|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 19:00:00 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 19:00:00 GMT -5
Can I ask who you did send it too? I sent it to myself. I send myself messages when I wish to remind myself of various things. During the Day, I composed a message for myself about the various benefits of different targets. When Night began, I replied that message instead of one of Hawkeye's messages.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 19:01:53 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 19:01:53 GMT -5
So you were constantly looking at your inbox, awaiting a reply from Hawkeye about your Night Action, but didn't see the new message from yourself after you sent it to yourself?
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 19:04:20 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 19:04:20 GMT -5
So you were constantly looking at your inbox, awaiting a reply from Hawkeye about your Night Action, but didn't see the new message from yourself after you sent it to yourself? I sent the message as Night began. I have a lot of messages from myself. I tend to ignore them unless I'm looking for something specific. I paid it no attention. I wasn't expecting anything from hawkeye until Day began. When Day began and I had nothing, I questions him. He asked me to check my outbox, and my most recent message was my request to watch archangel and it was sent to me and not to him. I had believed I had done it correctly, so I wasn't paying any attention.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 19:04:49 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 19:04:49 GMT -5
I just sent myself a message, and it showed up as me having one new message. I don't see how you could not see you did that when you were waiting for the reply. Especially when the alert about you having a new message would pop up immediately upon sending it to yourself.
I don't know, maybe you forgot you sent it to yourself after you read the message you sent to yourself...
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 19:06:14 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 31, 2009 19:06:14 GMT -5
Note to self: Do not send note to self.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 19:13:09 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 19:13:09 GMT -5
I just sent myself a message, and it showed up as me having one new message. I don't see how you could not see you did that when you were waiting for the reply. Especially when the alert about you having a new message would pop up immediately upon sending it to yourself. I don't know, maybe you forgot you sent it to yourself after you read the message you sent to yourself... Mine said I had 15 new messages. I ignore most of the ones from myself. It wasn't unusual to have an unread note saying "Re: Day 2 notes" from myself in my inbox. I didn't read it. I didn't pay it any attention. I have the alert box and the email notification for messages tirned off.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 19:20:30 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 19:20:30 GMT -5
In any case, if the point of this conversation is to point out that I am lying Scum, then the point has been made. If the point of this conversation is to point out that I'm an idiot, that point has also been made.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 19:27:48 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 19:27:48 GMT -5
I'm frustrated.
You watching Archangel had the possibility of confirming two roles. If you Watch her, and she did what she claims, awesome, we know she wasn't lying about her ROLE. It also proves you didn't also lie about your ROLE (I say role as it wouldn't prove if you were Town or Scum or whatever, but it'd prove you at least were a bit truthful). It would either mean you both have the roles you claim, or you were both Scum working together in some elaborate scheme to confuse the hell out of me.
Now we don't have that information. Information that would be extremely useful toDay. And that annoys the hell out of me, so I'm a tad bit frustrated with you (sorry if I'm being an ass about it).
So now I'm (and everyone I guess) is forced to make a choice based on speculation. Again. And then there's the whole conundrum of "Do I risk lynching Ed or Archangel when they could both have useful roles, or do I risk waiting to see if Ed can do it right tomorrow Night." It's a situation I don't want to be in again, as I was in the same spot yesterDay when I changed my vote to Jaade. Hoping you'd do what you meant to do, but messed up.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 19:30:28 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 19:30:28 GMT -5
I'm frustrated. You watching Archangel had the possibility of confirming two roles. If you Watch her, and she did what she claims, awesome, we know she wasn't lying about her ROLE. It also proves you didn't also lie about your ROLE (I say role as it wouldn't prove if you were Town or Scum or whatever, but it'd prove you at least were a bit truthful). It would either mean you both have the roles you claim, or you were both Scum working together in some elaborate scheme to confuse the hell out of me. Now we don't have that information. Information that would be extremely useful toDay. And that annoys the hell out of me, so I'm a tad bit frustrated with you (sorry if I'm being an ass about it). So now I'm (and everyone I guess) is forced to make a choice based on speculation. Again. And then there's the whole conundrum of "Do I risk lynching Ed or Archangel when they could both have useful roles, or do I risk waiting to see if Ed can do it right tomorrow Night." It's a situation I don't want to be in again, as I was in the same spot yesterDay when I changed my vote to Jaade. Hoping you'd do what you meant to do, but messed up. I'm sorry. I realize I messed up. I realize we'd have a lot more information if I'd succeeded.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 21:32:55 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 21:32:55 GMT -5
