The North Carolina Melee Power Rankings! Updated 8/14/14!

[Dark Hart]

There's no need for subjectivity in this process though.

 

[SK919]

damn, I might have to find a way down to the gold mine 3

 

[Dark Hart]

Oh yea whenS tgm?

 

[Dr Peepee]

It is the 17th.

It also has no more m2k LOOOOL but come anyway guys? <3

 

[archer.]

M2K might still come.

We just need to get more people to confirm. (That means all of you who haven't said you're going, go in there and say you're going.)

 

[Dark Hart]

Oh, I hope I'm not working next weekend

 

[Dark Hart]

NeverMind not goin since m2ks interested

 

[stingers]

m2ks not goin dawg

 

[Dark Hart]

K then I hope I'm not working next weekend

 

[Bl@ckChris]

past pr's matter.

isn't that what made my win vs sneak worthless compared to his win vs theo? even though i beat the guy who beat theo, it didn't matter cause sneak wasn't pr'd at the time. how is that not taking last ranking into account? if sneak proved AT THAT TOURNAMENT that he was better than theo, and i beat him, why shouldn't that matter PR wise? because he wasn't pr'd at the time. that's why.

 

[Dark Hart]

That pretty dumb imo

 

[Bl@ckChris]

yeah. that's just how it is right now.

also, with point systems, you would need to keep a running tab DURING a tournament. that could get hairy. like in my situation, you had to have sneak acquiring theos points, and then losing those points to me as the situation continues. if you calculated it after the tournament, i think you'd get different results, or if you based it before the tournament, you may get different numbers...idk. but i feel like everyones points would have to be accurate, or at least it would take the time afterward to look at the order of which points were won and lost and when they were cut in half or added and subtracted and stuff...yeah...

 

[lord karn]

past pr's matter.

isn't that what made my win vs sneak worthless compared to his win vs theo? even though i beat the guy who beat theo, it didn't matter cause sneak wasn't pr'd at the time. how is that not taking last ranking into account? if sneak proved AT THAT TOURNAMENT that he was better than theo, and i beat him, why shouldn't that matter PR wise? because he wasn't pr'd at the time. that's why.

Your win vs Sneak was important, but it was your only real win this period. Sneak's win vs. theo was important because of how well he did this period (beating cam and someone else, I think).

 

[-ACE-]

it can get hairy but it's not that big of a deal imo

btw I'm willing to bet that dorsey made a post suggesting a point system well before sneak was in NC lol, it was rejected hardcore iirc. I have always been for experimenting with different models.

1. Try to make the best point system you possibly can, incorporating all necessary details/elements
2. Consider someone else's point system
3. Have the panelists make their list
3. See what lists these systems result
4. Compare the lists that the point systems generate to the list created by the panelists
5. How far off is the system generated list? what is the probable cause of this? what can be done to make it better?

I'm F'd up right now but something tells me that a point system can do absolutely no wrong. It can serve as a loose template for panelists to consider while constructing the rankings. Remember Karn saying his memory sucks? rofl alex is my boy and i know he's a good panelist but when i see **** like that i'm thinking WTF get a point system going, a GOOD ONE, and see what list it generates. Like i just said this should provide a loose template for what the rankings should be like. Then, the panelists fine-tune the list with thier extensive knowledge of the NC scene and various players' skills that they have, because they're... well, panelists. The key thing with the point system (a good one) is that it will be based on unbiased facts and unbiased facts alone. It's worth it to see what kind of list a system like that can generate if constructed properly; not yo mention how easy it would make it for panelists to make decisions. We might even have 3 updates in a year in 2012 if we're lucky

 

[Bl@ckChris]

to follow up the point i made earlier: how often would these points be tallied up to make a "power ranking"? if we have a system close to what cam was saying, after any given tournament (really, after any given match of importance) these rankings can, and will, change. if a players worth can change on the whim of a win or loss, then the rankings at any given moment have to reflect that. so are we gonna start with some sort of point system and update after every given tournament?

edit: so sneaks win vs theo matters because theo beat cam but my win vs sneak who beat theo matters less? see, i can't decide if you guys are actually using inui-esque data or not. i can't decide if theo beating cam is good because cam was pr'd at the time or if its because he's just cam. i mean in all reality, i shouldn't be on cause i lost to EWB in pools, which i guess is enough in itself to knock me out of contention.

