All of Percent_Carbon's Comments + Replies

Because I think too many people in this thread suffer from thinking that Quirrel is literally infallible in regards to anything he tries.

I have thought the same in conversations about other puzzles for that character, so I should heartily agree. The evidence shows no reason for him to want her to stay.

I update to believing that Quirrell tried and failed to drive Hermione away p>0.6. His groundhog day attack equipped him to expertly apply pressure to her but she still persevered, even barely, because she is heroic. (He was using reverse psychology to drive her toward Harry p0.25.)

Thank you for the reality check.

It loses much of the impact when you intentionally seek it out, I think.

Listening to something is not at all the same as listening to something for seven hours.

Dumbledore tried to push Hermione away from heroism specifically to push her towards it. Maybe Quirrell thinks the same tool work work on her. He doesn't even have to know that Dumbledore thought that would work or used that tool on Hermione. He could just observe in her the same vulnerability to that method.

Okay, can someone answer in what way it would look different if Quirrel did try to get Hermione away and just honestly failed? As opposed to this supposedly not-real attempt?

Because I think too many people in this thread suffer from thinking that Quirrel is literally infallible in regards to anything he tries.

There's probably no need for the groups to signal each other's existence.

When a new Secret Even Less Wrong is formed, members are previously formed Secret Even Less Wrongs who are still participating in Less Wrong are likely to receive secret invites to the new Secret Even Less Wrong.

Nyan_sandwich might set up his secret Google Group or whatever, invite the people he feels are worthy and willing to form the core of his own Secret Even Less Wrong, and receive in reply an invite to an existing Secret Even Less Wrong.

That might have already happened!

You're not proposing a different system, you're just proposing additional qualifiers.

This creates tension. I'm about .6 confident that tension is intentional.

You're suggesting a strategy of tension?

To be honest, I've always assumed that there exist a variety of more LW-spinoff private forums where the folks who have more specialized/advanced groundings get to interact without being bothered by the rest of us.

Aw. And they didn't invite nyan_sandwich. That's so sad.

He or she should get together with other people who haven't been invited to Even Less Wrong and form their own. Then one day they can get together with Even Less Wrong l... (read more)

There's probably no need for the groups to signal each other's existence.

When a new Secret Even Less Wrong is formed, members are previously formed Secret Even Less Wrongs who are still participating in Less Wrong are likely to receive secret invites to the new Secret Even Less Wrong.

Nyan_sandwich might set up his secret Google Group or whatever, invite the people he feels are worthy and willing to form the core of his own Secret Even Less Wrong, and receive in reply an invite to an existing Secret Even Less Wrong.

That might have already happened!

4TheOtherDave
Nothing nearly that Macchiavelian, more of a strategy of homeostasis through dynamic equilibrium.

Please go ahead and downvote me if you feel that way.

You're too kind. Of course I already did. I just wish you'd somehow split up the things I wanted to respond.

Aside, I didn't downvote the post I quoted and I don't know why someone would. Maybe because we're speaking pointlessly? Maybe because they thought I was trolling and you were feeding me?

I've lurked here for over a year and just started posting in the fan fic threads a month ago. I have read a handful of posts from the sequences and I believe that some of those are changing my life. Sometimes when I start a sequence post I find it uninteresting and I stop. Posts early in the recommended order do this, and that gets in the way every time I try to go through in order. I just can't be bothered because I'm here for leisure and reading uninteresting things isn't leisurely.

I am noise and I am part of the doom of your community. You have my ... (read more)

0FourFire
I'm responding to congratulate you on your correct prediction. I see this account hasn't been active in over four years.

I suspect communities have a natural life cycle and most are doomed. Either they change unrecognisably or they die. This is because the community members themselves change with time and change what they want, and what they want and will put up with from newbies, and so on. (I don't have a fully worked-out theory yet, but I can see the shape of it in my head. I'd be amazed if someone hasn't written it up.)

What this theory suggests: if the forum has a purpose beyond just existence (as this one does), then it needs to reproduce. The Center for Modern Rationality is just the start. Lots of people starting a rationality blog might help, for example. Other ideas?

