Kwatchi

@mediumsnowman I'm not sure you can answer this without compromising things, but I am trying to get my head around the switch. Should we consider Jimmy Hessler (SteamDemon) a continuation of Cathy Bridger (Drunkhok), or as a fresh start? Probably makes no difference since behaviour patterns will obviously change, but I figured I'd ask anyway.

((sip)) Welcome aboard the accusation-train Jimmy! Next stop is you being suspicious for showing up late or something. At the moment I am, like, trying to decipher what happened last night. We'll get back to our regular programming of me arguing with Stephie in a bit. #crookedstephanie ? ((sip))

Feel better Drunkhok

Gorgeous colouring! It is so well thought out in that respect and it is a great complimentary combination with the yellow striping accenting the design curves. The build and sails and photography are all well done ofc.

Those are some great imaginative plant designs. The style of presentation with B/W photos, annotations, and the underlying story have made it a great series to follow. Dang. This happened to me this past fall as well. Combined with the photobucket fiasco, I spent a month contemplating giving things up. Stay with us Prof.! We need your mercenary brand of science.

Good to see you back Vedauwoo. We're in that suspenseful lull of waiting for the MRCA results to come in atm, so things are kind of quiet unfortunately.

((sip)) So, like, your response to my defining the actions I am talking about and citing examples is more "provide reasons" in order top deflect from the information provided in order to attempt to invalidate it? Thank you for providing yet another example. ((sip)) [Figured out my solution to multi-quoting. Lots of separate posts mashed together... sigh] ((sip)) Stephanie, since you are so fond of asking everyone else to give good reasons, let's put the shoe on the other foot. Just for, like, fun. When Gary and I called you out on this non-sequitor statement, you response was? Now, this I find very interesting: 1. First you say it was to get a reaction out of Clifford. But you said this when responding to Gary. So why say Clifford (whom you have ridculously voted for btw based on his tree "falling in the forest" fluff)? This never made sense to me when you said it and still doesn't. 2. Then, you immediately try to change subject by raising suspicion on Dez, Tina, Brock, and Tony because they had not voted yet. It was still very early the game and that statement was not going to do much pressure wise if those jurors were... in the washroom or something. Since then, it has been nothing but "give reasons" ad nauseum every time I bring this up. It is obvious you are trying desperately hard to deflect away from it. So my question to you is simply "Why are you so defensive about the third party statement you made?" Please provide good reasons. ((sip))

[I apologize in advance. I could not get a multi-quote to work, so you'll have to dig a bit in the Day 1 thread to find my references to what Steph (LadyK) said]. ((sip)) Of course a college student would ask me, to like, write an essay. So let's start with a definition of an underhanded PR techniques used to deflect tough questions I found on Brickepedia: Question the question. (a) Request clarification or further information about the question. This works as a delaying tactic in a short interview. (b) Reflect the question back to the interviewer (“Why do you ask me that?”) So, stuff like: And this: And this: When faced with a tough question, question the questioner. Tried and true. Then we have, like, coercion. The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Sort of like this: And this: And this: Your threats are subtle, but they are right there for all to see. So, right now, I see you as manipulating the group towards a lynch (by keeping conversations going that are spiraling towards that end) while on the other hand claiming you do not want one. All while, like, holding off my, and Gary's brief, suspicions of your actions which started when you mistepped and start talking about third party jurors and then led to an aggressive defense. As I stated openly, as a "new" juror I don't see much point in a Day 1 lynch but if "more experienced" jurors make a strong enough case and I am the tipping point I will consider it. In the mean time, you will unhappily note I haven't wavered my vote off of you. Or like whatevs. ((sip))

((sip)) I switched my vote, to you, based on your behaviour. You deflect questions when posed to you about your reasons, but you constantly discount other players reason without any back-up. That is the reason you have my vote. Frankly, of all the vocal jurors, I trust you the least as i watch trying to manipulate conversations through coercion. And I am calling you out on it so that later my concerns are documented. Or, like, something like that. ((sip)) Really? Give your head a shake mine-man. If I switched my vote back last minute, I'd be crucified as, like, a bandwagoner. So I stated my willingness to consider arguments openly (or otherwise). Notice anyone stepping up to to argue for or against?. Call that suspicious if you want. ((sip)) Follow-up: Sorry Gary. I think I misread the meaning of your post. My statement stands, but I should have been less snarky. Double follow-up: Yikes! That should have read "watch you trying to". That typo don't look so good. :(

