Octopus Overlords

I'm tellin' ya. 15 first-rate minds at work here, and they could do *case studies* on just the (alleged) first round of the game.

Good heavens this is fascinating.

By the way-- Chaosraven's "we" blunder doesn't imply that he's the Alpha Vampire. After all, on Day 1, the Alpha cannot be in consultation with the Beta and Gamma Vamps because they don't yet know they're Vamps.

If anything, Chaosraven's "we" means that he's part of some other alliance.

Or that the ninny occasionally uses the royal we as he's an issufferable ass.

Hey, can I get you guys in my next game? This is quite the facinating read.

Mark to me by PM just now:

Mark wrote: To: Grundbegriff
Posted: 2006 Sep 01, Fri 12:05 am
Subject: hmmm Quote message
"I'm not sure there's any good strategy that would have someone other than the Alpha pretending to be the Hunter so openly."

Maybe a better strategy would be for the Alpha to set the Hunter up for a fall, no?

Me to Mark in reply:

me wrote: To: Mark
Posted: 2006 Sep 01, Fri 12:08 am
Subject: Re: hmmm
Mark wrote:
"Maybe a better strategy would be for the Alpha to set the Hunter up for a fall, no?"

If I were in your shoes, I'd claim that.

I leave for a few and it takes me forever to catch up on the reading.. Crazy

Lars wrote:Hey, can I get you guys in my next game? This is quite the facinating read.

Get your own.. Oh wait.. you already have one.. Nm...

Guess I can go change my avatar again...

Varity wrote: I hope that people weren't actually foolish enough to pass information instead of disinformation to someone they can't trust. If some people feel that they were, I'd advise them to argue for your lynching tonight, before the vampires get the chance to communicate with each other, as the chance, that this information will benefit the wrong side, is significant. Any advantages, that skill might give you, are most likely more than offset by the situation you're in.

On the contrary. Certain information can be used and diseminated regardless of whom you're talking to. More importantly, traps can be set, and alliances can begin to form.

It is only the ones who are unwilling to cooperate that isolate themselves.

That is of central importance in your whole scheme, assuming it is and remains genuine. Your death seems the only way to _prove_ your trustworthiness to the rest of the village, unless you want to hope for luck with the hunter.

That's not entirely true. If a seer finds him innocent, and A seer if not both will be investigating him tonight, (and seers, unless you want me to coordinate, or you have contacted each other, I'd suggest neither of you assume the other is doing it), he could prove his innocence through the seers.

I think that's doubtful or you would already have stated that this _will_ be the case.

Clearly not.

1) If he is an innocent villager, he doesn't want to reduce the potential seer pool by 1, especially when it has been reduced already.
2) If he were to claim to be an innocent villager and an innocent villager only, there is no reason to believe him, so they would investigate regardless.

Only if the seers find it worthwhile to investigate you _and_ if they find a way to communicate their suspicions in a way that wins a majority. That a big hurdle for a seer to jump over after just one vision. Even then you still may claim to be a seer and ask for another day during which you hope to find more information.

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

If one assumed that you are a Vampire, it would be most benificial to kill you now, before you get a chance to talk to the others.

But it can't be assumed that he's a vampire, and if he is not, it does a great service for the vamps. Him talking to the other vamps isn't as beneficial as you would think. Just because we have some open lines of communication, doesn't mean he has concrete info. It's just stuff that can be put together as alliances firm up.

If you are a seer, it was very unwise of you to try to solicit "information" in the way that you have done, as it increases your attractiveness to both the lynchmob (if they lost trust with you since they revealed stuff) and the vampires, of course. Relying on the hunter to bail you out is a weak strategy with masons present.

No. Grund is in the same situation I am. Go back and look at our previous incarnations. We are nearly always dead early. I was effecitively forced to out myself, and I see no reason to expect that Grund shouldn't have done the same.

I think it would be best to let the _threat_ of you being protected scare off the vampires and have the hunter protect more important people.
If you're a vampire, I'm not so sure that you be "dead in short order anyhow" (see above).

Especially now as there's a big cloud of suspicion hanging over him. But that cloud can dissapear in a hurry with one seer viewing. I do think Grund has an overinflated sense of importance in this though. That comes with being a condecending SOB.

Very risky. The odds outweigh the potential gains. There are better bets out there and that is a good reason not to increase the bet on you any further.

