthwhile to make me stop and think.


Did a reread, and here's the people I find scummy after Peers:

Playswithsquirrels' posting irks me.
Mirth is too serious, like she's trying too hard. I dunno, proly BS on my part here.


I know I've been criticized for being vague, but thats what I'm gonna do again. Sorry, but besides Peers there just isn't much evidence to support any serious campaign against anybody.

[originality]

I like how CES says he is "fully convinced Peers is town" while the only evidence he manages to produce is "I don't think scum would play that way". wifom anyone? CES is being a bit too stubborn. Someone worth looking into D2.

[originality]

This: In my experience, stubbornness=mafia.








(I'm looking at you dybeck)



Ok seriously now: I'll go over how tomorrow's events might affect CES

If Peers comes out scum, CES' opinions automatically lose a lot of weight. It is sort of weird though, if they are scum together, why would CES be such an adamant supporter of Peers' towniness? Especially when its so apparent that he'll be lynched soon? That wouldn't make much sense, as the mafia would try to distance themselves from one another, unless CES is just being dumb scum. This is something to think about.

If Peers came out town, then a mafia CES would be a good possibility, as it seems as if he is trying to build credibility for himself on the town's eyes by supporting someone he knows for a fact to be town, which would explain his strong conviction. Something to remark is how CES defends Peers so much in these final moments when its 90% sure Peers is going to be lynched.

[originality]

This: In my experience, stubbornness=mafia.[ /quote]If this were true, I don't see why you didn't vote Peers, UA or Flameaxe before.

Ok seriously now: I'll go over how tomorrow's events might affect CES

Trying to set up chainlynches?

Uh, no. Did you even read what I wrote? I wasn't advocationg your lynch per se, I am going over the possibilities since you are acting all weird and suspicious right now. Just because it affects you doesn't mean we shouldn't consider everything. In fact, if you had would actually read, you would have seen that I said it would be odd you being mafia if Peers came up mafia.

Thats a serious case of trying to keep people from discussing only because its you on the line.

[originality]

Seriously, I think the reason UA got NKd was because they thought he was annoying. I don't see anywhere where it could give a hint as to him being a powerrole which attracted scum attention.

Which leads me to the question of why would they kill someone they thought was annoying, (a choice only taken when scum has no leads for powerroles) instead of someone who pretty much claimed being some special role. Unright. You can see the specific quote right above me on Mir's post.

This is very odd, and unright being scum would be a reasonable answer.

so

vote Unright

until someone shows me a good reason why UA was NK'd over Unright.

[originality]

Seriously, I think the reason UA got NKd was because they thought he was annoying.

I'm wondering how exactly you came to this conclusion.

Are you serious? Its pretty obvious. Ok. Wonder no more:

1) UA is annoying. 2)He gave no indication of being a powerrole. Therefore, I think that they NKd him because they thought he was annoying, not because they thought he was a powerrole. Really, I explain it pretty well on the rest of my post you quoted. Admit it, you didn't read it all, did you? It really is looking like you have a personal agenda against me. Why do you want to find flaws that just aren't there? Why do you feign ignorance on matters that are already established and explained?

[originality]

It really is looking like you have a personal agenda against me.

I'm not getting this from CES on the topic at all, nor do I see how you get it either.

Vote: Originality

Far from an unreasonable assumption. He kept going after me for (crappy imho) reasons yesterday, now he finds crappy reasons against me today. I just don't see how what I'm doing is scummy. How is it weird me saying what you quoted when he keeps going after me? I'm not implying that he literally doesn't like me personally and wants me dead, it is a figure of speech if thats not obvious. Still, even if I was trying to imply a weird feud thing between me and him, you cannot say "I'm not getting this at all". Has he been doing anything other then try to find reasons against me? You could say that you thought it was rather unlikely or something, but completely turn a blind eye on something like that is too much ignoring facts on your part.


@Mirth: I honestly had not noticed if you posted opinions similar to mine, and going back to review now I still only see the only thing similar being both of us suspecting Unright. But I did not see you with my reasoning. Care to explain how you think I'm mimicking you?


And I've been asking for an alternate reason besides being annoying that could have meant UA's end. If you would look at my voting post I stated that same thing. CES, I like that quote of yours by UA. Its a pretty valid reason.

