Mafiascum.net

Looker wrote:You twisting my words is scummy; I said worst case scenario, not "let's do this". And I thought that's where esurio was headed with that "who gets the bulletproof vest" question - no lynch and hope the kill doesn't go through.

are you so terribly delayed with your re-reading that you really thought there is a bulletproof vest? It was evidently a hypothetical question. And I think you know it. Please, explain, who is supposed to give out the vest? The vig? The flav cop who already used his investigation? Or one of the VT's?

However, I will complete kdub's answer. If there are two mafia, we are on lylo, and with nl we lose. If there is only 1 and we nl, then we hit mylo tomorrow and we either nl again (stupid) or have 1/4 instead of 1/3 of hitting scum. It is stupid in both cases: even if there is only one scum, we would just give him the chance of picking the lylo players he likes better.

@kdub: it is evident that you are tunneling me, or if you are not and we are both town (but I don't see how it is possible), you are so convinced that you are right that whatever I say you will just answer "not buying it". If you had spent 30 seconds considering the problem of the SK (whose elimination is the only damn reason why town has not lost this game, btw, although you always ignored this point), you'd see how easy to formulate was the dark samus hypothesis. First: the BP claim was relevant and conclusive, because of the presence of a vig and because of the fact that it confirmed my speculation that he could have been hit on one night with few deaths. Second: you don't need to that fake claims are similar to real names (though I wonder what the fake claim for marx could be) in order to think that aran samus may be a fake claim for dark samus, once you have concluded, for reasons that only you seem to ignore, that the player is likely to be a sk.

:

Re-read MB53 in iso for me; tell me what you think.

No, I'm not "terribly delayed", I just thought he had a point behind that question. Just because he wasn't CC'd doesn't mean he claimed his actual role.

Looker wrote:No, I'm not "terribly delayed", I just thought he had a point behind that question. Just because he wasn't CC'd doesn't mean he claimed his actual role.

meaning what? A killing + vesting role? Town with 2 joats? Come on, it's ridiculous.

@esurio: ok, but it will take a little time.

Nah, I think it's called like a Crazy Doc or some shit like that.

lewarcher82 wrote:@kdub: it is evident that you are tunneling me, or if you are not and we are both town (but I don't see how it is possible), you are so convinced that you are right that whatever I say you will just answer "not buying it".

This is a complete misrepresentation. Most of my arguments against you has been backed up by objective evidence, and even the ones that aren't are backed up by circumstantial evidence, which adds up and can't be ignored. That you are not addressing these points and are instead trying to lump my case against you as simply "not buying it" is an attempt to trivialize my case and brush aside my reasoning. Am I tunnelling you? If your definition of "tunnel" is "I am very confident that you are scum", then yes, I am tunnelling you. So what? If I were a cop and had a guilty on you, I'd be "tunnelling" you too. Saying that I am tunnelling does not actually address any of the I think you are scum.

lewarcher82 wrote: If you had spent 30 seconds considering the problem of the SK (whose elimination is the only damn reason why town has not lost this game, btw, although you always ignored this point), you'd see how easy to formulate was the dark samus hypothesis. First: the BP claim was relevant and conclusive, because of the presence of a vig and because of the fact that it confirmed my speculation that he could have been hit on one night with few deaths. Second: you don't need to know that fake claims are similar to real names (though I wonder what the fake claim for marx could be) in order to think that aran samus may be a fake claim for dark samus, once you have concluded, for reasons that only you seem to ignore, that the player is likely to be a sk.

1) i'm not ignoring that alex was the SK, in fact I mentioned it quite early on. The point is . It has no bearing on the fact that you pushed strongly for the lynch of a non-mafia player when we should have been lynching from the 1v1. You are trying to use the actual results of the flip instead of the motivation behind the lynch to justify this.
2) The rest of your post about why you suspected Dark Samus is just a restatement of your original position, which I responded to in detail in 1744 and which you did not address. Yes, in fact you do need to know that safeclaims are similar to real claims . The alternative explanation is that you just happened to guess that this was the case in this game (despite there being no evidence of it at the time) and got extremely lucky on multiple counts (again, why Dark Samus and not Ridley?).