((sip)) I would agree with that, but some of the more "experienced" jurors seem to be, like, all for it. As I said, I'll consider it if I am the tipping point but someone is going to have to make a pretty strong argument to me to make me switch, and I don't think there is enough data out there right now to really justify anything. ((sip)) Follow-up: I guess what I am asking is what is the benefit of a day 1 lynch. It is a blind play. Voting at this point should only be used to put pressure on people in my opinion, and I'll note we have 3 or 4 still skating free right now.

((sip)) Wassup yall. I have been catching up on some posts, but I what have read really hasn't changed my opinion all that much. IF people are so dead set on a day 1 lynch, which I am not convinced is a good thing, and Oldman (my original vote) is on 6 I'll consider switching back. Right now though, I'm staying pat. ((sip))

((sip)) Again with, like, deflection. I'll admit, you are good at this. You are "bickering" which is only helps the scum. Again with you don't have "good" reasons. Subtle threat reminder you can vote against me. It smells like you are trying to bluff your way out of a false step. And sorry Postman. I seem to, like, recall earlier you saying you were acting suspicious in order to be bait. My theory at the moment is you caught a fish who thought she had an easy lunch and is now trying to, like, wriggle away. ((sip)) I think I have stated my case pretty clearly. But the one thing Stephanie is right about is that we need some others to step up with opinions. So I'll sit back for a bit and see what others have to say. [...Which has nothing to do with the fact I have RL things to do. I promise ]

((sip)) Nuh-uh. Like, saying my reasons aren't "good" simply because I have changed my vote to you is not much of a counter-argument. Smacks of deflection defense to me. Throwing in a "you look suspicious" threat is a nice touch btw. Besides, I am not the one who sticking hard on their vote on the postman simply because he is, like, "interesting". Early days yet, but he is acting FAR more trustworthy than you are atm. ((sip))

((sip)) I, like, have to admit I don't see what has you all frazzled about the mailman, Stephie (I can call you Stephie, right?). Both you and him started out before the trial (ed. note discussion page) making very open statements against the crime fam., and have followed up on those to make sure we all see them. Sure he is a bit of a chatterbox, but he has put himself out there pretty openly. You not budging off him has me curious though, especially when we have a lot of quiet lurkers like the liquor dude and that hottie cheerleader (Like, what up girl?). You trying to dog-pile on to someone so blatantly transparent has, like, got me curious as to your motivations. Could you, like, explain and stuff? ((sip)) ((sip)) Whoa. Me and miner-fortyniner were on the same page it seems. Stephie is coming across a bit scummy. Weird. Well, I'll start this ball rollin' I guess. Still got my eye on you though Sgt. Rock. ((sip)) Unvote: Harry Oldman (fhomess) Vote: Stephanie Diaz (Lady K)

((sip)) I dunno brah. If I wanted to, like, discredit someone's valid argument throwing a "he's a noob 11!11!!!" troll bomb at them seems a pretty easy method of cutting them down without requiring any proof. Not saying you are, like, nefarious or something, just my first thought. ((sip)) [Unlike JLuck, I have decided to NEVER leave character! ] [Going to by the time stamp, some people in North America were posting at midnight-2 am. Props to you guys, but I sleep during those hours.]

((sip)) Dude, slow your roll. It was just a movie I, like, saw and thought it was, like, kinda relevant and stuff. You need to get out that mine more often and stop playing with your stones. Chillax! ((sip)) And why is everyone jumping on Postman Pat already?! The old dude has been nothin' but friendly. I'm more worried about Colonel Mustard being all, like, bullying, and the scientist lady who is claiming she is like studying us without adding anything, and that creepy liquor store guy ('cuz dude is seriously creepin' me out). I was already, like, thinking the same as the mailman yesterday, so that will be my initial vote; unless someone convinces me otherwise. Vote: Harry Oldman (fhomess) ((sip)) I'll be surfin' BrickR if you need me.

