|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:28 layabout wrote:Bluelightz i think...: he lacks confidence in his own abilities that he may try to lurk that he has not tried to help that what he has written makes sense from a "town that has to get on a plane and will have limited internet acess" perspective he has provided us with very little that can be analysed effectively i do not think that there you can make all of those inferences + Show Spoiler +"profoundly unuseful" and "anti town" and say that they are his verdict and his damnation. BH at this point in time nearly any case you can come up with needs to forced and isn't necessarily helpful You seem to like throwing your vote around but do you really think that at the current moment in time everyone should vote for bluelightz to kill him, possibly end the day and let night actions happen? if i were the type i might accuse you of "trying to gain town cred by forcing a case based off of thin air." i will not do that. 
If anything, I'm burning bridges. The fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to get town cred by forcing a case off thin air, because doing so is how you lose town cred.
My case is solid as hell. The guy was here for 3 hours and made 6 posts saying nothing.
This is unacceptable and I will not stand for it.
On January 05 2012 04:31 layabout wrote:
What i think we should do today:
I think that we should agree within the next few hours to commit to lynching a lurker day 1.
If people do not post day 1, or try to hide, or like make 1 post then dip up out of here, of course we will lynch them. However, it's possible some of the players who haven't posted are still asleep, and it seems Mr. Wiggles may not be playing at all.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
Look if Bluelightz gets off his plane, realizes he's being a tool, and decides to seriously help out, I won't have as much of a case on him any more because he'll be being, well, helpful.
It's that simple. It won't be hard for him if he's being town.
step 1) be helpful
step 2) blazinghand is no longer attacking you
|
On January 05 2012 03:57 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:55 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:
On Bluelightz:
I will go check out his filter in the newbie game to see what all the fuss is about. You're in for quite the ride.
He was useless to town...but he was also scum, so that tells us nothing of his town play. He also played in a way that allowed him to be correctly identified as scum. I see no reason to lynch him for meta purposes alone, and am perfectly content to give him some time to post something useful.
On January 05 2012 04:31 layabout wrote:What i think we should do today:I think that we should agree within the next few hours to commit to lynching a lurker day 1. The benefits of lynching a lurker day1:1)Town blues can be active to prevent a day1 catastrophe 2)Town green can be active, which along with the blues would prevent a day1 town lynch. 3)In order to avoid being lynched angels and demons will also have to be active 4)If people take this seriously then there should be no lurkers, town does not need to worry about lurkers and there will not be a lurker townie mislynch day 1. 5)In the absence of lurkers then the day 1 lynch can be on somebody scummy + Show Spoiler +(as you cannot lynch a lurker if there aren't any) + Show Spoiler +we also shouldn't no-lynch because that gives the angels a free kill and a no-flip for town 6)If we manage to force activity then we can establish a strong town atmosphere and force people to take stances, give opinions and provide useful information that can be analysed. We would essential transform lurking from a viable scum tactic to actively playing against your teams win condition. Cons (that i have thought of):1)if somebody does lurk there are likely to be townie 2)sometimes things IRL come up and a player may be force to lurk for a period of time that would not warrant a modkill but would get them labelled a lurker. 4)(some town) people can get bored with day 1 and struggle to make relevant posts and may lurk 5)By making non-town active they could confuse influence manipulate and/or derail the thread to town detriment + Show Spoiler +but if they can do it after being forced to be active it is likely that they could do so anyway by providing a way for blues demons and angels to escape the lynch, in the event that vanilla town make up the bulk of the lurking players, we could inadvertently create a list of actives that is dense in demons angels and blues, because the demons and angels know their own teams they can potentially utilise this list better. I aim to create an effect similar to what happened in student mafia in which BH pressured non-contributors and townies stepped up and began offering information which made them easier to identify and there was a strong pro-town atmosphere.Whilst the situation is different i wish to achieve a pro-town result and i believe that we very easily can. This is not me advocating a lynch all lurker policy simply (what i believe to be) an effective way to utilise the day1 lynch to create a better town atmosphere or by lynching a player that town can ensure is definitely not a townie. Please consider this, and try to look at it objectively
That's always one of those sounds like a good idea things, that then never proves to be as useful as one would hope. It doesn't force angels and demons to be active, it forces them to be on par or more active than the least active townie in the game, and there always seems to be at least one afk townie. Also, lurker lynches don't generate much info since there is nothing very contentious about lynching someone with few posts, nor are they likely to have tied themselves to their teammates in their posts.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
So HoD, you rather reasonably want to give BL an additional chance to post, and rather reasonably don't want to always be lynching lurkers. What are your thoughts for a d1 lynch then, if it's not gonna be "guy who's posting terribly"? Or are we still acquiring reads or what
|
While I understand the idea behind lynching Bluelightz(possibly bad player, zero real targets for the day), He is NOT a player that should be target for a lynch, at least not until he comes back. His first post is nothing but a introductory post that tries to generate discussion, NOT useless. Besides, if he really is on a plane and has limited internet access, asking for a lynch on him is pretty much killing an AFK player, taking the opportunity of his lack of defense ability to sheep town in order to kill him.
