cRPG

cRPG => Game Admin Feedback => Topic started by: Canary on February 05, 2013, 05:48:27 am

Title: [Global] Canary
Post by: Canary on February 05, 2013, 05:48:27 am
Hello again.

I guess I'll actually start my own thread this time!

Old thread (http://forum.meleegaming.com/spam/(na)-canary_of_chaos/) is here.


How to contact:

Steam page (http://steamcommunity.com/id/cannery/)
IRC channel (nick is Canary) (http://webchat.quakenet.org/?channels=mount%26blade-crpg)
Chaos/FIDLGB teamspeak: weshould.servebeer.com
In-game, most often in NA1.

Here is a list of my character names:
Canary_of_Chaos
Cannery
Bonker
Songbird
Cuckoo
Canarino


If you try to get ahold of me via one of these methods I will usually be around to respond to any situations as quickly as I can.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Son Of Odin on February 05, 2013, 05:55:20 am
First! Yay! Good luck on EU adminship too :)
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Muki on February 05, 2013, 06:01:06 am
Damm you Odin!!! guess Ill take second good luck being an EU admin too Canary
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Nightingale on February 05, 2013, 08:19:41 am
Congrats on new people to babysit!
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: MrShine on February 05, 2013, 05:35:17 pm
(click to show/hide)

just kidding
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Heroin on February 21, 2013, 04:21:01 pm
Petty admin. Instantly uses mechanical means of admin action rather than issuing any type of verbal warning (mutes, kicks, bans). Is bad for the game, in my opinion. The idea is to keep players, not chase them away with overzealous adminship.

A verbal warning goes a long way.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Rainbow on February 22, 2013, 04:32:56 pm
I like killing canary.  BwahaahahahHhHhHhahahaha
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Espwn on April 19, 2013, 07:03:23 am
And to this day, he's still trying to make a decision.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Matey on April 19, 2013, 07:16:58 am
Please choose a new head admin for NA.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Relit on April 19, 2013, 07:41:22 am
Inept and indecisive. Get somebody to replace this man quickly. Hopefully somebody who knows how to productively fulfill his position.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Sparvico on April 19, 2013, 09:26:22 am
Nope. Canary knows exactly what he is doing and why. Your constant childish impatience is the only reason you are upset about his decision regarding New Ichamur today. A decision, which btw, he made in your favor.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Relit on April 19, 2013, 09:43:14 am
Nope. Canary knows exactly what he is doing and why. Your constant childish impatience is the only reason you are upset about his decision regarding New Ichamur today. A decision, which btw, he made in your favor.

Your implying I was complaining constantly and in a childish manner. I only started asking the admins questions in the last 20-30 minutes of the battle, so there goes that argument. As far as being childish, I disagree, at no point have I used foul language to make a point or have I been excessively rude for no reason.

As far as it being in "my favor". I was not the attacker in this battle, and I do not even care who won it. Just somebody watching from observer who took umbrage at the actions of Canary tonight. Actions, I might add, that took over a hour to come to fruition. Excessively long by any reasonable measure.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Malaclypse on April 19, 2013, 10:19:31 am
Bear in mind that Canary was one of at least 3 Admins- a team, if you will- in game at the time. The other two's threads are strangely lacking in similar comments.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Relit on April 19, 2013, 10:34:38 am
Bear in mind that Canary was one of at least 3 Admins- a team, if you will- in game at the time. The other two's threads are strangely lacking in similar comments.

Responsibility rolls uphill. The CoC was pretty clear here, it was ultimately his responsibility. Due to this, I see no reason to go into those other admins threads.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: DUKE DICKBUTT on April 19, 2013, 11:08:55 am
I wasn't there, but it seems it took three admins an hour to decide what common sense is.

