After producing 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromo-phenethylamine hydrobromide from 2,5-DMPEA, is it necessary to convert the hydrobromide into the hydrochloride? Are there benefits related to this conversion that would justify the effort? (Such as stability in storage, etc...)

Thanks,

-eg

According to Shulgin, the hydrochloride is less soluble and can precipitate more readily. Thus the hydrochloride is easier to deal with.



But beware:


So Shulgin's recommendation is to produce a concentrated solution of the acetate from the freebase and then exploit the low solubility of the hydrochloride to produce a clean, crystalline product. The advantage of the anhydrous hydrochloride will be its straightforward behaviour under analytical conditions, especially a clear melting point.

Also:

So the hydrochloride would be 'safer' if frequently consumed to excess!

Thanks, I've been reviewing shulgins route, which isn't that much different from the other technical workups I've been reviewing, it's all basically just dissolve your 2,5-DMPEA in GAA, dissolve elemental bromine in GAA, combine, there's an exothermic reaction, then you have the hydrobromide...

Here's the HCL via PIHKAL;shulgin:
The happiest route is to form the insoluble hydrochloride salt by way of the free base. The entire mass of acetic acid-wet salt was dissolved in warm H2O, made basic to at least pH 11 with 25% NaOH, and extracted with 3x100 mL CH2Cl2. Removal of the solvent gave 33.7 g of residue which was distilled at 115-130 °C at 0.4 mm/Hg. The white oil, 27.6 g, was dissolved in 50 mL H2O containing 7.0 g acetic acid. This clear solution was vigorous stirred, and treated with 20 mL concentrated HCl. There was an immediate formation of the anhydrous salt of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine hydrochloride (2C-B). This mass of crystals was removed by filtration (it can be loosened considerably by the addition of another 60 mL H2O), washed with a little H2O, and then with several 50 mL portions of Et2O. When completely air-dry, there was obtained 31.05 g of fine white needles, with a mp of 237-239 °C with decomposition. When there is too much H2O present at the time of adding the final concentrated HCl, a hydrated form of 2C-B is obtained. The hydrobromide salt melts at 214.5-215 °C. The acetate salt was reported to have a mp of 208-209 °C. -shulgin; PIHKAL

As you mentioned, you still may end up with the hydrate (...if too much water is present when adding the final HCL)

If you don't have to go from benzaldehyde to the nitrostryrene to the amine to your final product, and are starting with ready 2,5-DMPEA, then obtaining the hydrobromide is nearly effortless!...Though I'm starting to think the HCL is the way to go, it's not all that difficult to obtain the HCL, but it is a bit of extra time and labor...Though most will tell you 30mg of the hydrobromide is equal to 25mg of the HCL as far as psychoactivity is concerned, which is significant, but may not be significant enough to justify the conversion to the HCL...

...I understand why the inactive 2C-H was scheduled, because from 2C-H to any 4 position halogen substituted 2,5-dimethoxy-phenethylamine is a breeze (even the 4-alkylated 2,5-dimethoxy-phenethylamine compounds are fairly simple), well, 2c-I is a bit more difficult, but still fairly simple, the halogen (row 7a of the periodic table) all have one gap in their atomic shell, which the desperately want to fill, and 2,5-DMPEA serves this purpose perfectly...

---

Comments on conversion of 2c-b hbr to 2c-b HCL:

https://www.erowid.org/l...e/pihkal/pihkal020.shtml

2g of the HBr was shaken with around 100 ml of water. Lots didn't dissolve. A bit of 25% NaOH was added to make it basic (~ph 12), shaken a lot, and a dark but clear oil started to settle out, All particulates of the HBr had now been dissolved. The oil was extracted 3x with 40ml DCM. The DCM was then removed, leaving a couple of ml of oil.

This was dissolved in 30ml of water with a few drops of acetic acid. In retrospect, this was WAY too much water, because the bit of HCl that was then added caused no crystals to precipitate. Oops. So the beaker was put in the freezer. When it had frozen solid, a buttload of 2c-b HCl crystals were seen suspended in the ice chunk. The entire ice chunk was just plopped in a Buchner and vacuum filtered as it melted. This, after dessication, left 1.17g of very clean looking (just a tiny bit off-white) 2c-b HCl. Bioassay of 25mg felt like, well, 25mg of the HCl.

