Newbie 480: Game Over!

[Erg0]

No, you accused me of not responding to stuff that relates to me. In that post right above mine.

[destructor]

I wouldn't call it an accusation. More like a comment and it's the truth, nothing more or less. The point I was making was that since you've not replied, my opinions as stated in my case are unchanged.

[Erg0]

If you're talking about your post from the end of day 1, I already said (in post 313) that I didn't think it warranted a detailed response at this point. Much of your post is just a repeat of your previous case, and the rest is semantics. I recall that at least one person agreed with me about this.

[destructor]

Ok, so I hadn't read that post when I posted my update. A lot of that was basically what I was going to say in Day 1. Even so, I am wary of people who choose not to defend themselves by generally discrediting the arguments against them.

I'm going to read the rest of the Day before I post any more.

[Erg0]

All I can really say to 286 is "see my original post". All you're really doing is quoting my response to your earlier post and then saying "I disagree" after each point. I can't think of any clearer way to explain it, so you'll just have to be happy with the response that you got the first time. If there are any specific points that are particularly significant to you then let me know and I'll respond, but I have a finite amount of time to dedicate to this game and I'm trying to avoid wasting it on repeating myself.

[Erg0]

I think I might post these one player at a time to prevent creating the now-famous wall o' words.

Porochaz

• I'm ok with the early random vote on CS and initial refusal to move his vote. His early statement that he is sure of CS being scum is forgivable as overenthusiasm, I think.
  
• This sentence from post 23 confuses me:

  leetonicon, I like your erm... logic... if Im getting this right... so Im going to ask you to clarify your statement, so I make sure before I make any wrongful assumptions.

  This was in response to leet's 22, in which he talks about having two wagons being good. Porochaz FoSes leet for the same post in post 28, which appears to contradict his earlier statement. Am I missing some sarcasm or something here?
  
• I don't think I ever specifically mentioned his question to me in post 33 before, and I probably should have:

  ...So I ask you and NOT Civil Scum what was CS meaning if he wasn't meaning it?

  When I talk about my defence of CS being incidental to my attack on Zeek, this is what I'm referring to. The only reason that I gave my thoughts on CS's motivation was that Poro specifically asked me to. I don't think it was Poro that pressed me on this later, though he certainly didn't raise it when Zeek was accusing me of defending CS.
  
• As of post 70, he likes peapod, Ripley and Zeek, is mixed on CS and leeton, and votes for me. The "townie but not 100%" comment on peapod seems like a simple case of unfortunate phrasing to me. He seemed to ignore some of my previous responses in this post, but catches up in 87 after I point this out. I'm not completely comfortable with his reasoning for the vote, especially the part where he says I defended CS without saying why I changed my mind, which is a serious misrepresentation of my actions. He also relies to an extent (though not totally) on a quote of Zeek's reasons for voting me.
  
• There's a pretty big gap from post 91 to post 184 where Poro leaves his vote on me but doesn't talk about me at all. In 184 he says he thinks that I'm scum, yet he's sat on my wagon for two whole weeks without pushing it
  at all
  , even when destructor expressed strong suspicion of me. This is a strong point against him in my eyes, as it serves to minimise his attachment to the wagon if I'm lynched. Most of this time is spent on a minor back-and-forth with Zeek and a number of general statements of theory (e.g. that destructor must be held responsible for leet's actions). He does persist in expressing suspcion of CS throughout this period.
  
• The reasons given in 184 for Ripley being town are pretty weak.
  
• By post 210 I've fallen below CS on his radar, and he switches his vote to CS. This seems to be mainly based on CS's attack (and vote) on Ripley around this time. The case itself in this post isn't that strong, though he's been on CS more or less throughout the day.
  
• 223 is significant, because Poro talks about his meta on Garn being similar to what we're seeing. This is a townish thing to say, since it's unlikely that this would have been raised otherwise (and Garn turned up town). From this point forward he sticks to defending Garn and attacking CS up to deadline.

I like Porochaz's consistency and his defence of Garnasha, though the defence of Ripley was less convincing. I don't like the way that he tended to follow others' cases on me and CS later in the day. He also didn't really put any effort into pushing his preferred lynch targets, especially in my case as he practically ignored me once his vote was on me.

[destructor]

If there are any specific points that are particularly significant to you then let me know and I'll respond...

