Mini 967 - Mafia War (Over)

[Katsuki]

\confirm =.= (ish special)

[Katsuki]

^^

Also looks like we're close to getting started.

Vote Snow_Bunny

, I don't trust those shades.

FOS Exemption

for being late.

[Katsuki]

Lies and slander, Akatsuki are the good guys!

Who likes watching a yellow porcupine running around dattebayo??? Your reasoning was absolutely outlandish.

FOS: Zodiark13

[Katsuki]

I am legitimately voting mod.

Vote Empking

for twisting, in this case, the fact I didn't legitimately vote. Only scum don't want mods lynched.

[Katsuki]

@Soundwish: Why are you such an angry child?

[Katsuki]

Why the unvote if you were already voting for me silly?

[Katsuki]

Mainly calling a player an angry child for voting them.

No, I called him an angry child because my post made him angry.

[Katsuki]

I don't think he likes cuddly bears nor cupcakes.

[Katsuki]

Perhaps you'd like to explain what tells there have been thus far deadjoker.

[Katsuki]

Since I am getting quite the attention, I would love two things explained:

1. Why is calling sound an "angry child" deserving of a vote on my part? I am very curious.
As for my side of that, I assumed his post was a RV (which it probably was). The smiley should've said it all. It was further explained in post 47.


2. I'm getting slammed for lack of serious posts. Really? Last I checked that was not even a tell before

page 3

. If someone would like to explain how that warrents a vote I would really love to hear the reasoning.


In all honesty though, I have a problem with empking's arguments. He is calling me out for being overdefensive yet not serious at the same time. Considering I haven't even been defending myself, I fail to see how those "not serious" posts can even be related nor seen as overdefensive. He is also taking my posts out of context and ignoring things posted earlier explaining my posts.

If you call acting overdefensive to a vote (such as calling the voter an angry child)

Yeah, he said my post 31 made him angry everytime he read it... I was responding to his “anger” over my post, not to his vote. I already explained this in post 47, which you conveniently neglected and continued on with your own argument. Even if you assume I was responding to the vote, yes, that is definately overdefensive (/sarcasm). You attack me for lack of serious posts, and for being overdefensive at the same time. I fail to see how that combination works, as lack of serious posts in response to votes is obviously not being overdefensive.

Trying to minimize a serious vote by saying its because the voter doesn't like cupcakes

Including this in your argument of me being overdefensive. Links back to the lack of seriousness and overdefensive argument. And yes, the voter not liking cupcakes reduces the seriousness of all votes (/more sarcasm). No, my cupcake response was to post 48, which stated

“Personally, I think Empking is overreacting to something that I think is quite benign.”

Go back and read, post 49 was not the response to your "serious vote" reason, #47 was.

[Katsuki]

1. Katsuki, you called a player a "child". Y - Due to his over-exaggurated reaction to my post.
You said that to a player who voted you. Y
You said that in response to the post where he voted you. Y
A child's vote has less meaning than an adult's. N
That voter never gave any reason to beleive he was a child. - This is irrelevent to the argument and my response to his vote.
Your post wasn't serious. Correct
When somebody voted you, you called them a child in response to that vote. N


Your child argument is quite weak, silly, and meaningless. Children over-react, and because his overreaction was anger, hence "angry child".

Unvote, vote: Katsuki

Post 31 just rubs me up the wrong way. Makes me angry every time I read it.

Empking seems incapable of detecting sarcasm, especially in RVS.


2. Where is the word "All" in this sentance. - The sentence was sarcasm. Plus, your post implied that cupcakes diffuse the seriousness of votes, in this case, your vote.

You called a serious vote a vote based on not liking cupcakes. - N
This is calling it a random vote. - N
A random vote has less worth than a serious vote. - Y (re: first vote on me, P1)
You were trying to reduce the worth of a serious vote. - N

3. Are you saying that saying I'm reacting to "cuddly bears and cupcakes" rather than my serious reasons, is not a comment related to my vote?

Yep. Re: post 48. If you really wanted to try very hard and relate it indirectly to your vote then sure, go ahead. You are stretching things as it is so why not.


Another note: You conveniently left out my reaction to the first vote on me too, which was the akatsuki comment. I like how that is not part of the overly defensive argument, yet that post of mine was along the same lines as the rest. It is also conveniently not part of your argument on how random votes count just as much as serious ones.