This will be my last post until Monday afternoon, as I'll be out of town for the weekend. There is a very slim chance I can check this either very early tomorrow or late on Sunday, but doubtful.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 23:45:35 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Jul 31, 2009 23:45:35 GMT -5
Sorry I wasn't here for the end of Day 2. <FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">shit, I just realized I'm tied for the lead and there's only 13 hours left to go. I can't promise I'll be on again before DayEnd. So here's my claim I'm a Town Watcher. Last night, mostly randomly, I chose to watch Bufftabby. I saw her go to the bank and make a transfer, and then I watched as she got hot in the back of the neck. I expect to die toNight now, but don't waste your lynch on me. Aren't you describing the actions of a 'Tracker' rather than a 'Watcher'? Wouldn't that have been useful even on Day 1 to track the claimed roles? So, instead of trying to confirm any of the claimed roles, you chose a mostly random person to watch, and this 1 in 25 person also happened to be a rebel picked by a killer?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 0:14:48 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2009 0:14:48 GMT -5
Sorry I wasn't here for the end of Day 2. <FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">shit, I just realized I'm tied for the lead and there's only 13 hours left to go. I can't promise I'll be on again before DayEnd. So here's my claim I'm a Town Watcher. Last night, mostly randomly, I chose to watch Bufftabby. I saw her go to the bank and make a transfer, and then I watched as she got hot in the back of the neck. I expect to die toNight now, but don't waste your lynch on me. Aren't you describing the actions of a 'Tracker' rather than a 'Watcher'? Wouldn't that have been useful even on Day 1 to track the claimed roles? So, instead of trying to confirm any of the claimed roles, you chose a mostly random person to watch, and this 1 in 25 person also happened to be a rebel picked by a killer? Yes, I suppose I'm more of a tracker. Hawkeye called it a watcher. Yes, I chose mostly at random and got the rebel who was killed Night 1. I did eliminate a few people from following. I didn't care who pedescribe targeted, and I avoided our claimed mason.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 0:40:43 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 1, 2009 0:40:43 GMT -5
So your role can let you see who a person meets (their target) and/or where they go?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 0:51:05 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 1, 2009 0:51:05 GMT -5
Archangel is a mystery. I don't understand how she could have changed her target and/or Night/Day unless it was some rule with a 'colorful' mod explanation, but even that would be a stretch. I'm also not sure if her logic for Night 1/Day 2 actually contains any logic, but it may have worked.
If I understand the rules correctly, bids for the merc are placed during the Day. If Stanis is the merc, maybe he couldn't recieve any requests for his services, and so we only had a rebel kill Night 2.
Or, I guess, maybe the rebels didn't NK to cover for Archangel and Pleo is the victim of the merc.
Maybe this doesn't go anywhere.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 1:01:33 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2009 1:01:33 GMT -5
So your role can let you see who a person meets (their target) and/or where they go? I watch one person and see who they visit.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 2:22:39 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 1, 2009 2:22:39 GMT -5
Almost all the discussion today has revolved around either Archangel or Special Ed. A lot of really good questions have been asked, not nearly as many good answers. It's just not possible that all three (HM, SE and AA) are telling the whole unvarnished truth. It's possible all three are lying, at least in part, even if not necessarily for nefarious reasons. The one thing I know for sure is that in light of NAF's information I'm not expecting to vote for any of them toDay.
For that reason, I was a little taken aback by how quickly Archangel got four votes. Texcat was first, based on residual suspicion from Day 2, but Texcat is a Mason, named by Pleonast and confirmed on Pleo's death. I don't have any reason to doubt him, and it would take a pretty solid argument to change my mind. But the next three votes from HockeyMonkey, Cookies and Special Ed came immediately and before Stanislaus had come in to say his imprisonment was nothing like HM's.
Okay, maybe I'm heading into "tinfoil hat, Moon landing was a hoax*, 9/11 was an inside job*" territory, but how does it read if some or all of the four (HM, Cookies, Ed and Archangel; not Texcat, I'm not that far gone) were hoping to get the rest of us to run the vote count up, laying the groundwork in case of a tie. "Accidentally" causing a tie might be easier to do, and with less exposure than ganging up on one person, especially after seeing how scattered the voting has been on the first two Days.
Or maybe it's simpler than that (not a stretch, I know) and they each saw an opening when Texcat voted and jumped on it, not knowing their co-conspirators were going to jump at the same time. This all presumes Archangel to be the terrorist, of course, and doesn't necessarily include all of the other three.