Another 4g of the HBr was shaken with 100 ml of water, NaOH added until basic, and then oil settled out. Extracted with 3x20 ml DCM. DCM evaporated. This time, much less water was added - about 8 ml of dH2O. Then a few drops (probably about 1 ml) of glacial acetic acid was added, until everything was in solution. The transition between milky half-solution and total solution was pretty obvious, leaving just a little bit of swirly oily crud at the bottom. Then, drops of concentrated HCl were added with swirling. Initially, nothing happened, but then each drop of HCl produced a big chunk of wet crystalline 2c-b HCl in solution. Eventually, the solution was thick with crystals, and more drops of HCl didn't make any more precipitate. This threshold is kinda hard to see - you have to pay close attention to see if a drop makes crystals towards the end, because the whole damn thing is full of crystals already. The mass was vacuum filtered, washed sparingly with a couple ml of dH2O, and dried - this gave about 2.5g of 2c-b HCl.

The filtrate was put back in a beaker and a couple more drops of HCl added. No crystals. OK, so the beaker was then put in the freezer. After it was frozen solid, it was dumped in the Buchner and vacuum filtered while the ice melted. The precipitate was washed with a tiny bit of dH2O and dried, bringing the total yield for the whole 4g of somewhat impure 2c-b HBr to about 3g of very nice looking, slightly off-white 2c-b HCl. The theoretical yield of the HCl should be 3.48g, so the actual yield was 86% from the HBr.

This was my first truly successful high-yield 2c-b synthesis. Previous attempts had used different reductions (like Al/Hg or a combination of NaBH4 and Al/Hg) with little success - like less than a ml of freebase from 20g of styrene. The LAH reduction is what really made good yields possible. Also, in the past, bromination never produced a hunk of crystals, probably because the amount of product was so small. So I had to vacuum off the bromine/GAA goo, then hit it with acetone - which gave a yield of 250 mg 2c-b HBr with a 20g styrene investment. With alot of freebase to brominate, the bromination worked as advertised with that beautiful hunk of crystals.

To others who may try this: making the styrene (or propene) is really easy. I've done it many times for several different benzaldehydes and only screwed up once (and the screwup wasn't even my first time). The real key to doing this right is the reduction. LAH is dangerous, but it seems like it's hard to screw up if you really take care with it. And when you have a lot of freebase going into the bromination, it will behave like you want it to. Also, use the GAA sparingly during bromination; Shulgin uses a bit.

---

Fascinating stuff, any tips, comments, hints, etc... involved with 2cb from 2,5-DMPEA would be much appreciated, thanks for the existing response as well.

-eg

Sorry, but at this point:
No_synthesis_talk_that_uses_dangerous/watched_chemicals_and_procedures

Remember

No synthesis talk that uses dangerous/watched chemicals and procedures
Discussion of simple safe non-commercial synthesis not requiring watched chemicals are tolerated (example: the reduction of DMT N-oxide to DMT with zinc, or the supposed LSA-to-LSH conversion)

This is what is said on the matter, yet DMT is a "watched" chemical (schedule one) as is LSA (schedule three), so it's hard for me to understand where the line is, I mean is review of shulgins and other work so one can understand the chemistry of these compounds inappropriate? Most chemicals in synthesis are dangerous, Ch2cl2, glacial acetic acid, sodium hydroxlde, etc... are all fairly dangerous, so it really is difficult to tell what I can and can't talk about here.

Anyway, my fault.

-eg

Except no one is discussing synthing DMT or LSA, but extracting from plant materials that are either home grown or obtained via grey-market botanicals. As has been stated before, if someone could present evidence of an effective and relatively safe kitchen synth of DMT (or other psychs) for the mods and experienced chemists to review, there's no reason such a route couldn't eventually be posted on the forum.

Risk is inherent to this study, however, the average kitchen chemistry extraction poses less risk to the uninformed than the average synthesis. Mitigating the hazards of working with NaOH or CaOH is much more straightforward than attempting to anticipate all of the potentially hazardous routes that could be an issue with the wide range of synth projects.