We are about 20 hours into the game on a 72 hours day 1. Unlike other games, this is a game of instant lynch so Do not vote unless you are absolutely sure you want to lynch that player. I don't want to see people voting with "but i'll unvote him later if needed" mind and then watching a town being hammered down by scum because that guy wasn't around when he should have unvoted.
If you want to apply pressure, FoS your target, don't vote him. There are about 50 hours of day still, wait for your target's defense before trying to kill him.
Little math for you guys: Angels and Demons have 6 votes together. If a townie is a lynch target with four town votes and Angels/Demons realize he is a town and not scum, he is as good as dead. This will only get worse as the game goes on.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
If Bluelightz is town, gets 4 town votes on him and all 6 scum come out and quickhammer him I consider that an acceptable outcome.
|
This is a completely pointless discussion, but your case definitely isn't "solid as hell"; it's not even a case. You randomly chose one worthless poster so far while ignoring a myriad of other similar posters. A new player not immediately posting something worthwhile is pretty much a null tell especially when we've never seen him play town previously. Right now it's more fruitful to concentrate on people who we know something about and those who have posted a bit but only contributed superficially. Indeed, most players have only made random comments about game mechanics, which says very little to nothing at all about them.
|
On January 05 2012 04:45 Blazinghand wrote:
So HoD, you rather reasonably want to give BL an additional chance to post, and rather reasonably don't want to always be lynching lurkers. What are your thoughts for a d1 lynch then, if it's not gonna be "guy who's posting terribly"? Or are we still acquiring reads or what
Reforcing my idea above: It's too soon to search desperately for a lynch target. And trying to desperately lynch someone day 1 benefits scum more than town, in the sense that it generates chaos and almost always ends up in a mislynch.
We have a fuckload of time, take it.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:47 syllogism wrote:
This is a completely pointless discussion, but your case definitely isn't "solid as hell"; it's not even a case. You randomly chose one worthless poster so far while ignoring a myriad of other similar posters. A new player not immediately posting something worthwhile is pretty much a null tell especially when we've never seen him play town previously. Right now it's more fruitful to concentrate on people who we know something about and those who have posted a bit but only contributed superficially. Indeed, most players have only made random comments about game mechanics, which says very little to nothing at all about them.
To be fair, BL is substantially more worthless than all the other posters. I get your point, though, that many of the posts so far in this thread have been relatively value-free. His just stood out as unusually bad. Do you think I should unvote him?
On January 05 2012 04:48 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:45 Blazinghand wrote:
So HoD, you rather reasonably want to give BL an additional chance to post, and rather reasonably don't want to always be lynching lurkers. What are your thoughts for a d1 lynch then, if it's not gonna be "guy who's posting terribly"? Or are we still acquiring reads or what Reforcing my idea above: It's too soon to search desperately for a lynch target. And trying to desperately lynch someone day 1 benefits scum more than town, in the sense that it generates chaos and almost always ends up in a mislynch. We have a fuckload of time, take it.