but just tell me which matters most, especially with all of these being at the same tournament:

theo beating cam
sneak beating theo
me beating sneak

it would appear that according the the PR's we're looking at, theo beating cam is the most important. why? cause cam was ranked. then it would look like sneak beating theo matters second most. why? cause theo beat cam + theo was ranked. and it looks like me beating sneak matters least. why? cause sneak beat theo.

to me, that is the only real way i see the data being interpreted. i don't really mind this at all. it's how its worked. the rankings exist to let people know who to beat in order to get on the next ones (or at least thats what it looks like to me). but to say that the past rankings don't matter at all seems a little wonky considering the results. please correct me if i'm wrong, however.

 

[Dark Hart]

Ace: <3

Chris: these already change dramatically everytime

 

[Bl@ckChris]

well yeah, but if we keep track of how many points players have, there would have to be a constant tally held by somebody, be it gofg, or a public PR that's constantly changing.

 

[AlcyoNite]

sounds like u all would have a lot less trouble if i had just beat sneak

tsk tsk

 

[Bl@ckChris]

well then i would have beaten you and we'd be in a fairly similar ****storm.

edit: actually, probably not, cause then i'd be pr'd. =/

edit: probably not cause i still lost to EWB looooooollllll *u**in pools.

 

[Sneak8288]

It would be smarter if point were tallied after the tournament. Their worth wouldn't change though because the point accumulated would be based on the point value of the person you beat, not how many points they already have. So you shouldn't have to keep the constant tally

 

[Bl@ckChris]

so the only points that exist are the pr's points? When a pr peson gets beaten are they still worth that amount?

ie if ali were to lose to me and john, we would both get like 5 points. But after we get those points, were still not worth any points if we lose, cause we're unranked (still)?

 

[Sneak8288]

Yea when they get beating they are still worth that amount. The point value should come from the ranking position. So for example
1 - 11
2 - 10
3 - 09
4 - 08
5 - 07
6 - 06
7 - 05
8 - 04
9 - 03
10 - 02

Nonranked - 1
Talented but Unranked due to inactivity - 5?

So the point values someone is worth is dependent on their ranking. So who they lose to wouldn't change how much they are worth until the rankings are updated and there wouldn't need to be a constant tally since their worth wouldn't change until the season is complete

 

[bossa nova ♪]

to follow up the point i made earlier: how often would these points be tallied up to make a "power ranking"? if we have a system close to what cam was saying, after any given tournament (really, after any given match of importance) these rankings can, and will, change. if a players worth can change on the whim of a win or loss, then the rankings at any given moment have to reflect that. so are we gonna start with some sort of point system and update after every given tournament?

edit: so sneaks win vs theo matters because theo beat cam but my win vs sneak who beat theo matters less? see, i can't decide if you guys are actually using inui-esque data or not. i can't decide if theo beating cam is good because cam was pr'd at the time or if its because he's just cam. i mean in all reality, i shouldn't be on cause i lost to EWB in pools, which i guess is enough in itself to knock me out of contention.

but just tell me which matters most, especially with all of these being at the same tournament:

theo beating cam
sneak beating theo
me beating sneak

it would appear that according the the PR's we're looking at, theo beating cam is the most important. why? cause cam was ranked. then it would look like sneak beating theo matters second most. why? cause theo beat cam + theo was ranked. and it looks like me beating sneak matters least. why? cause sneak beat theo.

to me, that is the only real way i see the data being interpreted. i don't really mind this at all. it's how its worked. the rankings exist to let people know who to beat in order to get on the next ones (or at least thats what it looks like to me). but to say that the past rankings don't matter at all seems a little wonky considering the results. please correct me if i'm wrong, however.

yea...

we all came to the same conclusion. you're uhh.... right.



EWB aint half bad. esp if his marth beat your ganon, idk if my marth can do that unless i start using nair again.

 

[AlcyoNite]

well then i would have beaten you and we'd be in a fairly similar ****storm.

edit: actually, probably not, cause then i'd be pr'd. =/

edit: probably not cause i still lost to EWB looooooollllll *u**in pools.

ye prolly

 

[Lightsyde]

Wtf would you even consider altering people's points mid tournament? If we have to use them, points should be tallied at the end of the ranking period; changing people's PR spots based on their total after every tourney sounds like a really unncessary headache and really unfair to people who can't make every tourney that period. You guys are forgetting the need to compute in a variable that accounts for attendance.

if sneak proved AT THAT TOURNAMENT that he was better than theo, and i beat him, why shouldn't that matter PR wise?