But lets reason for a second. Unright is proposing that he could have been protected by a doctor. Really, if you were scum, would you not attack the person that made a clear claim of powerrole instead of someone who you think might be a powerrole? Yea. Thats why its too weird for him to be alive right now. So if the mafia was blocked on their attempted kill on Unright, then who could have killed UA? I'd say a third party killer, SK of sorts, because if there were 2 scumgroups I doubt they would not both attack the claimed role. But SKs don't want powerroles down as much because it doesn't affect them as much, so I can see UA being SK'd and Unright being mafia'd and then protected, I guess.

This is all using quite a bit of "ifs", so Unright is still an odd case. Mafia could have not killed him to purposefully make him suspicious today, but why go through that risk when they could just kill him? I don't get this.

[originality]

Sorry for being away, blame the holidays, but I'm here now.



I'd like to start with this:

Unright did claim a powerrole, and he was the only one. I don't think it's unreasonable to think the doctor protected him last night, wether he's mafia or not. Also, I don't think the mafia would risk losing the nightkill, and killed someone they were sure wasn't going to be protected.

This is actually a really good point.If this is true, it would explain a lot. I am rather convinced.

unvote

Because if he is not scum then he is almost definitely a p-role, making my vote retarded.

Flameaxe, are you referring to me? I'm not very clear on what you want answered, please restate it so I can understand.


Okay, am I the only one bugged by how dybeck has been voting often with very short posts while offering pretty much no explanation? He's been doing it since the beginning, and no one seems to notice how odd it is. This demands a pressure vote

vote dybeck

[originality]

I'd like to take a poll: who here wants Unright to just claim now?

My personal opinion on this is undecided.

If his claim would help the town I believe he would already do it out of his own will, if not I don't see why to nudge him about it. If he is scum, claim or no claim won't matter to us, he'll be lying anyway. If hes town, a claim could potentially hurt us (more info for the scum). The exception to that would be if the claim was something like a cop or tracker who could give us valuable information, and if that is the case he should say it himself instead of needing prodding from us. So for us to make him claim is just wrong imo.

[originality]

Okay Flameaxe, I know you can't be cop claiming, so stop being so crazy about lynching me. Gawd. Its such a crappy and scummy softclaim.

Be a dear and summarize your reasons for why I'm scum in one post. I find that your motives have been sort of scattered and weak and I want to understand your bloodlust.

[originality]

I assure you I never lied once Bookitty, its odd that you are rather distorting events. I thought everybody else understood what happened, thats why they stopped talking about it? Anyway I guess I have to go back there to satisfy you. Flameaxe still hasnt answered my question though, he has to state his own case which he has been sponsoring for some time.

Let me reexplain what happened, I'm sure you all will be able to match up with what was said later and see no lying was done (at least on my part).

A) Playswithsquirrels incites voting on jmar
B) Unright votes on jmar
C) Me, thinking only unright and playswithsquirrels voted on jmar, too vote for him
D) I go back to re-check jmar's history, notice Blight had previously placed a vote on him which I had not known about
E) Feels too much like a serious bandwaggon, so I remove my vote.

Now, for your misplaced quotes.

Why do you care if you're the third vote on someone? If you think they're scummy enough to pressure with a vote, then three votes don't matter, do they?

You don't seem to understand. I didn't care if I was the third vote on jmar, in fact I was aware I was the third vote. But I was wrong, I was actually the fourth. That my friend is a bandwagon. I don't know about you, but I generally don't bandwagon people I don't feel strongly about.

But you thought you were putting him at L-4, didn't you? Or did you think you were putting him at L-3?

I thought he had 2 votes on him but actually he had 3.

So why vote him in the first place? And why is a third vote (you did think it was a third vote, right? or was it the fourth vote? Do you remember what you said?) too many votes?

Yes I do remember what I said, while you don't seem to remember what you just quoted, or maybe you just misread, I'll give that to you. To answer: No, you are mistaken. I thought it was a fourth vote, not a third.

But remember, you thought yours was the third vote when you unvoted... I know it's hard to remember what lies you've told.

