Open 480 - C9++ Game Over!

[goodmorning]

Yay!!

Vote: Zaicon

Whatever happens in this game, I'm blaming you.

(this is a joke)

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

OH GRACIOUS I KNOW SO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS PLAYERLIST

HI BELI
HI NS
HI CHEERY

HIIIIIIIIII

[goodmorning]

OH GRACIOUS I KNOW SO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS PLAYERLIST

3 knowing people isn't that many, that's only a quarter of the playerlistexcluding yourself!

I also know Zai and Safety. Also three would still be like three times as many people as I've previously played going into a game before.
SYNTAX

@implosion: HEY WHOA
THAT WAS UNEXPECTED

@Beli: I think I'm somehow still happy...?
NOT GONNA QUESTION HAPPINESS, HEY.

[goodmorning]

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.

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]

This is a game of Mafia, wherein accusations are typically expected to come with a modicum of evidence.

Evidence is a product of the past.

Also you could try not avoiding the question.

[goodmorning]

That depends on your definition of "fun".

[goodmorning]

I would prefer that more than half the playerlist posts first, but I could perhaps be convinced.

[goodmorning]

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

[goodmorning]

@Cheery: Yes, more people posting could absolutely change that. All it takes is one slip.

@Safety: IF YOU HADN'T FLAKED YOU COULD'VE BEEN THERE
ACTUALLY I THINK YOU'D HAVE FORCED MY MISLYNCH IN 5-MAN LYLO ANYWAYS, OH WELL

Vote: NS

Voting Zai is sooo boringgggg
Also WAGONS > EVERYTHING

[goodmorning]

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

[goodmorning]

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

[goodmorning]

There are six players with fewer posts than I, currently.

FTFY

[goodmorning]

goodmorning, what was your reason to vote for Nobody Special in post 46?

One part wanting to get off my RVS vote, one part wanting to sheep implosion, four or five parts not liking posts 25, 37 and 42 from NS.

Also DAMMIT STOP STEALING MY VOTE SWITCHES

...there's a pattern that looks like Safety treating NS as confirmed scum. It gives me the willies.

Honestly Safety's a better player than that I think, not that anyone's infallible or anything but that would be pretty low for him.



And the reason I haven't posted in two days is this Safety thing. I just don't see it, and until the slapfest is over I'm going to try very hard to ignore it, it's distracting and mostly unhelpful to have a couple of guys misrepping and/or snarking.

Also it's not really been long enough for me to get any big meta feels from Safety so it makes me want to reserve judgement on him for a bit.

I still like my NS vote at the moment, but am weighing the relative benefits of the ppp case-type thing. Who else is being voted, Cub and Cheery? I'm going to say those wagons are very interesting to me, or at any rate will be if I manage to survive a few more days. Definitely not wagons I'd want to join today unless some very good evidence came up.

[goodmorning]

Yeah, it's that ac1983 fan who has yet to post.

@MOD: It's been like 5 days, can we get a prod or replacement or something on that guy?

[goodmorning]

@Cheery: As I've said, the Cub wagon is interesting but not, in my opinion, particularly good (at least not today). Most of the before-Safetyslapfest stuff is focused on that wagon. Safetyslapfest starts roundabout 106 when he votes ppp. Between 82 (my last post before 2-day hiatus) (and I've already addressed all before it that I care to address for the moment) and 106 there was the following content:
People hammer down Cub's reasons for voting NS - great, whatever
implosion brings suspicion of Cub - looks like an alright case, I'm just not feeling it
Cub says he wasn't ignoring stuff - sure, fine
People hammer down the definition of "content" - blahhhhhhhh words
Safety wishy-washily votes NS - dullllllll and the wishy-washiness alone kinda makes me think Saftey's Town
The new guys show up - FINALLY
Safety votes ppp and everything goes to hell

There wasn't really that much content prior to the slapfest. The only things that are really interesting to me are implosion's case on Cub and Safety's NS vote.

Sorry it's kind of a textwall.

