Sign In

### Topic

#### Players that no longer exist or haven't played for weeks are taking up homes.

At this point in Glitch, housing is scarce in Alakol and Groddle Meadow. The developers of this game seem to be fighting this problem by adding more and more houses, however, I don't think that this is a sustainable method.
One thing that I think could even be considered a "bug" is the fact that deleted players can still occupy homes. Example: http://www.glitch.com/realty/LA9N79FMVLE2HQC/
Another issue is that players that haven't been online for weeks are still using homes. Obviously, it wouldn't be a good idea to simply kick these people out of their homes if they have been offline. I propose no solution to this problem, however I think it is prominent nonetheless.

Posted 13 months ago by orangea | Permalink

### Replies

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next

- I think after 6 months of inactivity (or longer, maybe a year), there could be a warning sent to inactive players email: that if he or she does not login in a set period of time, the house will be sold to another player. This could even make them come back to the game. While this is not a big problem now, it WILL be a problem later.
  Posted 13 months ago by outfromunder | Permalink
- Deleted toons aren't the same as inactive ones, though, Sprockett. And Blanky just stated that deleted ones would lose their houses, so that issue is moot now.
  I think what people are debating now are people that may not have logged into the game in a very long time (thus inactive, but not deleted). The email is okay, but who knows if the issue keeping the person from the game is not keeping them from their email as well?
  I definitely agree that if there's any kind of repossession for housing, that plenty of emails should be sent to warn the players. But I don't really want to see that kind of action taken.
  My house is my anchor, my piece of stability, in the midst of the rest of the lovely, ever-changing Glitch world. It would be crushingly disappointing to come back and not have it after taking so much care in the selection of it in the beginning.
  Some (maybe most) people are not so sentimental about their houses. Some are. There's no way to know who is or is not.
  I prefer to trust in TS to do what will be best for the game though, regardless of my opinion on it.
  Posted 13 months ago by Little Miss Giggles | Permalink
- the 'issue' of deleted accounts was addressed by staff already. so it's pointless to discuss. they acknowledge that there is a small amount of deleted accounts and that those account will have their houses freed up. end of discussion.
  pink taco, you didn't get my point. not all issues need to be addressed well ahead of time. this is one of them.
  Posted 13 months ago by Mr. Dawgg | Permalink
- sorry mr. dawgg, you're the who doesn't get my point. shelving the issue does nothing but widen the potential amount of players TS can piss off with any solution they implement, this is assuming glitch's population experiences growth of course.
  main thing ive taken away from whole housing saga is TS' seriously worrying lack of forethought. i wonder what their plan was... to keep adding new housing forever, letting entire regions be occupied by a small handful of oldbies and inactives? i think that wouldve been fine if housing wasnt linked to particular locations or if streets didnt have a set number of houses but as it stands now it seems really unfair to newbies who'll be largely forced to the outer regions of Ur. for better or worse, it's in their best interest to come up with a definitive answer to this before they introduce housing customization.
  Posted 13 months ago by Fur | Permalink
- it's in their best interest to come up with a definitive answer to this before they introduce housing customization.
  As a game design consultant, I'm sure your experience has given you a lot of data that would be applicable to TS. Unfortunately, clients often pay your fee and then fail to implement your suggestions. As long as you get paid, there's really nothing else you need to do except wait to say, "I told you so".
  Of course, their development and sale of their previous company to Yahoo! for hundreds of millions of dollars may have them confused. They may think they know more than you do about how to go about this.
  Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- *havnt played for weeks*.. you know a week isnt a very long time. or even a month.. people do have *real lives* and jobs, and things more important. that could come up. best thing to do would be to send players inactive emails stating to come back and play etc. after 3 months leave. and if they don't within another 2 weeks than remove their housing...
  another posible solution would be to introduce *rent* on the housing... so any unactive players with little money etc will eventually be evicted from their houses due to not paying the rent.
  Posted 13 months ago by Hootaholic | Permalink
- If the glitch still exists, no matter when the player last logged, they should keep their house.
  However, if the glitch is DELETED, then they no longer exist, and persons who no longer exist cannot own real estate.
  Posted 13 months ago by Aki Dreaming | Permalink
- If the glitch still exists, no matter when the player last logged, they should keep their house.