-3Bugmaster
Well, that certainly wasn't my intention. Please go ahead and downvote me if you feel that way. I wasn't taking anything he said personally; as far as I can tell, there's nothing he can do to actually kick me out, and I don't think he even wants to do that in the first place. I do believe he's arguing in good faith. That said, I do believe strongly that, in order for communities to grow and continue being useful and productive, they need to welcome new members now and then; and I think that nyan_sandwich's original solution sets the barrier to entry way too high.

Who doesn't have plots in this book? I hardly think that's a test for evil in this book - more like a test for intelligence.

Not the best test. Ron is intelligent. Ron does not appear to plot, only form and employ strategy.

Assuming that it was all a Quirrell plot - which I do at this point - he could also have redeemed Hermione at the last minute with some evidence after she was condemned, and his point with magical Britain had been made.

Like he did with Harry against the Dementor.

Like he claimed he intended to do with the auror he threw an AK at.

L... (read more)

No, I don't - there is no such dichotomy.

Right, sorry. You either have to trust him to some degree or assume that any content may be compromised.

I don't understand all the interest in this. Is there a section of the site where unedited comments carry special weight?

0wedrifid
I saw your comment in the recent comments page and thought the technical question was mildly curious. It's more fun than arguing with people who spam "You're a cult, I'm right!" or "Science doesn't make any sense unless I say it does!" which were the only other things that were going on at the time.

Wait. Wait just one minute.

Can Eliezer edit his posts without leaving an asterisk?

Yes. Yes he can. Must be an administrator thing.

Do you mean he both can and has done so at least once in the past?

Yes. I am positive that I pasted that line and did not rearrange it.

Note to self (and others): Assume all Eliezer comments have an asterisk.

Either he or someone he strongly influences has administrator access to the site and can change any comment at any time. You either have to trust him or assume that all comments have an asterisk.

Is there suppose... (read more)

2wedrifid
No, I don't - there is no such dichotomy. I really could (and do) expect Eliezer to not edit other people's comments without it being apparent to anyone but at the same time to edit his own comments without leaving an asterisk - because he just did. So instead of taking a small amount of information from the convenience of an asterisk on a given comment I take zero information. No. If I really (really) wanted to I could hack it myself I expect. I already live in Melbourne (where the Trike developers who work on lesswrong reside). Even discounting my actual computer security knowledge all I'd need is a gun and a ninja outfit. But the expected cost/expected benefit ratio suggests I'm not likely to do that. I similarly don't expect Eliezer to go around editing other people's comments behind our backs. Not because he couldn't if he really wanted to - just because it doesn't seem likely that he'd bother. (He has done so at least once - changed a post title while he was promoting it. He did it without thinking and with good intentions but realized later that it was a total brain fart. A lapse into naivety, not a corruption of power.)

Wait. Wait just one minute.

Can Eliezer edit his posts without leaving an asterisk?

Yes. Yes he can. Must be an administrator thing.

I expect he could edit mine, too, if he wanted.

1wedrifid
Do you mean he both can and has done so at least once in the past? That is in poor taste if he has. (And I think I recall the comment in question having the wrong name order the first time I read it.) Note to self (and others): Assume all Eliezer comments have an asterisk. (If it is the case that Eliezer can't leave an asterisk even if he chooses to then the fault is of course not his and it should be filed as a bug and change request.)

And people go around complaining about HPJEV being a bastard.

Why do people use this?

Also, why Harry Potter James Evans Veras?

2loserthree
I started using it because I believed the protagonist is not just an alternate Harry Potter but a truly different person. (I don't believe that quite as strongly, anymore.)
7pedanterrific
Wait. Wait just one minute. Can Eliezer edit his posts without leaving an asterisk?
1pedanterrific
It's shorter than "MoR!Harry".

Changing the date fixes this because the reader can go look it up and realize that it can't be Riddle after all.

"OhmygodohmygodOHMYGOD! Bones is going to figure out Quirrell is Voldemort! OHMYGOD! What's he going to do?!?! He's surrounded by aurors, he's in DMLE headquarters!... Oh my GOD! Those aurors are so screwed!!"

looks up Tom Riddle online because that's totally what all readers would do

"Oh, hm. That's not Riddle then. I wonder who it is?"

...