The bet isn't being increased. It's simply a call.

I have no reason to trust noxiousdog, yet, so I don't. In fact, I would advocate that the village community put pressure on him and _demand_ that he prove his claims either with his partner or through his death by the stake. If he were lying, he mustn't be allowed to spread confusion by living until it is easy for him to recruit aid and fortify his claims, as masons become indistinguishable from vampires after the first night.

That would be foolish, until such time as I am put at risk, which unfortunately may be soon. A hidden mason #2 is a valuable asset. A public mason #2 is nothing but an identified innocent villager.

On the other hand, the fact that no other masons have come forward and contradicted him, when they could easily prove that he is lying, speaks in his favour. So my guess is, that he may very well be genuine, its just cowardice holding him back and he just needs a little push to do the right thing for his village.

Better to be thought a coward than an idiot I suppose.

Grundbegriff wrote:Mark to me by PM just now:

Mark wrote: To: Grundbegriff
Posted: 2006 Sep 01, Fri 12:05 am
Subject: hmmm Quote message
"I'm not sure there's any good strategy that would have someone other than the Alpha pretending to be the Hunter so openly."

Maybe a better strategy would be for the Alpha to set the Hunter up for a fall, no?

Me to Mark in reply:

me wrote: To: Mark
Posted: 2006 Sep 01, Fri 12:08 am
Subject: Re: hmmm
Mark wrote:
"Maybe a better strategy would be for the Alpha to set the Hunter up for a fall, no?"

If I were in your shoes, I'd claim that.

You are both right.

noxiousdog wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote:Mark to me by PM just now:

Mark wrote: To: Grundbegriff
Posted: 2006 Sep 01, Fri 12:05 am
Subject: hmmm Quote message
"I'm not sure there's any good strategy that would have someone other than the Alpha pretending to be the Hunter so openly."

Maybe a better strategy would be for the Alpha to set the Hunter up for a fall, no?

Me to Mark in reply:

me wrote: To: Mark
Posted: 2006 Sep 01, Fri 12:08 am
Subject: Re: hmmm
Mark wrote:
"Maybe a better strategy would be for the Alpha to set the Hunter up for a fall, no?"

If I were in your shoes, I'd claim that.

You are both right.

Indeed. Grund just can't resist himself sometimes. Why don't you come into the light, my friend, so we can see your pale skin and unnaturally sharp teeth?

noxiousdog wrote:7 players, Grund.

Even worse!

However, the same reasoning that makes me a legitimate Mason is the same logic that makes him a legitamate FVH. If the real one doesn't choose to step forward, logic dictates that he's legit however strange the play might be.

Not true. Given the rules, the FVH's best move is to choose cleverly whom to protect, but never to reveal his own identity. After all, the FVH is an enormously valuable asset on the villagers' side. Nothing can be gained by a FVH who steps forward early in the game.

In contrast, it's not as big a deal to lose a Mason (with all due respect, etc.) as it is to lose a FVH, and stepping forward to expose a bluffing pseudo-Mason could very well be worth that loss.

Certainly, it's possible that the real FVH wishes to remain anonymous and it could be a good play. But after reading your analysis, and still remaining quiet....

"Could be a good play"? It would be utter folly for the FVH to expose his status without some excellent reason for doing so, and no such reason arises until late in the game.

The question here is actually:

By fishing for information, are you playing a more dangerous game than maintaining your ignorance of potential information.

With every tidbit you get, ask yourself: what would this person gain by lying?

Take what they say and run it through every scenario, every role they could be, and come up with a motive as to why they would claim what they do.

Inaction, passive observation, and full blown paranoia only help those who actually have their identities known to each other... as they only have to occasionally fan a flame here, tweak someone's attitude there, and most often drop half of their votes into one pool with the others in reserve.

It takes two thieves to make an honest bargain... of course I trust you, now cut the cards.

Grundbegriff wrote: "Could be a good play"? It would be utter folly for the FVH to expose his status without some excellent reason for doing so, and no such reason arises until late in the game.

I disagree. There are 12 currently villagers to 3 vamps. That's a 4:1 ratio. If the FVH came out, we'd be down to 9:2. A 4.5:1 ratio. We'd be 12% better off.

Further, we'd still have both masons and both seers.

