|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 13:00:49 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 27, 2009 13:00:49 GMT -5
Wait, I take that back, there was the time I didn't get on line until evening and everyone was worried that I wasn't posting.... See, like I said, not really much of a case. But it's shit like this that has got my dander up Ed. It feels out of character.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 13:05:24 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 13:05:24 GMT -5
Wait, I take that back, there was the time I didn't get on line until evening and everyone was worried that I wasn't posting.... See, like I said, not really much of a case. But it's shit like this that has got my dander up Ed. It feels out of character. how so?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 13:09:42 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 27, 2009 13:09:42 GMT -5
I don't think lynching a lurker is terribly useful (how to tell a town or scum lurker vote apart?), although keeping talkative people around is better for the game. But also we have a claimed mandatory vigilante and a mercenary who could be offered to kill lurkers. Although I can understand no-one wants to suggest that out loud to avoid the accusation of directing the vigilante. Someone made the comment Day One that a vigilante isn't influenced by scum like the lynch, but although they don't have a vote, they can still influence the decision are still heard. I would like to why someone would vote for Jaade who seems to be completely missing as opposed to someone who is really lurking (reading, not posting). For example: Also, can we be a bit more clearer on who was killed and whatnot. I mean, I got it after caching pages 1-4 in my browser like a gazillion times (if you guys had ads, we'd all have Porches!) but if the "official" posts could be a bit less jargony and more "this person was an astronaut!" or whatever the case may be, just to cut down on the eyeball boggling. just a suggestion. A couple of people have posted summaries, Pollux posted one just 30m before you made this post. You missed my post where I prodded you if you got any thoughts at all besides announcing you're waiting for peekers follow-up post. Comments, Spintari? Vote: Spintari I might as well spread out the votes more while I reread for someone better. Again I like to hear why people are voting for a specific lurker ( Pleonast announced he was going to vote them all in turn IIRC).
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 13:38:54 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 27, 2009 13:38:54 GMT -5
See, like I said, not really much of a case. But it's shit like this that has got my dander up Ed. It feels out of character. how so? It's hard to say. Notice I am not voting for you. After being wrong about PCM I am a little less trusting of my gut for now. It just feels like you are being unnecessarily combative in your responses to suspicion, and while from some people that wouldn't ping me it feels off coming from you.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 14:26:32 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 27, 2009 14:26:32 GMT -5
On the mentioned 'how you feel about stanislaus being jailed': the power feels too powerful for scum, especially if it turns out to be repeatable. If it is a town or third party power then the user most likely didn't have a better chance of hitting scum or town than normal. So it doesn't says much about alignment. If it is a scum power, there is no guarantee they couldn't target their own. On Pollux's summary: My general guess to the scenario is this: 13 town 2 town that can be third-party (?) 1 third-party merc (with a survivor-type win condition) 4 third-party peacekeepers (jailer is one of the peacekeepers, possibly more than one roleblocker for peacekeeping purposes) 1 SK 6 scum (one of which is a terrorist, one of which is the thief, one of which doesn't start with the rest of the scum) This scenario leans more towards worst-case, so I am very shaky in trusting Cookies. Possible guess is that she was trying to set up the Day 3 lynch with her thing and didn't know that NAF would get information about it. I don't trust that she's vanilla town. I think your best-guess setup is a bit too negative but planning for the worst doesn't hurt. Even if town has a lot of power roles, that doesn't really give a clue if there are any vanilla or not. See Professor Normal the only vanilla town in Dr. Horrible. bufftabby was a vanilla Rebel, although the Rebels also killed a doctor without problem. JSexton Points: 14 town (3x2.5 masons=7.5, comp vig. 1.5, doc 3, cop 4 = 16 + 8 vanilla = 24) 2 town that can be third-party (0.5x2 count as millers) 1 third-party merc (4.5 count as SK) 4 third-party peacekeepers (6.5xcount as scum role blocker, 7.5 jailer, 4.5x2 = 23, though maybe the candidate(s) help their win condition) 1 Thief (if only steals from everyone equally, 0 points) 5 scum (4.5 x 3, 7 tough guy (pede kill), 7 godfather = 27.5) 25 establishment VS 24 peacekeeper VS 32 rebel I've made some guesses here (tough guy, cop/godfather, points for candidates, assuming claims true, etc) - but you did mention JSP without actually showing them. Town power roles average 2 points or so, so would need to replace most of the vanilla with them and maybe one more to peacekeepers.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 14:41:16 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 27, 2009 14:41:16 GMT -5
or, another thought. Maybe Stanis is 'in jail' because he is the thief or the merc and he got caught?
