Mafiascum.net

↑ Zaicon wrote:I have a scum-finding record of about 1-7 (that is, out of the last 3-4 games, I've correctly found 1 scum).

Is this that new-fangled New Math I've been hearing so much about?

I'm actually going to do my catch up page by page

I didn't get a chance overnight because I have other games so

Oh well page 1 there isn't actually much to say

The implosion/goodmorning/Cheery Dog interaction is wtf though, not sure what to make of it.

↑ Nobody Special wrote:Even more confused now.

NS y u do dis

I caught you as scum last time

Can I do it again?

(Yes, I'll read you objectively)

↑ goodmorning wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:So why did those two get special treatment over the plain "HI"s us others got?

Zai made me /in this, and Safety I mentioned to remind him that I find him readable. Also I noticed him /inning in queue.
I only played with Beli for like half a doomed day, NS in some Micro that should have gone better and nothing relevant happened, and you for a pretty short timespan. So not as much name recognition.

↑ implosion wrote:Why was it unexpected?

Because you were talking about NS and then BAM! just suddenly a vote for me.
Were you surprised? I was surprised.
And if it wasn't random, what

was

it?

PEDIT
Wait
Was it a reaction test?
DAMMIT
THAT'S SO BORING

GOODMORNING RAWR

but I need you to read me as town

come baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack

also implosion's acting weird I agree

↑ implosion wrote:That vote happened in the past.
Why are you so concerned with the past?

This post happened in the past.
Why are you so concerned with dodging the question?

↑ implosion wrote:I could, but what fun would that be?

VOTE: implosion

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:
Why not?

You announced a feeling someone is scum, but you voted randomly instead. It's keeping us in RVS longer which makes it a problem.

Au contraire - my vote on goodmorning was anything

but

random.

So accidental, arbitrary, by chance or haphazardly?

None of the above. In fact, it contained intent.

*anagrams*
right it's just a coincident that your vote wasn't on the person you were calling scummy, got ya.

Wait dammit I don't have enough T. Tents are silly places to be in anyway.

If implosion is scum, Cheery is town.

Remind me of this later if I forget.

↑ implosion wrote:

↑ goodmorning wrote:That depends on your definition of "fun".

This is true.

Would you like to vote for Nobody Special with me?

no

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

@NS

, Why no vote in play?

↑ Zaicon wrote:VOTE: Cheery Dog

I will not underestimate you this time...

hey bro

we're out of RVS

why the fuck are you voting randomly and ignoring the very important content going on?

Zaicon can be scum too.

↑ Belisarius wrote:VOTE: Cheery Dog

Counterwagon go!

Dammit not you too

↑ Nobody Special wrote:

Vote: Cub Daigoro

Happy now?

no not really

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ Zaicon wrote:VOTE: Cheery Dog

I will not underestimate you this time...

So you're overestimating instead?

This game is going to be facepalm inducing

Isn't it

↑ Zaicon wrote:I will find out sooner or later...

aaaaaaaaaaaa

MOD MAKE ME A DOUBLEVOTER

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

↑ Nobody Special wrote:No reason; RVS. (Oh, wait, that's a reason.)

NS pls be useful

↑ goodmorning wrote:Where in the hell is the rest of the playerlist? I WANNA MAKE A REAL VOTE DAMMIT

IMPLOSION IS A PERFECTLY GOOD VOTE

↑ SafetyDance wrote:Oh hai GM, I DIDN'T GET INVITED TO THE CAPS LOCK PARTY!!!!!111

[b[Vote: Goodmorning[/b]

Because, OMGUS

Yeah, I'm too tired right now, will read through the thread tomorrow, hi all.

SAFETY YOU SUCK AT TAGS

BUT HELLO TO YOU TOO

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ goodmorning wrote:Where in the hell is the rest of the playerlist? I WANNA MAKE A REAL VOTE DAMMIT

Real votes don't require a full playerlist, (and besides we have had over half the playerlist post now anyway)

Will more people posting change who you "real vote" will go onto?