Oh it's definitely better to be organized than disorganized. What are your thoughts on policy-type lynches? I like the idea of lynching all lurkers. I feel like it encourages the average town and average mafia player to be more active. That being said, in the ideal world this policy would never be instituted due to fear of it because it's an inefficient allocation of town resources.
|
Okay, im back guys :p
Im gonna start responding to cases and make cases myself.
On January 05 2012 04:28 layabout wrote:Bluelightz i think...: he lacks confidence in his own abilities that he may try to lurk that he has not tried to help that what he has written makes sense from a "town that has to get on a plane and will have limited internet acess" perspective he has provided us with very little that can be analysed effectively i do not think that there you can make all of those inferences + Show Spoiler +"profoundly unuseful" and "anti town" and say that they are his verdict and his damnation. BH at this point in time nearly any case you can come up with needs to forced and isn't necessarily helpful You seem to like throwing your vote around but do you really think that at the current moment in time everyone should vote for bluelightz to kill him, possibly end the day and let night actions happen? if i were the type i might accuse you of "trying to gain town cred by forcing a case based off of thin air." i will not do that.
Anyway, first I clearly said that I wouldn't be available till about now(Flight was delayed ;|)
Anyway, my thoughts on lynching lurkers.
It ends up lynching a townie usually
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:52 Bluelightz wrote:Okay, im back guys :p Im gonna start responding to cases and make cases myself. Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:28 layabout wrote:Bluelightz i think...: he lacks confidence in his own abilities that he may try to lurk that he has not tried to help that what he has written makes sense from a "town that has to get on a plane and will have limited internet acess" perspective he has provided us with very little that can be analysed effectively i do not think that there you can make all of those inferences + Show Spoiler +"profoundly unuseful" and "anti town" and say that they are his verdict and his damnation. BH at this point in time nearly any case you can come up with needs to forced and isn't necessarily helpful You seem to like throwing your vote around but do you really think that at the current moment in time everyone should vote for bluelightz to kill him, possibly end the day and let night actions happen? if i were the type i might accuse you of "trying to gain town cred by forcing a case based off of thin air." i will not do that. Anyway, first I clearly said that I wouldn't be available till about now(Flight was delayed ;|) Anyway, my thoughts on lynching lurkers. It ends up lynching a townie usually
Although that's certainly true in our experience, do you think the fact that such a policy exists increases the rate at which scum post and slip up? Is there any value to it, even assuming it often lynches townies (assuming, of course, that anyone would dare lurk in such an environment)?
|
On January 05 2012 04:45 Blazinghand wrote:
So HoD, you rather reasonably want to give BL an additional chance to post, and rather reasonably don't want to always be lynching lurkers. What are your thoughts for a d1 lynch then, if it's not gonna be "guy who's posting terribly"? Or are we still acquiring reads or what
Lynch the person that seems scummiest, obviously. And still acquiring reads. We have plenty of time left, no need to rush the lynch.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:53 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:45 Blazinghand wrote:
So HoD, you rather reasonably want to give BL an additional chance to post, and rather reasonably don't want to always be lynching lurkers. What are your thoughts for a d1 lynch then, if it's not gonna be "guy who's posting terribly"? Or are we still acquiring reads or what Lynch the person that seems scummiest, obviously. And still acquiring reads. We have plenty of time left, no need to rush the lynch.
I'm not in a rush I'm just taking my time, voting people, doing my thang. You know. It looks like BL is back so let's have some fun with him :D
|
Im about to sleep >.> but anyway i got like half an hour so do what you will!
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
ok Bluelightz what are your thoughts on god
ok no srsly I want to know: do you think policy lynch for a lurker is good? What do you think of the people who have been hanging out in the thread not posting so far? who is the scummiest poster so far?