I don't think the color implies jail, and I may be colored by others hypothesizing that. It could be the thief was caught since no one claims to have lost any money last night. Perhaps there is a x% chance he lands in jail each night that he goes out robbing people, and he got unlucky last night? A couple of days later: I was wondering along the same lines. Is NAF's note and Stanislaus disappearance connected?
Was Stanislaus doing something (counteracting the terrorist?) but because he has been frozen, the terrorist can now plan the strike, and NAF gets a warning message? (why didn't NAF get the message on Day 1, what triggered it to be delivered Day 2? Stanislaus being frozen?) Sorry, I don't think any of this makes any sense. Looks like scum trying desperately to confuse things. Vote: BillMcSo it's okay to speculate stanislaus the thief got jailed because he took an action, but not that that could have happened to stanislaus the terrorist? A badly worded post isn't a reason to vote in my opinion. Unvote: Spintari If he didn't noticed the blue, he might notice the red. Vote: texcat For voting with a very weak reason. Also you seem very interested in gold and haven't answered my question about why it is useful to make it public what we do or happened with our gold.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 15:07:23 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 27, 2009 15:07:23 GMT -5
I would like to why someone would vote for Jaade who seems to be completely missing as opposed to someone who is really lurking (reading, not posting). Because I can't tell who is reading but not posting versus who isn't around, but I can say who isn't helping the Town cause. People seem to go completely missing a lot. If we need those players for our side to win, well, we're screwed.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 15:11:58 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 27, 2009 15:11:58 GMT -5
Because I can't tell who is reading but not posting versus who isn't around, but I can say who isn't helping the Town cause. After saying that, I realized that I can go to their profile pages and see if they've logged in. But if they haven't logged in, how much are they helping Town? I can't figure out why that's supposed to be something in their favor. So many games just seem to kill off anyone who talks, leaving the silence of the lurkers.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 15:23:44 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 27, 2009 15:23:44 GMT -5
I didn't mean checking the last access, but looking at the people who do make an occasional post (so they haven't forgotten about the game). I mentioned spintari, but also for example Sister Coyote who made only one post to Today.
Over these you pick Jaade who made one post all game about having internet problems?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 15:49:45 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 27, 2009 15:49:45 GMT -5
I picked Jaade, as I said before, because she isn't helping Town under any circumstances. She's either not helping because she could be posting but isn't, or she isn't helping because she can't post.
I get tired of people not posting.
If I see someone doing something more obviously scummy, I'll change my vote, but if it's a choice between ditching the players who aren't playing versus killing off involved players who at least give me someone to talk to, I'm taking the former.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 16:14:42 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jul 27, 2009 16:14:42 GMT -5
snip bufftabby was a vanilla Rebel, although the Rebels also killed a doctor without problem. snip. You state this as if you know for a fact that the Rebels killed the doc and not another faction. How do you know this exactly?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 16:42:10 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jul 27, 2009 16:42:10 GMT -5
Natlaw, I think, in general, having more information out there is good for the town. I don't see how knowing that someone was the victim of the thief could hurt. Is there something you think that the scum could do with that info if they had it? And it might help us if we knew how often the thief struck. It might help a roleblocker or role-transferer know if they stumbled onto the thief. And it might help us figure out who is, or is not, hiring Vinny.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 17:11:43 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 27, 2009 17:11:43 GMT -5
I picked Jaade, as I said before, because she isn't helping Town under any circumstances. She's either not helping because she could be posting but isn't, or she isn't helping because she can't post. I get tired of people not posting. If I see someone doing something more obviously scummy, I'll change my vote, but if it's a choice between ditching the players who aren't playing versus killing off involved players who at least give me someone to talk to, I'm taking the former. I heartily concur with this philosophy from a metagame perspective, but it does incur risk for Town from the perspective of any given game. It is a catch 22 in that I want players in general to have a fear of being lynched outright for lack of participation, but it really sucks on the specific side when we end up taking out a Town player and potentially a Town power role in order to make an example of them. In games when there are so many people in the potential lurker bucket that the couldn't possibly all be scum, this also gives the scum an opportunity to manipulate a lynch-the-lurker vote toward the townie lurkers. I don't have a better solution to the cancer of that is low participation either. This mod has put the responsibility to enforce participation onto us players, which lends support to Julie's approach, or at least makes it a null-tell for suspicion, but I have a hard time really advocating it personally. I also know that I post a lot which makes it difficult for me to not be biased in such debates.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 18:37:25 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Jul 27, 2009 18:37:25 GMT -5