[Katsuki]

*Left this out.

Soundwish: Clarifying whether that RV of yours was serious or not would be appreciated. Empking seems to think it was very serious.

[Katsuki]

I do not know why you would interpret it as a random vote. For one thing, I had already made a random vote, and making second ones is flat-out anti-town, and for another thing, my post clearly does not read like a random vote at all. Your post really did rub me up the wrong way, and it still makes me angry every time I read it. I find it strange that you assumed it was random.

Ahh... my bad, I thought your vote was RV, did not notice the original vote. I thought yours was RV due to the way you put it, and because that was similar to the style I'd be using for a RV. I apologize for not asking for clarification earlier.

Katsuki: Now that Soundwish has posted. Can you finally admit that you're trying to make serious votes look like baseless random votes?

Katsuki: Are votes a reaction to things?

Katsuki: Please explain what your reactions to random votes has to do with my case?

Katsuki: Have you made any posts that you're not going to brush off as "sarcasm".

Katsuki: You called Soundwish's vote an overreaction but haven't given any reasons to support that. Y/N.

1. No I was not trying to make serious votes look like baseless random vote. Soundwish's was a mixup on my part, and yours I already gave reason against it that you seem to

still

refuse to consider in the argument. You are also basing your argument off of the fact that I was reacting to soundwish's vote as serious, which I did not do and thus I see as invalid.

2. Depends.

3. You have been claiming me as over-defensive. I had considered 2 out of 3 votes on me as random. Thus for me, you taking one random and not the other made no sense. Not to mention, all prior arguments were made based on soundwish's being a RV, and should still be viewed as such. As such, grilling me for reacting the way I did to what I thought was a RV is unreasonable, as it is not my reaction to a "serious" vote.

4. You are not reading at all.

5. N, read above. It was the way he worded it as well as me seeing it as a RV. He also gave no reasons in the post for why it made him "angry and rubbed him in the wrong way", and thus I saw it as exagguration in a RVS post.

[Katsuki]

I just got back and am very tired, so I'll post/answer tomorrow. Sorry guys.

Just a few quick comments though:

@Stef: You say that my posts have done very little to help town thus far. Considering I've been spending my time defending myself from empking, I do not see how I am expected to carry out two discussions at the same time (in this case, defend and scumhunt at the same time).

Also as I said before, my response to soundwish was not over the vote, it was over the comment. That would actually further detract from the argument that I was actually being defensive not acting seriously. So when you think about it, regardless of RV or not, I never defended against soundwish's vote. That vote not being RV just means that I apparently responded to a "serious" vote with a "humorous" response. (Just a note, he still has not stated exactly why he voted me aside from "post making him angry", and I'm sorry, when its 6 posts into page 2 and also when others are still posting RVs, its hard to take a reason like that seriously considering the reason). Just saying.


@deadjoker: I thought I had already responded to that post, but evidently not as I do not see my response. I will post tomorrow. Sorry.

One thing though:

"I have a pet peeve over players stating it is RVS. It is so anti-town and widely accepted on these forums"

Actually, I have never heard this before. I am actually rather unfamiliar with the fine-line between RVS and actual scumhunting stage here. Considering how soundwish's vote came when others were still RV'ing (up to around post 40), I do not quite understand why I am being bashed for thinking it was a RV. Just saying that from where I'm used to playing, we do not mix real votes into RVS and RVS usually leads into discussion. (not like the meta between RVS and discussion seen here I guess).


Bleh, short comments turned into this. effing hell.

I would like to hear what others have to say in regards to empking though, as his is really the only significant vote on me at the moment (1 is RVS, 1 is soundwish's to which the reason for voting has not been actually explained yet, 1 is me=weird, who's reasoning up to now has been "lack of seriousness = good policy lynch", which was back early P3, and then empking's.)

[Katsuki]

No, I was posting very late last night.

I will get to you and deadjoker today when I have time.

[Katsuki]

I'm very interested to hear why Katsuki has not responded to this post by Empking:

Empking - why is Katsuki more likely to call me an "angry child" as scum than town?

Scum is more worried about getting votes.