((sips coffee)) I, like, know you are all "golden generation" and "napalm in the morning" and stuff, but shouldn't you, like, figure out how to program the time on your microwave before you start hating? Swiping left on you dude. ((sips coffee))

((Sips coffee)) So I was, like, watching Brickflix to 3 am last night and there was this ancient movie on where some guy is, like, interrogated by the police. But the whole time he is, like, making up the story he is telling these dudes by looking at the crap on the wall and stuff. It was, like, pretty intense and I was like "whoa". I think was called "the regular suspects" or something. So, like, I think we should make sure there is no stuff on the wall to keep any criminals from making up lies by looking at stuff. That would be, like, smart. But whatevs. ((Sips coffee))

Hey. Name's Jared. I hope the coffee is good here cuz I wuz up way late last night playing an epic Bricks of Duty marathon challenge map. I was SO leet! Anyone know where I can plug in my phone? [ @mediumsnowman You have my EB account name listed as Kwanzi btw. I suggest you debug your text. ]

Dang. I wish I had found this sooner. Looks like fun. Let's go <redacted>! Win it for the <redacted>!

Looks like a great start. After the ruling on my WIP last week, I went back and tried to figure out this kind of thing this myself. @Legostone or @Bregir will have to confirm, but I think I have deciphered out the rule of thumb for part of the class range using the example ships. Class 5: three (3) prefab mid hull sections or equivalent. Class 6: four (4) prefab mid hull sections or equivalent. Class 7: five (5) prefab mid hull sections or equivalent. Class 8: six (6) prefab mid hull sections or equivalent. Keep in mind these all use the full-size prefab hull bricks and not the skinnier ones. So with each each hull section being 8 studs in length, and the end bricks being 12 (except the old sterns at 14), you can generate a stud length if you scratch build. So a class 5 is roughly 48 studs and a class 6 is around 56 at just above the "waterline" (i.e. you are measuring one brick up from the base). Since the class 4 example doesn't use the same hull pieces, I'd theorize a class 4 at approximately 40 studs length based on the pattern. Anyway, my best guess.

1. None. So stick me on the subs bench coach, but I am ready! 2. Nothing on the horizon, but it is a blizzard at the moment so I can't see much anyway. 3. I can only count on one hand as my other hand is scratching... somewhere, so 5.

@Kolonialbeamter @Bregir It has been a day. If you can resolve this soon, it would be appreciated.

To: Rear Admiral Fletcher, Commander-in-Chief, Royal Terra Novan Navy From: Captain Silas Pike, Charlatan Bay Naval Escort Peregrine Dear Sir I have to instructed by the mayoralty of Charlatan Bay to declare an immediate ceasefire with your nation as of Jan 6, '618. Cordially yours, Captain Silas Pike ===/===/=== OOC Gulagurag and myself are declaring the following going forward (note that this is a declaration and not a negotiation): 1. The navy and forces of Charlatan Bay and the FTA will not target any COR assets in the MRCA. 2.The port of Charlatan Bay is closed to all COR traffic. In fact it was already closed, but the Sulky Harlequin ignored that. I had planned to seize it as part a 'customs inspection" story, but I am not bothering any more so it can sail away free. Any further traffic will be seized and sold immediately at the prize court so that it can be sister-shipped. Of course we expect this to go in both directions, so we will not visit any COR ports deliberately and any ship arriving in one of your ports by accident can also be seized and sold. 3. Any COR properties in Charlatan Bay remain with the owners and will operate unhindered. We expect the same courtesy. 4. On the off chance we find a COR vessel in our possession through some other way, we will immediately sell it to the prize court. The opposite is expected to hold true. 5. We will not bid on any COR ship at auction, and expect vice versa. 6. If any interaction with COR occurs somehow, we will simply reference it as an unknown nation. We will not reference COR in any way (direct or implied) and we expect the same. 7. We consider zone 24 a cease fire zone. We expect no COR ship targeting a SR to sail in that zone. 8. Neither of us wish to collaborate or interact publicly any further with COR as a faction at this point. Any posts responding to ours will be ignored. Continued breaching of this will force us to put the offenders on ignore (which I'd rather not do). 9. Consider us in "time out". This will hold for the entirety of ERA 2, or until both parties agree otherwise. I do not speak for any other SR on this matter. I am sorry it came to this, but I want to enjoy BoBS again.

Dang, I am impressed considering how quick you had to put her together. Keep in mind though I plan to privately call her the "Drunky Monkey" from now on.