Okay Cheery is town regardless of implosion's alignment.

Cool beans.

↑ implosion wrote:

Unvote

VOTE: Cub Daigoro
His awkward prodding in 34 and 41 hints at scum wanting to look like they're doing things without doing things. It also slightly reeks of post-ex-facto justification of an RVS vote, which I find slightly scummy as it implies (to a small extent) that Cub is, rather than looking for people who have done scummy things, looking for reasons to vote for a particular person.

wat? you mean he's doing something over...that exact same thing?

needs more votes

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Are you satisfied with NS's responses?

lol

Human Destroyer wrote:If implosion is scum, Cheery is town.

Remind me of this later if I forget.

Human Destroyer wrote:Okay Cheery is town regardless of implosion's alignment.

Cool beans.

So the latter is what you're going with, right? Why? And yes, I see the quote, but that doesn't tell me what it told you apparently. So how'd you reach that conclusion?

Also, do you have an opinion on Safety's alignment in relation to Cheery's?

Latter is what I'm going with.

Cheery Dog's criticalness of not voting seriously is a pro-town stance to take and, while it could come from scum, putting people under such pressure as to scumhunt seriously makes it harder for scum to hide and therefore would be a detriment to scumbuddies should Cheery be scum.

Therefore, Cheery is town.

Also I haven't gotten to Safety yet, that's in the Page 3 post coming soon

↑ Belisarius wrote:Not really, that was a reaction test that didn't work.

I'd say we left RVS at 47

Don't care, why don't you actually contribute rather than telling us about semantics and when RVS ended

↑ SafetyDance wrote:

↑ SafetyDance wrote:Oh hai GM, I DIDN'T GET INVITED TO THE CAPS LOCK PARTY!!!!!111

[b[Vote: Goodmorning[/b]

Because, OMGUS

Yeah, I'm too tired right now, will read through the thread tomorrow, hi all.

OMG I CAN'T EVEN RVS PROPERLY. MY LIFE IS ONE HUGE FAILURE. WHY IS MY CAPS LOCK KEY STILL ON?!?!?!

↑ goodmorning wrote:
Hi Safety, don't flake this time. It makes people think I'm scum and lose Town the game in horrible LyLo.

↑ goodmorning wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:Zai made me /in this, and Safety I mentioned to remind him that I find him readable. Also I noticed him /inning in queue.

Erm, I guess I know your town game too so, IGMEOU? And kwll basically threw away that slot, you guys got a gimme.

NO I AM JUST THE BEST SCUM PLAYER EVER OBVIOUSLY

DO NOT DENY MY POWER

OR PERISH

RAWR

ok seriously though

contribute m0ar

↑ SafetyDance wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:You announced a feeling someone is scum, but you voted randomly instead. It's keeping us in RVS longer which makes it a problem.

Au contraire - my vote on goodmorning was anything

but

random.

So accidental, arbitrary, by chance or haphazardly?

None of the above. In fact, it contained intent.

*anagrams*
right it's just a coincident that your vote wasn't on the person you were calling scummy, got ya.

Wait dammit I don't have enough T. Tents are silly places to be in anyway.

Elaborate for the masses please.

I GOT A FREAKING ERROR FOR TOO MANY QUOTES

STOP EMBEDDING SO MANY IN A ROW JESUS

anyway yes please do elaborate sir implosion

im sure itll make you look more like scum

↑ SafetyDance wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Oh look, self-confessed bussing.

Vote: Cub Diagoro

Also, time is arbitrary, RVS doubly so. It's completely subjective and based on the person. Null

I think to make this game interesting for me I'm going to have a shot of whiskey next Friday for every question Implosion answers with a question.

???

um...safety u scum bro?

↑ SafetyDance wrote:

↑ Nobody Special wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:VOTE: Nobody Special

I know you only as a god, untouchable by mere mortals. Let's see how you play.

Man, you are going to be SO DISAPPOINTED.

I completely agree with you, NS. Know this, I will tunnel the fuck out of you today to get you lynched if you start lurking here. Would like to nip this in the bud early. K thx.