|
On January 05 2012 04:43 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:57 Blazinghand wrote:On January 05 2012 03:55 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:
On Bluelightz:
I will go check out his filter in the newbie game to see what all the fuss is about. You're in for quite the ride. He was useless to town...but he was also scum, so that tells us nothing of his town play. He also played in a way that allowed him to be correctly identified as scum. I see no reason to lynch him for meta purposes alone, and am perfectly content to give him some time to post something useful. Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:31 layabout wrote:What i think we should do today:I think that we should agree within the next few hours to commit to lynching a lurker day 1. The benefits of lynching a lurker day1:1)Town blues can be active to prevent a day1 catastrophe 2)Town green can be active, which along with the blues would prevent a day1 town lynch. 3)In order to avoid being lynched angels and demons will also have to be active 4)If people take this seriously then there should be no lurkers, town does not need to worry about lurkers and there will not be a lurker townie mislynch day 1. 5)In the absence of lurkers then the day 1 lynch can be on somebody scummy + Show Spoiler +(as you cannot lynch a lurker if there aren't any) + Show Spoiler +we also shouldn't no-lynch because that gives the angels a free kill and a no-flip for town 6)If we manage to force activity then we can establish a strong town atmosphere and force people to take stances, give opinions and provide useful information that can be analysed. We would essential transform lurking from a viable scum tactic to actively playing against your teams win condition. Cons (that i have thought of):1)if somebody does lurk there are likely to be townie 2)sometimes things IRL come up and a player may be force to lurk for a period of time that would not warrant a modkill but would get them labelled a lurker. 4)(some town) people can get bored with day 1 and struggle to make relevant posts and may lurk 5)By making non-town active they could confuse influence manipulate and/or derail the thread to town detriment + Show Spoiler +but if they can do it after being forced to be active it is likely that they could do so anyway by providing a way for blues demons and angels to escape the lynch, in the event that vanilla town make up the bulk of the lurking players, we could inadvertently create a list of actives that is dense in demons angels and blues, because the demons and angels know their own teams they can potentially utilise this list better. I aim to create an effect similar to what happened in student mafia in which BH pressured non-contributors and townies stepped up and began offering information which made them easier to identify and there was a strong pro-town atmosphere.Whilst the situation is different i wish to achieve a pro-town result and i believe that we very easily can. This is not me advocating a lynch all lurker policy simply (what i believe to be) an effective way to utilise the day1 lynch to create a better town atmosphere or by lynching a player that town can ensure is definitely not a townie. Please consider this, and try to look at it objectively That's always one of those sounds like a good idea things, that then never proves to be as useful as one would hope. It doesn't force angels and demons to be active, it forces them to be on par or more active than the least active townie in the game, and there always seems to be at least one afk townie. Also, lurker lynches don't generate much info since there is nothing very contentious about lynching someone with few posts, nor are they likely to have tied themselves to their teammates in their posts.
key thing to note: the point is to agree to commit to lynch a lurker now
this should force/encourage people to be active contribute and gain information. ideally there will not be a lurker to lynch, and town will consider establishing their innocence important to make "on par" as high as possible. I am not suggesting we lynch the least active player UNless they are lurking because if they are then they will have chosen to be a lynch target. If the least active player has posted and contributed then we should not lynch them.
it is not about the actual flip
it is about the day1 atmosphere + the other benefits that i shall not repost
I do not expect an ideal outcome but i wholeheartedly believe that we could easily agree to and take advantage of this course of action as a town.