I actually realized something from the flips that I hadn't before. Take a look at the kill flavors. Notice that the mafia kill flavor (incinerated) is missing on N2, the same night that alex said he was shot at. I suspect that the mafia tried to kill CP and failed. That is another reason why the mafia may have had information about alex that the town did not have.

This debate about the Dark Samus thing is actually quite amusing because it's not even the primary point of my case against lew. Of the points I listed in 1736, the Dark Samus thing is only circumstantial evidence that supports one of the more minor points (my role cop theory). If this debate is going to go on much longer, I'd rather shift the focus back to scum motivations and why scum would have played the way lew did on D5, but hopefully that is clear to esurio and (if they are being honest) TMH and Looker.

@Kdub: How many times do we have to say that if we lynched out of the 1v1:
thil would have been lynched, then we would have to go after pinky, and by that time obvSK would have pwned us. We were looking for the SK, and alex was THE MOST OBVSCUM PLAYER. Like, taking the 1v1 out of the picture (which we did because there was no way in hell we were going to let obvcop get lynched), alex was scummy, fit the SK profile, and his successor played to his scum-meta.
-Toast

Is it possible that lew had some insider info? sure. Is it equally as possible that he had the power of common sense and basic deduction skills? Yes.

Take a look at the kill flavors. Notice that the mafia kill flavor (incinerated) is missing on N2, the same night that alex said he was shot at. I suspect that the mafia tried to kill CP and failed.

everyone knows that... do you even read what I write? I went over this in one of my last posts. Today. The idea that sk could have been hit when no or little deaths occurred was one of the reason why I (1) wanted to discuss the flavours (remember?) and (2) assumed the sk was perhaps within the VB.

Now you can rejoice: I had already provided you with what you seem to consider good material for your tunnel.

Now tell me, ? Answer, please. ? Why would a vig (whom I thought to be an odd night vig, back then, but say it was a normal vig) even try to shoot CP on early in game? So what exactly is new in what you are saying?

@esurio: mb53 iso comes tomorrow. To do that I need actual legwork, and I don't have time tonight.

lewarcher82 wrote:everyone knows that... do you even read what I write? I went over this in one of my last posts. Today. The idea that sk could have been hit when no or little deaths occurred was one of the reason why I (1) wanted to discuss the flavours (remember?) and (2) assumed the sk was perhaps within the VB.

You said that you wanted to discuss it, but you didn't bring up the D2 kill flavor specifically, so I did so when I looked at it again. Your post is just trying to discredit me with a "I already said this, why are you bringing this up!" route, without actually addressing any of my arguments.

The Master Hand wrote:Is it possible that lew had some insider info? sure. Is it equally as possible that he had the power of common sense and basic deduction skills? Yes.

You are doing the same thing that lew is doing: restating (in different words) that it was somehow obvious that alex was SK/Dark Samus etc. without addressing the why I said this was unlikely.

The Master Hand wrote:thil would have been lynched, then we would have to go after pinky, and by that time obvSK would have pwned us. We were looking for the SK, and alex was THE MOST OBVSCUM PLAYER. Like, taking the 1v1 out of the picture (which we did because there was no way in hell we were going to let obvcop get lynched), alex was scummy, fit the SK profile, and his successor played to his scum-meta.

If you thought it was a 1v1 and that thil was an "obvcop", then what did that make PatB? If you don't say "obvscum", then you are lying somewhere in this statement.

Alright, I'm going to break this down as simply as I possibly can. Everyone seems to be in agreement that there are two scum left. That means that on D5, the ratio of town:mafia:SK was 6:3:1. There was a 1v1 between thil and PatB, and between the two of them, more people were in favor of lynching thil than PatB at the time. thil was town, PatB was mafia.

Now, look at this from the mafia's point of view. What happens if they get thil lynched that day? It goes into night as 5:3:1. It looks like they are in good position against the town, but the SK is a wild card. Furthermore, PatB is sure to be lynched the following day, meaning it will be 3:2:1 or 4:2 at best (decent odds still), OR 4:1:1 at worst (pretty bad odds) going into N6. Now, what happens if instead, they get the SK lynched on D5? Then the SK kill is eliminated, and it is 5:3 going into D6 . What happens then? Scum win on the spot. The only reason this did not happen was because esurio killed thil, which nobody saw coming.