Anyway, the real victims of the indecisiveness here are Occitan as it pushed their battle even further past their curfew.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Gmnotutoo on April 19, 2013, 10:14:21 pm
I had a wall of text explaining my opinions, but decided to just keep it simple and short, I'd prefer a new head admin but don't think Canary should lose his admin. I want someone that makes decisions and leads, whether in my favor or against it.
Title: Ban Canary
Post by: Matey on June 28, 2013, 01:47:13 am
During a strat battle, Egad was being a true hero of the offensive side by wasting all the equipment he possibly could with an equipment rack and then Canary used show names cheats and then ran directly to egad and killed him. fucking cheater.
Title: Re: Ban Canary
Post by: Rikthor on June 28, 2013, 01:50:21 am
I was there, and can confirm the very, very suspicious nature of Egad's death. Egad was defending an equipment box and wasting equipment, both things that are still participating and not delaying. Canary used the show names cheat and all of the sudden, Canary is the one killing him.

Awfully suspicious behavior.
Title: Re: Ban Canary
Post by: Espwn on June 28, 2013, 01:59:23 am
Canary shud ban him-self cuz he a nerd
Title: Re: Ban Canary
Post by: Aldogalus on June 28, 2013, 02:12:37 am
i was in the battle, and someone in text had just complained about floating ladders. canary then said in the frisia ts "get off the floating ladders". Seconds later was when he used the show names cheat... also how does knowing someones name help identify which one is wasting gear?
Title: Re: Ban Canary
Post by: Matey on June 28, 2013, 02:19:16 am
i was in the battle, and someone in text had just complained about floating ladders. canary then said in the frisia ts "get off the floating ladders". Seconds later was when he used the show names cheat... also how does knowing someones name help identify which one is wasting gear?

this was at the end of the battle. Egad was our last person alive and he was doing his sacred duty by wasting all our gear with a rack. Then canary CHEATED (it even said he was cheating in the game!) to track him down and kill him.
Title: Re: Ban Canary
Post by: Malaclypse on June 28, 2013, 02:25:20 am
IIRC an admin (not sure which one) posted something in pink chat towards Egad to get moving. Might as well have been presumed AFK if he wasn't actively fighting to take out every single remaining ticket, and what better way to find some AFK guy standing at a map edge than the SHOW NAMES CHEAT CHEATS CLAN
Title: Re: Ban Canary
Post by: Penguin on June 28, 2013, 02:36:05 am
Yeah, an admin who was BRD and on your team (whiskeyjack i think?) was threatening Egad with a ban if he kept delaying.
Title: Re: Ban Canary
Post by: Smoothrich on June 28, 2013, 02:44:50 am
Canary was acting under assumption this dude was purposely AFK griefing/delaying at the corner of the map and acted accordingly, also after pink text warnings (with no one speaking up saying he was using a weapon rack)

Nothing to see here, imo, just typical STrat bs
Title: Re: Ban Canary
Post by: Canary on June 28, 2013, 06:09:27 am
Banana.

Egad gets warned for delaying, I ask the other admin where he is, I hear he's at the edge of the map, I use show names cheat to confirm, I walk up the hill to see for myself what he's actually doing.

I mean, pulling weapons out of a box is great and all to screw over the other team, but it does not actually constitute attacking them, and his team was the attacking one. He also had a chance to defend himself, would you have made a thread had I died instead of Egad (which honestly should have been the more likely outcome)? Or maybe I should have just kicked him instead of trying to have fun.

Good point, no fun allowed. I'll remember that next time.

edit: thread merged to its rightful place
Title: Re: Ban Canary
Post by: Matey on June 28, 2013, 07:13:46 am

Good point, no fun allowed. I'll remember that next time.