Ok, I'll try to be concise and get to the beef of it, although I think you exaggerated by saying i was simply disagreeing with each quote.

I stand by this particular point, which I think I articulated best in 286:

You called [Zeek's post about CS] a reach and in the same post qualified this

with your assumption of CS's motives

, all of which you had no way of knowing to be true.

Do you deny this?

If not, was it not a contradiction or misleading to suggest the following?

... I didn't assume innocence of CS...

There are many questions I asked in my post, none of which you've answered, and I don't believe they are repeated questions either. I'd still like to hear answers to all of them.

If you feel no need to respond to the other points I raised against you, such as your actions around the Garnasha wagon, then you shouldn't expect my opinion to change.

I noticed you posted a Porochaz summary. I'm looking forward to the rest of your notes.

[Porochaz]

Porochaz

• This sentence from post 23 confuses me:

  leetonicon, I like your erm... logic... if Im getting this right... so Im going to ask you to clarify your statement, so I make sure before I make any wrongful assumptions.

  This was in response to leet's 22, in which he talks about having two wagons being good. Porochaz FoSes leet for the same post in post 28, which appears to contradict his earlier statement. Am I missing some sarcasm or something here?
  no I was unsure what he meant I was genuinely asking him to state exactly what he was saying so I could respond better.

[destructor]

Oh, I had a question. Why was Ripley saying that a lynch was going to be better than No Lynch in Day 1? If we didn't lynch yesterday, even with a night kill, we wouldn't be at lylo now, would we?

[Erg0]

ZeekLTK

• I'm still not a fan of Zeek's attack on CS at the start of the game. I stand by what i said at the time, I feel it's a reach. I do like his comment in 54 on avoiding speedlynches, though - if the quick lynch had worked for him as scum previously then I could have seen him trying it again here.
  
• There are a lot of contradictions in Zeek's posts, particularly regarding the validity of his own cases. In 83 he talks about Ripley and Poro possibly being scum for following his "crap logic", and later on he talks about his case on me being based on the idea that his case on CS was wrong.
  
• Zeek has some back-and-forth with Poro through the middle part of day 1, mainly regarding alleged lurking, Poro calling Garn town, and Poro following his vote onto me. Nothing much comes of this, and he still says he's supicious of me and CS in 230.
  
• Post 230 is the game's first mention of the idea of lynching Garn as a harm minimisation strategy. At least two other players refer back to this as a good plan later on, when it really isn't as presented.
  
• Post 264 states his only two scum pairings, both of which are now impossible from my perspective (Poro/Garn, CS/Me). He expands on this further in 276, and I don't particularly agree with his reasoning, given that the pairs are both on wagons together at the time. This really seems like a very shallow analysis to me, as the incidence of scum pairs jumping on the same wagon one after another at deadline is not very high.
  
• Post 295 (the hammer post) doesn't really justify the vote in my opinion. In post 230 he said that he found CS and me scummy, but would accept lynching Garn. By the time 295 rolls around there's a definite movement in my direction by destructor and, to a lesser extent, Ripley, but he ignores it and opts to hammer Garn instead.

I'm not sure about Zeek right now, but I will say that I definitely do not find him to be the paragon of towniness that others have cast him as. The weird self-contradicting case on Porochaz and the abandonment of his prior position when hammering Zeek are marks against him in my book.

CS and destructor will come when I get the chance to write summaries from my notes.

[Erg0]

Oh, I had a question. Why was Ripley saying that a lynch was going to be better than No Lynch in Day 1? If we didn't lynch yesterday, even with a night kill, we wouldn't be at lylo now, would we?

Yes, we would (6 players left after night, 1 mislynch + 1 nightkill = 2 scum and 2 town remaining). A no lynch is almost the worst thing you can do on day 1 of a C9 (apart from lynching a power role).

[destructor]

But if we had a Doc, there would have been the chance of preventing the N2 kill. Isn't the chance of that worth No Lynching in Day 1, if there isn't a good case on anyone?

[Erg0]

Not really, since there's only a 50% chance of having a doc, and even then the doc needs to pick the right person to protect. I believe that one of the resident mathematical geniuses has done the sums on this and found the no lynch on day 1 to be the worst option statistically (assuming random choices, I guess).

In any case, I'd rather have two guaranteed shots at getting the lynch right than one with a <50% chance of a second.