I thought of this a while ago and have yet to come up with a flaw that makes it a bad course of action. + Show Spoiler +other than townies that lurk, who should be universally despised but not killed
Information is something town always lack and try to gain and in this game information is more valuable owing to the AoD and Concealer roles that can deny information.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:58 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:43 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:On January 05 2012 03:57 Blazinghand wrote:On January 05 2012 03:55 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:
On Bluelightz:
I will go check out his filter in the newbie game to see what all the fuss is about. You're in for quite the ride. He was useless to town...but he was also scum, so that tells us nothing of his town play. He also played in a way that allowed him to be correctly identified as scum. I see no reason to lynch him for meta purposes alone, and am perfectly content to give him some time to post something useful. On January 05 2012 04:31 layabout wrote:What i think we should do today:I think that we should agree within the next few hours to commit to lynching a lurker day 1. The benefits of lynching a lurker day1:1)Town blues can be active to prevent a day1 catastrophe 2)Town green can be active, which along with the blues would prevent a day1 town lynch. 3)In order to avoid being lynched angels and demons will also have to be active 4)If people take this seriously then there should be no lurkers, town does not need to worry about lurkers and there will not be a lurker townie mislynch day 1. 5)In the absence of lurkers then the day 1 lynch can be on somebody scummy + Show Spoiler +(as you cannot lynch a lurker if there aren't any) + Show Spoiler +we also shouldn't no-lynch because that gives the angels a free kill and a no-flip for town 6)If we manage to force activity then we can establish a strong town atmosphere and force people to take stances, give opinions and provide useful information that can be analysed. We would essential transform lurking from a viable scum tactic to actively playing against your teams win condition. Cons (that i have thought of):1)if somebody does lurk there are likely to be townie 2)sometimes things IRL come up and a player may be force to lurk for a period of time that would not warrant a modkill but would get them labelled a lurker. 4)(some town) people can get bored with day 1 and struggle to make relevant posts and may lurk 5)By making non-town active they could confuse influence manipulate and/or derail the thread to town detriment + Show Spoiler +but if they can do it after being forced to be active it is likely that they could do so anyway by providing a way for blues demons and angels to escape the lynch, in the event that vanilla town make up the bulk of the lurking players, we could inadvertently create a list of actives that is dense in demons angels and blues, because the demons and angels know their own teams they can potentially utilise this list better. I aim to create an effect similar to what happened in student mafia in which BH pressured non-contributors and townies stepped up and began offering information which made them easier to identify and there was a strong pro-town atmosphere.Whilst the situation is different i wish to achieve a pro-town result and i believe that we very easily can. This is not me advocating a lynch all lurker policy simply (what i believe to be) an effective way to utilise the day1 lynch to create a better town atmosphere or by lynching a player that town can ensure is definitely not a townie. Please consider this, and try to look at it objectively That's always one of those sounds like a good idea things, that then never proves to be as useful as one would hope. It doesn't force angels and demons to be active, it forces them to be on par or more active than the least active townie in the game, and there always seems to be at least one afk townie. Also, lurker lynches don't generate much info since there is nothing very contentious about lynching someone with few posts, nor are they likely to have tied themselves to their teammates in their posts. key thing to note: the point is to agree to commit to lynch a lurker now this should force/encourage people to be active contribute and gain information. ideally there will not be a lurker to lynch, and town will consider establishing their innocence important to make "on par" as high as possible. I am not suggesting we lynch the least active player UNless they are lurking because if they are then they will have chosen to be a lynch target. If the least active player has posted and contributed then we should not lynch them. it is not about the actual flip it is about the day1 atmosphere + the other benefits that i shall not repost I do not expect an ideal outcome but i wholeheartedly believe that we could easily agree to and take advantage of this course of action as a town. I thought of this a while ago and have yet to come up with a flaw that makes it a bad course of action. + Show Spoiler +other than townies that lurk, who should be universally despised but not killed Information is something town always lack and try to gain and in this game information is more valuable owing to the AoD and Concealer roles that can deny information.
I just want to note that I am strongly in favor of a "Lynch All Lurkers" policy and am notorious for A) being a suave, good-looking gentleman and B) invoking this policy to kill people. Obviously A) is irrelevant but B) is pretty important. I will actually kill you if you lurk. I'm crazy man! I've done it before and I'll do it again. Maybe nobody will support me! I don't care I'll still try to kill you.
Obviously "lynch all lurkers" is subverted by "town players who are lurking for no real reason" but then again so is "winning games of mafia" so we gotta do what we gotta do, right?