[goodmorning]

To examine them later as early counterwagons would be more useful than examining them now under the very thin D1 cases they have.
They are interesting when I define interesting as "perhaps not horribly useful now, but will be things to come back to".
The wagon on Cheery is still interesting, but of the four folks being voted at the moment is the wagon I agree with least, so I'm tending to focus away from it because I find it silly.

[goodmorning]

@ac: See my response to Zai in 137 for my reasons to vote NS.
Space was a typo.

[goodmorning]

Those aren't reasons; what you have there are just a bunch of links to his posts and saying "I don't like these." You're also still voting NS and haven't really engaged any of the other wagons/cases other than to say "meh I think they're meh."

They are meh. And not liking people's posts means I don't see them coming from a Town perspective, that they don't fit, that they are scummy.

@Apozzle: When there's someone who's not even posted once, a mere lurker can indeed slide under the radar.

Still don't like the NS wagon; the case on him amounts to "Kill him because META!" It's unalloyed WIFOM.

Nooooooo, kill him because of 25, kill him because of 37, kill him because of 65 even, kill him because he's done even less than you have.
Not because you can't read him, that's stupid.

And let me break this down, since people are going to be like" but why do you think they're scummy??"
25 is scummy because NS has been around long enough to know that people sometimes do really random stuff D1. This should not confuse him, and I feel like he's playing the "I don't know anything" card early on with it.
37 is scummy because it is completely unhelpful to Town and because he caved to pressure rather than make a fuss.
65 is a little bit scummy just in the way he reacts to Cub; that vote had been on him since the first page and he chose not to address it til then?
Active lurking is rather scummy for obvious reasons.

[goodmorning]

@Cheery: Why are you calling out Beli harder than Apozzle when they did pretty much the same thing?

[goodmorning]

BRING IT

No, wait, why is this game so dead?

This argument about NS's meta is so unbelievably counterproductive right now.

Looking forward to a replacement, maybe they'll bring the life back.

[goodmorning]

goodmorning, why do you have an obsession with SD?

Because her little toe has a better judge of character than all of you combined?

Or she spent of her time last game tunnelling me so she's trying to counter-balance that

HEY WHOA

THAT TUNNEL WAS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED

[goodmorning]

At this point I have a pretty strong Townread on Safety, slight on Cub and implosion.
I have mild scumreads on NS and Edo. (I forget what exactly it was for Edo now, but I do recall that the first response of 256 is characteristic.)

[goodmorning]

I could have worded that better. I meant characteristic of the other posts in this game that looked scummy to me.

This one in particular makes it look like he's not reading. I'll try and dig up the other posts this evening.

[goodmorning]

It's mostly meta, but it's also that the votehopping he's done just doesn't look scummy in the slightest to me.

[goodmorning]

Don't seem scummy either.

[goodmorning]

Other than Edo, ppp hits me a bit sideways.

[goodmorning]

HD!

My face is smiling so muchhhhhh

You should obviously sheep me, I keep forgetting this game exists.

[goodmorning]

Post count =/= post quality.

Take this post, for example.

[goodmorning]

It's mostly meta, but it's also that the votehopping he's done just doesn't look scummy in the slightest to me.

D you know for sure he doesn't votehop as scum, or is it the reasoning along with the jumps that make you think that way?

Well, from what I've seen he doesn't as Scum, but it's more the reasoning.

HD!

My face is smiling so muchhhhhh

You should obviously sheep me, I keep forgetting this game exists.

Why would you be a good person to sheep if you forget the game exists? Those two things together don't sound very much like a town-wincon.

Because it is sarcasm.

[goodmorning]

@Cub: It's called changing your mind? I don't honestly know what you're seeing because it's just not there. If you expect a perfect case page 2, you're gonna have a bad time.

To clarify: the reasoning Safety applies looks like early D1 Town logic to me.

[goodmorning]

@ac: Some people find FoS scummy. It's more a personal thing than a site meta thing, we all have personal tells.

@Cub: Has he? I don't see him voting you.

