i wrote a poem in all caps for you
DUUUUUUJJEK!!!
DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK!
DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK!
DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK!
DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK!
DUUUUUUUUUUJEK!!!
i wrote a poem in all caps for you
DUUUUUUJJEK!!!
DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK!
DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK!
DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK!
DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK! DUJEK!
DUUUUUUUUUUJEK!!!
Donât quit your day job!
Dujek gets a +1 from me on new player advocacy, Pochven, & projection balance (from a large alliance standpoint)
Asking all candidates this question
Fighting against toxicity is a strong case, as it comes with the territory of gaming -everywhere-
However. How would you handle a hypothetical stalemate wherein both parties are believe the other to be toxic, but only one party can really be telling the truth.
But then again, truth is based on the perspective of the perceiver.
How would you handle this?
It might be a hypothetical stalemate from a playerâs perspective, but it is pretty clear that CCP is in charge of the arbitration. Both players arenât coming out of the situation happy.
You might have left asking the question a bit late, though!
Pick a side and call the other side âtoxicâ of course!
A wizard is never late. He asks the question precisely when he means to.