To me this is a very valid point. Everyone got random votes on them, but Katsuki was the only one to respond with an explosion of half-hearted "lol its RVS" posts. He continues in his posts to reference RVS in his attempts to erase the mounting suspicion against him, and muddy the waters to put doubt in the people currently on his bandwagon. Hence why I stated in my first post - I have a pet peeve over players stating it is RVS. It is so anti-town and widely accepted on these forums, as if the playstyle intentially gives scum a free pass in the first few pages of every game. I am not about to allow Katsuki to "lol its RVS" his way out of this bandwagon.

If Katsuki can successfully respond to my inquiries then I won't have a case against him anymore, but if he tries to avoid answering directly then I will join his bandwagon.

I took the first 2 votes as RVS, and as you can tell from my responses to those two, I didn't really care (honestly, my response to soundwish's had a ":(" too...) In essense, at that time, I took only empking's as a serious vote, and his reasons for voting for me were weak (post 46). Since, me=weird has voted me for policy lynch, and sondwish has removed his vote.

On the topic of scum worried about getting many votes and bandwagoned early on, I do agree with that statement. However, it is a combination of the votes on the player (well-reasoned votes, RVS votes, bad votes, etc.) and about how the player reacts to those votes/being bandwagoned that gives you the important information. At least, that is what I look for when someone defends themselves. Defending oneself when bandwagoned is something everyone does. However, scum tend to be overdefensive about being voted. While I did respond to each of the votes on me (including zodiark's RVS), I do not see how my actions were both out of the ordinary nor over-defensive. I would lastly like to just say that my response to soundwish's vote was similar to my response to zodiarks (would empking now like to use me calling zodiark's vote "outlandish" against me as well for being over-defensive?).

I am not trying to use RVS as a defense, but I have been trying to note that the first two votes on me originally occured during RVS. That is all.

_____________________________________

I will get to stef's post later. Sorry for delays.

[Katsuki]

Huh? It is called defending and answering questions.

Stef did not get to your post today, it will be answered tmr.

[Katsuki]

Have to help with dinner, don't have time to address everything, but

As far as Me=Weird, he seemed to go MIA at an awfully convenient time.

If you checked my wiki for the other games I'm in, you'd see that I said that in all of them.

Do not like this statement at all.

Where is Me=Weird at right now vote wise?

[Katsuki]

I meant in terms of a vote count on you.

[Katsuki]

I am willing to lynch me=weird because it does not seem it will ever be willing to provide anything of use, nor scumhunt. Constantly finding excuses to disappear is not something I usually tolerate.

[Katsuki]

I am willing to lynch me=weird because it does not seem it will ever be willing to provide anything of use, nor scumhunt. Constantly finding excuses to disappear is not something I usually tolerate.

Wait, in other words you think we should policy lynch Me=weird? LMAO

Is that policy? I see him as purposefully avoiding posting and flinging votes around. His only contribution thus far if I remember was the lone policy lynch for me.

I still need to go back and analyze.

@Stef: Didn't I respond? I thought I did. I'll go look in a bit (watching game atm).

[Katsuki]

Apparently I never posted, my apologies. I had the following saved in notes though.

First Katsuki:

He dismisses

a vote

as being invalid because, and I quote, "You are also basing your argument off of the fact that I was reacting to soundwish's vote as serious, which I did not do"

No I did not dismiss a vote. I was dismissing basis of empking’s argument. If you did not notice, he started by building his case off of almost nothing, then used posts and facts that came after his initial vote and argument as a means to justify his actions prior to the support he is using even came out. I am not sure if this is clearly worded, but essentially, the evidence he is using for the base of his arguments came out after his argument, and as such, how do you base an argument off of information you did not have?

[Katsuki]

Glad we got the extension. Will be posting some stuff in the near future now that I have time before deadline.

[Katsuki]

me=weird: Post. Being accused of parroting should not be an excuse of not posting.

[Katsuki]

I do not believe empking to be the most scummy at the moment. I am currently reading through. Probably should unvote though.

[Katsuki]

Hmm. I still like the idea of lynching me=weird the most. I will not put him at L1 though.

Amish seems to be pman's biggest defender, though a few others seem to think that defending those they perceive as town is ok (horror was one, do not remember who else). While I do not usually support players defending others as early in the game as pman did me, his arguments did not seem particularly scummy. For me, pman's response to empking in post 75 is what gives me a non-scum read for now.