  However, if the glitch is DELETED, then they no longer exist, and persons who no longer exist cannot own real estate.
  Posted 13 months ago by Aki Dreaming | Permalink
- @WindBorn: I... I think... I think I love you.
  @PinkTaco - the reason people advocate tabling the issue temporarily, is because the game is 1.5 months old, and is not even close to being "done." The dynamics are going to change radically between now and the new year, and will continue to change radically.
  The housing situation as it stands now is not a situation, because it is in absolutely no way static. It is not the end-all be-all solution, it is not a finite resource. Should we continue to discuss this? Absolutely. But what is relevant and a problem now, won't be a few months down the line when something completely different blows this away.
  Don't assume that the housing rules and definitions you have now based on in-game experience will continue to hold true in the immediate or long-term future. The best thing about this game is its constant evolution of features, interaction and overall gameplay.
  And, please, have a bit of respect for Tiny Speck. They aren't demonstrating shortsightedness. In fact, I would argue that you're the one doing that.
  Posted 13 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Here is what Glitch staff said
  eventually people who have not played in a very long time and who have no intention of returning to the game will not continue to tie up real estate.
  Notice that not playing in a very long time will not be sufficient reason for removing you from your house.
  Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- this is a partial cross-post from a similar thread elsewhere, with additional content for this thread. sorry in advance if this is confusing for people who are watching both threads:
  @xev: I would assert that there actually is a situation, right now, and a change is needed so that it doesn't blow up in a few months. It is my hope and expectation that whatever changes come in with Group Halls will alleviate the problem. I am not advocating mass evictions a month and a half into the game, but rules for how this will be handled several months from now need to be decided and implemented soon. TS needs to change something, and they need to set player expectations so that they don't anger their player base when this does become a more substantial issue in a few months.
  Right now, completely inactive players (i.e., they never log in to the game) who have put very few hours into the game are capable of permanently locking up limited resources. This in of itself is broken. Many housing blocks are now completely full, and there is not a way elegantly add more streets to a block. This has been a typical problem in MMOs since early muds, and the Glitch designers created a particularly nasty variant of the problem for themselves when they created limited public resources that can be owned forever with no required maintenance. On Glitch this problem is conflated by the low barrier to entry into the housing market - in most games I've played with a similar housing model, you need to have at least a couple weeks if not several months worth of play time under your belt before you can make a permanent purchase. On Glitch you can play for a couple days, buy a house, get bored, and never come back.
  We need some basic game design changes to mitigate this and related problems. One or more of these could help:
  - Add more streets to already-full blocks. IMO, this is a band-aid, and will start to look ridiculous after a while.
  - Create a better way for players to intentionally co-locate if they are interested in being in an active neighborhood. The upcoming Group Halls may be the trick. The ability for player groups to purchase/create/imagine their own streets on blocks would be another way to go. I also like the idea posted elsewhere of being able to move one's house, although that would require some underlying infrastructure like house "patches".
  - Change the housing model to raise the barrier to ownership while grandfathering existing owners into their property. This could mean a rental model for all cheap housing with actual purchases being significantly more costly (not just currants, but possibly require collection of construction materials like a Street Project). It could also mean putting cheap housing in skyscrapers only (which can grow a lot without it seeming too weird).
  - Evictions or house destruction with a thematic basis. Add in required maintenance for houses. This could be taxes, rent, fixing up the place with engineering blocks, or something. This seems totally in theme with the game as plants, animals, and even icons need to be maintained. If players know there's consequences for not maintaining a house when they buy, then this alleviates eviction angst.
  I'll also note that if an actual real estate market is added, it will completely change the dynamics of this situation. I suspect Groddle prices would skyrocket if players are allowed to sell directly to each other.
  Posted 13 months ago by mirth | Permalink
- "eventually people who have not played in a very long time and who have no intention of returning to the game will not continue to tie up real estate."
  Notice that not playing in a very long time will not be sufficient reason for removing you from your house.
  @WindBorn: That's a nice sentiment on the part of the Glitch staff, but how do they tell the difference between someone who has not played for a long time and someone who has not played for a long time and has no intention of returning? At some point a likely assumption needs to be made.
  Posted 13 months ago by mirth | Permalink
- WindBorn, thanks for the mention, but we're not all the way there yet on how this will work or when it will even start. The policy, when it is formed, will be sensible.