Are you really suggesting that EY means the reader to do this? He said he wasn'... (read more)

0Random832
The fact that the conversation doesn't end with her actually saying Riddle is what would prompt readers to look it up. Are you saying that readers that are still with the fic after eighty chapters haven't learned enough about rationality to take two minutes to verify an assumption after noticing they are confused? If that meant he couldn't ever make a conversation that seems to be going one way but turns out to be different a few paragraphs later, it would lead to a VERY boring story. P.S. My point was that the problem that EY fixed was that the obvious thing to check (looking up canon!Riddle's biography) leads to an apparent confirmation.

If EY originally intended the bait and switch, then regretted it, p>0.8 he would clean out other things that only exist to support his ill conceived tease.

What other things?

The Albanian Shuffle. See says there is a real chance that it is mentioned just to string the reader along and make us think Bones is about to say that Quirrell is Riddle.

"Reader! She's about to undercover the Defense Professor is Voldemort!" as a message intended to be sent to the reader but not the characters at about p=0.25.

I dismiss this because EY changed th... (read more)

0Random832
Before the date change, there was a legitimate chance that the reader would come away from the discussion thinking that the person Bones was describing actually was Riddle, and that both Bones and Quirrell understood her to have been talking about Riddle. Which if unintended is a far greater problem than "thinking Bones was about to name Riddle, then it turns out no". This was, in fact, my reading when I was actually going through the chapter. (tl;dr: It's not a "tease" that Bones was about to name Riddle that's the problem, the problem is that it wasn't resolved with a clear indication that they're not talking about Riddle) Changing the date fixes this because the reader can go look it up and realize that it can't be Riddle after all.

"In all honesty," said Professor Quirrell, looking up at the stars, "I still don't understand it. They should have known that their lives depended on that man's success. And yet it was as if they tried to do everything they could to make his life unpleasant. To throw every possible obstacle into his way. I was not naive, Miss Granger, I did not expect the power-holders to align themselves with me so quickly - not without something in it for themselves. But their power, too, was threatened; and so I was shocked how they seemed content to ste

... (read more)

Fantastic.

I dismiss the bait and switch because the passage does not seem to lay down that tease; p0.8 he would clean out other things that only exist to support his ill conceived tease. There isn't a WHAM paragraph with few words surrounded by white space. It's just not built like a bait and switch shocker.

While reading, I thought that Scion of X did fight Riddle and did as Hermione suggested:

"You left your friends behind where they'd be safe, and tried to attack the Dark Wizard all by yourself?"

And after Voldemort killed him he kept the i... (read more)

2see
If 1970-1973 was a con by Voldemort, why was it given up in 1973? Surely he expected it to take longer than a couple of years to begin with, didn't he?
0pedanterrific
What other things? That is, if the bait-and-switch was intended, he would've had to come up with an actual character that fit all those facts as well, and it seems like "he spent seven years sleeping in the same room as Voldemort" is a non-trivial detail to change.

It's taken me three passes over the newest posts to figure out that you meant you sympathize with him. Upvoting for (delayed) chuckle.

Do you sympathize with Randian protagonists, too?

2wedrifid
I doubt it. I'm not familiar with any Randian protagonists but if they act in accord to what I understand of Randian philosophical agenda then their attitude would be gratingly incompatible with my sympathy. From what I understand Randians are have their options artificially constrained in the direction of a particular interpretation of 'selfishness'. Quirrel can do whatever the heck he wants and care about whatever he wants. Doing whatever the heck he wants gets my sympathy and also a certain kind of trust.

What was idiotic about the way Harry was protected?

Did you miss the part about a single point of failure?

Fate of the whole fucking world and the critical security decisions and on site protective services are trusted to a crew of twenty somethings who were really close in school. Idiots.

And Voldemort was knowingly superior to every possible defender, so why would he worry about it?

The only reason to work alone is if working with others means watching your back more. We have no evidence that Vodlemort executed his other raids singlehandely, so we s... (read more)

2Alsadius
Find me a protection scheme that applies to the situation at hand with a second point of failure, and I'll accept your criticism of the plan they had. Highly-placed traitors are really, really hard to defend against. Similarly, find me an example of Voldemort having backup on any of his attacks, and I'll believe that him lacking it here is relevant. Rationality is about winning. Lily Potter won that night, as much as she believably could have. I'd say she did okay by "throwing her life away".

Or that the unpaid bounties were put up by people who now believe Voldemort to have returned.

I guess it depends on your definition of "good". Care to quantify yours?