[Civil Scum]

I like Porochaz's consistency and his defence of Garnasha, though the defence of Ripley was less convincing.

Porochaz's "defense" of Ripley revolves around his finding me scummy. I agree it's less than convincing. Also incredibly strange that he nver says "Ripley, don't you think CS is going along with the deluded townie observation too readily?" Instead he puts this argument across to me while accepting the fact that Ripley did not feel the need to vote me.

I don't see what there is to like about his consistency or his defense of Garnasha.
I particularly take issue with his response to when I wrote "OH, AND HE's NOT EVEN READING THE THREAD" - To which Poro replied 'Well, neither are you'- Which is not only untrue, but suggests that Poro is alright with Garn not participating.

And, yeah Zeek hammered Garn. But someone had to. At that point, were it up to me I would have dropped the hammer I am sure. I don't see how this makes Zeek look any worse than Ripley, myself, or Ergo. All of which could have placed their vote elsewhere (excepting Ergo, who couldn't vote for himself, although I suppose he could have put me at L-1). Yeah, the deadline was still 48 hours away. But I think everyone was just ready for it to happen.

I took issue with a few things that CS did before I made it back. His vote on me (156), I thought was reactive and reckless. He had posted issues he had with me, but I don't think it was a good move to not vote at the time (implying he's waiting for a response or more evidence) then put a vote on me, only accompanying it with the word 'Bah'.

-I had my vote on Leet during the replacement. Ergo unvoted before you came in (saying well this is probably going to go nowhere now).
-I posted explaining why I wasn't ready to change my vote. Ergo places you at L-2 (not saying 'well maybe this will go somewhere'. He later states this was placing you at one-vote. Poor recollection again rather than fabricating evidence)
After your first post, I immediately unvoted-saying I'd better think about this-becuase it was a town-sounding effort.

I don't know how to Hyperlink, but these posts should ease your mind about my troublesome behavior you're talking about here.
-Post 121 and 137 I cite reasons for the unvote and point to one part of your PBP which I didn't appreciate.
-Ergo says your post made him happy with his vote.
-I ask why
-Post 142 I outline why I am leaning towards revoting.
-Post 153 I expand on something about your post whcih realkly bothered me.
-You hadn't responded anywhere in between, hence 'Bah, revote'

If you go back and read this section of the thread, my reasons for voting you were based on both your's and Leet's behavior. And it's not like I just hoped in there. Frustration did play a part I'll admit. But you're misrepresenting my vote/unvote/vote pattern with how you've boiled it down here.

In Post 170 CS speculated on Poro's intentions. I don't know why he chose to do this, since, like Erg0 to CS early on, I don't see why he should have been assuming the best of Porochaz. In the rest of the post, CS seemed to begin backing off on his suspicion of me. I thought it was notable that this came after Erg0 had unvoted me. In 178, this continued and he also began digging into the Ripley thing, asking Erg0 to present any case he had, which Ripley pointed out.

With Poro, the few odd things people had pointed out weren't striking me as incredibly scummy. They still don't. It's his whole pattern of play I take issue with.
And for a while I felt the "Sure" comment. Voting Ergo on Zeek's case alone. Labeling Peapod town, all fell easier into the category of over-keen town. Because frankly, there was nothing to be gained with these comments as scum.

183 confuses me. After posting that he's increasingly suspicious of Erg0, he seems to post something that is almost defensive of him. In this post he also begins his offensive on Ripley. 192 was also odd, since he unvoted me without any explanation, and in the same post wrote that he found Erg0's unvote strange. In his next post he even goes on to suggest reasons that I could still be scum. His unvote was really odd, and I'm surprised no one else thought to say anything about it.

This unvote is odd. I didn't like Ripley's OMGUS this late. This is where I go balls-to the wall overboard on Ripley. This was all very strange. I'll try to remember exactly what my reasoning was at this time, but I can't guarantee anything.
I didn't understand where Ergo was going with his vote. I found his unvote strange, especially after stating that Destructor's first post made him happy with his vote. He later explains that your deconstruction of his problems with the post satisfied him.