Now, I want you to answer these questions:
1) Do you agree that out of all the players who could have been lynched on D5, the mafia would have strongly preferred to lynch the SK over any townie (even one other than thil) because the SK was the biggest threat to them?
2) Do you agree that even if the SK were not lynched on D5, the mafia still would have wanted to lynch a townie other than thil as opposed to thil himself?
2) Do you agree that the mafia, in light of their apparent failed kill attempt on CP D2, likely had reason to suspect that alex was the SK because of that?
4) Do you agree that if the mafia either knew or strongly suspected (through whatever means) that alex was the SK, that they would try very hard to get him lynched on D5 because it would give them an easy win by swinging a thil lynch the next day?

Note that in asking these questions, I have not brought up a number of things, such as lew's weak role claim after GW caught him roleblocking thil, the role cop theory or how lew was able to predict that alex was Dark Samus, or his flip-flop on Looker today. I want you to focus on the motivations of the players on D5, and what the scum would have been most likely to do.

accordingly, you will have to wait for the promised content.

I'm here b/c Toast nags me day in and day out like a bitch.

SO. I'm 2 gamedays behind and have no idea what has happened, save:

17.

crazypianist1116

weirdalexv,[/color]

Dark Samus, One-Shot Bulletproof Serial Killer

was recycled Day 5.

CALLED IT.

10. thil13,[/color]

Merlon, Cop,

was slashed to death Night 5.

FUCKING CALLED IT.

6. Pinky and the Brain (twistedspoon and hoppster hydra),[/color]

Aurora Unit 313, Mafia Encryptor

,

was recycled Day 6.

LOL U MAD

19.

DarlaBlueEyes

Bunnylover,[/color]

Donkey Kong, Vanilla Townie

,

was found incinerated and surrounded by energy burns Night 6.

CALLED IT.

Yeah. Tried to make a post but accidentially deleted it. Post later I guess. Assuming I get bitch-nagged like usual.

-A

As the only positive influence in your "life," its my job to nag.
-Toast

Also, a claims list would be much appreciated from me.

I got Pitbull as my positive influence. STFU and GTFO.

-A

/intentional lurk is intentional

Waiting on Andrius and Lewarcher to say shit. Looker is running out of time to prove himself useful.

Well, esurio, it's a crappy homework you gave to me... mb53 activity level is incredibly low.

I have found very little to comment, but I post here my few observations...

day 1: generally defending thil out of no apparent reason, though not as strongly as tragedy did.

after which:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p2950369

soft bussing Lucresia, wothout explaining why.

and generally supporting the tragedy wagon without adding any content... why would he think tragedy is scum? They had the same reads of Lelouch...

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p2978849

already pointed out the contraddiction here: supports the Vb but votes differently.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p2982085

slight scum read on another player who will turn out to be scum. After Lucresia, it makes 2.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p3042175

after denying espe-scum all game long, he puts him on L-1.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p3046245

I am unable to understand the meaning of this post. On a merely linguistic level, I mean.

after which we got Looker, who kept promising content for over two weeks.

I am being having a very hard time at home these days... I apologise for the poor formatting of this post, but as I said, I have to take care of a lot of stuff irl

@kdub: nobody is denying that scum had a good reason to eliminate sk. Wanna keep stating the obvious much longer? We have a perfect and public sample of scum pushing for a sk-lynch: it's PatB. But what he said was in the interest of both scum and town: eliminating the sk was evidently a priority to everyone but the sk, at least to me, as I did (and do) not know if sk could joint with scum. Besides, 3:3(2):1 can be auto-lose for town, in case both scum and sk hit town the following night. It can lead to 1:2:1 even lynching scum the following day. Is it pro-town to cross-fingers and "hope" that there will be crossfire?
This, however, is not what I was thinking back then, because I was convinced that PatB was town, meaning we would have lynched two town players in a row with a sk alive.

The Master Hand wrote:CALLED IT.

The Master Hand wrote:FUCKING CALLED IT.

LOL, this is actually helping me make my point about why you are probably scum with lew

lewarcher82 wrote:@kdub: nobody is denying that scum had a good reason to eliminate sk. Wanna keep stating the obvious much longer? We have a perfect and public sample of scum pushing for a sk-lynch: it's PatB. But what he said was in the interest of both scum and town:

eliminating the sk was evidently a priority to everyone but the sk

Did eliminating the SK help the town? In the sense that it eliminated an anti-town faction, you can say that. THAT is my point, that lynching the SK actually would have been VERY bad for the town had they been privy to the information that the mafia had.

lewarcher82 wrote:at least to me, as I did (and do) not know if sk could joint with scum.