Effectively, if the FVH came out, the vamps would then have have us lynch 2 innocent rounds in a row just to catch back up.

noxiousdog wrote:And as further fuel to the fire, because of your analysis, and because of some of the logical leaps you have made, I find it likely that either Mark is the Alpha, or you are the alpha.

Think of the advantage you would have by getting us to lynch Mark, while giving you the opportunity to kill me

I anticipated that by accusing Mark of being the Alpha -- and by explaining how you might be the Alpha -- some at least would have to wonder whether I was actually the Alpha. Muahahaha, etc.

It would be weird not to suspect me.

I actually think both seers SHOULD identify the same person, thereby linking up together thru what could easily become a sacrificial lamb.

Not that I offer myself up as such having just been offed in BOTH other games I was in within the last hour...

noxiousdog wrote:This is NOT a call to lynch Grund. We'd be much better off once a seer can get a reading. But this is a call to hold off on Mark as well.

HOWEVER, if you are the real vampire hunter, come forward, preferably in confidence, but even a public acknowledgement would be a good trade for a vamp this early I think.

Hunter-delivered immunity for one person per round for the whole game is the village's secret weapon. Why would you want to deprive the village of that multi-round benefit, even for a single-round gain? The Hunter can protect one person per round, but nobody can protect the Hunter.

Moreover, why would you expect the Hunter to reveal himself to you when you show such a cavalier attitude about his or her long-term survival?

But, if no vamp hunter comes forth, I have to conclude that mark is innocent.

How does that follow? You haven't even addressed my argument.

If no FVH steps up, that doesn't imply Mark's innocence; it implies the FVH's cluefulness.

Grundbegriff wrote: Hunter-delivered immunity for one person per round for the whole game is the village's secret weapon. Why would you want to deprive the village of that multi-round benefit, even for a single-round gain? The Hunter can protect one person per round, but nobody can protect the Hunter.

So what. We're all expendable. You win the game if you get the vamps. Not if you look good while doing it. Not if you survive. The fact that you seem to value your life over winning the game speaks volumes.

Moreover, why would you expect the Hunter to reveal himself to you when you show such a cavalier attitude about his or her long-term survival?

Because winning is more important than looking good.

How does that follow? You haven't even addressed my argument.

If no FVH steps up, that doesn't imply Mark's innocence; it implies the FVH's cluefulness.

As of right this second we have 12 innocents and 3 vamps. 4:1 ratio.

If the real hunter came out, that identifies mark and the hunter. We kill mark, the vamps kill the hunter. That leave 11 innocents and 2 vamps. You are now at a 5.5:1 ratio. In that scenario, we have protected, you, me, mason #2 and both seers. I think that puts us at a significant advantage.

More importantly, the FVH doesn't even have to go public. They can message me.

Then you have anonymity and mark identified.

Varity wrote:I hope that people weren't actually foolish enough to pass information instead of disinformation to someone they can't trust.

Some may have told truth. Some may have told lies. What's interesting in the gambit isn't who tries to bluff or who confides sincerely. What's interesting is how the whole batch looks, since Peter doesn't always know who's talking to Paul (or Mary).

Varity wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote: You're right. Staying alive beyond the first couple of rounds will require that I figure out a way to prove myself trustworthy to someone whom I regard as trustworthy.

That is of central importance in your whole scheme, assuming it is and remains genuine. Your death seems the only way to _prove_ your trustworthiness to the rest of the village, unless you want to hope for luck with the hunter.

There is a third way.

Varity wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote:Suppose I'm just an innocent villager, and suppose a Seer confirms that I'm just an innocent villager (as any Seer who finds a villager should do).

I think that's doubtful or you would already have stated that this _will_ be the case.

Would I?

Varity wrote:I have no reason to trust noxiousdog, yet, so I don't. In fact, I would advocate that the village community put pressure on him and _demand_ that he prove his claims either with his partner or through his death by the stake. If he were lying, he mustn't be allowed to spread confusion by living until it is easy for him to recruit aid and fortify his claims, as masons become indistinguishable from vampires after the first night.

Outing the second Mason would be a blunder of the highest order.

The rationale for trusting noxiousdog is straightforward. He has claimed to be a Mason, and his stated reason for doing so is plausible (namely, that he, like me, wishes to stay in the game for at least a little while, but the curse of The Meal rests upon us). He's either telling the truth or bluffing. The Masons know one another, and therefore know with certainty whether noxiousdog is bluffing. If nox is lying, one mason could expose the ruse without blowing the other's cover. The only reason the Masonic Duo would allow the bluff to stand would be to test why noxiousdog is bluffing. It's easier to out and lynch a liar than to tolerate and trail one.