..Yeah, you are the only one lying here. Its interesting to see how you manipulate my words, first pretending so you're not sure about what I thought about my vote, and then seeming sure that I am lying. Subtle way to make people who aren't paying attention believe you. I tip my hat to you. To refresh your mind for the fifth time: I thought it was the fourth vote, not the third.


Okay, you can call this OMGUS even though she has not voted for me, but I don't like this blatant misinterpretation of my posts. Funny how she picks up for Flameaxe when he seems unsure of himself. Very buddy thing to do.

unvote, vote Bookitty

[originality]

The reason I voted for bookitty, Mirth, is because it looks like she is being purposefully confusing and mixing things up in ways that make me look rather bad. It makes me think shes manipulating words on purpose. Not a town move.


Bookitty, on that last post of yours you are half right. I did make a mistake in recounting events, but its an honest confusion. Sorry about that, but I believe you can tell what I really meant and my previous post delivers the same message regardless. You can see my ABCD thing in that same post, which is acurate. I would hardly be able to actually forget a "lie" I said in the beginning of a post by the end of it. If you are town, I ask you not to scumhunt based on some sort of psychological hunt for mistakes like you're some expert mental analyst or whatever, everybody makes mistakes like that. It is rather WIFOM to assume I'm scum just because of a small writing mistake. I actually make number mistakes like that in pretty much all games I've played. I get distracted easily with numbers, I guess. If you are scum I have nothing to say to you, you are doing the expected.

[originality]

First of all, thanks for having laid off my back. Second,

unvote

because Bookitty's last posts actually made good sense.(And no I'm not just talking about her having unvoted me).

Flameaxe, its important to speculate the setup so we know what to expect to better calculate lylo situations, etc. Though that sort of discussion is best for later in the game. I would also like to add in that I too do not understand the reason for the jmar vote. Can you quote and bold whatever he said that was scummy(est)?

[originality]

Albert, rate my scumminess rate.

Now.

And Mirth whats with you and Darwin? You do realise that he was sent by Lucifer to trick our minds into believing this "evolution" crap, right? By believing that BS you automatically condemn your soul to eternal damnation.


/joke

[originality]

Mirth, I think I know why, but I won't answer for him.
I agree with and understand dybecks vote.

[originality]

It looks like a

lot

of things bother Mirth. Also half her posts are about telling other people their posts aren't worth anything. Nice masquerade there, seeming active but actually not? Maybe, maybe. The point is Mirth is on my top suspicion list. Trying to bring out the worse on everybody. Evidence:

These below make no sense:

We know that Putty Patrollers exist in this game. But we do not know if both Peers and Avalon were in fact patrollers. The first post says they were, but this could be a limited reveal game, where any townie who dies, regardless of actual role, could be labeled by the mod as patroller. We will not know this until someone who has claimed not-putty dies. While this scenerio is not very likely, it is possible, and shouldn't be thrown out right away.

As to dybeck's list of suspicion, I'm not liking how he's writing pretty much everyone except Unright/Albert and Flameaxe as probably town.

Its better to have a narrower but strong list of suspects, if you suspect everyone in the game it leads to nowhere and is scumplay. No sense.

And this little exchange on page 34 was pretty odd:

Mirth:

But know do you know, Flameaxe? And why are you so resistant to giving a straight answer?

Flameaxe:

Because I'm having too much fun not revealing it.

Dybeck:

unvote, vote: Flameaxe. One good reason why not?

Mirth:

Dybeck, why are you jumping at Flameaxe all of a sudden? Surely, you've noticed he's been annoying and resistant for the past few pages?

Dybeck:

Voting him has proven elsewhere to make him more coherent. Let's see what he's trying to hide with this play acting.

Mirth:

You didn't actually answer my question, you know. I didn't ask why you voted him. I asked why you voted him *now* as opposed to some earlier point in time, since he's been keeping this nonsense up.

She just jumps from offensive to offensive. Its like she nitpicks all posts for some bad interpretation and goes with it. Now that bothers

me

.

[originality]

Oops, forgot.

vote Mirth

[originality]

Sup fellas. In case you didn't read the mod's note about me not being able to post for a while, I'd like to tell you I have not been able to connect to the Internet lately because I've been out of the country for the holiday season with no Internet. I was sort of expecting to have been replaced by now, but good thing I wasn't. I'm back for good.