Chris: This is irrelevant inui logic that played no part in anything. This statement made me question whether you understand what PR's represent. PR's do not reflect who was better at what tournament; they reflect who performed best (the ratio of good wins to bad losses).

As I understand it...

Current: 3/21
New: 9/05

Past PR's (PR's prior to 3/21) DO NOT matter. The 3/21 current PR (that is, the one current at the time when the panel sits down to make the new one) is used to decide how important wins are.

Cam was PR'd higher than Theo so a win over him is automatically more significant, hence Theo's placement.
Theo was 10th when he lost to Sneak so that win matters less than a win over Cam, who was 7th.
Your win over Sneak was statistically irrelevant because you were both unranked on the 3/26 update.

Alex: Sneak's win vs Theo being significant should have NOTHING to do with the fact that Theo performed well this period, only that Sneak was unranked and Theo was 10th.

Dorsey: Placing is a really stupid way of determining...anything. If you lose first or second round in WB, you can sometimes get a MUCH easier bracket going through losers and wind up outplacing the person who beat you, even if their wins were better. While I more or less think Kevin handled your other points, I think you need to realize that there was little, if any, bias used for this data. I say that because...

Real talk: Stuff looks whack because of OUR attendance. Numerous players went to 1 tournament in a 4 tournament ranking period that lasted over the course of 6 months. If you think about it, strictly speaking, there is no possible way the data could have been interpretted better. Why? Because the trio at 10th had records that were virtually indistinguishable (1 or so good wins, 1 or so bad losses). This system or a point system would work equally well if everyone attended at least 2 tournaments. The more mathematical approach John discussed only seems like a better idea because we ourselves have not provided enough data to be accurately interpretted without postulating outcomes of matches that were not and cannot be played.

EDIT: Cam, for the record, EWB is the Falcon player, not the Marth. ;]

 

[bossa nova ♪]

indistinguishable my ****ing ***. did they win against the same people and lose against the same people? the only argument is that we'd be splitting hairs arbitrarily, BUT THAT'S WHAT THESE PRs ARE TO BEGIN WITH



And PP, the reason i said "don't say [the point system] is arbitrary anyway" is because that would be not only incorrect, but completely pointless. there is a SYSTEM, a set in stone point-SYSTEM that is based on a solidified order of REASON. it's not just on a whim or a "oh sure that makes sense but it lookz weirdz hughuhuhguhuh " with your dumb @sses... it literally doesn't fall into the definition of arbitrary, but people like to be hypocrite opportunist philosophers so go the **** ahead.

 

[Lightsyde]

3 people being in the 10 IS the product of NOT splitting hairs arbitrarily. Like Kevin was saying, you could make a case for any of like 4 or so people getting the 10th spot but it's impossible to farily determine who's unranked losses are worse. Like we talked about last night, it does look like a mess and like we're just trying to keep formerly PR'd players on our PR, but the more I think about what Kevin said, choosing any of the candidates would have been arbitrary. The unfortunate result of Kevin avoiding making a biased (per necessity) over inconclusive data was that he came out looking biased.

EDIT: Also, a random thought, if we have ties or situations similar in the future, what do you guys think about just playing it out at an upcoming tourney? If a money match can constitute a tournament win, why can't a playoff for a PR spot be equally relevant data, even though it's kind of retroactive?

 

[lord karn]

it can get hairy but it's not that big of a deal imo

btw I'm willing to bet that dorsey made a post suggesting a point system well before sneak was in NC lol, it was rejected hardcore iirc. I have always been for experimenting with different models.

1. Try to make the best point system you possibly can, incorporating all necessary details/elements
2. Consider someone else's point system
3. Have the panelists make their list
3. See what lists these systems result
4. Compare the lists that the point systems generate to the list created by the panelists
5. How far off is the system generated list? what is the probable cause of this? what can be done to make it better?

