OMGUSFTW!
I suggest everyone have a look at the closing credits of the anime. I'm sure this is the tone that Tar is trying to set.
*dances*
You started off saying that you should die before Day 4, and I understand why it would be best for you to die on Day 1 if there is something nasty coming - that is, it saves us having to lynch you rather than some obvscum on Day 3, or whatever.Seraphim wrote:@Percy
After the day's interrogations are done, do you plan on having me lynched or would you rather target someone else as today's lynch?
This was your votepost on Seraphim. Was this a typo, or am I missing something? Are you referring to the lynch as a 'treat'? I don't get it.....DGB wrote:OK - I don't like to delay treats.
...to this:FL wrote: I'm still debating whether I'll join this wagon or not. It will basically deprive us of a lot of D1 information.
... in 5 posts and less than 2 hours? You identified correctly that this move would deprive us of information, but decided to push for the lynch. You say that you were backing up your words with action - if that's the case, then great. However, you did put him at (what you thought was) L-2, which is horribly close to an early lynch. How could all this go through your mind in that time? What was the winning argument?FL wrote:Ta hell with it.
Un FoS, FoS Seraphim
Unvote, Vote Seraphim
Quoted for emphasis.DGB wrote:forbiddanlight is scum. We'll lynch her tomorrow.
I do.Budja wrote:Does anyone else apart for Trumpet of Doom actually want to scumhunt?
Congratulations on your "new" idea....afatchic 75 wrote:Okay i have a new idea, since this situation seems to be spurring conversation, and would probably lead to some good scumhunting, i don't like the idea of settling with a seraphim lynch. i think we should scumhunt like normal, and not worry about seraphim. If no one seems scummy enough for a lynch by deadline, we can always lynch seraphim then. But i think real scumhunting, and lynching scum here would be best.
Firstly, his position was that scumhunting needed to happen - yet he did none of it. I can't really blame him too much on that, since I've done a similar thing today (though I certainly wouldn't have let today go to a lynch I wasn't supportive of without saying something).afatchic 124 wrote:So just curious... what happened to FL? was she day vigged, mod killed, or something she said got her killed? was it something to do with her role as the reason she died, or was it something else?
I'm really confused at the moment.
Honestly, we have no idea. If he was scum, and the mafia knew what would happen, then the scum would want to support his wagon. However, many players (such as, for example, the confirmed townies roffman and DGB) were participating in the wagon for lazy, irresponsible reasons. This environment is perfect for scum to hide in.veerus wrote:What are the chances that Seraphim was scum? I'm starting to think it's quite possible.
Three more people decide to jump on and spun us a story about a prophecy, without mentioning that it was self-fulfilling.forbiddanlight wrote:L-2 is very easy to make L-0. L-1 just makes it easy for scum to end discussion.
Do I agree with the argument? Yes, of course, it follows logically from its premises. If the lynch is a foregone conclusion, then no others need to feel scared of being lynched. As this is the town's only daytime weapon, we are left with nothing to do for the Day. Therefore, it does not affect the town's ability to find scum by ending the day and just getting on with it.ortolan wrote:Percy, in light of posts 129 etc. expressing you dislike Seraphim being lynched so fast: Do you disagree with the argument that if Seraphim's lynch is a foregone conclusion, then one can't really engage in any meaningful scum-hunting for that day anyway, so we may as well stop wasting time? If so, why?
I think thTrumpet of Doom wrote:Okay, on a cursory reread, about the only thing I'm really getting caught on is this (post 54):Emphasis mine. If that's not a typo, it's an incredibly bad slip (if afatchic is scum).afatchic wrote:I felt it may actually be better if we just went ahead and lynched him and pretending it was more like a night start,thento talk about the possibility of a vig kill and stuff like that, possibly outing Power roles.