Tbf, it does apply to everyone else.

then why the fuck are y-

oh misread that

nvm

↑ SafetyDance wrote:Where the bloody hell are you?

@Edosurist @ac1983fan @pieceofpecanpie @Messiah

Btw Gamma, you can't count in your VCs. How many players?

-Counting is hard shuddup

useless busywork post is useless

↑ Belisarius wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ Belisarius wrote:Not really, that was a reaction test that didn't work.

I'd say we left RVS at 47

Does this mean your vote on Cheery Dog is no longer random?

Nope. I have only weak townreads (on you and implosion, for trying to end RVS) at this stage.

↑ goodmorning wrote:Really? Trying to end RVS, while pro-Town, doesn't have to come from Town.
And it's not like RVS really helps Scum any.
Besides which some people can't stand RVS as any alignment.
If that's what's giving you weak townreads, I'm not too convinced.

That said, I do have something of a weak townread myself on implosion mostly for the early reaction test.

@Safety: LOLOLOLOLOL
DISMAL FAILURE, SIR

"I think to make this game interesting for me I'm going to have a shot of whiskey next Friday for every question Implosion answers with a question."
Totally asking him a million questions then.

"And kwll basically threw away that slot, you guys got a gimme."
WELL
BUT
WHATEVER, I CALLED THE SCUM D1 AND NOBODY LISTENED

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

no wrt the bolded

↑ implosion wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Why not you indeed. Whether or not NS is scum is irrelevant here - my point isn't solely that you're voting the same person that you voted in RVS. It's that your reasons, rather than feeling like genuine attempts to scumhunt, feel like extensions of your RVS vote - that is,

excuses

to keep your vote on NS without having to look elsewhere.

Cub Daigoro wrote:Are you satisfied with NS's responses?

Not really, but two things. First of all, I've found NS historically difficult to read. Second of all, I found a better reason to vote for someone (namely, you).

People wrote:Seems to me we left RVS around post 20 or so.
I'd say we left RVS at 47

No. "Leaving RVS" is not a concrete post. It's a fluid transition, and trying to find a single post that ends RVS is absolutely useless with respect to... y'know, finding scum?

Belisarius wrote:Nope. I have only weak townreads (on you and implosion, for trying to end RVS) at this stage.

This is a really bad reason to townread me (and people in general, but

especially

me). I actually used to (I don't anymore) make a point as scum to look helpful in getting out of RVS. Wanting to get out of RVS isn't exclusive to town.

oh yeah having a vote on someone and pressuring them is totally not scumhunting

ill let you guys take that in for a while

also wrt townreading you i dont understand why anyone does

you need rope

↑ implosion wrote:

That said, I do have something of a weak townread myself on implosion mostly for the early reaction test.

That wasn't a reaction test. It was more me being bored.

Although it is a better reason to townread me.

oh ya totally

scum don't perform reaction tests at all

nope

not

at

all

↑ goodmorning wrote:Well, the whatever-it-was then. Regardless it's the sort of thing I wouldn't necessarily expect from scum.

gm youre better than this

step it up

↑ Belisarius wrote:

↑ goodmorning wrote:Really? Trying to end RVS, while pro-Town, doesn't have to come from Town.

That's why it's a

weak

townread. Still, I'll take it for now.

@SafetyDance: No. Policy lynches are shit. I won't vote you just for that but I won't support a policy lynch either.

except your vote is still random

this is a problem

↑ SafetyDance wrote:And I wont allow someone as town more concerned about their lurking meta to cakewalk into a potential 1v1v1 lylo again because both parties want him kept alive. Fool me once....

I consider lurking in general to be a scum-tell anyway.

lurking is not a scumtell

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Why not you indeed. Whether or not NS is scum is irrelevant here

...Wut? What could possibly be more relevant?

↑ implosion wrote:- my point isn't solely that you're voting the same person that you voted in RVS. It's that your reasons, rather than feeling like genuine attempts to scumhunt, feel like extensions of your RVS vote - that is,

excuses

to keep your vote on NS without having to look elsewhere.