Both Amish and Unsight seem to be brewing up sandstorms though. It feels that after their exchange, we really did not get anywhere. My problem with Amish was his initial reaction to unsight (post 114 in response to post 109). His subsequent skirmish with unsight did not help his case. I have a neutral read on them thus far, though amish is definately on my radar.

[Katsuki]

So we have 3 more days until deadline, and are semi-torn between me= and AC.

Unvote, Vote AC

I do not necessarily think he is more scummy than me=, but I do not wish to put me= at L1. However, imo a case can be better made on AC because he has more posts and substance for us to analyze, but as I said earlier, I have not liked me='s play. AC's last post trying to paint Unsight as a lurker has moved me to vote.

[Katsuki]

"...a case can be made on me because I haven't been posting..."

huh? Definately did not say that. Said you have posted while me= hasn't. I think both of you are lynchable. Me= precisely for all the lurking and non-existant contribution, and you, well, you're the next after me= on my scumlist.

[Katsuki]

I would personally prefer to wait to analyze unsight tomorrow. IMO there is not enough time for us to get a proper discussion on his case for his lynch going now.

[Katsuki]

Katsuki, some of us have been discussing the Unsight case for a few days now. What kept you?

I am not entirely sure of my read on unsight. I am not gonna jump in when I am not sure of my own thoughts and analysis. Considering I have seen a similar style of play before, he does not immediately jump out at me as scum. As such, he is still neutral-ish in my eyes.

[Katsuki]

...

It's majority lynch. Someone obviously hasn't been reading the thread, nor the rules.

[Katsuki]

Ah I misread majority of votes instead of majority of players. My bad.

[Katsuki]

Vote Empking

Reasons given for AC vote are totally based on WIFOM. Either AC is indeed scum, or mafia NK'ed unsight to frame AC. Convenient way for mafia to frame a scummy-looking AC, and seems more like the later of the two possibilities I stated.

[Katsuki]

... because of what happened D1 and between unsight and AC is what makes it WIFOM.

[Katsuki]

Deadjoker: IS your reasoning behind AC mostly because unsight flipped town?

[Katsuki]

@Exemption: I thought I had already talked about the WIFOM. If AC is scum, I doubt he would kill off unsight, as that would make him seem even more suspicious. As such, scum might kill unsight to try and make AC look guilty so that town continues lynching AC, who we already had suspicions about D1, on D2. However, scum can conversely carry out the kill to create the situation described above in order for us to

not

kill AC.
Hence, this is a WIFOM situation. I did not like empking voting AC right off the bat considering the "discussion" unsight and AC has yesterday, and to me, it seemed like he wanted to try and start a bandwagon on AC. I do not like being so hasty considering what the situation is.

[Katsuki]

@Exemption: I suppose. However, I found it suspicious given my read on empking's playstyle and how he builds cases and pressures.
_______

Also, do we really want to get into the discussion as to whether there are 2 factions or not again? There was only one NK, and hence no reason yet to assume 2 factions. (someone was talking about multiple factions)

[Katsuki]

Horror, how is this back and forth anti-town in any way? The only anti-town thing is using spyrex's statement to get out of the discussion between you two, especially with stef's last post. Nice job trying to avoid stef and divert attention to me.

Spyrex comes in and saves horror from being grilled further by stef.

FOS: Spyrex

Vote: horror

[Katsuki]

Once again, how is the back and forth anti-town? We also have no idea as to your alignments, so how can you assume that it is Town v. Town?

Also, how is it OMGUS?
Seems like you are trying to degrade my vote.

[Katsuki]

Funny how the scummiest person left from D1 is siding with horror.

@Horror: Erm, that was not exactly my reason for voting. Your vote means nothing to me. Spyrex's comments and your willingness to go along with the stairs he provides for you to leave the stage is what led to my vote.

You also still haven't responded to what stef said about your misrep of quotes.

Furthermore, when there is good discussion happening, why would we step in and derail it?

[Katsuki]

@Lack of vote:

I thought he put himself at L1, and I was not going to hammer right after he self-voted. I would have been able to get online before day ended to hammer if needed but I wanted to give others a chance to react.


@Vote: How does me not having mentioned you before have anything to do with this? It means nothing. I looked at what spyrex wrote, then the things you said and did after, and voted you for it. This is not OMGUS. Nice attempt at strawman though.
If I feel that you are scummy, am I not allowed to vote for you? I really think that you are trying to use my vote as a distraction, not to mention using "OMGUS" degrade my vote.