I have been alternatively suspicious and defensive of Ergo. Because we have been linked in some form or another, I've felt like if I take a definitive stance, people would have used it against me. And frankly, I really haven't been able to decide what to make of his early treatment of my behavior. This no doubt sounds side-steppy, but I don't know how else to elaborate at this point. To do it thouroughly, I would have to link a number of posts, and try to recall what I was reasoning at the time. As Ergo said, for every post he can find a defense for him, he can find one where I attack. I posted a lot either way, and will try to come to a conclusion soon.

Post 200, CS suggests a Ripley/me connection and says he disagrees with Ripley on a few points of question about Porochaz. Again, he seems to be assuming the best of Porochaz.

still operating under the assumption of Poro=overkeen town and Ripley's guilt (both mistakes now)

They are moments like this, when viewed in retrospect, that gave me the impression that CS was playing like a 'tunnel-visioned' townie. The reason I say this is that here, CS seems to be leaning towards thinking Poro is pro-town, but later in the day, when Poro began more of an assault on CS, CS seemed to turn around and start noticing more scummy things about Poro. This seems to have carried over into Day 2.

After I decided Ripley was town, and so destructor too. I began linking Poro/Garn.

CS raises some pro-town points in favour of Erg0 tied in with attacks on Ripley in Post 218. I still think Erg0 is likely scum, and the lynch and night kill don't do anything to quell this suspicion. If anything, it only makes it seem more likely. In light of this, I think 218 is notable and is further evidence of a Erg0-CS Mafia. Yes, I realise that in Day 2, CS has noted suspicion of Erg0 but I'll have to read more carefully to see to what came of it and where it may have been going. I do recall CS saying he found certain parts of my case not-so-solid. I'm not sure if he ever elaborated on this.

It was the accusation of fabricating evidence especially, which seemed to be over-stepping a boundary. A lot of Ergo's response to your earlier post, which he says stands as a reply to your later one as well, reads a bit like a legal document.

The whole "stated" basis/actual basis thing I am not quite clear on. Whether or not the attack on Zeek (based on a conflict of assumptions-suspicion certainly being more appropriate at the time-point Destructor) precluded the defense has chicken-or-the-egg written all over it. The defense followed when Ergo was pressed (and the stated basis for the defense developed out of this). But in assuming non-scumminess on my part, Ergo has kind of taken a defensive position on me which he uses to call Zeek's post a "reach". I don't think you can say outright which took place first. I especially don't like the WIFOM of me comment made by Ergo. But it is true that many things are WIFOM. Why use this as defense though.

CS's flip on Garnasha (from town to scum) was certainly notable and not to be forgotten. He explained that this was due to a change in perception of players alignments. It could easily have been a mistaken on his part, to not explain this when he voted for Garnasha, but could just as easily been a backtrack. I also noted CS' almost incessant declaration of Zeek's pro-townness, which may again be the 'tunnel-vision' rearing its head.

Trying to fix my tunnel-vision. Zeek has been somewhat self-critical of his own arguments. I don't think this incredibly scummy though. And I certainly do not hold his hammer of Garn against him. I don't feel the need to explain my flip on Garnasha again. It was based upon other perceptions, and certainly not helped by Garn's sudden activity which reaked of scumminess, self-preservation, and NOT READING THE THREAD. 'If anyone else proposed the crap-logic case that I should be lynched even if I'm not that scummy, then I'd probably go after them'. It was honestly like 6 posts above. And I found him less and less townie as the deadline approached.

After Ergo posts his thoughts on me, I'll respond and let everyone know where I stand on him right now.

[Civil Scum]

Oh, and Ergo. Porochaz's consistency should really bother almost everyone at this point. Becuase, if both Poro and I are town then there is no way for town to win this game. Poro won't vote for anyone else. Not even my scum partner who he can't find.

-How hilarious would it be if Poro and I were the scum?

[Porochaz]

I particularly take issue with his response to when I wrote "OH, AND HE's NOT EVEN READING THE THREAD" - To which Poro replied 'Well, neither are you'- Which is not only untrue, but suggests that Poro is alright with Garn not participating.

I wasnt defending Garn there I was annoyed at you and me having to repeat myself. That part had nothing to do with Garn whatsoever

[Civil Scum]

Damn it Poro.

Just a change of heart, huh! Just like that... your opinion changes just like that? That would make things look mighty suspicious if you had, lets take Ripley for instance, put up some sort of argument against him and now decided hes town? Oh wait, thats what has happened. Your like a colour-blind chameleon who is badly trying to find a way into the townie area by designing a theory that people like.