[goodmorning]

Thinking you are scummy does not have to mean that he thinks you are
a. Scum or
b. a good lynch for today or
c. even a good vote

Maybe he does, I can't speak for him. I'm not really seeing reiterations, more just "hey I have a scumread on you, now I'm going to go pursue a scummier candidate"

And for the record, I have a slight Townread on you. I'd like to head off any misrepping by anyone at the pass.

[goodmorning]

Damned walls.

After the bit you quoted he used past tense, indicating that that was his reasoning at post 54 but not necessarily now.
I don't think 127 or 253 is a reiteration.
261 and 264 taken together are kind of there, but ehhhh not really.
In 299 he is saying that anything subsequent to his vote in 54 is irrelevant to that vote, and as he's not making a case on you I fail to see why you're making a fuss about it.
Yes, semantics, but valid semantics for once, I think.

Are you usually this reactionary as Town? Time for some meta, I think.

[goodmorning]

Asked and answered, 309.

[goodmorning]

Response to implosion: Yes.

Response to Cub: Why, for that matter, are you against a ppp lynch?

[goodmorning]

Vote: ppp

I mean, come on. 327 is Scum screaming "SHIT SHIT EASY WAY OUT MAYBE??????"

Still would love an NS lynch, but you can't always get what you want.

[goodmorning]

They look desperate. In a low-key situation.

[goodmorning]

What about it looks desperate and how?

This question was going to get answered right now, but I'm about to fall asleep on my computer so it'll have to wait. BUT I WILL REMEMBER.

In the meantime:

You mean to say I desperately thought out some points, rationalised them and put down a vote?

No. Please stop attempting to misrep me.

Did you have a specific critique of my points there?

Asked and answered by 331. If you're looking for an in-depth critique of each point, go ask a debate team or an English teacher.

[goodmorning]

DAMMIT IT'S LION TIME
Alright, here we go. Beli, your answer will be in this post. Cub, stop making me question my read on you. Zai, you're silly.

POST-BY-POST CASE ON PPP GOOOO
101: FoS on NS.
Why it's scummy: NS was being talked about as a potential lynch candidate. FoSing the easy target is scummy.
107: Suspicion of Safety for jumping votes. Also says NS's playstyle is less suspicious than it would be for others due to meta.
Why it's scummy: Two hours elapsed between what basically amounts to calling NS your scummiest player and calling his playstyle not that suspicious. With the amount of content he posted (hint: none) playstyle is the only estimator you could possibly have based either read on. Why the inconsistency?
110: Point-by-point on Safety's jump.
Why it's scummy: Besides the misrepping of Safety? Maybe I'm taking semantics too far, but "Can you tell a different

story

?" implies that you are making it up.
113: Questions Cheery's assessment of meta.
Why it's scummy: Those are the kinds of questions Scum asks. Town would either disagree or admit a mistake plainly rather than frolicking through words to try and veil the real purpose of them.
120 and 121: Same stuff on Safety.
Why it's scummy: Why did it take so long? The timing here is incredibly strange.
129: Asks Safety whether his given reason for the vote switch was the best one.
Why it's scummy: Besides the negative language (which I'm not sure is deliberate) and the general dickishness (which I'm sure is), mainly it's referring to Safety's vote switch as "alarming".
130: "My reaction has been towards your reasons and who you took it off"
Why it's scummy: Besides more weirdness on the NS front, the idea that agreeing with someone means you shouldn't vote them.
Some Null one-liners follow, then there's
171: Calls implosion scummy for being flippant.
Why it's scummy: Besides even more NS weirdness, flippant =/= scummy.
179: Calls Apozzle scummy for that stupid stunt he did.
Why it's scummy: Fourth lynch candidate in 80 hours? Bit quick to set up lynches, sir.
185: Some questions.
Why it's scummy: They're useless questions.
190: Response to Zai.
Why it's scummy: A complete shift in reasoning as to why Safety's jump looked scummy to him.