*These are just examples, not topics I wish to discuss, especially here. Please.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 2:45:11 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 1, 2009 2:45:11 GMT -5
We've also heard a good bit from Stan and about Stan. The fact that he didn't mention anything about music and being tied to a chair when he was returned to the game, was enough for me to put down my vote. His confirmation that his incarceration was apparently nothing like that of Hockey Monkey just reinforced it.
So who do you want to lynch, Dfrnt? Because it sounds like pretty much anyone against whom a solid case can be built is going to have you worried that they are the Terrorist and that anyone making cases against them is scum lighting the fuse, when we don't even know for sure that we even have a Terrorist.
As for the tie-breaker issue, I've already offered to keep myself in the tie-breaker seat to minimize potential damage to town, but...oh yeah, I may be the Terrorist too.
Do you want to go lynching in the lurker pool again? Spin the wheel on random.org?
If you don't want to lynch Angel, that's fine. Let's keep her alive and see what logical pretzels she ties herself in and how many times she gets to throw these funky powers of her's around. But we need to lynch someone.
To me, it is starting to look like you are a one trick pony, and that pony's name is Paranoia. Aside from seeing monsters hiding around every corner, do you have anything else to contribute?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 11:54:49 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 1, 2009 11:54:49 GMT -5
Posting this out of order because I am in a big rush. This is to answer Ed's question for me above. It's a night/day cycle. When night starts I PM Hawkeye and tell him, "I want to jail X tonight please" or "I want to jail X for next day please." And I see my fuzzy language is what is causing a lot of the suspicion here. I'm bad about that and I'm sorry. I was NOT saying I was roleblocked on Night One and then allowed to perform my role again anyway. The block, protection, whatever, was on Stanislaus night one. It was the target that was targeted, not my action. That's why I was able to try again on Stanislaus for the next day.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 13:57:35 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2009 13:57:35 GMT -5
The block, protection, whatever, was on Stanislaus night one. It was the target that was targeted, not my action. That's why I was able to try again on Stanislaus for the next day. So, because stanislaus was protected from your action, you got to try again? I wonder if that would have been the case had you been a killer of some sort..... I've honestly never heard of that type of do-over, but anything is possible, I suppose
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 15:43:01 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 1, 2009 15:43:01 GMT -5
It's a night/day cycle. When night starts I PM Hawkeye and tell him, "I want to jail X tonight please" or "I want to jail X for next day please." So, you pick a target AND a time, and the mod allowed you to change both after the first target missed.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 15:48:54 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 1, 2009 15:48:54 GMT -5
and i'll chime in and be mr. obvious. the last post by archangel also sounds weird. a Night/Day cycle sound bass ackwards.
i remember a game not long ago on a different board where a screw ball claim kept getting screwier the more it got looked at.
btw, i got robbed last Night. so i guess i am back to lu ann platters.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 21:59:11 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Aug 1, 2009 21:59:11 GMT -5
Unvote: archangel Vote: stanislaus
The more I think about yesterday's events the more convinced I am that archangel is the terrorist bomber and that Ed is her scum partner. I think the whole bruhaha between them was started so that we would have a reason to vote archangel, she could make the ridiculous claim, and then get lynched today. Both of them are too experienced to be making these kind of rookie mistakes (ludicrous role claim, sending night move to yourself) without an ulterior motive. I think lynching them both is a very good idea starting with archangel, the more obvious of the two. But not today...let's wait until tomorrow.