Why should I move my vote if I think it's a good wagon just because it was an RVS vote? Do you think people should just reflexively move off their RVS votes? If so, what's the purpose of RVS?

OH SNAP

OWNNNNNNNED

↑ Nobody Special wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Why not you indeed. Whether or not NS is scum is irrelevant here

...Wut? What could possibly be more relevant?

I just read your iso and failed to come up with any kind of reason to vote me.

Would you kike to provide some reasoning now?

would you like to provide some content now?

↑ Belisarius wrote:Don't use racial slurs, NS.

Don't make useless posts, Belisarius.

↑ implosion wrote:

...Wut? What could possibly be more relevant?

Your motivation behind the vote. I'm arguing about

your

alignment, not NS's.

Why should I move my vote if I think it's a good wagon just because it was an RVS vote? Do you think people should just reflexively move off their RVS votes? If so, what's the purpose of RVS?

I am absolutely not saying "anyone who keeps their RVS vote after RVS is scum." In fact, I'm trying to make it as clear as day that this is

not

my point, although feel free to use it as a straw man.

My point is that

in this specific situation

, I believe that your prodding at NS is a product of you not wanting to do genuine scumhunting on other people, so that you can keep your vote passively on him.

I came to this conclusion by looking at your prodding and deciding that it didn't look genuine, or that it looked like excuses to not move your vote rather than questions that you sincerely want to know the answers to.

It's as simple as that.

"so hey

i looked at your scumhunting

and its obviously not genuine becuz ur just puttin' pressure on one person

so you must be scum

right?????????"

lynch this dammit

↑ Nobody Special wrote:

↑ Belisarius wrote:Don't use racial slurs, NS.

Holy shit, how did I miss that.

Is a typo, I swear.

CONTENT

WHERE IS IT

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:It's as simple as that.

Okay, I understand your case now. I would simplify it further as "gut". Fair?

i would simplify it as a contrived and scummy case

but i suppose thats what gut is, right???????

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ SafetyDance wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:
None of the above. In fact, it contained intent.

*anagrams*
right it's just a coincident that your vote wasn't on the person you were calling scummy, got ya.

Wait dammit I don't have enough T. Tents are silly places to be in anyway.

Elaborate for the masses please.

I tried thinking of a synonym to random that contained the word "intent", however there weren't enough T's to be right. Then there was a pun on

in

TENT to show that my whole post was a useless joke, obviously that didn't work and/or you're still tired.

Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:It's as simple as that.

Okay, I understand your case now. I would simplify it further as "gut". Fair?

Understanding a case against you, what is this? and then just discrediting it to gut, I don't like that at all.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Cub Daigoro

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ Nobody Special wrote:I just read your iso and failed to come up with any kind of reason to vote me.

Would you [like] to provide some reasoning now?

Out of your seven posts, one has content. It consisted of an OMGUS vote that you described as RVS well past RVS (IMO). You've done literally nothing else. I see no reason to move my vote.

to say something

cub moving his vote at this point would require one of two things:

1) nobody special proves to be townish
2) someone else proves to be more scummish

therefore this whole "sitting on an rvs vote" bs makes no sense

btw, i do disagree that the case on cub is "gut", its just bad

HD wrote:also implosion's acting weird I agree

If you can connect "weird" to "scummy," then I"ll be impressed.

This post happened in the past.
Why are you so concerned with dodging the question?

This question will be answered as you continue to read the game.

wat? you mean he's doing something over...that exact same thing?

needs more votes

Maybe read the sentence in question :s. I was saying that, rather than searching for were scummy, he was searching for reasons for a particular, arbitrary person. It's possible to justify a scumread on anyone in the game in pretty much any given game of mafia, and part of finding scum is finding the difference between those who genuinely read people and those who arbitrarily do so.

oh yeah having a vote on someone and pressuring them is totally not scumhunting

ill let you guys take that in for a while

It absolutely isn't.
Scumhunting is hunting for scum.
Scumhunting is, thus, the process of for scum.
Neither "having a vote" nor "pressuring" implies a genuine attempt to for scum.

also wrt townreading you i dont understand why anyone does

you need rope

I can't tell how strongly you're saying this, or if you're being sarcastic, or if you expect this read on me to continue as you read more pages.