In general, you should avoid synthesis discussion on the Nexus. Hope that helps clarify

I can understand that, it only seemed vague to me because regardless if a chemical is extracted from a plant or created in a lab it is still a chemical, and if it happens to be watched or scheduled it is still treated as such, regardless of its source. So saying discussion of LSA extraction or DMT extraction from plants or conversion of DMT-n-oxide into DMT is ok, but discussing synthetic substituted phenethylamine compounds synthesis and going into detail regarding not only what the synth is directing the chemist to do, but why it is directing the chemist to do that is not ok because it's synthesis rather than extraction was where the issue was in my misunderstanding, most chemicals (even solvents and bases used in extraction) are dangerous and most psychoactives are "watched", I figured as long as it was "notebook chemistry" and not actual clandestine synthesis there wouldn't be issues...

...and if I was saying "I'm actually trying to synth this compound" I could see it being an issue, but I'm primarily a notebook chemist and spend a good deal of time reviewing technical workups and attempting to understand the logic behind them, which is generally obvious, such as if you were to ask "why are most 2c compounds halogenated?" I don't think the response "because the halogens (7a) all have one gap in their atomic shell which they wish to fill, making them reactive in a manner perfect for bonding with the 4 position of 2,5-DMPEA" is inappropriate, but that's just me, I'm aware there's a fine Line here, but seriously none of the compounds I study can or should be mixed up by a novice in a kitchen, everything in shulgins books is from 1st to 3rd year organic chemistry level, which means the novice or person in his kitchen trying to make drugs has no business actually trying these things...however I feel it's completely harmless to discuss the chemistry and technical aspects of synthesis of these compounds.


Any way, I'll do my best to respect the rules and regulations of the forum, which I have gone over, I just may have had different interpretations of some of the more vague or murky requirements.

-eg

the war on drugs has changed a lot since the 70s, well strike that, its changed a lot in the past 10 years

No longer do you have cooks , synths with people obtaining regulated and watched precursors like 3,4,5-trimethoxybenzaldehyde. Or anhydrous hydrazine and ergotamine, the synths were never too difficult, there was high demand for the one-step reaction precursors.

Today it is different, today there is no need for synth, I doubt DEA or any policing agencies could care less about precursors. Today its all about the analogues, the research chemicals. All the drugs come pre-synthed from china prepared for the average citizen or drug distributers consumer needs.

We're talking the specific meaning of watched here, as in on the DEA's watched list.

EG, we appear to have a hobby in common

We don't differentiate here, as it's the internet and a "notebook chemist" is essentially no different than a SWIMmer, regardless of "the truth" in either case.


Come on now. No one else seems to struggle with this in the sense that you claim to. Most people (especially with actual chem knowledge) grasp the sentiment expressed, but allow me to clarify. If you are unsure on whether or not it's ok to post, don't post it

So, to reiterate, only post about things that you are entirely certain are allowed on the Nexus. That way we don't have to worry about your murky interpretations leading to accidental violations of the attitude and you are responsible for reigning in your own interpretational exceptionalism. Problem solved!

Notebook chemistry and lab work are in fact two separate practices.

"Swimmers" as you call them are concerned with "how to" aspects, they simply want to know what to do to make a compound, I.e. step by step guides, mix this to get that type of stuff, I have no interest in this, I'm interested on the chemistry itself, I'm interested in chemical structures, reactions, and theory. I'm in my second year of organic chemistry, so I'm not Daniel trachsel or David Nichols, but please don't try to imply that I'm not knowledgeable in chemistry, I've been nothing but polite, and the rule that I was discussing (and keep in mind I was never disputing it, simply explaining myself, I said it was my fault and that I would not let it happen again) actually is is somewhat contradictory:

No synthesis talk that uses dangerous/watched chemicals and procedures
Discussion of simple safe non-commercial synthesis not requiring watched chemicals are tolerated (example: the reduction of DMT N-oxide to DMT with zinc, or the supposed LSA-to-LSH conversion)