  Posted 13 months ago by Blanky | Permalink
- mirth, can you describe clearly what situation you are talking about:
  there actually is a situation, right now, and a change is needed so that it doesn't blow up in a few months.
  Also, can you point to data that bolsters this assumption:
  permanently locking up limited resources.
  As far as I can tell, new housing has been added in all of the Groddle areas, both in the form of new blocks in quarters that already exist and in the form of new quarters on streets that previously did not have any.
  In addition, several thousand new homes have been added in outlying areas, and new areas with additional housing have been added.
  I don't see any data that indicates that housing is a limited resource.
  Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- @windborn: Your house is a limited resource in that it is one of a limited number of houses in the 4200 block of Fairgower Lane. If you drop off the face of Glitch, it will be permanently locked up, and that neighborhood will always have one permanently inactive house.
  You are correct in saying there's not a global limit on housing. That is not my concern at all. I would however point out there are aesthetic upper limits on the number of blocks that look reasonable in a housing quarter, and the number of quarters that look reasonable on a public street. Some streets might look weird with housing quarters. Streets and regions will eventually hit upper limits.
  Posted 13 months ago by mirth | Permalink
- @Blanky: Two cheers for sensible! :)
  Posted 13 months ago by mirth | Permalink
- The policy, when it is formed, will be sensible.
  I am absolutely certain of that, Blanky. I have a great deal of a) faith that TS will live up to the philosophies that it has stated for the past year and a half, and b) experience with the delightful ways in which they have done so so far.
  Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- I've said this before and I'll say it again. Someone who has not entered the game for an entire calendar year should have their house go back on the market. A year is long enough to make a reasonable assumption that the player is inactive. Not weeks, not months, but no playing of the game - at all - for a whole year.
  When I raised the issue a few threads ago, my concern was that TS should make a decision and announce the policy beforehand, even if they didn't necessarily intend to follow through on it for awhile. What would be unfortunate would be making the above decision and then implementing it with only a month or so warning. There should be the year threshold, and it should be announced a year ahead of time. 'zall I'm sayin'.
  Posted 13 months ago by WalruZ | Permalink
- I'd say 3-6 months as it's clearly unfaithfulness to the game. Not to mention also giving chance to new players.
  In all fairness, you will get an email about it beforehand.
  Posted 13 months ago by Jyojyo | Permalink
- @ Jyojyo how is being gone 3-6 months considered "clearly unfaithfulness to the game"? There is a number of reasons one may gone from the game and that does not demonstrate unfaithfulness!!! How about someone that works in the military that is deployed and unable to even get close to the internet? How about someone that has chronic illness? How about the person that their computer blows up and they don't have the money to replace it quickly? There are many possibilities that real life steps in and grabs you by the hair and pulls you in. That does NOT equal unfaithfulness!
  Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose | Permalink
- Like I've said before, this sounds an awful lot like "That person has MY house, and they haven't played in a week and I wannnnnt it and whyyyyy do they get to have it bcz they don't appreciate what they have and they don't deserve it but I do and I should get to have it so they should lose their house to suit my own ends". It's a childish-ass way to play, and no, there is no "situation" here aside from people wanting very specific things that others have and getting jealous. I agree that people who don't play for, say, 18 months should probably lose their houses; but it's a little too early right now to assume one knows anything about what others are doing, let alone to be in a tizzy over it. Blanky's said they're working on a policy- so let it go. TS will get it sorted, and I'm sure if anybody has beef with the way they handle it there will be another 50 "WHYYYY???" threads then. Until that time, all you can really do is wait, and be satisfied with the knowledge that, while you may envy somebody else their house, there's nothing you can do, and bitching and moaning isn't gonna change that.
  Posted 13 months ago by Djabriil | Permalink
- Yeah... sorry, this argument always comes down to: "But I want THAT house. Not some exact replica of that house. I want THAT HOUSE. I DESERVE IT! I play more, and I am a better neighbor. I am a better glitch and I am more generous to my community! I WANT THAT HOUSE. I deserve that house MORE THAN THE PERSON WHO BOUGHT IT AND LIVES IN IT!"
  Why is it unreasonable for people to respond to that line of thinking with: "No. I'm terribly sorry, but you cannot have that house. Instead, you can have any of these other houses."