Sorry, you brought this up before, but I'm calling bullshit. Go look at as many games as you can that have both mafia and an SK. Tell me in what percentage of them can the SK have a joint-win with the mafia (and I'm not talking about draw scenarios). I'd be shocked if you come up with a percentage in the double digits. No town player would ever worry about this possibility.

lewarcher82 wrote:Besides, 3:3(2):1 can be auto-lose for town, in case both scum and sk hit town the following night. It can lead to 1:2:1 even lynching scum the following day. Is it pro-town to cross-fingers and "hope" that there will be crossfire?

False dichotomy. First, see my point above that lynching the SK would have benefited the scum and hurt the town - a fact which only the scum could know. Second, it assumes that lynching the SK was guaranteed (which was NOT the case unless you had inside knowledge that allowed you to alex was the SK, i.e. you are mafia).

lewarcher82 wrote:Now it is my turn to ask you a question, kdub. What did you think about vigs before esurio's claim? Did you think we had one, or not? And why?

I did not. There had only been one kill with the "slashed" flavor, and I suspected it may have been Dekes (who claimed Kirby, JOAT). At one point, I asked if the "slashed" kill flavor made sense for Kirby since I was not that familiar with the flavor, and someone (I think GW) said yes. So no, I did not think we had a vig.

Kdub wrote:

The Master Hand wrote:CALLED IT.

The Master Hand wrote:FUCKING CALLED IT.

LOL, this is actually helping me make my point about why you are probably scum with lew

lewarcher82 wrote:@kdub: nobody is denying that scum had a good reason to eliminate sk. Wanna keep stating the obvious much longer? We have a perfect and public sample of scum pushing for a sk-lynch: it's PatB. But what he said was in the interest of both scum and town:

eliminating the sk was evidently a priority to everyone but the sk

Did eliminating the SK help the town? In the sense that it eliminated an anti-town faction, you can say that.

But if it were not for esurio, lynching the SK would have almost certainly lost the game for the town - a fact that only the mafia could have known at the time.

THAT is my point, that lynching the SK actually would have been VERY bad for the town had they been privy to the information that the mafia had.

lewarcher82 wrote:at least to me, as I did (and do) not know if sk could joint with scum.

Sorry, you brought this up before, but I'm calling bullshit. Go look at as many games as you can that have both mafia and an SK. Tell me in what percentage of them can the SK have a joint-win with the mafia (and I'm not talking about draw scenarios). I'd be shocked if you come up with a percentage in the double digits. No town player would ever worry about this possibility.

lewarcher82 wrote:Besides, 3:3(2):1 can be auto-lose for town, in case both scum and sk hit town the following night. It can lead to 1:2:1 even lynching scum the following day. Is it pro-town to cross-fingers and "hope" that there will be crossfire?

False dichotomy. First, see my point above that lynching the SK would have benefited the scum and hurt the town - a fact which only the scum could know. Second, it assumes that lynching the SK was guaranteed (which was NOT the case unless you had inside knowledge that allowed you to

know

alex was the SK, i.e. you are mafia).

lewarcher82 wrote:Now it is my turn to ask you a question, kdub. What did you think about vigs before esurio's claim? Did you think we had one, or not? And why?

I did not. There had only been one kill with the "slashed" flavor, and I suspected it may have been Dekes (who claimed Kirby, JOAT). At one point, I asked if the "slashed" kill flavor made sense for Kirby since I was not that familiar with the flavor, and someone (I think GW) said yes. So no, I did not think we had a vig.

the case on the SK was simply stronger than the 1vs1 to me. Believe it or not, thil looked like a damn genuine cop, and we all had a strong enough townread of PatB (incl. you, amirite?). I think PatB evidently made a mistake when he faked his reports (what else? please, answer), and part of his team had to abandon him and bus him. You were very evidently one of them.

as for sk-joint-scum, I have no meta, and you know very well I have no time to go look for it. Significantly, after I announce I have troubles irl, you provoke me asking me to do legwork that you know very well i cannot do.