WATCHED CHEMICALS LIST (from erowid)
Acetaldehyde, Acetamide, Acetaminophen, N-Acetyl Anthranillic Acid, Alumina (activated), Aluminum Chloride, Aluminum Oxide, Aluminum Powder, Ammonium Formate, Ammonium Nitrate, Aniline, pAnisaldehyde, Arsenic Metal, Arsenic Pentoxide, Arsenic Trichloride, Arsenic Trioxide, Benzene, Benzocaine, Biotin, Boron Trifluoride, Bromine, Bromobenzene, Brucine Sulphate, Butylamine gammaButyrolactone, Caffeine, Calcium Metal, Calcium Carbide, Calcium Hydride, Carbon Disulfide, Carbon Tetrachloride, Chloroacetone, Chloroform, 2-Chloropyridine, Chromium Picolinate, Citral, Cyclohexanone, Dichloroacetic Acid, Diethyl Malonate, Diethylamine, Digitonin, Digitoxin, Dihydroxyacetone, Dimethyl Sulfate, Dimethyl Sulfoxide, Dinitrochlorobenzene, Diphenylacetonitrile, Epinephrine, Epinephrine Bitartate, Estradiol, Estriol, Estrone, Ethinyl Estradiol, Ethylacetoacetate, Ethyl Alcohol (190-200 proof), Ethyl Magnesium Bromide, Ethylenediamine, Folic Acid, Formamide, Formic Acid, Freon, Gallic Acid, Glycolic Acid, Guaifenesin, Hexachlorophene, Hexyl Resorcinol, Hydrazine, Hydrazine Dihydrochloride, Hydrazine Hydrate, Hydrazine Sulfate, Hydrobromic Acid, Hydrochloric Acid (ups, nf, fcc grades), Hydrocortisone, Hydrofluoric Acid, Hydrogen Peroxide 30% & 50%, Hyoscyamine, Ibuprofen, Indole, Inositol, Iron Filings, Ketoglutaric Acid, Lactose, Lead Acetate, Lidocaine, Lithium Metal, 3,5-Diiodosalithium, Lithium Acetate, Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Lithium Bromide, Lithium Carbonate, Lithium Chloride, Lithium Chromate, Lithium Citrate, Lithium Cobalt, Lithium Dodecyl Sulfate, Lithium Fluoride, Lithium Hydroxide, Lithium Lactate, Lithium Metaborate, Lithium Nitrate, Lithium Oxalate, Lithium Perchlorate, Lithium Sulfate, Lithium Tetraborate, Lycopodium, Magnesium Metal, Magnesium Turnings, Mannitol, Megestrol Acetate, Mercuric Acetate, Mercuric Bromide, Mercuric Chloride, Mercuric Cyanide, Mercuric Iodide, Mercuric Nitrate, Mercuric Oxide, Mercuric Oxycyanide, Mercuric Sulfate, Mercuric Sulfide, Mercuric Thiocyanate, Mercurous Chloride, Mercurous Nitrate, Mercurous Sulfate, Mercury Bichloride, Methylformamide, Methylprednisolone, Methylpropylarrune, Methylsulfoxide, Methyltestosterone, Miconazole Nitrate, Naproxen Sodium, Niacin, Niacinamide Ascorbate, Nicotinamide, Nifedipme, Nitrofuranation, Nitromethane, Nystatin, Oxalyl Chloride, Palladium Black, Palladium Metal (powder), Palladium on Alumina, Palladium on Charcoal, Papaverine HCl, Peracetic Acid, Perchloric Acid, Petroleum Ether, Phenacetin, Phenol, Phenyl Magnesium Bromide, Phenyl Magnesium Chloride, Phenylalanine, Phenyl Mercuric Acetate, Phenyl Mercuric Borate, Phenyl Mercuric Chloride, Phenyl Mercuric Nitrate, Phenyl Mercuric Salicylate, Phosphorus Oxychloride, Phosphorus Pentachloride, Physostigmine, Phytonadione, Picric Acid, Pilocarpine, Potassium Chlorate, Potassium Cyanide, Potassium Nitrate, Potassium Perchlorate, Potassium Permanganate, Proxamine Hydrochloride, Prednisolone, Prednisone, Pregnenolone, Prilocaine, Procaine, Progesterone, Promethazine Hydrochloride, Propenylbenzene, Propionic Anhydride, Propranolol, Pyridine, Pyridoxal, Pyridoxine, Quinine, Raney Nickle, Reserpine, Riboflavin, Salicylic Acid, Scopolamine, Selenous Acid, Sodium Acetate, Sodium Azide, Sodium Borohydride, Sodium Chlorate, Sodium Chlorite, Sodium Cyanide, Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Iodide, Sodium Metal, Sodium Nitrate, Sodium Nitrite, Sodium Perchlorate, Sodium Peroxide, Sodium Sulfate, Sodium Sulfathiazole, Strychnine, Styrene, Sulfanilamide, Sulfathiazole, Sulfur Trioxide, Theophylline, Thionyl Chloride, TitaniumTetrachloride, p-Toluenesulfonic Acid, o-Toluidine, Trichloroacetic Acid, Trichlorotrifluoroethane, Trifluoroacetic Anhydride, 3,4,5-Trimethoxy Compounds (Any!), Tryptophan, Vitamin A Acetate, Vitamin E, Vitamin E Acetate.