And I still think that stanislaus is the thief. He seems like a safe lynch today. No one missed any money while he was in jail. As soon as he is out, peeker has money go missing.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 22:40:39 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 1, 2009 22:40:39 GMT -5
We've also heard a good bit from Stan and about Stan. The fact that he didn't mention anything about music and being tied to a chair when he was returned to the game, was enough for me to put down my vote. His confirmation that his incarceration was apparently nothing like that of Hockey Monkey just reinforced it. You're certain Archangel is lying and Hockey Monkey is telling the truth, so I should be, too? So who do you want to lynch, Dfrnt? Because it sounds like pretty much anyone against whom a solid case can be built is going to have you worried that they are the Terrorist and that anyone making cases against them is scum lighting the fuse, when we don't even know for sure that we even have a Terrorist. I am voting on who I want to lynch at the moment (I'll save you the search, I have not voted today). NAF's warning could be totally or partially false, so I shouldn't question a "solid" case or consider, at all, whether or not lynching that candidate right here, right now, is in our best interest? As for the tie-breaker issue, I've already offered to keep myself in the tie-breaker seat to minimize potential damage to town, but...oh yeah, I may be the Terrorist too. What proof do I have that you are not? If you are and didn't know NAF would be given the information he was given, your offer to be the tiebreaker on Day 1 would have been a pretty good plan. Not perfect, but not bad. Do you want to go lynching in the lurker pool again? Spin the wheel on random.org? I've done neither. If you don't want to lynch Angel, that's fine. Let's keep her alive and see what logical pretzels she ties herself in and how many times she gets to throw these funky powers of her's around. But we need to lynch someone. Despite what you may think, my main objection to lynching Archangel is how convenient it seems. You may be willing to dismiss NAF's info with no more discussion, but I'm not. Maybe it is more of a risk to let her live until Tomorrow than to lynch her now, but I am willing to let Town calculate that risk. To me, it is starting to look like you are a one trick pony, and that pony's name is Paranoia. Aside from seeing monsters hiding around every corner, do you have anything else to contribute? Thank you for giving my idea the twenty minute consideration it deserved. And for clearly stating your objections to it.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 1, 2009 22:51:24 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 1, 2009 22:51:24 GMT -5
I know you (Dfrnt) haven't suggested Lynch-a-lurker or random voting, I'm trying to determine who you do want to lynch as opposed to the list of people that you don't.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 0:03:41 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 2, 2009 0:03:41 GMT -5
Unvote: archangel Vote: stanislaus The more I think about yesterday's events the more convinced I am that archangel is the terrorist bomber and that Ed is her scum partner. I think the whole bruhaha between them was started so that we would have a reason to vote archangel, she could make the ridiculous claim, and then get lynched today. Both of them are too experienced to be making these kind of rookie mistakes (ludicrous role claim, sending night move to yourself) without an ulterior motive. I think lynching them both is a very good idea starting with archangel, the more obvious of the two. But not today...let's wait until tomorrow. And I still think that stanislaus is the thief. He seems like a safe lynch today. No one missed any money while he was in jail. As soon as he is out, peeker has money go missing. Speaking as someone who has responded to myself instead of a mod or an intended recipient on more than one occasion, I wince at the idea that Ed is telling the truth, but the way the details had to be drug out of him was a pain in the ass. He also had a convenient target for his power on Night 1 in bufftaby, as she showed up dead and confirmed the next day, which makes me want to go back to thinking nothing but wifom about bufftaby's alleged transfer that he says he saw her make. He may be telling the truth about that as scum, just in case there is a pro-town tracker/watcher who also happened to see her visit the bank that Night. I can find nothing redeeming or worthy of empathy in archangel's play or testimony, however. And I also raise an eyebrow at the posts from Nanook and Blockey that seem to put an bit too much emphasis on what archangel has said her motivations were. These posts read to me like downplaying the case against her, and in Blockey's case even trying to use his interpretations of her words to try and show that there really isn't anything funky in the Night/Day or Day/Night cycle mechanics of the role. I recommend going back and re-reading the area around these posts, as I'm only cherry picking out of a longer exchange. To be fair, if you believe her claim, jailing HM last Night was a fairly solid pro-Town move, again assuming you believe HM as well. On the other hand, it's also potentially a fairly solid pro-Scum move, if they had reason to believe that HM would target one of them last Night. With that said, I wouldn't be so quick to vote Archangel based on the color that HM reported. There's reason to believe that there is more than one blocker out there, and with stanis claiming not to have received the music treatment, there is the possibility that HM got double blocked last Night, by Archangel and by the Rebels as well. I admit, 3 blockers on 3 different sides seems a stretch, but we've seen weird things like that before. Batman's 2 Town blockers anyone? I don't necessarily belive that is the case mind you, but I do think we should at least consider the possibility before we go nuts voting for someone. Ed, what exactly do you mean by you failed to properly submit your request? You didn't send it in? You have to follow a specific format? Some more information please. Spintari, I see that you were able to come in and post. Yet you didn't answer my question. So I ask again, is there a reason you didn't vote either of the last two Days? I'm seeing the case against archangel, and it seems fairly strong, however I'm not exactly comfortable cutting the day short. Blocking Hockeymonkey doesn't exactly explain one death. Three kills yesterday: One most likely scum, one almost certainly not