But I have my experience. I played SK twice. Once I could joint, once I could not. Deal with it. It is a normal consideration to make. Perhaps you, being scum, know if he could or not. but to someone who is not scum, it is natural to wonder whether.

I will however admit that scum had a good chance to try and win by getting the sk lynched (assuming he could not joint and assuming they were so imprudent not to think that there was prolly a vig around - more on this tomorrow). Which does not mean that town should not have been worried of carrying a living sk at endgame.

lewarcher82 wrote:the case on the SK was simply stronger than the 1vs1 to me. Believe it or not, thil looked like a damn genuine cop, and we all had a strong enough townread of PatB (incl. you, amirite?).

Like I said before, if you want to maintain this position, I can't objectively disprove it. It just happens to be a position that both shows a very strong scum motivation and suggests inside knowledge about who the SK was.

Yes, I (and most others) believed PatB was town at the time. So what? You're helping my case by saying that we had a town read on PatB.

lewarcher82 wrote:I think PatB evidently made a mistake when he faked his reports (what else? please, answer)

PatB's initial sensor claim was believable. I think almost everyone agreed on that. He didn't get lynched because people saw a problem with his sensor report. He got lynched .

lewarcher82 wrote:as for sk-joint-scum, I have no meta, and you know very well I have no time to go look for it. Significantly, after I announce I have troubles irl, you provoke me asking me to do legwork that you know very well i cannot do.

But I have my experience. I played SK twice. Once I could joint, once I could not. Deal with it. It is a normal consideration to make. Perhaps you, being scum, know if he could or not. but to someone who is not scum, it is natural to wonder whether.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof (and sprinkle in some AtE while you are at it). You are the one who has taken an unusual position (that scum could joint-win with the SK), the burden is on you to provide evidence that this is a reasonable consideration. But I'll withdraw my request and make things more simple for you. First of all, I would like you to link me to the game where you were SK and could joint win with the scum (that shouldn't be too much legwork). I also note that you have specifically mentioned games in which you were an SK, but surely you've played in other games that included one, even if it wasn't you who got the role, so what about those? Second, speaking from my own experiences, I can recall exactly one game (out of something like 6 or 7, not exactly sure) where the SK could have a joint win with the scum (Blackest Night). That was a case where the SK had a non-standard win condition (he would have left the game as a winner after killing certain players and the game would have continued), and in fact could have had a joint-win with any faction, including the town (which obviously is different from the type of joint scum-SK win that you are implying). Finally, I'll invite the others to weigh in on this and tell us how often they have seen games where the SK and mafia could have a joint win in the sense you are talking about. That should be a reasonable sample size to make my point.

Kdub wrote:That is a major reason why the scum didn't want to resolve the 1v1 - because it made a thil lynch more likely. You're helping my case by saying that we had a town read on PatB.

No it didn't. How many times do I have to repeat the fact that regardless of any 1v1 bull that everyone had to play along with, wierd was our biggest scum read. I felt more comfortable lynching someone who I considered to be obvscum to trying to figure out which of the two (pinky and thil) was lying. You continue to harp over something that worked out perfectly for town.

I really don't know what else to say about the issue, because I disagree completely with your conclusions. Lynching an SK helps everyone. As such, if a town player has reason to suspect someone of being an SK, they are required to pursue it. Thats what we did, thats what lew did, thats what the people on the wierd wagon did (regardless of alignment).

We cannot know if the SK could joint-win or not. The scum-team wouldn't have known either. Stop harping on it, the SK is dead.
SK's can for the most part joint-win if their win-con is not "be the last player alive"
My bet would be that the SK couldn't joint-win, but its not worth speculating over.

Another problem with your speculation: You assume that a want to keep thil alive=scummy. There is something missing between your statements and conclusions. I wanted thil alive because I was 90% sure he was our cop, even after Ythan flipped doctor. Excuse the WIFOM, but I have trouble understanding why you think players who were so obviously on thil's side would have suddenly changed their minds and gone for a thil-lynch.

-Toast

The Master Hand wrote:No it didn't. How many times do I have to repeat the fact that regardless of any 1v1 bull that everyone had to play along with, wierd was our biggest scum read. I felt more comfortable lynching someone who I considered to be obvscum to trying to figure out which of the two (pinky and thil) was lying. You continue to harp over something that worked out perfectly for town.