[Katsuki]

@Lack of vote:

I thought he put himself at L1, and I was not going to hammer right after he self-voted. I would have been able to get online before day ended to hammer if needed but I wanted to give others a chance to react.

The lynch scene was posted over 24 hours after your "Well then, I'm not gonna hammer even though I should" post, and you didn't make another post after... why is that?

Now why should I have hammered? I'm quite curious of the thoughts behind YOUR reasoning.

@Vote: How does me not having mentioned you before have anything to do with this? It means nothing. I looked at what spyrex wrote, then the things you said and did after, and voted you for it. This is not OMGUS. Nice attempt at strawman though.
If I feel that you are scummy, am I not allowed to vote for you? I really think that you are trying to use my vote as a distraction, not to mention using "OMGUS" degrade my vote.

I never said you couldn't vote for me. I just pointed out that HOW you did it (without previously even acknowledging I was really in the game) was very scummy.

Yes because spyrex was in the game before. Really, this is quite laughable. You refuse to acknowledge that my vote came as a result of what spyrex said, and THEN how YOU reacted to it.

And something I just noticed:

Funny how the scummiest person left from D1 is siding with horror.

Hmm... let's look a certain post, shall we?

Reasons given for AC vote are totally based on WIFOM. Either AC is indeed scum, or mafia NK'ed unsight to frame AC. Convenient way for mafia to frame a scummy-looking AC, and seems more like the later of the two possibilities I stated.

It looks to me like you thought that AC wasn't very likely to be scum, but all of a sudden now you decide to throw in the fact that AC was defending me? Why the sudden contradiction? Oh wait, I know... to help build a non-existant case on me!

How and when did I say anything about AC not being likely scum? The whole point of WIFOM is that both possibilities are equally probable... It was in response to empking's insta-vote. You did it to stef too, but stop mis-reping what people say. It doesn't help your argument at all.

Furthermore, what does what I said about AC have to do with your defence? Nothing.

[Katsuki]

Oh god...

Re: No Hammer

I am not going to hammer someone right after a self-vote. I would have been able to get online to lynch if need be. Why would you want cut off discussion asap? I was quite curious about the self vote, considering town needed majority, meaning that an immediate hammer was definately not favorable in that situation considering his move. There was no need for me to hammer right away.

Re: Spyrex

- I really do not need to explain that one.

The only reason you included it in your post was because you thought it would help your case by labeling me as receiving aide from a scummy player. It didn't work when I noticed the contradiction in your posts.

Where was the contradiction. You claim to have "noticed" a contradiction, yet you do not say what nor where it was? Please stop stating all these things without proof. It seems that every post of yours thus far has included a strawman.

[Katsuki]

WOW. More misrep?

I said that it is a

"possibility"

. What part of that word do you not get? Here is the exact post.

@Exemption: I thought I had already talked about the WIFOM. If AC is scum, I doubt he would kill off unsight, as that would make him seem even more suspicious. As such, scum might kill unsight to try and make AC look guilty so that town continues lynching AC, who we already had suspicions about D1, on D2. However, scum can conversely carry out the kill to create the situation described above in order for us to

not

kill AC.
Hence, this is a WIFOM situation. I did not like empking voting AC right off the bat considering the "discussion" unsight and AC has yesterday, and to me, it seemed like he wanted to try and start a bandwagon on AC. I do not like being so hasty considering what the situation is.

You seem to enjoy taking parts of posts out of context to fit your own arguments.

[Katsuki]

*For reference, ISO#35

[Katsuki]

Just throwing it out there since I looked into it, horror V/LA'd in all his games (at least I saw a bunch), so I at least will not be using that against him.

[Katsuki]

Overdefensive? Are you referring to my D1 stuff? Because if so, I still fail to see how that is overdefensive.

I would also love an explanation as to the flailing statement.


@Spyrex: If you are gonna accuse me of something, instead of taking what others say, please post your own case. I would love to hear what YOU have to say, not you using what someone else had to say.

[Katsuki]

Points of what others have said. In this case, what deadjoker said, and what you quoted in your post 355.

Also my play is directly related to the suspicion on me 100%? Because there was suspicion on me when I called you and horror out on stopping the horror v stef discussion. Ok.

Please stop presenting false facts kthx.