I guess you should quantify your own definition of the word, perhaps in the same post in which you ask someone else to quantify theirs, since you used it first.

I'd say p>0.95 that "Went on a graduation tour abroad and disappeared while visiting Albania." is meant to communicate something to the readers that it does not communicate to the characters.

I'd say p>0.75 that the thing it is meant to communicate is that the hero was compromised by Riddle, like Quir... (read more)

3see
(I asked you to quantify what you meant by "good" because I was suspecting you were treating a probability of, say, 30% as "good", and we were getting our terms crossed. Obviously not.) Whereas I'd put that at roughly p=0.25. I mean, sure, it might be trying to communicate that, but, I've got: "Reader! She's about to undercover the Defense Professor is Voldemort!" as a message intended to be sent to the reader but not the characters at about p=0.25. "The heroic Slytherin discovered something about Riddle in Albania in 1945, and spent his time trying to follow up on it. When Voldemort came back openly to Britain, so did he. What the hero learned in 1945, or in the years between 1945-1970, is going to be important to Harry's defeat of Voldemort, and here's the hint that keeps it from coming entirely out of the blue" (or variations of the theme) as about p=0.15 "The 'heroic' Slytherin died in 1945 in a confrontation with Riddle/Voldemort. In 1970, an ambitious person unconnected to Voldemort then tried to exploit the Voldemort's rise as a chance to make himself leader of Britain under the dead man's name, and died or quit in 1973. Voldemort then found it useful to try the same con as a backup for Quirrel." at roughly p=0.15 And, "Eilizer is planning to do something else with it, that I haven't thought of" at about p=0.2

I had sex ed at that age. I think it was a remarkably unproductive use of time for most of the people in there. But there was a least one girl who was pregnant the next year, so it's possible that it prevented further pregnancy.

Sex education does not prevent all pregnancy any more than driver's education prevents all accidents. Kids both fuck and fuck up.

An accused person has the right to know why they are being accused and to defend themselves before receiving a penalty

Sorry, but this doesn't appear to be the case. If you do not possess the means to defend a right, you don't actually have it. In this case, no authority greater than your own had declared this right, and you have no expectation for any power to intercede on your behalf.

It's like Nerf Mob Justice in here.

Why would he need backup to kill a baby?

People protect babies and it would be reasonable to expect that people would work especially hard to protect babies that are prophesied to save the world from an evil villain. It turns out that his enemies were idiots and suffered a single point of failure, but even if he thought he knew that the target would be under protected the smart thing to do is not to depend on his quisling and go in alone.

And yes, the sacrifice story comes from canon, not MoR. Still, with no other hints, that gives it a pretty high pri

... (read more)
1Alsadius
What was idiotic about the way Harry was protected? They were betrayed to a superior force by someone highly placed, and there's no good defense against that. And Voldemort was knowingly superior to every possible defender, so why would he worry about it? And re prior probabilities, it's obviously dependant on the issue in question. On something where MoR is silent, canon carries a lot of weight. On something where MoR spends time adjusting expectations, canon carries very little weight. So it's quite likely that Aberforth loved goats(though even more likely that MoR will stay silent on the topic), but quite unlikely that Ron and Hermione will get together(because the story is explicitly listed as Harry/Hermione, and has been proceeding accordingly). And Snape killing Dumbledore...actually that one's not implausible, because both characters seem quite similar to their canon versions. If they were put in the same position, they'd likely do the same thing. I don't think the story will run long enough to get there, but if it does somehow, I can see it. I'd certainly put the probability higher than McGonagall or Flitwick doing him in.

Yeah, that is one of the holes in this thing.

Riddle probably got his idea to exchange heroism for power from somewhere else.

Well, you get to pick your race and your class (middle)

Pfft

I'd stick with the Human race. I don't like the lack of supplemental material for the others. They're really under developed.

I have serious doubts that class in the sense you use it in could possibly be elective. The spread just doesn't match any decision making process I'd want to relate to.

Oh. I edit mine when I make a mistake that makes them mean something else. Or when someone prompts me to.

But if you're adding information then it's useful to you to mark that you added something. That way the people that already pounced on your post notice there's something new there while they're pounding Refresh to see if you've responded to them.

First time it can be amusing, but if such situation would repeat often, the amusement would fade and the costs would stay.

I can't tell if you're telling me I don't actually enjoy this or if you're threatening me with promises that time will deliver retribution.