"so hey

i looked at your scumhunting

and its obviously not genuine becuz ur just puttin' pressure on one person

so you must be scum

right?????????"

If you were to take my words, reduce them to the basic idea, and then remove any of the words that were actually said, then yeah i said this. Actually, this doesn't even capture the idea of what I said, but you don't appear to be interested in the actual idea, you appear to just be enjoying reading the game, so i'll let you do that.

The walls, the walls...

Can we get the abridged version? When you get up to where we are now, will you still be convinced that implosion is the scummiest scum that ever scummed?

Let's start talking about Edosurist.

Quick reads:
implosion looks town, and his play also looks very similar to Mini 1394, in which he was also town. By the way, I don't imagine him wearing a monocle.
Cub is weak scum for the tunneling on NS.
I'm not liking NS and Belisarius's active lurking. They make posts, but there's very little content to them. I'm hesitant to give a read beyond that, at least for NS, because I always think he's scum when I read/play with him for exactly for that reason, and I'm sure he's not scum in ever game he plays...

These are his first reads of the game. The reads on me and Cub are okay, but the read on Beli is a bit awkward - he conflates NS's and Beli's active lurkings, which are very, very different. Beli's posts 50, 57, 62, 76, 117, 148, and 153 all contained content. NS's first post that I can construe as content is 65, and beyond that 81, 140 and 84. Point is, Beli had posted much more content than NS, so lumping them together as "active lurking" is ignoring the fact that they active lurked very differently. Sure, he does differentiate the reads on the two, but not based on their content. Again, the key word here is conflation - he's conflating NS with Beli, which ignores any specific content of their posts (which is fine since they were quick reads) but also ultimately misrepresents what they'd done.

So you unvote your sure scumpick to vote someone you believe is scum by association to him?
wtf?
This is wrong. From your way of thought, NS is scum. Then you suggest that pecan is scum because he was too cautious to actually vote NS, his partner.
That assertion is a stretch, and you unvoted who you believe is scum in both scenarios to do it.

I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:

See my post 320 for what I think of this part of the post. The second part feels really exaggerated, to the point where I don't think the content is genuine.

More will come post-dinner.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:@Human Destroyer Can we get the abridged version? When you get up to where we are now, will you still be convinced that implosion is the scummiest scum that ever scummed?

No, it's best if you read my walls, they're not hard to read and they contain my thoughts as I go through the thread.

WRT implosion, depends on what I see from his later posting. I'll say right now I'm looking at implosion/Zaicon/{Cheery Dog, Belisarius}, but this isn't fully fleshed out yet.

EBWOP: Wrong game, Cheery should be Safety

Argh I got distracted, TF2 is too good

I will continue my awesomethoughts posts tomorrow.

Belisarius (1) ac1983fan
Cheery Dog (1) Belisarius
implosion (1) Human Destroyer
Edosurist (1) Zaicon
pieceofpecanpie (0)
Apozzle (0)
Nobody Special (0)
SafetyDance (0)
Zaicon (0)
ac1983fan (0)
Human Destroyer(0)
Not Voting: pieceofpecanpie, SafetyDance, Edosurist, Apozzle, Nobody Special, Cheery Dog, implosion

↑ Human Destroyer wrote:

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:@Human Destroyer Can we get the abridged version? When you get up to where we are now, will you still be convinced that implosion is the scummiest scum that ever scummed?

No, it's best if you read my walls, they're not hard to read and they contain my thoughts as I go through the thread.

Well then at least spoiler it.

If you haven't realised, most of us - myself included - have been here from Day 1 start and are up to date. A page by page analysis is more useful in support of concluding statements. I don't really care about whatever twists and turns you encounter with your thoughts on others. For a start, just tell everyone where it's going.