scum, and another kill. If we believe Hockey Monkey was blocked then we have, most likely a merc kill, a scum kill, and one unknown. A doctor died who was quite likely to have been self protecting. This might have been the extra kill with the scum having a limited use unblockable kill that was in addition to the regular night kill. This makes sense on night one, but extra kill is rather powerful. On the other hand if it was a townie who had that extra kill then things are a little stranger. If it's a one shot it was a really bad idea to use it day one. If it was a regular kill then they were blocked. Or of course they could have a role with multiple powers and/or patterned abilities (kill odd nights, investigate even nights) Or of course HockeyMonkey could be lying about being blocked night one. On a side note Julie Archangel stated that at night she could choose to block someone for that night or the following day, not both. Conspiracy theories against Hockey that require benefit of the doubt to be given to archangel and/or Ed (or any unconfirmed player, for that matter) are not compelling to me. For better or worse, what I find more compelling is the the idea that Hockey would have to be nuts to claim mandatory vig as a scum player on Day 1. It is slightly more plausible to think that she could be 3rd party, and most plausible that she's Town. The case against Stanislaus is completely circumstantial in a game with a lot of quiet players, and players that were apparently so not involved in the game that they didn't even give Town the courtesy of being able to lynch them instead of having them mod killed. I really hope that Jaade or Sister Coyote weren't robbed while Stan was in the clink. But, it is at least something which is more than I have on anyone else aside from Angel and Ed at this point. I'm willing to put a vote down on Stan, but if we are serious about keeping Angel out of the noose and the tie-breaker slot, we're going to have to do some maneuvering quickly. Don't worry, I'm not going to suggest myself, and anyone else volunteering toDay of all days is likely to have a hard time of it. Spintari for the hotseat perhaps? Unvote: archangel
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 7:55:50 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 2, 2009 7:55:50 GMT -5
For better or worse, what I find more compelling is the the idea that Hockey would have to be nuts to claim mandatory vig as a scum player on Day 1. It is slightly more plausible to think that she could be 3rd party, and most plausible that she's Town. <snipped> while i see your point if in fact she is scum it seems to be working out ok so far. she's still alive and in no real danger of getting lynched today.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 10:40:19 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 2, 2009 10:40:19 GMT -5
The reason I thought HM could conceivably be the merc is that she would have a built in cover if any tracker followed her and saw that whoever she visited died. And setting it up early avoids accusations that she's just pulling a role out of her hat when things get too hot.
Risky, yes, but with lots of built-in deniability.
What goes against this is the risk and also her early claim on Day 2 that she was blocked, long before (in my recollection) all players had checked in. So, if someone had tracked her, she would have been exposed.
It would help account for some of the deaths/missing deaths. I dunno.
Do we have any evidence that thievery is a Day action? Peeker, when did your money go missing? If thievery is a Day action, Stan might have been blocked. But if it's a Night action, that theory falls apart.
I don't put too much stock in the argument that someone would have claimed if they had been robbed. There's just too many other things that could be keeping them from claiming, including rampant apathy.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 11:12:59 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Aug 2, 2009 11:12:59 GMT -5
Do we have any evidence that thievery is a Day action? Peeker, when did your money go missing? If thievery is a Day action, Stan might have been blocked. But if it's a Night action, that theory falls apart. I don't put too much stock in the argument that someone would have claimed if they had been robbed. There's just too many other things that could be keeping them from claiming, including rampant apathy. No, I am pretty sure that the thief operates at night. My theory was that he was caught during the robbery the first night and thrown in jail. Yep, it's just a theory based on a hunch and some flimsy circumstantial evidence. But for today, I don't have anything better.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 11:19:47 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 2, 2009 11:19:47 GMT -5
No, I am pretty sure that the thief operates at night. My theory was that he was caught during the robbery the first night and thrown in jail. Yep, it's just a theory based on a hunch and some flimsy circumstantial evidence. But for today, I don't have anything better. That would mean that he was blocked both at Night AND the following Day. That's a lot of blocking.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 11:46:34 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 2, 2009 11:46:34 GMT -5
The reason I thought HM could conceivably be the merc is that she would have a built in cover if any tracker followed her and saw that whoever she visited died. And setting it up early avoids accusations that she's just pulling a role out of her hat when things get too hot. Risky, yes, but with lots of built-in deniability. What goes against this is the risk and also her early claim on Day 2 that she was blocked, long before (in my recollection) all players had checked in. So, if someone had tracked her, she would have been exposed. It would help account for some of the deaths/missing deaths. I dunno. Do we have any evidence that thievery is a Day action? Peeker, when did your money go missing? If thievery is a Day action, Stan might have been blocked. But if it's a Night action, that theory falls apart. I don't put too much stock in the argument that someone would have claimed if they had been robbed. There's just too many other things that could be keeping them from claiming, including rampant apathy. it could also be that she didn't kill and therefore could claim block. i got the notice that i had been robbed at the beginning of this Day. it, however, did not specify when it occurred. i just kind of assumed because of the timing that it was a Night action. but, it did not explicitly state that.
|
|