>>5380774>>5381174amending my vote to include the following if it can be fit in:
>If she asks us to explain, we could point things out like her gaining the most from a safe zone (as the spotter she doesn’t get a break) yet she didn’t vote for it, or that she had stated we were reasonable yet treated our plan as insane when she heard it. There’s a disconnect between how she treated us and what she actually believes, and I’d like to understand that.>be willing to let the “shelling us” bit lie still for now though. No good will come from pushing that point in particular.And go for a composite vote. Feel free to pick and choose bits you feel make sense, bhop.