  Posted 13 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Exactly Djabrill. And Xev too. :: nods in support ::
  Posted 13 months ago by ♪♥~ Auren ~♥♪ | Permalink
- i live in groddle meadow
  in a house of good grey stone
  if nobody is with me
  i'm happy there alone
  if i were king of alakol
  i'd relocate my throne
  to a house in groddle meadow
  that's built of good grey stone.
  Posted 13 months ago by flask | Permalink
- But you are not king. Only I can be king. And I shall call myself, EMPRESS OF UR.
  Posted 13 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @Djabrill / @Xev / @Miso George:
  I am mystified how "we have a concern about the impact on the game if houses are not freed up if a player doesn't log in for several months or a year" seems to translate into "if you are gone for a week, I want to take your house from you."
  Posted 13 months ago by mirth | Permalink
- mirth, because you're already worried about inactive payers, but the game isn't old enough for anyone to be ruled inactive yet.
  your serious premature call for grabbing of real estate betrays your intent.
  Posted 13 months ago by flask | Permalink
- The OP claims that people who have been gone less than 8 weeks are creating a serious problem. The problem appears to be that they still own houses.
  Many of us don't believe that there is a problem after less than 8 weeks. However, those who do believe there is a problem are already proposing to take back those houses. Those of us who oppose that solution are saying that it is fairly clear that the main point seems to be that people want to take away other people's houses.
  Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- @flask: I am worried about the long term impacts of players who are inactive for several months. I enjoy discussing game policy and game design. Could you please be more specific about whatever hidden motive you seem to think I have?
  @WindBorn: Yeah, I agree that the 8 week thing is way too fast. The only reason I am talking about this now because I think it's worth discussing what the right timeline is so that TS can communicate a policy to the player base sooner rather than later.
  Posted 13 months ago by mirth | Permalink
- @ Mirth. Here is the bottom line laid out nice and pretty for you by Ms Xev!
  Yeah... sorry, this argument always comes down to: "But I want THAT house. Not some exact replica of that house. I want THAT HOUSE. I DESERVE IT! I play more, and I am a better neighbor. I am a better glitch and I am more generous to my community! I WANT THAT HOUSE. I deserve that house MORE THAN THE PERSON WHO BOUGHT IT AND LIVES IN IT!"
  Nicely put Xev!
  Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose | Permalink
- it's worth discussing what the right timeline is so that TS can communicate a policy to the player base sooner rather than later.
  So, the staff statement two days ago that they "don't think we're *quite* at the point where this is an issue yet", is an insufficient response? Or you just don't believe that they know enough about game development and don't recognize a real problem even after months of forum posts?
  [For example this post from 10 months ago: good point about people that have abandoned the game. Maybe after a really extended time and someone has not played, their house could be repossessed.]
  I admit I'm baffled by people who don't believe that TS staff know how to do their jobs. Especially people who have never built and sold a project for tens of millions of dollars, like TS staff have already done.
  Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- @Casombra Amberrose: That utterly fails to capture my argument or motive. I don't want anybody else's house.
  @WindBorn: I think that TS is generally doing a great job with Glitch. For what it's worth, I've been a player of, coder for, and administrator of online multiplayer games for more than 20 years, including muds and MUSHes that faced similar problems with player-owned properties. I have been involved in delivering successful multi-million dollar projects and I presently work in the online gaming industry. But none of that should matter. These forums exist in part so that we can offer feedback to TS. They want to hear from all players, not just the ones who happen to have relevant resumes. Suggesting that anyone shouldn't share my ideas on here because they are unqualified is absurd.
  I'm likely going to exit this thread shortly because responding to ad hominem arguments creates dukkha.
  Posted 13 months ago by mirth | Permalink
- <waves at mirth> cya!
  Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose | Permalink
- Not this issue again.
  This quote kind of summarizes it for me:
  "I think the worst thing is having everyone on your street be completely inactive."
  Okay. You think that.
  Great.
  I, on the other hand, don't care about living on a dead street. I really don't care at all.
  My absence of an opinion is just as valid as your having one.
  So, it's the worst thing for you; it's a non-issue for me.
  I think when implementing a feature, it should be for all of us.
  And this suggestion does not benefit all Glitches.
  Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot | Permalink
- <cheers Crashtestpilot> nice quote!
  Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose | Permalink
- @WindBorn in the future i will precede everything i say with an "i think" as to properly convey what i'm saying is indeed only in my opinion while also including a disclaimer that says "in no way do i think i would do a better job than Tiny Speck. i am a mere stray speck of feces on their incredibly formidable yet fashionable shoes". i'll also be furiously writing to every critic in the world that they have no right criticize anything unless they themselves are in the same occupation/position of whatever they are criticizing.
  @Xev mirth has basically said everything that would be my response and i have already stated why there is an housing issue. i don't care to reiterate. stating that TS shows lack of forethought is not disrespect unless you are of the opinion that any critique at all is disrespectful. as demonstated by this staff response here and here they do not have a solid policy in mind concerning this. the fact that don't already have a policy in place for something that is so polarizing and conflict inducing to their playerbase is why i questioned their game planning.
  @mirth thank you.
  i continue to be entertained by the vitriolic spewed over this. it's a very serious issue our virtual houses, no respectful manner of speaking may exist here.
  it positively can't be that we are thinking about the health of the game in the long term, no it has be in self interest. i think that conveys more about your worldview and how you operate than it does ours. the failure of those who were venomously against this discussion to address the situation of newbies being locked out of certain regions which is on course to occurring is, i think, also very telling.
  disclaimer: in no way do i think i would do a better job than Tiny Speck. i am a mere stray speck of feces on their incredibly formidable yet fashionable shoes.
  Posted 13 months ago by Fur | Permalink
- @Pink Taco, et al:
  I hear you. And I agree that it's an issue that should continue to be discussed. All I'm getting at is that in light of how many major game changes are slated for the near future, it's really, really hard to predict how this will be an issue moving forward.
  I'm not saying it won't be an issue. I'm saying it probably won't be the same issue. I think the stakes are going to change a lot, and I think the physical "location" of homes are going to change. I think the very definition of "house" that we have now... yep, it's gonna change.
  In light of that, and in light of the fact that the game has been live for all of a month and a half, I don't agree that we need to come up with a resolution RIGHT NOW, or that this is an URGENT ISSUE, or that lack of definition and resolution around this issue demonstrates a lack of forethought.
  I don't think it's fair to demand that the developers of this game explain their motives and plans moving forward. I think they've done a lot to explain what they're planning on doing, and any more is going to become a pretty major spoiler. They are not obligated to tell us every single thing they're working on.
  I DO agree however, that any sort of policy that is put in place to address these issues should be transparent, and as Blanky said, reasonable. I have absolutely no doubt that they will be.
  There are a number of players that are getting seriously riled up about this and making this issue a few things it isn't:
  1) An issue of supply and demand that is not being met, that housing is a finite resource. Housing as a WHOLE is a pretty much infinite resource. THAT HOUSE right there on that street in that quarter is not (we are agreed on this point).
  2) There is an increasing number of "inactive" players who are creating a problem in neighborhoods. This is not a current problem. It MIGHT become a problem in the future, but it is not one now. We also do not have any comprehensive data about this at this point to form any reliable conclusion.
  3) That housing is and always will be defined in the way it is currently existing in the game. We know that new housing expansions and concepts are coming up soon. The way we understand housing is about to change.
  A lot, (not all), of the players who are advocating for eviction are indeed doing it because they want THAT house and they want it NOW. It's an issue of greed. That's not to say that they don't raise a good point that will need to be addressed. Nor that we can't talk about it now. But we've been talking about this a LOT. We can keep talking about it, and Blanky can keep coming in to all of these threads and patiently saying, "guys, relax, we're on this," and it doesn't change anything.
  Ya'll will keep insisting that you're right, and the people who disagree with you are wrong. I'm not saying people shouldn't get evicted from their houses, period. I'm saying that in light of the information we have about housing as a concept changing pretty radically in the coming months and new year, it's kind of a moot issue.
  We can't really make these distinctions right now, because the data we're working with is insufficient. It's too early to see what the real problems are and where they lie, and it's too early to say what housing actually is in this game.
  Posted 13 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I LOVE YOU ALL!
  Posted 13 months ago by Aero | Permalink
- Especially Xev. Always Xev.