No lurking plz
|
On January 05 2012 04:51 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:47 syllogism wrote:
This is a completely pointless discussion, but your case definitely isn't "solid as hell"; it's not even a case. You randomly chose one worthless poster so far while ignoring a myriad of other similar posters. A new player not immediately posting something worthwhile is pretty much a null tell especially when we've never seen him play town previously. Right now it's more fruitful to concentrate on people who we know something about and those who have posted a bit but only contributed superficially. Indeed, most players have only made random comments about game mechanics, which says very little to nothing at all about them. To be fair, BL is substantially more worthless than all the other posters. I get your point, though, that many of the posts so far in this thread have been relatively value-free. His just stood out as unusually bad. Do you think I should unvote him? Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:48 Zephirdd wrote:On January 05 2012 04:45 Blazinghand wrote:
So HoD, you rather reasonably want to give BL an additional chance to post, and rather reasonably don't want to always be lynching lurkers. What are your thoughts for a d1 lynch then, if it's not gonna be "guy who's posting terribly"? Or are we still acquiring reads or what Reforcing my idea above: It's too soon to search desperately for a lynch target. And trying to desperately lynch someone day 1 benefits scum more than town, in the sense that it generates chaos and almost always ends up in a mislynch. We have a fuckload of time, take it. Oh it's definitely better to be organized than disorganized. What are your thoughts on policy-type lynches? I like the idea of lynching all lurkers. I feel like it encourages the average town and average mafia player to be more active. That being said, in the ideal world this policy would never be instituted due to fear of it because it's an inefficient allocation of town resources.
Many times people talk about policy lynches but they are rarely followed. No, I don't like policy lynches. L-A-Lurkers will most of the time target a town, because if a scum is targeted he will instantly become "useful" enough to avoid the lynch. Besides, the amount of information a lurker gives on lynch is nil.
L-A-Liars may be decent, but I'm yet to see a mafia that lied "to help town". For example, Drazerk claimed a retarded role on XLVIII in order to attract mafia shots. A mafia wouldn't try that, ever; However lynching Drazerk there would be wrong, yet he would be a LALiars target. So no, I don't agree with LALiars either.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:03 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:51 Blazinghand wrote:On January 05 2012 04:47 syllogism wrote:
This is a completely pointless discussion, but your case definitely isn't "solid as hell"; it's not even a case. You randomly chose one worthless poster so far while ignoring a myriad of other similar posters. A new player not immediately posting something worthwhile is pretty much a null tell especially when we've never seen him play town previously. Right now it's more fruitful to concentrate on people who we know something about and those who have posted a bit but only contributed superficially. Indeed, most players have only made random comments about game mechanics, which says very little to nothing at all about them. To be fair, BL is substantially more worthless than all the other posters. I get your point, though, that many of the posts so far in this thread have been relatively value-free. His just stood out as unusually bad. Do you think I should unvote him? On January 05 2012 04:48 Zephirdd wrote:On January 05 2012 04:45 Blazinghand wrote:
So HoD, you rather reasonably want to give BL an additional chance to post, and rather reasonably don't want to always be lynching lurkers. What are your thoughts for a d1 lynch then, if it's not gonna be "guy who's posting terribly"? Or are we still acquiring reads or what Reforcing my idea above: It's too soon to search desperately for a lynch target. And trying to desperately lynch someone day 1 benefits scum more than town, in the sense that it generates chaos and almost always ends up in a mislynch. We have a fuckload of time, take it. Oh it's definitely better to be organized than disorganized. What are your thoughts on policy-type lynches? I like the idea of lynching all lurkers. I feel like it encourages the average town and average mafia player to be more active. That being said, in the ideal world this policy would never be instituted due to fear of it because it's an inefficient allocation of town resources. Many times people talk about policy lynches but they are rarely followed. No, I don't like policy lynches. L-A-Lurkers will most of the time target a town, because if a scum is targeted he will instantly become "useful" enough to avoid the lynch. Besides, the amount of information a lurker gives on lynch is nil. L-A-Liars may be decent, but I'm yet to see a mafia that lied "to help town". For example, Drazerk claimed a retarded role on XLVIII in order to attract mafia shots. A mafia wouldn't try that, ever; However lynching Drazerk there would be wrong, yet he would be a LALiars target. So no, I don't agree with LALiars either.
The purpose, though, of LALurkers isn't to lynch a lurker-- it's to be WILLING to lynch a lurker. I'm totally willing to do it. Once that is clear, all the town players and all the mafia will stop lurking.
LALiars I think is situational. I spent most of Student Mafia 1 lying about asking the doctor for protection and it worked out pretty well.
|
First, I don't like the idea of lynching lurkers because more or less it justs waste's us a townie and
Next, I think the people that are not posting should be chec
Lastly, I don't have a scummy read on anyone yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