I'll do 212 onwards tonight because CASES ARE SO GODDAMNED BORING AND I CAN'T DO ANY MORE RIGHT NOW

Also let me rephrase my 337:
You want a specific critique of your points? THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY FUCKING DESPERATE, THERE'S YOUR FUCKING CRITIQUE

[goodmorning]

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.

[goodmorning]

@Cub: This game has crazy bursts of activity. This means that
a. things pass my notice until a look-back
b. other things seem more important
c. it's not something that one could really make a question about.
That is why I didn't question those things in real time.

My vote is not bad. If you want me to consider it so, you're going to have to come up with some actual points in his favour, because I've not seen any.

@Beli, it's fine that you disagree. I will definitely be doing the second half though, because it's his recent interactions with implosion that have given me what is probably the hardest scumread I've ever had.

@Cheery: As Scum (especially when replacing in, but applies at all times) it's really easy to mislynch a player by thieving and refining points from a Town player against another Town player. If by some great stretch of the imagination ppp actually was Town (which he's not) I wouldn't want that to happen with my points. Stating suspicions is sufficient in my opinion.

[goodmorning]

Conclusion of the case in the morning, with a quick side note to say: he's just posted a readslist, let's tally it up. Towns:0 Nulls:8 Scums:3 NSs:1 In what universe does a readslist like that come from Town?

Tentative calling of the scums in case I'm stupidlynched overnight:
ppp/Edo/(Cub/ac)

Hard Townreads:
Safety/implosion/Zai

Soft Townreads:
Beli/Cheery

Null: everyone else

@Cheery, Beli, etc.
I'm in a cautious phase at the moment, oh well.

@ppp: Making cases makes me want to punch things. It is my least favorite part of the game and I therefore tend to avoid it whenever possible.

[goodmorning]

Finishing the case in a second, just want to get this out there first.

Calling Apozzle your top lynch candidate makes myself and Safety scumier than him?

CONFUSED

Also people threatening to L-1 me is not frightening. I love L-1. I have replaced into L-1 slots for the thrill of the fight. L-1 just means the game is on.

SO GAME ON, MOTHERFUCKERS


Also

CASES

ARE

GODDAMNED BORING AND I DEFY YOU ALL TO BITCH ABOUT ME NOT LIKING THEM

[goodmorning]

And by a second I mean later this morning, I'm kind of in a rage right now due to outside factors and I need to chill out before I do anything as soul-destroying as a case.

Genuinely sorry for postponing it and postponing the resumption of my usual gameplay though.

[goodmorning]

It's way more fun to make up a case because it requires actual brainpower.
But way more fun than soul-destroying is still really dull.

I'm not making this one up, and it's pissing me off because everyone is ignoring everything scummy about him.

[goodmorning]

Oh, fuck, deadline is in less than 2 days?
GROSS

Lynch me if you have to, I'm only VT so it's no big loss to Town, but honestly ppp is obvScum and you guys are idiots. I'll try and do the rest of the case now if you'll hold off lynching me for a bit.

[goodmorning]

212: as little substance as he accused Apozzle of having
214: implication that policy lynches are easy and less valid in every way
238: literally the only Town post from this guy
279: says he's not going to move the Safety wagon and moves it in the same post
327: We want a breakdown of the desperation in the points?
"- Apart from finding his #105 scummy and nonsensical his subsequent posts either haven't seemed scummy or been negligible"
Then why tunnel him for so long? (Unless you were trying for a mislynch and realised you wouldn't get one, that is.)
"- I don't want to jump the gun, but his aggressive defence has read more town than scum"
This point is stupid/fabricated, Scum tend to have to play a more defensive game because offense makes slips more likely to happen and more obvious when they do.
"- The main thing that sticks in my craw is his stubbornness towards NS given there are much more interesting target and avenues to explore Day 1"
NS would be a reasonably decent lynch; there was hella discussion about him which is always good with associative types of tells. This point is simply a way to jump back on the wagon should it re-form.
"- I really didn't like implosion zealously coming in to defend Safety in #109 when he admits that he hasn't read Safety in #119, this of course generates a lot of potential speculation over why this happened at all, but for now that has to go in the backburner. As a consequence however, it leaves some uncertainties over Safety (along with implosion)"
Hey presto, another target, another reason to jump back on the wagon at will.
"- On the whole Safety is a null tell (and thus not good voting fodder), I disagree with his major actions (votes, target choice, reasoning etc.) but find him at the very least reasonably consistent. Breaking down other elements of his gameplay at this point are too speculative and I'm not comfortable making such guesses right now. He remains on my watch list."
AND ANOTHER
Also what in the fuck is going on with this equating of agreement with Townishness? Again, really?

