I'm just putting that out there. I don't imagine anyone will see this, or if they do, they won't understand the reference, and that's fine. It needed to be said, and now it has been.

(between cr_m_skorzeny and self)

> > Okay, so at least you're still speaking to me. That's good.
>
> Why wouldn't I?

Because I worry that I'm pissing you off.

Would you like to know why Harry Gilman's player quit the game? Really? Because he got awfully chummy with the GM, and then the GM started getting overly analytical of things, and he took it as the GM being hostile and confrontational.

There are other bits to it, like I think he was trying to influence things in his favor because of how chummy we were (if our argument had continued, I'd have accused him of "romancing the stone" from under me, which would have been slightly inaccurate, as there was no romance, but overall is how I felt). For the most part, though, it was because I started wondering why all the new people were voting for him and asked if he was trying to convince people to vote for him in private messages and such. I didn't care who won, *except* that he told me several times that he was amazed people were able to play the same characters for months on end. He didn't think he could do that. And yet he was running for mayor, which is kind of a long term commitment. I was also worrying that the new batch of characters were trying to force me to play the game *their* way, and that this was part of it. Lyndon was, I thought, obviously GMs favorite, so let's get Harry in, instead!

I still don't believe that some of that did not occur.

So, this is why I worry about getting too curious, and too analytical, and too paranoid. I'm *not* being hostile. I'm *not* trying to chase you out of the game. I *do* enjoy a good argument, and I may needle you to get one going if I'm particularly bored. But I do not want to lose a good player just because everyone knows I'm a bitch.