Lynching Garn regardless of what side towns on is stupid. Were hunting scum and lynching townies is going in the opposite direction. I said I would listen to any argument people had about anyone but yours makes absolutely no sense.

This was your response to my explanation for the flop and such. Did you not expect me to respond negatively to this? Also, the conversation at this point was revolving a lot around Garn and the deadline (which seemed to escape you at the time) You do defend him weakly in the post following mine. And u don't seem that upset that he's not threading the thread. Anyways, with the stance you claim to have at that point, you should have been defending Garn outright.

Once again you're using your attacks on me as a defense for your own questionable/shabby behavior.

[Porochaz]

Damn it Poro.

This was your response to my explanation for the flop and such. Did you not expect me to respond negatively to this? Also, the conversation at this point was revolving a lot around Garn and the deadline (which seemed to escape you at the time) You do defend him weakly in the post following mine. And u don't seem that upset that he's not threading the thread. Anyways, with the stance you claim to have at that point, you should have been defending Garn outright.

Once again you're using your attacks on me as a defense for your own questionable/shabby behavior.

K, I generally expect you to respond negatively to anything I do. Besides, Garns not a baby, he doesn't post like one, Im sure he can defend himself? I attacked you because at that point I had to repeat something over and over again to you. That wasn't ever saying your scummy, just that you seemed to be reading my posts without your reading glasses on. I think I should decide the content of my posts regarding people.

That last line is bull and I dont even know where it comes from. Care to elaborate?

[Civil Scum]

Yep, the case against Erg0 is affected by the whole thing with you and forms a large part of it. Except, my case against Erg0 is, to a large extent, fueled by you. So I look at you both and go "hmmm, I wonder how Erg0/Civil will react with Civil/Erg0 gone. How the dynamics will change?

What a god-awful terrible terrible reason to advocate someone's lynch. I was responding to your posts.

Several times you've used my behavior as some strange shield. Elaboration complete.

Poro, you are putting me in the difficult position of practically having no choice but to vote you.

[Porochaz]

Well that point (which by the way was made ages ago and WAS I believe picked up by yourself and I explained) was to show that I thought at that stage you were scum and Erg0 was scum. However when I thought Erg0 was scum, I also thought his case depended heavily on you, so if you were removed, I would watch Erg0's reaction. Although, that quote is in no way sheilding me... Im trying here, believe me but I can't see how that quote is used in defence, just that quote, suggests I am attacking both Erg0 and yourself, nothing else.

[Civil Scum]

That wasn't one of them Poro. It was just a god-awful reason to want to lynch me.

-Clearly, the stated basis was important/relevant at that point because that's what was being discussed. (ie-The attack on Zeek becoming a defense of me) The stated basis for the defense, was the attack. ?? Am I getting this right, Ergo?

That someone would make a distinction between a stated basis and the actual basis is worrisome.

You'll see that later on I resolved this and decided that you were probably both town (thought this conclusion is still subject to review).

What about what has taken place recently makes you unsure about this feeling you had?

[Civil Scum]

The stated basis for the attack was the defense? Or the stated basis was assumption of innocence? I am a little lost on this one. (no sarcasm)

I was still working it out in that post, as I thought you were both doing scummy things

Ripley's reaction seemed townish to me on the whole.

This seems like a contradiction.

Ergo(scum) helps derail a potential BW on me and votes for Leet(scum), unlikely
Destructor\Poro - unlikely

Ergo\Poro - distinct possibilty.
Poro\Zeek - can't rule it out
Zeek\Ergo - In which case I would need to convince Poro I am town, or that someone else is more scummy. So, impossible in a sense.

I'd say Poro is making it real difficult for his scum buddy as well.

[Erg0]

Not a contradiction, just a progression. A townish reaction doesn't make previous scummy behaviour disappear, it just mitigates it.

I can't actually figure out what I meant with that "stated basis" thing. I think I was referring to the fact that I wasn't trying to derail the wagon by saying you weren't scummy, just challenging someone else on their views on the subject.

What I

should

have said at the time was that the reason I defended you was that Poro asked me to.

Sorry that I didn't have time this weekend to finish my write-up. It's literally just a case of transcribing my notes, so it will be here tomorrow along with some conclusions.