I can do the Apozzle points too if you really want, but I think that's enough of that post for now. Perhaps "desperate" is not quite the word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment, except "scummy as fuck".

328: misreps implosion. If you don't think this is scummy, ask: why would Town deliberately misrepresent another? Accidents happen, of course, but deliberately?
335: misrepping me.
340: this one just pisses me off, to be honest
347: deliberately, blatantly, and dickishly misrepresents implosion to the nth degree. Can any of you look at this post and the post it responds to and claim that ppp is Town? Because if you can you are completely fucking delusional and I intend to avoid games with you in in future.
356: Let me explain to you what is wrong with your argument in 347.
What you did to implosion would be like me as a police officer taking your torrid love affair (You said, in this case: "I stole her heart within a week. I went to the bank for some cash and we eloped.") and arresting you for saying this ("I went to the bank and I stole some cash.").
The first rule of quoting: DON'T BE A DICK (the second rule: try not to change the meaning or intent of the original statement) (I learnt these in fourth grade, so I'm guessing you are aware of them)
360: In what universe is this game passive?
389: Desperation dill? Sorry, did the first half of my case scare you? THEN YOU SHOULD BE FUCKING TERRIFIED RIGHT NOW
395: Despite a slight change in wording...

there's still no Townreads on the list

(This is a Scum attitude bacause it enables flexibility in voting onto any which mislynch should happen by)

SO YEAH
CASE MOTHERFUCKING CLOSED

If anyone else has anything I've failed to answer, by all means re-present your questions now.

[goodmorning]

Bitches.

[goodmorning]

It's very unusual for me to claim without someone's intent to hammer me first. (And claiming on a "large wagon" alone would be utter idiocy.) In this case it is due to the looming deadline and my focus on casemaking.

[goodmorning]

It would not be a grudge. It would be an assumption that any such player have a fundamental difference in thought processes and therefore probably shouldn't play in the same games.

Hmm. If you were to answer any of my points, I'd like you to answer 327, and also the actual argument presented on 347 and 356.

complete fabrication or your inability to read my posts, only reading what you want to see in my posts.

I hardly need to state how ridiculous this is coming from you.

For the record, I wouldn't be

that

disappointed if I were lynched. The main source of my indignation and frustration is your blatant scumminess and people's complete lack of caring about it.

P-Edit: See? Fundamental differences (unless you flip Scum, in which case there may be mitigating circumstances). I didn't expect my claim to affect anyone's votes. I do, however, hope for my case to.

Ughhhh I want everyone to come backkk

[goodmorning]

I want you to answer my points on your posts then. Quit dicking around with semantics, you know precisely what I mean.

[goodmorning]

My personal "misreading" of 279 may or may not have been a big "fuck you" to your own "misreading" of literally everything else in the game.

But since I said "may or may not" I guess we'll never know.

[goodmorning]

I wrote a rather long and ranty post bitching about your bullshit, but I deleted it and am writing this instead.

I am stepping back from this discussion. It isn't worth it to me to continue it.

Actually I'll respond to one thing because I can't resist, but that's it.
"I didn't scramble his words and fit them together in a different way."
No, you scrambled his lines and fit them together in a different way.

I'm pretty much resigned to being today's lynch. That's fine.
BUT
Town, if we lose because of this guy, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. And endgame will be nothing but me writing "I TOLD YOU SO" on endless loop.