As long as you understand then I suppose I can forgive you.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Tears of Destiny on August 25, 2013, 04:01:14 am
Isn't a biased idiot when it comes to being an in-game admin, and active when he plays +1.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Ethgar on August 25, 2013, 05:30:15 am
As Rhalzo would say.  "Your doing a great job!!"
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on October 12, 2013, 06:45:57 am
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Gmnotutoo on October 12, 2013, 07:00:22 am
Well.. you seemed to have taken my advice because this is leading and I'm glad to see this side of you Canary, but I'm gonna bitch about it anyway because I feel bad that it was my request he honored. For one glorious round we all spawned as equals on the same flags.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Sparvico on October 13, 2013, 12:51:16 am
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Canuck on October 13, 2013, 01:37:03 am
Dexxtaa died doing what he loved.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: MURDERTRON on October 25, 2013, 11:54:58 pm
Last night, it was 18 vs 2 at the end of the round, I threw a weapon into my buddy Axeman's head.  I was in TS with him and we were both laughing hysterically.  He didn't warn, admin message or even chat.  Canary bans me.

Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Canary on October 26, 2013, 12:45:52 am
How many warnings, do you think, I should have to issue for breaking the most widely understood rule over the course of an hour? Or over the course of one day? Or one week? A month?

How many of those should ever even go to the same person?


You should never be attacking your teammates on purpose during a round. If that rule isn't as widely understood as I'm assuming it is, then with edifying reason has a person been punished who broke it.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: MURDERTRON on October 26, 2013, 01:06:53 am
How many warnings, do you think, I should have to issue for breaking the most widely understood rule over the course of an hour? Or over the course of one day? Or one week? A month?

How many of those should ever even go to the same person?


You should never be attacking your teammates on purpose during a round. If that rule isn't as widely understood as I'm assuming it is, then with edifying reason has a person been punished who broke it.

Can you just write this in plain english instead?
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Wesleysnipes on November 05, 2013, 02:54:53 pm
Canary, why is your ass so tight? We bend over for you all the time brah... Infact we got so used to it we enjoy bending over for you.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: MURDERTRON on November 05, 2013, 05:20:32 pm
Canary, why is your ass so tight? We bend over for you all the time brah... Infact we got so used to it we enjoy bending over for you.

I hope you're ready for a pseudo intellectual answer about why it's okay to kick or ban whoever for end of round TKing because he doesn't like them.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Matey on November 05, 2013, 08:02:06 pm
I had an amazing idea that reflects the way I personally would enforce rules. If no one complains then everything is great. Admin's should be there to address complaints IMO. If someone gets tked and complains then its admin time. if someone is breaking a rule and someone complains then its admin time... if no one is complaining then cant we just assume people are having... fun? and let them carry on.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Jeade on November 05, 2013, 08:46:26 pm
If someone gets tked and complains then its admin time. if someone is breaking a rule and someone complains then its admin time...

This is personally the way that I deal with it unless it's low pop and potentially damaging to the server. Of course, there are numerous situations, and that's where your judgment comes in.
Sometimes people don't complain and just leave.

However, if you break a server rule and an admin slaps you for it, well... you can't really argue.
That's not coming from a dystopian power-starved video game admin- it's a rule.

I can't speak for Murder's situation, but from what I understood there was a TK before the round actually literally ended.
The end-of-round rule is in place because not helping your team at any time is potentially detrimental to your teammates, even if it's 18v2.
Yes, the team with 18 will most likely win, even if you managed to TK half your team down to 9, but gaining a multi isn't the only important aspect here;
It's also about generally helping your teammates, whether that be in making life easier for them and killing the last two quicker, or protecting their KDR by lending a hand.

Just my thoughts. 
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: MURDERTRON on November 06, 2013, 02:16:54 am
This is personally the way that I deal with it unless it's low pop and potentially damaging to the server. Of course, there are numerous situations, and that's where your judgment comes in.
Sometimes people don't complain and just leave.

However, if you break a server rule and an admin slaps you for it, well... you can't really argue.
That's not coming from a dystopian power-starved video game admin- it's a rule.