Maybe noxiousdog is the Alpha. Maybe he's a coerced victim of the Alpha. As he knows from our PMs, though, I believe at this juncture that he's actually a Mason, as he claims. You do, too, and rightly so. The alternative, though possible, is unlikely.

noxiousdog wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote: Why would you want to deprive the village of that multi-round benefit, even for a single-round gain?

So what. We're all expendable. You win the game if you get the vamps. Not if you look good while doing it. Not if you survive.

You can't win if you're dead. The key to victory is to keep enough vampires or villagers alive, regardless of who they are. They key to keeping a sufficient core alive is to build trust, and building trust requires relationships that develop across several turns, and protracted survival benefits from special powers.

Death tends to impede the development of such relationships. The sacrifice of powers does, too.

Given my situation, playing to survive is playing to win. In a different situation, sacrificing myself may be the way to win. That situation may come; it's not now at hand, and I have to play the game that's in front of me. You do, too.

The fact that you seem to value your life over winning the game speaks volumes.

Nobody who reads what I've written so far will buy your claim that I'm not aiming to win the game. I mean, really.

As of right this second we have 12 innocents and 3 vamps. 4:1 ratio.

Your attempted analysis of ratios totally disregards the tactical value of the specials-- particularly of the Hunter. He or she isn't just another warm body; the Hunter's per-round protective power is itself an asset of variable, but potentially very high, worth.

I think that puts us at a significant advantage.

Look beyond the raw numbers to the weighting game, statboy.

I've wagered for round 1 that you're trustworthy and that Mark is a Vampire. If Mark dies and turns out to have been the Hunter, you will become my top suspect on the shortlist of possible Alpha Vamps. I'm documenting this here because you'll certainly kill me to shut me up and shut me down.

In the meantime, and while I'm trusting you for round 1, let me endorse what you explained to Varity about the Seers. The Seers don't presently know one another. If I am (and remain) a simple villager, and if I survive the night, and if both Seers confirm simple villager status tonight, and if each then contacts me with the good news, I'll be in a position to introduce them to one another, forging a three-node alliance.

I haven't been posting because I cooked dinner, then the Red Sox/Patriots/Boston College Eagles were all on TV at the same time, then I watched a movie. So there. Plus I've been reading this thread for 45 minutes.

This is fascinating.

But we need to lynch someone.

Kelric wrote:I haven't been posting because I cooked dinner, then the Red Sox/Patriots/Boston College Eagles were all on TV at the same time, then I watched a movie. So there. Plus I've been reading this thread for 45 minutes.

This is fascinating.

But we need to lynch someone.

yeah.. as much as you run the numbers the game doesn't really get started until all people know their roles. Forming alliances now.. unless they are reevaluated after the second night can cement moles into an innocent alliance.

Kelric wrote:I haven't been posting because I cooked dinner, then the Red Sox/Patriots/Boston College Eagles were all on TV at the same time, then I watched a movie. So there. Plus I've been reading this thread for 45 minutes.

This is fascinating.

But we need to lynch someone.

Does that mean you're volunteering?

Mark wrote:

Kelric wrote:I haven't been posting because I cooked dinner, then the Red Sox/Patriots/Boston College Eagles were all on TV at the same time, then I watched a movie. So there. Plus I've been reading this thread for 45 minutes.

This is fascinating.

But we need to lynch someone.

Does that mean you're volunteering?

Sure.

Mark gets my vote, for better (he is in fact a vampire) or for worse (he's actually the FVH). I can live with staking an innocent villager today.

Grundbegriff wrote: The Alpha doesn't want to call too much attention to himself.
...
[snip]
...
Now, here's the final irony. In my call for sanity, I asked people to back off their bandwagon votes so we could think this thing through and have reasons for our choice that we, as a village, could be feel comfortable with. But the irony-- the delicious irony of this odd little game -- is that one victim of the early bandwagon phenomenon actually teetered on the brink of destruction. That was Mark, and Mark is Player X.