P-Edit: Cub. Why do you appear to be coaching?

[goodmorning]

Basically:
1. It would piss me off to continue, and this is a game which I'd like to enjoy rather than hate.
2. I am not going to convince you, nor you me.
3. Enough has been said that people are capable of judging for themselves.
4. Continuing to clog the thread with a slapfest will only serve to distract.
5. You remind me of someone I used to argue with frequently, and the only recourse for both of us was ending in "Shut up." That's particularly useless in a game like this.

Also, my point with that analogy was to use simple words to stand in place of implosion's lines and demonstrate that by taking them out of context one could (and did) get a drastically different result. If I said you were Strawmanning any harder I'd lose my voice (figuratively, of course).

[goodmorning]

What implosion said that I agree with and you butchered:
"you misrepresented my points completely and entirely and your responses bear absolutely no link to reality"
So maybe he should have said "bear just one tenuous link to reality" but the point still applies.
You quoted ad nauseum the fact that he said one point kinda sorta addresses what he said (conveniently excising the part where he mentions that it clearly does not refute anything), ignoring the rest of his case.

As to your tennis argument... Well, let's just say that in tennis, the ball is a ball. The other player can't just substitute a cupcake or a brick, it's always a tennis ball.

[goodmorning]

EBWODP: Keep forgetting to mention this, but as has been the case for the past while, that was directed at ppp.

[goodmorning]

Yes, 343 has merit to me.

Thank you. (I don't pull myself to maximum coherency often, but when I do it usually involves baked goods .)

347 made me feel more confident in my read of you, for deviousness/boyish attitude/etc.
Well, implosion has stated cases multiple times, so I'm not sure which in particular you're referring to.
In 320 I agree with his third point and much of the second as well. I've stated my reasoning on the third already. As to the second... it's kind of subjective, but I agree that that particular feeling is there. The first and fourth I can personally take or leave.

As to your 327, I found it scummy, and that is how it ties into it. To your rebuttal (points numbered to avoid quotewall):
1. Maybe tunneling is the wrong word, what I meant there was "pushing really quite hard with little attention paid to anything else"
2. That's fine. I feel you fabricated it. Others may not.
3. Also fine that you disagree. I am not trying to imply that you are/were no longer suspicious of Safety, that's actually sort of my point.
4. Also sort of the point.
5. I meant "relating of agreement/disagreement", I should probably double-check stuff before I post it.

[goodmorning]

Really, guys? You pick a secondary wagon and it's Apozzle? Wouldn't have hit my top 5, but that appears to be this game in general.

I'm cool with being the lynch (though I've mentioned who I'd prefer) and I'll self-hammer to avoid a no-lynch if it comes down to it. (But I don't think I'll have to.)

[goodmorning]

Uh, updated reads/wild guesses:

I believe the Mason claim.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE is Scum, and ac may be as well.

Safety is Town, I think. Zai is a little more difficult to mail down. He has been a bit lurky but that's not necessarily inconsistent with his Town meta.

Cheery is Town. So is implosion.

NS is likelier Town than Scum from the early wagon alone but he'd probably still be a good lynch in the next couple days.

Beli is flying under the radar in an interesting fashion. Could be a good outside chance.

HD isn't really playing to his Town meta, but he's not really playing to his Scum meta either. If there is an SK in the setup it's right here.

I have no idea how I feel about ppp anymore.

[goodmorning]

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE is Scum,

I hate to assume things; is this Edosurist?

IT IS

[goodmorning]

That oughtta be it.

[goodmorning]

You should be 100% sure because that's what I am. :[

Good luck guys, I'm quite sure my death will be pretty alright in terms of providing information.

[goodmorning]

THIS GAME

Safety's explanation is that he crumbed his real result, was doing a kind of reaction test, and didn't believe you guys would just go crazy follow-the-cop.

[goodmorning]

At which point the rest of us dead people said NEVER DO THAT AGAIN