I say we lynch the over participators. I mean, town are supposed to be very uninformed, but it seems certain people are extremely well-informed. I mean what's that saying, a squeaky wheel gets greased? *rubs hands together*
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 19:57:45 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 27, 2009 19:57:45 GMT -5
I say we lynch the over participators. I mean, town are supposed to be very uninformed, but it seems certain people are extremely well-informed. I mean what's that saying, a squeaky wheel gets greased? *rubs hands together* You know I love your snark, my dear, but this is a game of information, including data that is not explicitly stated in your words but in when and how those words are or are not stated. When you don't say anything, you provide no information and become a big blind spot. Among other things there are players who will just change lanes not caring who or what in their blind spot and not caring if that they themselves or whatever was in the blind spot gets broken into pieces against the guard rail or not. And there are players who will continue driving down the road not paying attention to where they are going, or what the rest of the traffic is doing, or what informative road signs might be going by because they are paralyzed with fear that a big monster might be living in their blind spot, when there is actually nothing scary there. Don't be that guy blind spot.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 21:42:34 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jul 27, 2009 21:42:34 GMT -5
All that just to Big smelly finger of hate!!! Cookies? Or was there more of a point to all that assumption-filled conjecture? Yeah there was a large FOS towards Cookies in amongst my analysis, but it was also supposed to be an organization/what do we know-type analysis. I got a little carried away with my Cookies theory in the middle of it because I was kind of brainstorming and thinking out loud as I composed the post. Of course he doesn't want to lynch me now because the cloud of smoke he's trying to blow up everyone's asses goes poof as soon as I'm dead. You think I can end the world on Day 3? You think I'm a liar? You should be voting for me. I think it's possible that you could be the terrorist. I think it's plausible that this whole hooplah about your role PM is a facade. But I'm not going to shoot first and ask questions later. My theory can easily be amended based on more data, which is why I'm not voting for you. I have my eye on you, but that's it for now. What he's proposing, keeping me alive and either ignoring me or seeing a lie in everything that I say, is not the most pro-town approach to the scenario he's laid out. You're completely misrepresenting me here. I'm not going to try and make you scum. I simply would rather wait and see what other data points arrive. A theory about the full game set-up on Day 2 is shaky at best. As more dead people show up, we get a clearer picture as to what's going on set-up wise. Considering my case on you is directly related to knowing the game set-up, the more I know about the game set-up the more confident my decision on whether you're vanilla town or not will be. I am not a big fan of him just throwing the handshake out as if it were totally meaningless, I think that's uncecessarily reductive and lacking in nuance, but whatever some people live in a black and white world. Really? I was scum with you in Ragnarok. The scum were provided with a fake mason PM at the start of the game. I find it definitely possible that the scum and/or third-parties might have gotten a cover PM. Town simply trusting that the handshakers are town because of the handshaking would be dumb. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and Vote spintariHis single post on Day One amounts to "I'm new, I'm a bit confused and not sure what to do online as opposed to real life." Today, he's postulated the thief can't rob certain people, a jokey post, a post complaining he doesn't understand who's dead, and another jokey post. As Natlaw pointed out, he inquired about making things clearer after I posted a summary of dead roles and game information right above him, then proceeded to ignore the question posted at him by Natlaw in his next post. I'm at work when the Day ends, so I'm not going to be able to move my vote tomorrow should there be a last-minute flurry like Day One.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 21:53:07 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Jul 27, 2009 21:53:07 GMT -5
Eh. Hard to sell me the whole information, deliberation, facts and analyzing schtick when the majority of voting reasons i see are "I don't like your answer" or "last game you were SNEAKY!". What was the one for me? "Oh, lets see if he sees this? Wait, sike, now lets see if he sees this one!"