I cooperate with my future selves

Things like this are why I can't convince my friends that you guys aren't a "system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object." I don't know what you're saying but I'll bet p>0.75 there's a way to say it w... (read more)

3Viliam_Bur
I'm threatening you that time may deliver more discussions about whether we should or shouldn't rot-13 the spoilers, how exactly the spoiler is defined, etc... and that can become rather boring. And by the way, I am a time traveller, I just always move in the same direction with a constant speed. Point taken, though.

Aw. That's like learning that the reason Mulder and Scully have such great chemistry is that David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson can't stand each other.

0[anonymous]
That... that isn't true, is it?

Is it a norm on Less Wrong that there is not a "grace period" to make an edit within a few seconds after posting and before anyone has replied, to make minor corrections or to add something that the user forgot to say and just realized after submitting the comment?

I'm not certain of what you're asking, here, but I just found out that you can delete a post if no one has responded to it yet. So in case that's what you were after, there's that.

5Random832
He said "responding to unmarked edit" as though there was something wrong with failing to mark a simple addition made 10 seconds after the original post. I was confused, since it was not my experience that anyone considered this a problem anywhere.

I didn't mean to say you were suggesting particular rules.

If a thing is unfair, then it is not following the rules. It does sound like you believe or believed that there were some rules that should have been followed, but were not.

Your hypothetical rules might have been reasonable. If my vague speculation about roughly what those rule might have been is close, then there isn't a means in place on this board to enforce rules like that.

1pleeppleep
fairness means only following the rule that reactions should be proportionate to the initial action. I thought you guys were being silly by insisting that I had spoiled something everyone already knew. I thought you were all too quick to judge, and I felt that you became biased against my comments, even ones unrelated to the spoiler. I was not aware that I had broken any rules until I had nothing left to lose. An accused person has the right to know why they are being accused and to defend themselves before receiving a penalty. If this were not the case then the accusing party would wield far too much power to be trustworthy. I think I have made it very clear why I thought this was unfair.

a negative-sum game, where we lose because the damn spoiler is still up, and you lose by losing all your karma, and we ALL lose by wasting time debating this back and forth.

Not everyone is losing. For example, I've been enjoying this. I doubt I'm the only one.

3pleeppleep
I actually agree, Although it is rather exasperating to argue against a larger group of people.
4Viliam_Bur
First time it can be amusing, but if such situation would repeat often, the amusement would fade and the costs would stay. So I cooperate with my future selves by resisting to act on my amusement.

what are you referring to by this?

The bickering.

You, specifically, do it so much. Surely you do it because you enjoy it?

2pedanterrific
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ Not so much.

Unlike in Dresdenverse where I just finished reading Butters giving an analysis

That scene is exactly what I was thinking of.

Hmm? We have no good evidence to distinguish between the following two hypotheses...

Yeah we do. When EY writes that the heroic Scion of X vanished while traveling Ablania in 45 he is telling the readers that Voldemort took him by making a shout out to what happened to Quirrell in canon.

The Ablanian Shuffle is good evidence.

0see
I guess it depends on your definition of "good". Care to quantify yours?
-1Alsadius
Creating a plan that complex and prone to failure?

He means that Tom Riddle isn't connected to any noble house but Scion of X was. So it is incongruent that people would just to think that Scion of X was Tome Riddle.

Born or married house, not sorted house.

0Alsadius
Ah, I see. He's messed with character backgrounds so much that I figured Gaunt had just been made noble or something, but fair enough.

The circumstances we are given in MOR do not require or imply a sacrifice. There are no hints that Harry was saved by a sacrifice. I can't think of any hints about any reason at all that he was saved, really.

If Vodlemort hears of a threat that is an infant and he takes that threat seriously enough to do something about an infant, we are not told anything about Voldemort that makes it in character for him to confront a threat like that alone.

That is, there is more than one problem with the story we have concerning the night Harry's parents died.

0Alsadius
Why would he need backup to kill a baby? We've seen him do more dangerous things(e.g., sitting in Hogwarts for a year scheming) without backup. And yes, the sacrifice story comes from canon, not MoR. Still, with no other hints, that gives it a pretty high prior probability.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're suggesting. Please say more about your point.