I'm F'd up right now but something tells me that a point system can do absolutely no wrong. It can serve as a loose template for panelists to consider while constructing the rankings. Remember Karn saying his memory sucks? rofl alex is my boy and i know he's a good panelist but when i see **** like that i'm thinking WTF get a point system going, a GOOD ONE, and see what list it generates. Like i just said this should provide a loose template for what the rankings should be like. Then, the panelists fine-tune the list with thier extensive knowledge of the NC scene and various players' skills that they have, because they're... well, panelists. The key thing with the point system (a good one) is that it will be based on unbiased facts and unbiased facts alone. It's worth it to see what kind of list a system like that can generate if constructed properly; not yo mention how easy it would make it for panelists to make decisions. We might even have 3 updates in a year in 2012 if we're lucky

Well, our method does actually look at objective results, and the decisions are usually clear once we get the data straight. These 'close calls' are not 'bad data' in the sense that the data doesn't have an answer, they are 'bad data' because it is very difficult to consider all of the variables at the same time for our puny human brains. Any 'mistake' on the PRs (as far as the PRs being a measure of how well said players performed against each other collectively) is a result of US INTERPRETING THE DATA INCORRECTLY, not a problem of the system itself. As I've said before, there should objectively be no tie for tenth place (well I suppose there is a very very very slight possibility that the data regarding those players is truely circular, but I doubt it). The reason we put the tie there is because the data that would be used to break the tie is obscure and convoluted and we couldn't figure it out (again not a problem with the system, but an inherent human weakness). Either way, those players all performed pretty ****ing similarly this ranking period, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. If one of us was decided on it would pretty much be like that time Michael Phelps beat that guy by 1/100th of a second. Sure, it's a victory but it was still pretty goddamn close.


Actually, a point system would require us to make arbitrary calls about how to deal with attendance issues, how to assign points to unranked players, etc. It also forces us to weight PRs from past seasons in order to assign points to players, and one of the main points of our current system is to make each PR period self contained. Actually, our system could be turned into a point system (because it's possible to model it mathematically), but I don't really know the math of how to do that and it might not even make it easier for us anyways (unless of course, someone turns it into a program and then we don't have to do anything at all, which I am 100% behind).

Everyone just needs to realize what these PRs are measuring. They are comparing a group of players performance against each other in a given timeframe. The PRs do not measure skill, although they may correlate with skill. The PRs do not predict the outcome of future sets. They do not measure tournament placings, again though they may correlate with them. To create a list that judges skill would be absolutely impossible to do objectively, and thus would be merely the combined opinion of the panel. I don't want any part in something like that. I'll talk with you in person or online about who I think is better than who (which is different from the PR), but it seems utterly pointless to post that list online for others to see and claim it is an accurate representation of our state. And why anyone thinks placing matters is completely beyond me.

 

[Dorsey]

Lightsyde-

That is not a point involving a point system. Your point correlates with how ****ty people are seeded at tournaments, apparently. Reason being: If you generate a bracket and assume that the higher seeds WILL win, it is 100% impossible for what you just said to happen. Sorry josh, but SEEDING should decide how good a win is, not a panel afterward. It's like that in basically all tournaments. Just because wack seeding or bracket johns occur at a tournament, it does not mean that a panel should be made to analyze the circumstances of what happened subjectively. The panel should be doing the seeding, not the interpreting. If an "upset" in bracket happens, then so be it, it's a tournament and interpreting the findings of it subjectively defeats the whole idea of the competition. Everything should be on the line at the tournament, not on the panel's decision. (tournament does the skill measuring, not the panel..) Who the **** cares if someone got out-effort'd/tryhard'd while SDing lol. It was in tournament, and they obviously did bad. Peeps need to learn to be more content with that, not the end of the world(but it is what happens in the real world).

--------

and LOL, the PR's should measure who places the best at tournaments

computing both attendance and tournament placing is easy btw, no one is forgetting anything lol. I'm a physics major now and have taken math through calculus 3(not that it's difficult at ALL to make a model for this).. would be no sweat for me, just give me the data and I'd be happy to show you guys..

What I don't get, is why all you *****es are so opposed to doing it right, fair, and by the book. When I first started debating about this, I had a feeling that we'd get to "fluke brackets" and johns... and look, here we are.

 

[lord karn]

Lightsyde-

That is not a point involving a point system. Your point correlates with how ****ty people are seeded at tournaments, apparently. Reason being: If you generate a bracket and assume that the higher seeds WILL win, it is 100% impossible for what you just said to happen. Sorry josh, but SEEDING should decide how good a win is, not a panel afterward. It's like that in basically all tournaments. Just because wack seeding or bracket johns occur at a tournament, it does not mean that a panel should be made to analyze the circumstances of what happened subjectively. The panel should be doing the seeding, not the interpreting.