I really don't know what else to say about the issue, because I disagree completely with your conclusions. Lynching an SK helps everyone. As such, if a town player has reason to suspect someone of being an SK, they are required to pursue it. Thats what we did, thats what lew did, thats what the people on the wierd wagon did (regardless of alignment).

See my post above where I explain how lynching the SK . It "worked out" only because of esurio's kill, otherwise the game would be over. Stop with the results-oriented thinking and look at the knowledge that we had at the time, and the player motivations for pushing/avoiding certain lynches. I also point out to lew above, your excuse of "alex was my top scum read, so I didn't want to lynch out of the 1v1" is not something I can disprove, but that claim is very much consistent with scum trying to justify a non-PatB/thil lynch.

I also notice that you didn't answer my questions in 1759. Can you please do so?

The Master Hand wrote:We cannot know if the SK could joint-win or not. The scum-team wouldn't have known either. Stop harping on it, the SK is dead.
SK's can for the most part joint-win if their win-con is not "be the last player alive"
My bet would be that the SK couldn't joint-win, but its not worth speculating over.

The reason I am discussing it is because lew brought it up in an attempt to justify SK-hunting on D5. In response to him, I pointed out that a joint SK-scum win is not something that townies generally concern themselves with. Don't you tell me to stop speculating over it. When lew, who brought it up in the first place, admits that he was reaching for excuses here, I'll drop it.

The Master Hand wrote:Another problem with your speculation: You assume that a want to keep thil alive=scummy. There is something missing between your statements and conclusions. I wanted thil alive because I was 90% sure he was our cop, even after Ythan flipped doctor. Excuse the WIFOM, but I have trouble understanding why you think players who were so obviously on thil's side would have suddenly changed their minds and gone for a thil-lynch.

If you were 90% sure that thil was the cop, then why the hell didn't you go after PatB? That you wanted to lynch alex instead of PatB then implies that you thought the chance of alex being scum was higher than the chance of PatB being scum, despite claiming a 90% town read on thil. Is that true?

kdub wrote:
The reason I am discussing it is because lew brought it up in an attempt to justify SK-hunting on D5. In response to him, I pointed out that a joint SK-scum win is not something that townies generally concern themselves with. Don't you tell me to stop speculating over it. When lew, who brought it up in the first place, admits that he was reaching for excuses here, then I'll drop it.

This is preposterous and will never happen. If it is stupid as town to be worried at the hypothesis of a jointing sk, then I was stupid. But I do not understand why you refuse to accept the fact that I did consider the possibility. And it is absolutely normal for me to try and eliminate a sk before endgame. It is evident from all you are writing that you have decided to tunnel and you are constructing argumentations to support your position.

kdub to tmh wrote:
If you were 90% sure that thil was the cop, then why the hell didn't you go after PatB?

This question has been answered several times.

lewarcher82 wrote:And it is absolutely normal for me to try and eliminate a sk before endgame.

I am not arguing that wanting to lynch the SK, in itself, was a problem. This should be perfectly clear by now. If I had known, with certainty, that alex was the SK, I would have wanted to lynch him too. And if not for esurio, that decision likely would have resulted in a town loss.

lewarcher82 wrote:It is evident from all you are writing that you have decided to tunnel and you are constructing argumentations to support your position.

I've already told you that yes, I am tunneling. Simply stating that I am tunneling has nothing to do with the I think you are scum.

Serious question: do you think tunneling is a scum tell?

lewarcher82 wrote:This question has been answered several times.

I want to hear reason, not yours. And while I have a feeling what his answer will be, I specifically mentioned the "90% sure about thil" thing that he brought up for a reason. I'd like to hear his response without help from anybody else.

@Kdub: Because I was 95% sure that wierd was scum, and my town-read on patB b4 his claim made me unsure about the decision b/w the two of them.
Oh yeah, and I still would have lost that battle if I tried to push a patB lynch over a thil lynch. It would have been me and lew vs. everyone else, and thil would have been lynched, the risk of a double kill would remain high, and town simply wouldn't win.
-Toast

oh, I'll answer the other questions (hopefully today). Have a job to do today tho, so no promises.