A quick analysis of the last few pages indicates that the game is extremely spread out and needs more action. I will therefore switch my vote to the other person I considered scummy (and still do) for a while back, and who I seem to get at least some agreement on with everyone else.

unvote, vote dybeck

[originality]

Who do you consider scummy that everyone else doesn't necessarily agree with ?

Mirth.

[originality]

It looks like a

lot

of things bother Mirth. Also half her posts are about telling other people their posts aren't worth anything. Nice masquerade there, seeming active but actually not? Maybe, maybe. The point is Mirth is on my top suspicion list. Trying to bring out the worse on everybody. Evidence:

These below make no sense:

We know that Putty Patrollers exist in this game. But we do not know if both Peers and Avalon were in fact patrollers. The first post says they were, but this could be a limited reveal game, where any townie who dies, regardless of actual role, could be labeled by the mod as patroller. We will not know this until someone who has claimed not-putty dies. While this scenerio is not very likely, it is possible, and shouldn't be thrown out right away.

As to dybeck's list of suspicion, I'm not liking how he's writing pretty much everyone except Unright/Albert and Flameaxe as probably town.

Its better to have a narrower but strong list of suspects, if you suspect everyone in the game it leads to nowhere and is scumplay. No sense.

And this little exchange on page 34 was pretty odd:

Mirth:

But know do you know, Flameaxe? And why are you so resistant to giving a straight answer?

Flameaxe:

Because I'm having too much fun not revealing it.

Dybeck:

unvote, vote: Flameaxe. One good reason why not?

Mirth:

Dybeck, why are you jumping at Flameaxe all of a sudden? Surely, you've noticed he's been annoying and resistant for the past few pages?

Dybeck:

Voting him has proven elsewhere to make him more coherent. Let's see what he's trying to hide with this play acting.

Mirth:

You didn't actually answer my question, you know. I didn't ask why you voted him. I asked why you voted him *now* as opposed to some earlier point in time, since he's been keeping this nonsense up.

She just jumps from offensive to offensive. Its like she nitpicks all posts for some bad interpretation and goes with it. Now that bothers

me

.

[originality]

Originality and Jmar, would you give me a list of everyone in the town, ranked from most town to most scummy?

Can do.

From most town down to least town:

1)originality
2)thestatusquo
3)Cogito Ergo Scum
4)Flameaxe<
5)jmar <
6)Albert B. Rampage < (im pretty divided here)
7)Bookitty
8)DrippingGoofball
9)dybeck
10)Mirth


Yeah, that is about right.

[originality]

Albert didn't do much of note, but Unright was a rather sketchy case and, as many have already repeated, is either definite scum or powerrole. Therefore I feel uncomfortable naming him as top of my suspicion list.

The special comment was meant not only to Albert, but to all the ones with the arrow next to them: jmar & Flameaxe.

DG gets to be on top because Playswithsquirrels acted really odd to me, and when the replacement came I was hoping someone with more sanity could show us that the character is good, but DG has been doing a lot of nothing. Repetition in murky behavior is a red siren. I will concede it can be an exaggeration to put him as third most scummy, but what I wanted to say was that I'm not divided on him like I am with the three fellows above, that I find him with a definite lean towards the dark side.

I think if i could revise the list for most accuracy I would exchange Bookitty with DG, but thats only one place and fairly minor.

[originality]

I have a couple of questions.

@Albert: If you are as centered in dybeck as you say you are, why are you not voting for him?

@Jenter: Are you planning on voting for somebody at all or just wait till jmar shows up or something? Because you could save us a lot of time and vote dybeck like all the sensible people. I'd like you to tell me the pros and cons of a dybeck lynch from your point of view.

[originality]

vote jenter brolincani

Gotta go with the flow.

[originality]

You guys are crazy. So who else is lurking? I admit I have not been the most ardent follower of this game lately.

[originality]

Really? Why?

Why not?


Mirth, you know who else doesn't have humor? That's right, the mafia. I got my eye on you.

[originality]

Whoa whoa, why is originality so far down the lynch road. Not good. I will read your undoubtedly wrong reasons then yell at everyone in a very angry post when I am done.