Again, I'm a chemistry student and I love chemistry, I'm fascinated by the technical details involved with synthesis, and I have discussed similar subjects on this forum several times without incident. I once posted shulgins entire DMT synthesis from N,N,N-trimethyltryptammonium-iodide, and asked "since nitrogen only has three gaps in its atomic shell, how can there be one filled by the two-carbon side chain and three filled by methyl groups? What is connecting the third methyl grouping to the amine nitrogen?" And this discussion was 100% ok, yet when I want to understand the finer points of phenethylamine synthesis it's not allowed.

Again, I said I would not do it again and would make an effort to see that I keep my conversations within the designated guidelines, I said it was my fault, only I attempted to explain why I did not think I was in violation of any guidelines, which was my fault, I'll refrain from explanation if it happens again and simply say sorry and move on.

-eg

Are there any other forums (aside from bluelight) where this type of discussion is permitted?

http://sciencemadness.org/

EDIT: forgot a site with a particular niche chemistry focus:
https://www.hyperlab.info/

I understand your frustration entheogenic-gnosis! I just wrote out a lengthy post on Ketonic decarboxylation (acetic acid/phenyl acetone carbanion question) strenuously attempting to keep it vague before realizing who am I kidding this is blatant synth talk and so reluctantly discarded my efforts and queries.

I only wish to enjoy and learn from a discussion with likeminded people who share an interest in O Chem and to be honest there’s only so much one can talk about with DMT extraction!

I know people will make the argument that forums are not democracies and free speech is not a right, but do people not worry that the ‘no synth talk’ rule will maybe drive knowledgeable peeps -who wish to discuss these topics- away from the nexus and only serve to diminish the potential for learning (chemistry) and thus lower the standards of knowledge on this site?

After all is to ban synthesis talk not also to ban the discussion of Organic Chemistry as a whole? For a website primarily concerned with consciousness expansion this seems rather limiting.

I don’t mean to offend any members or moderators by raising this issue as I do realize enforcing the rules is part and parcel of the job and I can accept there are very good reasons for not allowing synth talk especially when it comes to untrained dolts!

Nope

There's plenty to talk about that doesn't require synth discussion and plenty of other places you can go to if you'd like to discuss synth. If someone is so narrowly focused that they only wish to discuss prohibited synths or feel so turned off by such synths being prohibited that they would refuse to engage in discussion with the community about other things, that person probably isn't a great fit for the Nexus.

As far as the potential for learning chemistry, the vast majority of members (myself included) are "untrained dolts" as you so kindly put it, and have a lot to learn that would precede pursuing the types of synths that are banned here. In other words, there is a wide range of chem practices to learn/discuss that are allowed here and I would hope such discussion would encourage those so-inclined to keep seeking more knowledge on their own.

As stated in a prior post, harm reduction really trumps all at this point. We have enough harm reduction to do around the popularization of DMT and extraction without opening up the can of worms that is banned synthesis.

We have a number of professional chemists who have been members for years and have no problems with the no synthesis rule. For me, that is more than sufficient evidence that this policy isn't a detriment to finding chemistry-inclined members who fit in here and help keep the "standards of knowledge" quite high.

I consider myself an amateur hobbyist and an untrained dolt. As a kid I had an interest in chemistry and a small sized experiment kit. My interest was rekindled later in life by some positive entheogenic experiences. After reading some dedicated chemistry websites, the conclusion dawned on me, that making your own lsd is damn hard without proper training, equipment and reagents. Thankfully, mother nature provides us with its own organic chemistry lab in the form of magic mushrooms. No difficult or dangerous chemistry involved. Later, after discovering the botanical sources for dmt and harmalas, my little bit of chemistry knowledge quickly and easily got me up to speed with the teks found here.