I can't speak for Murder's situation, but from what I understood there was a TK before the round actually literally ended.
The end-of-round rule is in place because not helping your team at any time is potentially detrimental to your teammates, even if it's 18v2.
Yes, the team with 18 will most likely win, even if you managed to TK half your team down to 9, but gaining a multi isn't the only important aspect here;
It's also about generally helping your teammates, whether that be in making life easier for them and killing the last two quicker, or protecting their KDR by lending a hand.

Just my thoughts.

Nah, just a TW, that was unreported.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: EyeBeat on November 06, 2013, 02:49:47 pm
If no one complains then everything is great.

Assuming the admin is someone.  Then I would agree.   :)
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Carthan on November 06, 2013, 11:45:24 pm
All the other admin threads are just rants or some kind of themed image thread but this one has various admins having an intellectual debate over proper use of power in various situations.
I... I feel so dirty now.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Jeade on November 07, 2013, 02:03:42 am
All the other admin threads are just rants or some kind of themed image thread but this one has various admins having an intellectual debate over proper use of power in various situations.
I... I feel so dirty now.

The shibas and corgis have not yet made their way here, yet.
Don't give them any ideas.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Canary on November 08, 2013, 11:14:15 pm
The Canary equivalent of spamming cat pictures has been known to be walls of text with a declamatory or hypothetical slant.

Grandiloquence is the name of the game around here.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: JasonPastman on November 09, 2013, 08:33:01 am
This is personally the way that I deal with it unless it's low pop and potentially damaging to the server. Of course, there are numerous situations, and that's where your judgment comes in.
Sometimes people don't complain and just leave.

However, if you break a server rule and an admin slaps you for it, well... you can't really argue.
That's not coming from a dystopian power-starved video game admin- it's a rule.

I can't speak for Murder's situation, but from what I understood there was a TK before the round actually literally ended.
The end-of-round rule is in place because not helping your team at any time is potentially detrimental to your teammates, even if it's 18v2.
Yes, the team with 18 will most likely win, even if you managed to TK half your team down to 9, but gaining a multi isn't the only important aspect here;
It's also about generally helping your teammates, whether that be in making life easier for them and killing the last two quicker, or protecting their KDR by lending a hand.

Just my thoughts.

HUH? CHICK TAKING HER PANTIES OFF GOT YOU  :P.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: JasonPastman on November 22, 2013, 05:02:33 am
Detective Canary

http://forum.melee.org/na-%28official%29/ban-request-excav_pls_420/

+1
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: FeddyCaeks on December 04, 2013, 10:10:31 am
No sense of humor. As well, despises TWing yet doesn't care if he TW/TKs himself.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Sparvico on December 04, 2013, 07:48:58 pm
No sense of humor. As well, despises TWing yet doesn't care if he TW/TKs himself.

I'll give you the second charge, but all the admins are filthy hypocrites (as are all the players). The first charge however. Ho boy, Canary's humor is just so dry you died of thirst before you could comprehend it.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Canary on December 07, 2013, 11:16:12 am
No sense of humor. As well, despises TWing yet doesn't care if he TW/TKs himself.

I can say with a clear conscience that I have never once tried to deal harm to another person's character through teamwounding them. Anytime I hit a teammate by mistake I am wracked with guilt and don't feel quite right, to the point where I can only assuage that feeling by apologizing to the victim. I care quite a bit, really.

Plus I don't despise teamwounding (it is a part of the game, and an important one in my opinion), but I will react to intentional teamwounding because I was put here as an admin for the sole reason of upholding the server rules - which prohibit hitting your teammates intentional.

Please explain more thoroughly if you have a particular problem (or would like to actually try and be remotely productive) and tell us about a specific event that brought you to make such a post. A generalized non sequitur is as easy to dismiss as it is to make up.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Bohannon on December 09, 2013, 06:54:03 pm
I asked him for something at he really helped me.