*slowly nods*
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 22:25:40 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 27, 2009 22:25:40 GMT -5
Unvote Pollux[/color] I'm glad I said what I said in counter to your opinions because that is how I feel, but it isn't very fair of me to vote for you as you were not the first to either doubt my story or suspect me as a terrorist/bomb. I will say that the alleged presence of a bomber/terrorist adds an annoying extra layer of paranoia for some people, that I don't necessarily think is very healthy. All that just to Big smelly finger of hate!!! Cookies? Or was there more of a point to all that assumption-filled conjecture? Yeah there was a large Big smelly finger of hate!!! towards Cookies in amongst my analysis, but it was also supposed to be an organization/what do we know-type analysis. I got a little carried away with my Cookies theory in the middle of it because I was kind of brainstorming and thinking out loud as I composed the post. I think it's possible that you could be the terrorist. I think it's plausible that this whole hooplah about your role PM is a facade. But I'm not going to shoot first and ask questions later. My theory can easily be amended based on more data, which is why I'm not voting for you. I have my eye on you, but that's it for now. You're completely misrepresenting me here. I'm not going to try and make you scum. I simply would rather wait and see what other data points arrive. A theory about the full game set-up on Day 2 is shaky at best. As more dead people show up, we get a clearer picture as to what's going on set-up wise. Considering my case on you is directly related to knowing the game set-up, the more I know about the game set-up the more confident my decision on whether you're vanilla town or not will be. I am not a big fan of him just throwing the handshake out as if it were totally meaningless, I think that's uncecessarily reductive and lacking in nuance, but whatever some people live in a black and white world. Really? I was scum with you in Ragnarok. The scum were provided with a fake mason PM at the start of the game. I find it definitely possible that the scum and/or third-parties might have gotten a cover PM. Town simply trusting that the handshakers are town because of the handshaking would be dumb. I knew there was something I was forgetting when I said that it was good that your skepticism of the handshakers was based on something that didn't require having faith in unconfirmed statements made by a player. Are there any precedents for a Mod both posting a vanilla PM and providing cover claims? As someone else already pointed out (though I don't remember who) it seems unlikely. I admit to having been tempted to join you in voting for Spin, but I've explained my hesitancy on lynch-the-lurker and for better or worse I'm granting him a little newbie slack. I've certainly contributed to the sheer volume that can be understandably intimidating. Eh. Hard to sell me the whole information, deliberation, facts and analyzing schtick when the majority of voting reasons i see are "I don't like your answer" or "last game you were SNEAKY!". What was the one for me? "Oh, lets see if he sees this? Wait, sike, now lets see if he sees this one!" *slowly nods* That's the early game for you, but there is a lot of information to form opinion about other than limiting yourself to people's reasons for putting down a vote. Take me for example, if memory serves, only one vote was thrown my way based on my voting behavior, but all sorts of opinions have been voiced about me. Many of them unfortunately incorrect, but they have been voiced nonetheless.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 22:33:06 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 22:33:06 GMT -5
Are there any precedents for a Mod both posting a vanilla PM and providing cover claims? As someone else already pointed out (though I don't remember who) it seems unlikely. I believe these games all had a posted Vanilla PM and cover roles(though I could be mistaken): Ragnarok, Super Smash Brothers, Dr Horrible, Evil Dead maybe?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 22:34:55 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 22:34:55 GMT -5
NETA: I believe these games all had a posted Vanilla PM and cover roles(though I could be mistaken): Ragnarok, Super Smash Brothers Super Mario, Dr Horrible, Evil Dead maybe?[/quote]
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 22:44:10 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 27, 2009 22:44:10 GMT -5
"Cover roles" is a bit vague. Did they all have role names, power stipulations and win conditions provided, or some subset?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 22:49:12 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 22:49:12 GMT -5
"Cover roles" is a bit vague. Did they all have role names, power stipulations and win conditions provided, or some subset? I believe they had complete, moderator-written, Town role PMs that were unique and unused in the game. That was the case in Super Mario and Ragnarok. I'm less certain about Dr Horrible or Evil Dead.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 28, 2009 0:54:28 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Jul 28, 2009 0:54:28 GMT -5