The interest in chemistry stayed with me and for many years I have been reading sciencemadness.org's pages that are filled with spirited amateurism. For all these years, I have mostly spend reading and only sparingly worked with glassware. In these years spend reading, I have learned many valuable insghts and pieces of knowedge. One in particular stands out above the rest:

I am very grateful for the existence of sciencemadness.org, because it has (up until now) taught me the most important skill an aspiring chemist can have: how not to blow myself up or poison myself inadvertently. All other mistakes are relatively benign in comparison to those and at most require a cleanup and retry.

On sciencemadness.org, the risks are a core part of the deal and the members try to deal with it in a mature fashion. Risks are discussed openly and rationally instead of dealt with by kneejerk censorship, which you'll find in many other chemistry related forums. Unsafe procedures, kewls, cooks and potentially dangerous baseless speculation are frowned upon. But if people want to discuss potentially dangerous experiments in a responsible manner, they are welcome to join in the discussions.

On dmt-nexus.me, mature and safe use of dmt is discussed. Due to the social and legal constraints, personal scale extractions are deemed the best way to acquire dmt. The risks of chemical procedures are not a core part of the deal, they are an unwanted and mostly unnecessary risk. We should not underestimate the ease with which an eye is lost forever and how quickly a fire can escalate and threaten nearby unsuspecting others.

The risks of some procedures are not immediately obvious to many people and we should put maximal effort into preventing unnecessary risks and minimizing unavoidable ones.

Members of this forum who would like to entertain synthesis discussions that entail risks not deemd acceptable here should all join sciencemadness.org and proceed to have a lively discussion over there. Incidentally, this might help to offset the influx of recent sciencemadnessorg new members, who are blissfully unaware of the fact that many of the early members there were fugitives from the hive.

Snozzle Berry said:


Hum... well maybe you’re right about that…

I didn’t say I refuse to engage in discussion about other things! Of course I am happy to talk about many different things I just genuinely believe synth talk -by which I mean organic chemistry- would enrich the community. That is not a criticism so much as it is an observation or personal perception rightly or wrongly.

I am not demanding I get my way or saying I don’t respect the nexus viewpoint or understand it, I'm simply expressing my own opinion that no synth talk unavoidably means no talk about organic chemistry. I personally think that’s unfortunate.

The reason I made the point was because the OP asked for another place in which he could discuss these things which made me wonder if perhaps the nexus would not be losing a knowledgeable member whom I could learn from.

Snozzle Berry said:


I am also an ‘untrained dolt’ it wasn’t an attack on anyone good sir. This needn’t be turned into a 'with us or against us' kind of thing, and as I said earlier I understand your point of view I just don’t really agree with it, and tend to fall down more on the side of free speech.

I know the answer to this is invariably 'well leave then this isn’t a democracy' but speaking freely that line of argument sometimes just compounds the frustration.

Even if we can’t talk about synthesis I trust we can still talk about not being able to talk about synthesis?


Snozzle Berry said:


Just seems like a waste of professional chemists! Like a big pair of ghost boobies!

It’s not a personal attack dude! Either on you or the nexus. Just expressing an opinion.

Merry Christmas!

Thanx dude great post. I will defo give SM a look over though I dont think I have the energy to join another forum just yet.

I actually have no intention whatsoever of doing any synthesis myself to be honest I just have alot of questions.

Be sure to also check out the hyperlab. I added the url to my earlier post in this thread. It has a higher density of entheogen synthesis discussions, but is also mostly in russian and lacks the broader discussion regarding experimental risk mitigation. The site seems to assume that the reader's skills have risen above the level of the untrained dolt.

Forgive me in advance, as I believe this is going to frustrate you somewhat based on your earlier statements, I just want to make sure it's fully explained



See: The Illusion of Free Speech thread for an explanation of why we don't humor "free speech" arguments here.

For all intents and purposes, the Nexus is The Traveler's playground. He has established the rules and attitude for those who wish to use his playground. It is rather bad form, imo, to show up at someone's playground and say, "Hey man, I don't like your rules and I also don't like being reminded that this is your playground and you have the right to set the rules as you see fit."

There are plenty of other playgrounds and no one is saying you shouldn't go visit them and have fun. No one is even suggesting that you shouldn't play on the Nexus playground. However, if you choose to play on this playground, you accept the rules and play by them, simple as that

I won't show up at your house (virtual or otherwise) and request you adhere to my wants/desires and we should extend Trav the same courtesy.

This isn't about "with us or against us"...this is simply the way it is