2thomblake
World War II had a different story in Harry Potter, and it's a bit clearer in MoR. It was sparked by Grindlewald's desire to have dominion over the muggles - the muggle war was just a reflection of the wizarding war going on at the same time. Grindlewald was the real power in Germany, and Hitler just a pawn. The reason Dumbledore couldn't take down Grindlewald until the war was over, was that Hitler was fueling Grindlewald's power using dark rituals involving the blood sacrifice of millions of muggles.

Have we heard of magical Britain being remarkably prudish in either MOR or canon?

0Alsadius
"Remarkably", no. But at a school where kids as young as 11 go, it'll perhaps seem incongruous. And again, we have an example of a couple kids still in highschool conceiving a kid somewhere they got caught at it - if birth control was both easy and well-taught then that's unlikely to have happened.

Maybe he is thinking of fertility the way a gamer thinks of health.

Wizards are just healthier. There isn't a solid, hard science fiction explanation for why they heal faster and shrug off harder hits. They just do.

Likewise no attention needs to be paid to the nature of the end of fertility or the resources that run out or the way the odds of viable offspring and safe childbirth start ramping down around in the mid to late twenties in normal females. They just don't in a witch's life.

0maia
Could be, although there is still menopause, which is more what I was thinking about... That seems less attached to a general concept of "health" to me for some reason.
-1wedrifid
Unlike in Dresdenverse where I just finished reading Butters giving an analysis (when he should have been working out how to escape from zombies!)

Curiosity is a virtue.

These two posts make up about a quarter of the total karma points I have. They are outliers beyond my outliers. The reasons people give for upvoting them are entirely worth investigation.

I suggest you reroll.

Thanks, but nah. I'm a healthy white male American with a middle class background and an intelligence greater than one standard deviation above the mean. Slow healing wounds are not enough to reroll in the face of the great risk of a less privileged life.

0[anonymous]
Well, you get to pick your race and your class (middle), and assuming you roll 3d6 for stats the odds are at least one of your results will be 14 or better, so none of those attributes are at risk.

That said, even the sort of people who go to such events probably have some limits.

Yes. It sounds like it takes them twenty minutes to start making the best of things.

When I started here I went back and changed posts, hoping that downvotes would be replaced with upvotes. There was little reaction and I think it really wasn't worth the time.

Near as I can tell, the easiest way to get your karma back is to make a top level post repeating what other people are already saying in storytelling way. That may fall out of fashion at some point, though, so don't over invest your time in developing your storytelling and other people repeating skills, or whatever.

1Velorien
Is it? I can't remember. The only Santa Claus reference that springs to mind is the signature on the notes in MoR.

There's a continuous spectrum of pitch. The character is kind of showing off, like he always kind of is.

He's probably hitting notes that are multiples of irrational numbers when described in Hertz.

Retracted because it seemed the best way to acknowledge the correction: the vast majority of common musical notes are multiples of irrational numbers when described in Hertz.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
arundelo100

FYI, in the tuning system commonly used for western music, all notes except A are irrational frequencies in hertz. Example: A below middle C is 220 hertz, and middle C is

(220 * (2 ^ (1/12)) ^ 3) hertz ~= 261.6255653006 hertz.

(To go up a half step, you multiply the frequency by the 12th root of 2.)

4thescoundrel
The vast majority of humans don't have perfect pitch, so the specific pitch of the note is far less important than the relationships to the notes surrounding them. I agree that he is rather showing off, but unless you spend a very large amount of time ear training, you likely cannot tell when a note is a quarter tone sharp or flat. However, just like there are cycles of notes that always sound amazing together when you run them through variation (see the circle of 5ths), there are notes that sound horrible and jarring. Furthermore, the amount of time it takes to reliable sing quarter tones is ridiculously high- it is something that life long trained musicians cannot do. (Of course there is another discussion about how our formulation of music causes this, but lets set that aside for now.) I think it is far more likely that he has studied a circle of 7th's and 2nd's, or something to that effect- he has created a musical algorithm where the pattern itself is so convoluted, it is not intuitively detected, and the notes/key changes produced so horrible, it wears on the mind.

A slight cut could heal up in the ~eight hours between the fight and breakfast

Really? Papercuts bother me for a couple days at least.

Something about a witch's constitution, perhaps.

SkyDK110

I suggest you reroll. I heal paper cuts in a couple of hours.

Load More