Thanks for being that fast!
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: BlindGuy on December 16, 2013, 04:24:57 am
Can't read. I asked him to kick the sloth guys running off at end of strat battle, since they were simply delaying the end and not attempting to get flags up, and had set off some time before the final flags were taken, since they are slow as fuck. His response was to tell me that it was not delaying to try to put flags up.

I agree. :D It's not.

Just kidding with this, obviously I cannot read back to make sure I type it correctly in admin chat, its invisibleh, may well have disfigured the meaning, but cmon man, I obviously wasnt gonna use admin chat to tell you someone was doing the RIGHT thing :P
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Canary on December 16, 2013, 04:36:08 am
Okay, that makes more sense.

I was about to warn them before you typed that, but they wound up fighting people by that point.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: BlindGuy on December 16, 2013, 07:14:09 am
yeah, Sloth's got overhauled, big surprise :D
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Sandersson Jankins on December 16, 2013, 09:38:59 am
Won't free Mike, 1/10 that's the best I can give
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: dreadnok on February 04, 2014, 01:50:31 pm
No sense of humor. As well, despises TWing yet doesn't care if he TW/TKs himself.

Your wrong on that one my man, he just doesn't like jerkoffness on the server
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Lemon on April 18, 2014, 06:42:52 am
more like..
banary


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Goretooth on April 18, 2014, 10:34:36 am
rage
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Quinnie on August 14, 2014, 10:55:59 pm
Kolee post #1 on how Canary is a terrible admin:

Kicks without warning. Singles out players to kick.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Tydeus on August 15, 2014, 12:12:40 am
Singles out players to kick.
So only the ones that actually break the rules? Maybe they should just not break the rules like all the other people NOT being "singled out."
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Lemon on August 15, 2014, 12:38:13 am
So only the ones that actually break the rules? Maybe they should just not break the rules like all the other people NOT being "singled out."
koree is god, dont talk to her like that
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Tydeus on August 15, 2014, 01:28:04 am
koree is god, dont talk to her like that
Lemon, you don't get laid by white knighting women on the internet.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Quinnie on August 15, 2014, 01:43:56 am
No, when I said that, I meant that there were multiple people doing what I did and yet I was the only one that was kicked - even in multiple rounds after I was kicked. And in those instances, those people were issued warnings.

It's cool, though. Canary's a self-proclaimed beer aficionado that likes to make an example out of me.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: EyeBeat on August 18, 2014, 03:42:30 am
Chris Hardwick was awesome in Singled Out.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Combaticus on August 18, 2014, 04:30:04 pm
Stop griefing our Weapon Racks Canary
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Damatacus_ATS on August 18, 2014, 08:41:05 pm
Show me in the rules where it says we cannot have a weapons rack.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Combaticus on August 18, 2014, 09:09:49 pm
Show me in the rules where it says we cannot have a weapons rack.

BOOM! Checkmate!
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: MURDERTRON on August 18, 2014, 09:29:41 pm
BOOM! Checkmate!

After three days of writing and rewriting posts before finally replying, Canary will probably say you were delaying.  Well, I'm here to save him from this ordeal.  This all happened in the first minute of the round. So now, Canary will wait 4 more days before replying with a 6 page essay about how you were breaking the common sense rule all in an effort to cover up his griefing and causing his team to lose the round.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Canary on August 18, 2014, 09:36:12 pm
Exploiters.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Damatacus_ATS on August 18, 2014, 11:16:10 pm
It's not an exploit. It's plane and simply not against the rules, because there is nothing wrong with it. The only rule that was broken was when u chose to grief us by breaking our box. If you were any kind of just admin at all you would ban yourself for doing that. Also, if it had been a rule we were breaking coming up and breaking our box is not the way to handle that. You have admin chat for a reason. What you did was the same as killing a team mate because you had seen him team kill before that.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Canary on August 18, 2014, 11:33:50 pm
What you did was the same as killing a team mate because you had seen him team kill before that.