Is that unreasonable?

they're not hard to read

As a person who has had historical problems with too many walls of text, it's harder than you think.

Been dealing with other games, and have a lot to do these next couple of days. I will get back here with what Cub and I discussed last night soon.

Just wanted to say there is no way I am reading your walls, HD. Policy refusal.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:
A page by page analysis is more useful in support of concluding statements.

It's also useful in reading HD, particularly in conjunction with his later actions.

I like the catchup wall. It doesn't give me a solid read, but it shows he's not afraid of being readable. Scum are, and with good reason -- my catchup wall provided the town with tons of ammo to bust me with in Newbie 1305.

If you don't like walls, go ahead and skim them, or don't post them. I could use more transparency in this game.

↑ Belisarius wrote:I could use more transparency in this game.

I don't think anyone will differ with you about that. Why are you pointing this out like someone's against it?

What I'm missing however are the basic reads, which I can question and comment on. From there I don't care how deep the rabbit hole goes.

↑ SafetyDance wrote:

↑ Zaicon wrote:

Cheery Dog

The only thing I really have to comment on is his goodmorning vote. I can't really say what's wrong with it, but it seems off. He unvotes GM in Post 453 due to a GM-town post, but soon afterwards says that he is willing to go right back on GM due to the deadline (and repeats that when he actually does move his vote back). I suppose the issue is that I have no idea why he voted for Apozzle in post 453, since his reasoning in that post no longer applied (according to his vote) soon afterwards.

Let me help you. He says this:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:
You being whiteknighted doesn't help me get a read on you or your attackers though.
(it has given me a goodmorning town read, but that's besides the point)

A day later, BAM!:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ goodmorning wrote:Oh, @Zai: I try to avoid going too in depth on reasoning unless nobody else sees what I am talking about. I don't want scums stealing my precious points.

How does this help?
UNVOTE: VOTE: goodmorning

That post made me rethink through my town read on GM, claiming to be avoiding going too in depth after whiteknighting like crazy just didn't fit together and it turned scummy.

↑ SafetyDance wrote:
Ah, no, there's every reason for you to explain yourself and your reads. That's how we gauge whether or not you're telling the truth.

He told us we should have attacked him early because he was lurking heavily at the start of the day, he then went later to active lurking and prod-doging after we said his lurking wasn't actually that scummy.
I felt it was like he was scum laughing at us with those posts.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:Why are you pointing this out like someone's against it?

The origin of the transparency I was referring to is HD's catchup walls.

Three people complained about said walls.

So no, I'm not saying someone is against transparency itself, but prior to my post, 100% of commenters were against the of that transparency.

Although really, I was expecting to be the to defend HD's action here, not the one.

↑ Belisarius wrote:
So no, I'm not saying someone is against transparency itself, but prior to my post, 100% of commenters were against the

source

of that transparency.

Although really, I was expecting to be the

first

to defend HD's action here, not the

only

one.

The reason why nobody is defending him is because it's deliberately unhelpful to just go throw every single post and respond to every single post.
Catch-up walls are fine. Responding to literally every single post that is made is not. He'll likely never catch up; that's unhelpful.

↑ Belisarius wrote:
Although really, I was expecting to be the

first

to defend HD's action here, not the

only

one.

You aren't the only one. I, too, appreciate his effort. (Spoiler tags would be nice, though. More aesthetically pleasing.)

And, ac1983fan..... overreact much?

↑ Nobody Special wrote:

And, ac1983fan..... overreact much?

Overreact how? I merely explained why HD's method of catching up is unhelpful.

↑ Nobody Special wrote:

↑ Belisarius wrote:
Although really, I was expecting to be the

first

to defend HD's action here, not the

only

one.

You aren't the only one. I, too, appreciate his effort. (Spoiler tags would be nice, though. More aesthetically pleasing.)

And, ac1983fan..... overreact much?

I could spoiler them.

Didn't get to it today, real life got there first. If I forget tomorrow (say, by like 4:00 PM EST) give me a good slap in the face)