I think the alpha has no reason to make moves right now, unless he feels threatened. Tonight he will make contact with his minions and "inherit" their social networks anyway. Once they form a group it will be much easier for them to make their plays, if they feel the need to make any. Any premature activity by the alpha has a higher probability of arousing suspicions and lower probability of earning rewards. If the alpha is smart and feels safe, he will simply do nothing and hope for a quick and uninformed lynching.

The real hunter has no reason at all to contact anyone. He can get all the information he needs from this thread and must avoid revealing himself to the wrong people. Writing PMs and receiving a mess of disinformation is unlikely to be cost-effective for him.

In my mind, the only exception under which both alpha and hunter would become active and write PMs and posts, would be when they are about to be lynched and desperately need to gain allies. This could be an explanation for Marks activities, bad strategy could be another.

Grundbegriff wrote: Not true. Given the rules, the FVH's best move is to choose cleverly whom to protect, but never to reveal his own identity. After all, the FVH is an enormously valuable asset on the villagers' side. Nothing can be gained by a FVH who steps forward early in the game.

In contrast, it's not as big a deal to lose a Mason (with all due respect, etc.) as it is to lose a FVH, and stepping forward to expose a bluffing pseudo-Mason could very well be worth that loss.

Certainly, it's possible that the real FVH wishes to remain anonymous and it could be a good play. But after reading your analysis, and still remaining quiet....

"Could be a good play"? It would be utter folly for the FVH to expose his status without some excellent reason for doing so, and no such reason arises until late in the game.

I agree completely.

noxiousdog wrote: On the contrary. Certain information can be used and diseminated regardless of whom you're talking to. More importantly, traps can be set, and alliances can begin to form.

It is only the ones who are unwilling to cooperate that isolate themselves.

The trouble is that you cannot be sure which of the communicating parties is actually setting the traps. That is why webs of _trust_ need to be formed, not webs of vague guesses, infiltrated by the enemy (who still may have the best of intentions).

noxiousdog wrote: Clearly not.

1) If he is an innocent villager, he doesn't want to reduce the potential seer pool by 1, especially when it has been reduced already.
2) If he were to claim to be an innocent villager and an innocent villager only, there is no reason to believe him, so they would investigate regardless.

1) The rest of his scheme aims at keeping him alive by making him important enough to be protected and trusted. I think keeping poolsizes from dropping from 10 to 9 (or thereabouts) doesn't enter consideration here. Besides, vampires couldn't tell if he was lying or not, only seers could.
2) That was the idea: make him worthwhile to investigate. The seers will likely not investigate if they don't think they'll get a innocent reading.

noxiousdog wrote: We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I think planning ahead while there is time may save us from falling into the pit.

noxiousdog wrote: But it can't be assumed that he's a vampire, and if he is not, it does a great service for the vamps. Him talking to the other vamps isn't as beneficial as you would think. Just because we have some open lines of communication, doesn't mean he has concrete info. It's just stuff that can be put together as alliances firm up.

You should assume that everyone is a vampire unless you have reason to _trust_ them. However, I haven't yet heard anything that makes me believe that drastic steps are called for.

noxiousdog wrote: No. Grund is in the same situation I am. Go back and look at our previous incarnations. We are nearly always dead early. I was effecitively forced to out myself, and I see no reason to expect that Grund shouldn't have done the same.

Sorry, I can barely keep up with this thread at the moment.

noxiousdog wrote: That would be foolish, until such time as I am put at risk, which unfortunately may be soon. A hidden mason #2 is a valuable asset. A public mason #2 is nothing but an identified innocent villager.

noxiousdog wrote: Better to be thought a coward than an idiot I suppose.

The problem is, somebody _will_ be attacked. I'd prefer it to be a mason over anyone else.

A person, who is _trusted_ by everyone, is the greatest asset the village can have. We have the chance to get 2 of these assets and will be able to defend at least one for a very long time (at least as long as the hunter remains alive). If we had such a person, _everyone_ who is on the good side should reveal their status to that person. The person could then determine the tasks for people who claim to be seers. Based on the responses that person could post recommendations on whom to lynch. The circle of suspects would shrink rapidly.

As it is 8 am in the morning over here, I really think I should go to bed now.

Everyone, please don't do anything rash, lets sleep over it one more time.

Varity wrote:In my mind, the only exception under which both alpha and hunter would become active and write PMs and posts, would be when they are about to be lynched and desperately need to gain allies. This could be an explanation for Marks activities, bad strategy could be another.