@Exemption and lack of hammer:

Although I have not played all THAT many games, but I tend to avoid hammering unless needed. After a self-vote it seemed that he was trying to help town by preventing a no-lynch. Plus, we still had time before deadline. Had it been right before deadline then I would've hammered.
In all honesty though, considering that its already happened and timestamp is against me, no matter how I present my reasoning, those who see it scummy will continue to see it as scummy.
I also notice my lack of explanation at the time for me not lynching. I was in class at the time and did not think to put down my reasoning at the time. That is my fault.

[Katsuki]

*I still do not understand how my vote was OMGUS. Spyrex gave horror an escape route out of the argument which horror promptly took. I called him out on it.

I suspect both spyrex and horror, but alas I only have one vote. Horror's arguments (or lack thereof) have only reinforced my belief that my vote is on the right person. He constantly misreps, both with my stuff and before with stef's, and strawmans.

[Katsuki]

I am not challenging him, but rather, I wish for spyrex to post an analysis of his own so that we have a record of what he had to say later on in the game and what his views were against me.

@Spyrex: When did I accuse you of being a parrot? I merely wish for you to not use what you did in

post #355

, where you let others post points instead of posting them yourself. My definition of parroting is repeating points that others gave.
Please do not twist what I said.


Also I will not V/LA,

but I have finals so my activity level will be down for the next week.

[Katsuki]

I don't know what to make of Kat. I think he is a player attempting to look like town rather than being town, but it is gut and not much evidence.

So spyrex, your name is deadjoker? I thought you said the bold in your last post were your points. Yet this is deadjokers.

Re: Analyzing me

There you go, you quoted your own stuff of how you'll "look into me". You kept saying you'll look into my posts and analyze. Then go do it and stop talking fluff. Until then please stop trying to sling mud at me.

You're accusing me of being your second scum target yet you're refusing to build a case against me. I presented my case as to why I thought horror was scum. Now if you think I'm scum, present a case.
Stop getting other players to post and then "agreeing" with what they say when you haven't even bothered to analyze as to what I've done is scummy.

[Katsuki]

Oh, to clarify:

By having someone else post points and then "agreeing" with them, you are still avoiding to post your own analysis. That is my problem with you. Stop having other players provide points for you use or "agree" with.

[Katsuki]

Update vote:

Unvote, Vote: Horror

[Katsuki]

The horror vote is based on him continuously misreping, and playing along with you. Hence, the vote on horror and the FOS on you.
Is that really difficult?

I also like how you answered empking's statement. Except, you completely didn't.

Furthermore, how have I distanced myself from D1 lynch? The only thing I have done to this point is explain why I didn't hammer. That =/= distancing myself from D1 lynch.

You label my vote on horror as OMGUS only because I hadn't mentioned him before? I never knew you had to mention someone's name before you vote for them. Especially when a part of the reason is how they responded to someone who had just entered the game a day earlier.

[Katsuki]

Come to think about it, the point that scum would not so blatently come out to defend another. It does not change the fact that horror's arguments have been downright terrible though. In this case, spyrex may in fact be more likely scum than horror.

I must be losing it for forgetting to remember such a basic principal.

[Katsuki]

Not really. It just means I have to go back and think about it more when I have time. I doubt that both you and horror are town though.

[Katsuki]

When have I ever hopped wagons? I haven't hopped wagons once this game.

My vote is on you for now, because regardless of how blatent that defending was, it does not change that your arguments were terrible and contained a lot of mis-reping and strawmans.

I have not had time due to finals, moving and all that jazz, but I will do a more thorough analysis when i have time. I am not sure about spyrex either, which is why I am not changing to him unless there is a solid reason for me to.

[Katsuki]

V/LA until Sunday/Monday

Move out and so on.

Haven't had time to read properly, but how was my post a contradiction horror? Did you not understand the

"may"

part of that second post you quoted?

[Katsuki]

Wait, no deadline extension given forum moving? :/

Also I am VT. I am fine with either an AC, horror, or spyrex lynch.

[Katsuki]

VT Claim=lynch him.

This is quite the interesting post.

Also does anyone know where the iso option now is?

@Mod: An extention of at least a day or two would be greatly appreciated considering we now have to find out how this damned forum works...

[Katsuki]

Erg... spyrex was scum. My argumentative and convincing skills suck.

I'm surprised at how that last day went though. gg.