Unvote: Jaade I thought the Day was over on Monday. Sorry. It has been noted quite a few times that Special Ed is not acting as he normally does. Plus his fishing for a reason to vote on Day 1 for Cookies. Plus his math/knowledge of last nights kills, it does seem as though he knows something he's not telling. And then this: [sarcasm]I guess you're calling me shady because it appeared like I had some super ultra secret reason to cast suspicion on cookies without having a reason too. And to think. I almost got away with it too. No one else would have noticed it either and I could have gotten her lynched and no one would be suspecting me at all. It was a brilliant plan. Thank goodness for Town that you caught me [/sarcasm] But a few players suspected him : Ped, PCM, Stan to name a few. Maybe it's the black helicopters hovering outside my house, but then, maybe Stan had to be silenced toDay to protect someone else for Day 3. Vote: Special Ed
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 28, 2009 1:30:59 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 28, 2009 1:30:59 GMT -5
[/color] I thought the Day was over on Monday. Sorry. It has been noted quite a few times that Special Ed is not acting as he normally does. Plus his fishing for a reason to vote on Day 1 for Cookies. Plus his math/knowledge of last nights kills, it does seem as though he knows something he's not telling. [/quote] Can you point out who besides NAF says I'm not acting like I normally do? And then this: [sarcasm]I guess you're calling me shady because it appeared like I had some super ultra secret reason to cast suspicion on cookies without having a reason too. And to think. I almost got away with it too. No one else would have noticed it either and I could have gotten her lynched and no one would be suspecting me at all. It was a brilliant plan. Thank goodness for Town that you caught me [/sarcasm] But a few players suspected him : Ped, PCM, Stan to name a few. Way to deny accountability for your vote. You'll always be able to say, 'well, I didn't find him that suspicious, I was just going off of other's accusations.' Maybe it's the black helicopters hovering outside my house, but then, maybe Stan had to be silenced toDay to protect someone else for Day 3. So, you think I'm the terrorist now? I thought you were basing your vote on the fact that others found me suspicious on Day 1. I suppose I have no defense against that. But then, why are you also putting forth reasons why people suspected me for just being ordinary scum (and I think I've done a decent job of pointing out the flaws in the logic for accusing me). So, I have questions for you: 1. How am I acting differently? So far, it hasn't really been described, so, basically it cannot be proven or disproven. 2. How did I display knowledge of any kills last Night? Aside from accidentally counting Stan among the dead? 3. How is my sarcastic response to hockey guy (who, if you were paying attention is the one who made the most reasoned case against me and has since unvoted me, btw) an indication that I'm Scum or the terrorist?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 28, 2009 1:33:38 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 28, 2009 1:33:38 GMT -5
Vote: archangel
For admitting to making things up when she needs a reason to vote. For using an emotional appeal instead of logic when defending herself.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 28, 2009 1:37:06 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 28, 2009 1:37:06 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 28, 2009 1:53:00 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 28, 2009 1:53:00 GMT -5
NETA she was shot in the back of the neck.
of course, she's hot all over.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 28, 2009 3:24:39 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Jul 28, 2009 3:24:39 GMT -5
So, taking all claims at face value (for the sake of argument only) is it possible bufftabby was transferring money to the Mercenary? Do the game mechanics allow for that to account for one of the other two kills last Night?
Texcat, you voted Bill for offering a possible reason for Stanislaus' disappearance, saying you thought he was trying to confuse the issue. That made me wonder why his idea caused you to vote when nobody else's idea had rated a comment, much less a vote. Then, when Natlaw challenged you about it, you instead answered his other question about the gold.
I do expect to be around tomorrow to unvote if needed, but for now
Vote: Texcat
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 28, 2009 4:14:46 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 28, 2009 4:14:46 GMT -5
My first guess (assuming Ed is being truthful) would be that bufftaby was transferring her money to another scum player to pool resources, as making bids to the Merc is a Day action and for no other reason than color, I'd assume the Merc probably prefers to be paid in cashy money.
Texcat also painted with that broad brush that lumped me in with the handshakers and omitted the possibility that those handshaking could be other than vanilla. It is not a great case, but it is more than I could scrape together myself yesterDay.
Vote: Texcat
I also should be around for the end of the Day in case anything interesting happens.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 28, 2009 5:36:41 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 28, 2009 5:36:41 GMT -5
bufftabby was a vanilla Rebel, although the Rebels also killed a doctor without problem. You state this as if you know for a fact that the Rebels killed the doc and not another faction. How do you know this exactly? There is a missing 'could have' about my best guess which includes the assumption the rebels used an extra (unstoppable?) kill Night One. I wanted to point out as I didn't see Pollux mention that possibility and instead added an SK for the extra kill. Also he didn't mention bufftabby as vanilla explicitly, so that got me to adding up the points myself. Back to work now.
|
|