I agree that it's possible Mark's just a Hunter who played poorly (inadvertently doing just what an inquisitive Alpha would do).

In trying to avoid the randomness of the usual first round lynching, I've chosen to follow analysis of evidence, however scant. It's possible I'm wrong. I think the preponderance of the evidence points in the other direction. Either way, I've laid out my reasons as clearly as I can, so every player can decide for himself.

Mark was close to getting lynched anyways before all this, so getting lynched because of this just brings us back to square one about him. Just with lots more talk.

everyone wrote: mind blowing stuff

My head is spinning.
I think I may be too dumb to play this game.

I withdraw my vote for Chris Grenard. (Sorry Chris that I voted for you in the first place. )

I'm filling bottles with Holy Water, gathering all the crucifixes I can find and applying a generous layer of garlic lotion all over my body.

Then, I am going to open about 3 spread sheets and go over this thread with a fine- toothed comb.

Tell ya what guys, that'll teach them to lynch us right off the bat!

Kelric wrote:Mark was close to getting lynched anyways before all this, so getting lynched because of this just brings us back to square one about him. Just with lots more talk.

If you kindly recall, I was close to getting lynched the first time around because of my geographical location and subsequent lack of input during the initial stages. Grund's most recent machinations are another matter entirely, and I would caution against hasty action. I would note, for example, how he initially drew votes away from me, then set the atmospherics, via some sound but woefully misplaced logic, for my eventual lynching.

I can assure you all that I am no Alpha Vampire.

I do, of course, have purely selfing reasons for wanting to stay in the game - this is the most fun I've had in ages.

Grundbegriff wrote:The rationale for trusting noxiousdog is straightforward. He has claimed to be a Mason, and his stated reason for doing so is plausible (namely, that he, like me, wishes to stay in the game for at least a little while, but the curse of The Meal rests upon us).

While having a curse named after me is pretty darn The Cool, I doubt one could very strongly attach that (obvious) sentiment to a singular entity.

Oogie-boogie!

~Neal

The Meal wrote:While having a curse named after me is pretty darn The Cool, I doubt one could very strongly attach that (obvious) sentiment to a singular entity.

You're too modest.

Grundbegriff wrote: Your attempted analysis of ratios totally disregards the tactical value of the specials-- particularly of the Hunter. He or she isn't just another warm body; the Hunter's per-round protective power is itself an asset of variable, but potentially very high, worth.

Ah, but see if you're wrong or are the alpha, we lose -two- specials, including the FVH.

Look beyond the raw numbers to the weighting game, statboy.

I've wagered for round 1 that you're trustworthy and that Mark is a Vampire. If Mark dies and turns out to have been the Hunter, you will become my top suspect on the shortlist of possible Alpha Vamps. I'm documenting this here because you'll certainly kill me to shut me up and shut me down.

And yet, of the three of us, I'm the least likely to be the alpha. Claiming to be the Mason would be all kinds of foolish, and I find your concept of the alpha threatening innocents to play along to be a stretch of the highest proportions.

In the meantime, and while I'm trusting you for round 1, let me endorse what you explained to Varity about the Seers. The Seers don't presently know one another. If I am (and remain) a simple villager, and if I survive the night, and if both Seers confirm simple villager status tonight, and if each then contacts me with the good news, I'll be in a position to introduce them to one another, forging a three-node alliance.

Why will you give away the other seer's name so quickly to somone who claims to be a seer?

And if you are the alpha and we vote for Mark, we lose a FVH and a Mason.

Important

I have a way to reveal the 2nd mason posthumously.

Each of you send me a code word or phrase that I will give to Mason #2. When/if I die, mason #2 can verify trustworthyness by sending you back the code word/phrase.

Grundbegriff wrote:

The Meal wrote:While having a curse named after me is pretty darn The Cool, I doubt one could very strongly attach that (obvious) sentiment to a singular entity.

You're too modest.

Actually I just think I'm quick with the keyboard.

~Neal

I've got it all figured out. It's become a war of attrition. Grund will keep logicing at us until we vote however he wants out of sheer exhaustion!

Crux wrote:I've got it all figured out. It's become a war of attrition. Grund will keep logicing at us until we vote however he wants out of sheer exhaustion!

diabolical.
OOC: Im going in for a job interview today.. so won't be responding much today so don't take my silence as anything other then busy. But I should be on later