--------

and LOL, the PR's should measure who places the best at tournaments

computing both attendance and tournament placing is easy btw, no one is forgetting anything lol. I'm a physics major now and have taken math through calculus 3(not that it's difficult at ALL to make a model for this).. would be no sweat for me, just give me the data and I'd be happy to show you guys..

What I don't get, is why all you *****es are so opposed to doing it right, fair, and by the book. When I first started debating about this, I had a feeling that we'd get to "fluke brackets" and johns... and look, here we are.

While making a rankings purely based of tournament placings would be much easier to compute, I don't really know why anyone would want to see a list based off of such a ****ty measurement of skill. If I get 7th at a tournament, but beat only one PR'd player because I go into the tournament seeded well and some other new person goes to a tournament, fights good people almost every round, and loses to only like kevin/lozr/etc, I do not think I deserve to be ranked higher than said player. I really don't understand how people can think tournament placing is important. It completely baffles me. All it does is bias the rankings for people who were already ranked and who didn't necessarily beat anyone good.

The arbitrariness of a point system is not in the calculation, but the assigning of values to various different things (unranked players, attendance)

 

[-ACE-]

Alex, I never said to turn this into a point system, just incorporate one. Like I said if nothing else it would prevent any data from being overlooked, which happens almost every update.

Placings should matter imo, at least somewhat. Placings don't depict skill 100%, but as you just said neither do the PR's. The way brackets work makes higher placings slightly less skill-based (having everyone do a huge round robin would be better, for example - not saying we should do that lol), so the problem lies in the way tournaments are organized moreso than the placings (if you were to use them as a loose indication of skill). If you don't have to beat any good people and place well, that's just good luck lol, it happens.

 

[Dorsey]

Karn, the only way I can think of your example even happening, is if a good player that hasn't attended in quite some time gets a lower seed than normal(getting dr. peepee early on, getting lozr in late LB assuming an NC-only tourney). But....... that person hasn't attended anything in forever, so they SHOULDN'T get a wonderful seed(something like sneak said, and even if not, wouldn't assigning a proper seed to this person be a good job for the panel?). Then after doing what you just said, he'd have a great seed for the next tournament. So really.... not a good point D:

 

[Mahone]

PP, you should listen to Dorsey, hes making some great points

 

[Lightsyde]

Kumar: Lmao

Jesse: I love you buddy but I facepalmed about 4 times during your last post. When I get caught up at work I'll explain so just hang tight. PR's reflect how well a player performs in tournament, not what place they get. Placings are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT past probably top 4 or 5, where everyone plays each other. Like Alex said it is completely possible to place high at a tournament and have only 1 substantial for PR's win.

More to come.

EDIT:

Karn, the only way I can think of your example even happening, is if a good player that hasn't attended in quite some time gets a lower seed than normal(getting dr. peepee early on, getting lozr in late LB assuming an NC-only tourney). But....... that person hasn't attended anything in forever, so they SHOULDN'T get a wonderful seed(something like sneak said, and even if not, wouldn't assigning a proper seed to this person be a good job for the panel?). Then after doing what you just said, he'd have a great seed for the next tournament. So really.... not a good point D:

What are you even talking about? Stuff like that happens at stacked tournaments all the time. Unless you are top 4 on the PR's, there is an almost definite chance that you will have to play a highly ranked PR player early in a 16 man bracket, and have to play another good player, almost immediately after. Have you really never heard people say, "Man, today sucked. I had a Bye, then had to play PP, then had to play Ali in Loser's after he lost to XXXX unexpectedly"?

 

[0Room]

Lmao that **** happens all the time
ALL THE TIME

It's one of those things that I'm not a big fan of

 

[Bl@ckChris]

so it's my fault theo went and lost to sneak and made me get an "easy" bracket for G6?

btw josh, if you read the rest of my post, you'd see that i came to that conclusion and was not disappointed by it. but i can't see how people say that the rankings start "fresh" when the importance of a win is based on the "current" PR. my win vs sneak didn't matter at all because he wasn't pr'd.

i don't think i got some sort of wonderful seed either. i beat JMH, lost to yay, beat carter, john, and sneak, and lost to l0zr.

a point system based on the "current" pr wouldn't have helped me either. as i would have gotten no points for beating sneak, but he would have gotten "points" for beating theo. it seems like this is sorta how it already works anyway...

karn claimed that sneaks win vs theo mattered because theo beat cam, not because he was pr'd on the "current" pr. which is true?

edit: i got 7th at G6 with no notable wins. i placed over 4 pr'd players and got no notable wins. i don't think they seeded wrong though. but sneak got the "notable" win before i could so yeah.