[destructor]

If you go back and read this section of the thread, my reasons for voting you were based on both your's and Leet's behavior. And it's not like I just hoped in there. Frustration did play a part I'll admit. But you're misrepresenting my vote/unvote/vote pattern with how you've boiled it down here.

Ok, I didn't have an issue with your initial unvote, you made the reasons for that clear enough. But I thought it was odd that you didn't just vote for me in one of those later posts. That you didn't, suggest that you were perhaps waiting for a response or for more evidence. Post 153 and 156, in which you voted, were less than 12 hours apart and 142 was just a day before them. Why was a lack of response within this time, which is not really that long, enough to make you vote?

With Poro, the few odd things people had pointed out weren't striking me as incredibly scummy. They still don't. It's his whole pattern of play I take issue with.
And for a while I felt the "Sure" comment. Voting Ergo on Zeek's case alone. Labeling Peapod town, all fell easier into the category of over-keen town. Because frankly, there was nothing to be gained with these comments as scum.

Well, that comes down to WIFOM, which is the real issue, and why WIFOM arguments are weak. It could go either way. I don't mean to say it should have been black or white, but rather than let it remain as a notable mark against Porochaz, you decided to comment on it and say you thought it was more likely over-keenness from a townie. This sort of thing does stick out.

It was the accusation of fabricating evidence especially, which seemed to be over-stepping a boundary.

Erg0's point about Zeek voting based on assumptions was untrue. And to say that he found this notable, as if to suggest he actually wrote in his notes

"Zeek voted based on the assumptions that..."

when there was never a vote to note isn't suspicious? What sort of a boundary was I over-stepping by pointing this out?

But in assuming non-scumminess on my part, Ergo has kind of taken a defensive position on me which he uses to call Zeek's post a "reach". I don't think you can say outright which took place first.

This is what my issue is, as I tried to illustrate in 356. I really don't think it's a matter of "chicken or egg". I want to wait for a response from Erg0 before discussing it further.

Trying to fix my tunnel-vision. Zeek has been somewhat self-critical of his own arguments. I don't think this incredibly scummy though. And I certainly do not hold his hammer of Garn against him.

Why would being self-critical make Zeek scummy? Why do you think Zeek's hammer on Garn was acceptable?

[Civil Scum]

My post before while you were coming in too sort of explains this. I was fairly convinced that Leet was scum and decided that your posts had not done enough to alleviate my suspicions. I check the thread a lot. I don't see what's wrong with putting you back at L-2 here. In my mind, I didn't have a better place to put my vote. Why wait?

As for Poro-over-keen-town. That was just me constantly voicing my opinion or "read" (if you will) on Poro's play.
-As for invoking WIFOM in this case, I disagree. If he was scum, there was nothing to be gained. Which usually would be WIFOM I guess. But, this isn't exactly an allstar game.

I thought it was over-stepping a boundary because I vaguely recall Ergo adressing this. Saying that the overall impression of Zeek's post was anti-CS. He remembered it as Zeek haviung a vote on me.
-He also said that placing the FIRST vote on you hardly qualifies as opportunism, when in fact it was the second vote. And was somewhat opportunistic as you've pointed out.
-There was another place where he inaccurately recalled something but I'm not gonna go find it right now.
-Calling all of this "fabricating evidence" is a little much.

-It's a matter of Ergo making up his mind which came first, yes.

-I really don't think that Zeek's hammer of Garn is bad. Considering the length of D-1 with no useful input from a player and their replacement, and considering how Garn was playing. I can honestly say, that were I Zeek I would have hammered him myself.

-As I said, I don't think being self-critical is scummy. In fact I don't understand it at all.

There are a lot of contradictions in Zeek's posts, particularly regarding the validity of his own cases.

The weird self-contradicting case on Porochaz and the abandonment of his prior position when hammering Zeek are marks against him in my book.

I can't find the self-contradicting case on Porochaz (I don't even remember Zeek accusing Poro aside from listing him as a Poro/Garn)-Once again I blame Garnasha for all 4 votes. I don't see what makes the hammer so significant in this case. Any one of us could have unvoted to buy Garnasha more time (But nobody wanted to)

Actually Zeek- Why were you suspicious of Poro near the end of D-1?

I really can't see how Ergo can "like" Poro's consistency, especially given the situation. I feel like he's setting up to come after me and Zeek.