Not quite - killing someone and stopping them from playing the round at all is not the same as removing an object that allows people (an entire team) to exploit game mechanics, whether or not that keeps them from enjoying the round the way they were planning.

The only rule that was broken was when u chose to grief us by breaking our box. If you were any kind of just admin at all you would ban yourself for doing that. Also, if it had been a rule we were breaking coming up and breaking our box is not the way to handle that. You have admin chat for a reason.

This is partly true. It's my mistake that I didn't handle the situation with more tact; I should've explained my point before or instead of acting it out.

It's not an exploit. It's plane and simply not against the rules, because there is nothing wrong with it.

You are ill-informed. Weapon racks allow you to avoid upkeep on any items pulled out of them. Additionally, throwing weapons, for instance, were absolutely not balanced around the potential to restock them in endless quantities during a round. The only legitimate use for a construction site on battle or siege is as a barricade.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Artyem on August 19, 2014, 12:01:51 am
NA_3 is the only server you should be using siege equipment on.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Damatacus_ATS on August 19, 2014, 12:04:33 am


You are ill-informed. Weapon racks allow you to avoid upkeep on any items pulled out of them. Additionally, throwing weapons, for instance, were absolutely not balanced around the potential to restock them in endless quantities during a round. The only legitimate use for a construction site on battle or siege is as a barricade.

Saying I am ill-informed implies that this is a rule. We both know it is not in the server rules. Despite what your opinion is about this, you don't make the rules just because you are an admin.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Canary on August 19, 2014, 03:59:09 am
You said it's not an exploit, but it is, in more ways than one.

The rules do say "no exploiting of any kind"
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Tydeus on August 19, 2014, 04:15:41 pm
Despite what your opinion is about this, you don't make the rules just because you are an admin.
Actually, him being the head NA admin, he does actually have the authority to do this (within certain limitations.) Still, you don't really need Canary's ability of deciding proper interpretations/adding rules, to enforce the no constructable siege equipment thing.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: MURDERTRON on August 19, 2014, 04:24:01 pm
http://forum.melee.org/na-(official)/ban-request-gheist_ritter/

Hey look at this shit lord responding within 5 minutes to white knight his teamspeak buddy and clan mate.  Please make it more obvious.

You said it's not an exploit, but it is, in more ways than one.

The rules do say "no exploiting of any kind"

I think Canary is mad because everytime a male character puts on a wedding dress, it reminds him that he'll never be a real woman.  And that is exploiting his self confidence.

Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Rhalzo on August 19, 2014, 06:11:00 pm
http://forum.melee.org/na-(official)/ban-request-gheist_ritter/

Hey look at this shit lord responding within 5 minutes to white knight his teamspeak buddy and clan mate.  Please make it more obvious.

Oh no, an admin did his job and replied to a ban thread when he was actively on the forums? Oh shit. It's all a conspiracy.
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Combaticus on August 19, 2014, 07:17:09 pm
Actually, him being the head NA admin, he does actually have the authority to do this (within certain limitations.) Still, you don't really need Canary's ability of deciding proper interpretations/adding rules, to enforce the no constructable siege equipment thing.

Stop lollygagging and fix Valor already
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Havelle on August 20, 2014, 11:16:26 am
Get with EU's precedence and start enforcing rules about kicking last alive horse archers and rule bending, shitbag griefers like that.

And at the end of the day, building a box still makes atleast someone pay a shit ton of upkeep. Look at that price.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Jack1 on August 21, 2014, 10:31:12 am
It's all a conspiracy.

listen sheeple

http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/the-conspiracy/msg948809/#msg948809
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: WITCHCRAFT on August 21, 2014, 04:35:55 pm
I think Canary is mad because everytime a male character puts on a wedding dress, it reminds him that he'll never be a real woman.  And that is exploiting his self confidence.

No that's not Canary... you're thinking of a different admin...
Title: Re: [Global] Canary
Post by: Batuhan_of on August 22, 2014, 10:07:23 pm
Good Luck