 

[Dark Hart]

Arbitrary Arbitrary Arbitrary Arbitrary

Dorsey's makin some sense

Cam too a bit

Placing should def matter, being that they earned that placing

Yea that's it

 

[OmniOstrich]

You guys do of course realize there are multiple Brawl Rankings that have already come up with a formula that does what you want it to do right? If you want that kind of a system just message them and ask if you can use their spreadsheet lol.

 

[Lightsyde]

Lightsyde-

That is not a point involving a point system. Your point correlates with how ****ty people are seeded at tournaments, apparently. Reason being: If you generate a bracket and assume that the higher seeds WILL win, it is 100% impossible for what you just said to happen.

This makes absolutely no sense. In what way is it impossible? How about the instance where you seed a bracket and everything happens exactly as the rankings would predict and there are no upsets? The scenario is equally possible as any other.

You do realize that absolutely all tournament brackets made that are not randomly seeded ASSUME based off a player (or a teams) prior record that one team will beat the other, right? We use PR's (based purely off of set counts, no incorporation of johns or bracket, just pure PvP results) to simulate accurate high seeds. Looking at a bracket, the first round will have Bye's for highly ranked players or matches against players they are likely to beat; that is the literal reward of playing well at prior junctures. If we got to round robin and play every other player/team like they do in a professional circuit (NBA, for example), our PR's would have infinitely more data and be that much more accurate at representing who would beat who...because those people have alreayd played in the past and there is data to suggest what will happen.

Sorry josh, but SEEDING should decide how good a win is, not a panel afterward. It's like that in basically all tournaments. Just because wack seeding or bracket johns occur at a tournament, it does not mean that a panel should be made to analyze the circumstances of what happened subjectively.

The panel has not and does not decide the quality of wins based on anything other than prior PR placement. There is no subjectivity, no opinions, just straight up data. Only in extreme cases, such as really sparse data (aka this period) where there would be a call for that and Kevin took the extra (unpopular) step to keep from deciding anything subjectively. That is why there is a 3 way tie. There is no subjectivity used in the process, whatsoever.

The panel should be doing the seeding, not the interpreting. If an "upset" in bracket happens, then so be it, it's a tournament and interpreting the findings of it subjectively defeats the whole idea of the competition. Everything should be on the line at the tournament, not on the panel's decision. (tournament does the skill measuring, not the panel..) Who the **** cares if someone got out-effort'd/tryhard'd while SDing lol. It was in tournament, and they obviously did bad. Peeps need to learn to be more content with that, not the end of the world(but it is what happens in the real world).

oauisdjglijasd The panel interprets the data only in so as we do not have a machine to process the set count results and translate it. Literally, all the panel does is construct the PR's with the data given. That is the extent of their interpreting. Exactly what you think should happen with this data is happening. No excuses are considered, no SD's, no nothing. They are processed, a list is constructed, we use the list for seeding to accurate prior results for the best possible balanced bracket, more data is produced, 3 tourneys worth of data is compiled and then lather rinse, repeat. That's it.

--------

and LOL, the PR's should measure who places the best at tournaments

computing both attendance and tournament placing is easy btw, no one is forgetting anything lol. I'm a physics major now and have taken math through calculus 3(not that it's difficult at ALL to make a model for this).. would be no sweat for me, just give me the data and I'd be happy to show you guys..

What I don't get, is why all you *****es are so opposed to doing it right, fair, and by the book. When I first started debating about this, I had a feeling that we'd get to "fluke brackets" and johns... and look, here we are.

Responses in bold. The last half of your post (and the rest of it) is honestly absurd enough that I'm just hoping you're trolling. lmao

Pretty sure you are, but legit responses for the first half just in case. haha

 

[Dark Hart]

Lol

"what you say is absurd IMO, therefore you must be trolling"

Lols on lols