  Posted 13 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- the WORST thing would be living on some street where people were always leaving notes and stand around making chitchat.
  when i come home to my lovely street i just want to go in my house and not deal with my neighbors.
  i have one neighbor i see coming and going; she lives on the other end of the street and we do not make chitchat and that's the way we like it. she's perfectly lovely and my idea of a dream neighbor: quiet, polite, and she leaves me alone.
  it would be so tedious to have to live on a street where i had to plow through some social gathering when i go in and out.
  i'm sorry; was there a problem?
  Posted 13 months ago by flask | Permalink
- Hahahaha flask that's how I am IRL. XD
  in-game though I think gatherings are kind of nice. Not if they're forced though.
  Posted 13 months ago by ♪♥~ Auren ~♥♪ | Permalink
- @flask
  Love the poem. Groddle Meadow represent!
  You're probably lucky you don't live on my block, though. I'm a chatty neighbour, but also fine if people want to skeedadle and have their alone time.
  Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky | Permalink
- Wait: Here's that argument again:
  "Newbies locked out of certain areas?"
  Dude.
  You can walk there.
  You can teleport there.
  You might not have a HOUSE there.
  But there are other areas that are nice.
  Using what newbies might think/feel as a strawman is not a logical argument.
  They're newbies.
  They will adapt, as did we all, to the world we have.
  Which is ever growing, ever expanding.
  Again: Limited resources is not inherently bad. It's just limited.
  What you think that means is your own interpretation.
  Again, there are many playstyles.
  Mine is not always yours. Yours is not always mine.
  I don't want to live in Groddle.
  If I did, I would put up a few million currants until I found a willing seller.
  I would make it work.
  Or at least I would try.
  This is not an egalitarian game. Some will always have more resources because we got here first. Or second. Or third.
  But this is an ever-growing world.
  Stop worrying about new players and what they want.
  Because you're not that new player.
  You're here in the first chapter of an ongoing saga.
  You were either alpha, beta, or a recent arrival.
  In a game that's fewer than a few months old.
  Comes down to Xev's quote (I want that!).
  Which is silly, a bit petulant, deeply impatient, and ultimately, non-productive.
  Let's let the brilliant giants solve the real estate issue for all of us.
  Oh, and BTW, there is no real estate issue.
  There are many houses.
  But some of them are smaller than you would like, or located in areas you do not wish to live.
  More will come.
  Please chill out.
  Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot | Permalink
- Separate idea:
  If we had keyed access to a house, wherein one could give out keys to a shared house, that would allow a TONNE (metric) of collaboration between glitches.
  Multifamily homes!
  You could work shifts on the garden, coordinate to your hearts content, share resources, have arguments about where to dump stuff on floors, and deal with roommates!
  Yay!
  Which would keep you safely away from us misanthropes who don't want to read notes, take orders, be organized by others, and the other million tragedies of the commons.
  But it would give you more social types plenty of drama to feed off of.
  Which may in fact be what you want.
  So let's implement shared housing!
  Woo!
  Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot | Permalink
- No thanks to shared housing Crashtestpilot! I am a girl that likes my quiet existence in my home! I don't like to put up with misguided friendly neighbors either.. please shoo! However I am not completely an introvert! I choose how and when I like get social like going to Xev's Splanking Party! Wooo hoooo now that was fun and I plan to attend again! When I am home I enjoy being left alone but when I am out in the world.. THAT is when I enjoy socializing!
  Perhaps community halls will make the social type happy.. but I doubt it. I think there will be more discussions about "seemingly inactive homeowners and wahhhhh I want their house" threads.
  Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose | Permalink
- I only note that atm there are no listed houses over 7000 currants for sale.
  The housing market looks fairly static to me .
  Posted 13 months ago by Morgana | Permalink
- <scratches her head and looks at Slide> what in heavens name does that recipe have to do with Glitch housing? Although that looks yummy!
  Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose | Permalink
- I think I will just stick to my Awesome Stew.
  Posted 13 months ago by Bunni3 | Permalink
- i believe it's a spam link meant to drive traffic to a different site.
  Posted 13 months ago by flask | Permalink
- "I only note that atm there are no listed houses over 7000 currants for sale.The housing market looks fairly static to me ."
  At the moment, it's 11:49am. Time seems pretty static to me. I guess I'll never get to eat lunch. :(
  Posted 13 months ago by Xev | Permalink

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next