*facepalm*Panzerjager wrote:Who exactly disappeared? I missed that part
Firstly, you're not unimpressed with his conviction. In fact, you point out that his conviction is well founded - he's 95% likely to be right! There are almost certainly scum amongst those who did not participate in the wagon, I agree. veerus is just not confident for the right reasons. But your rebuttal doesn't address the faulty reasons he gave. This is a knee-jerk defence that hasn't been thought out at all.ortolan wrote:I will say I'm very unimpressed by your conviction that "there must be scum in afatchic, malta, budja (and now ortolan)". Reaaaaaaalllllllllly? We are in a 12 player game which usually have 3-4 scum. 3 apparent townies and one unknown are "dead" or "removed". If you select any four random players I'm pretty sure the chance that there's scum among them is about 95%+ anyway. By your logic I could say I'm equally sure that there is at least 1 scum among the 4 players who were not on his wagon.
Tar probably did think about this, but accepted it as a reasonable risk. He may have expected more than what the town offered in terms of an analysis of Seraphim's claim. We could have waited, or he could have been NKed, or a million other things could have happened. Trying to out-guess the mod is not a good way to go, really.veerus wrote:How pro-town his ability could've been? It must be AWESOME to justify the chance of losing 2 townies. Tar MUST have thought of all this. And I just can't think of a pro-town ability that would be that GREAT to compensate for reducing town to 8 on D2 while not being game-breaking, especially in a mini.
I understood your point at the time you were making it - you thought the general atmosphere wasn't pressuring enough with the absence of the lynch. I just don't understand why you didn't consider the alternative - making it into a pressuring atmosphere by taking away the assumption of a Seraphim lynch.Budja wrote:My basic point was that scum-hunting is difficult in such a situation as it is hard to put pressure on any player. I assumed (badly its seems now), that we would get full knowledge of Seraphim's role and still have 10 players by this stage.
Basically, We didn't expect this to happen as a result.
So Yes, the lynch probably was inevitable.
The fact is, you shouldn't be exempt from any analysis of the Seraphim lynch.Percy wrote:Here is the Seraphim wagon:
Seraphim votes (L-6)
DGB votes (L-5)
afatchic votes (L-4)
Panzerjager votes (L-3)
forbiddanlight votes (L-2)
malthusis votes (L-1)
My post 46 condemns the wagon as hasty and unnecessary
veerus agrees
Budja agrees
forbiddanlight unvotes (L-2), but thinks L-2 is appropriate
afatchic posts, does not unvote
DGB posts, does not unvote
malthusis posts, does not unvote
Panzerjager unvotes (L-3)
roffman votes (L-2), describing result as inevitable
Budja votes (L-1), who has come to the same conclusion.
ortolan votes (not counted due to lack of UnFoS), same conclusion.
forbiddanlight disappears, so lynch occurs.
Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this idea being thrown around as if what makes a "Tarhalindur game" is well understood. Does this mean we can work under the assumption of different numbers of scum? Why?ortolan wrote:Then he makes the “sheep” call, and then decries the fact we've already lost a third of our players (you're forgetting this is a Tarhalindur game)
Okay, I see your point now. What it boils down to is that you don't think those who participated in the Seraphim lynch should have any special scrutiny applied to them because of this participation.ortolan wrote:My point was that he is 95% likely to be right but trivially so, because you are very highly likely to get scum in any group of 4 players, so in saying he thinks there is probably scum among the four players on the wagon he is basically telling us nothing, and I wonder what his reasons for trying to isolate these players to begin with are.
This is veerus' reasoning:ortolan wrote:I do not understand what this comment is based on. Please explain.Percy wrote:veerus is just not confident for the right reasons. But your rebuttal doesn't address the faulty reasons he gave. This is a knee-jerk defence that hasn't been thought out at all.
Your reply was that there probably were scum in the wagon, but no information could be extracted from them about this issue. veerus seems to be saying that the lynch was great for the scum. I'm not so sure about the death of Seraphim itself being great for scum, but I certainly think that the waste that was Day 1 was great for scum. Do you agree with me or veerus, or do you have some other opinion?veerus wrote:I'm having problems with Seraphim's role. 1) his ability may be great for town in the future. But 2) the town ended day 1 super-fast based on his claim and got absolutely no information out of it. On top of that, we lost 2 townies overnight. How pro-town his ability could've been? It must be AWESOME to justify the chance of losing 2 townies. Tar MUST have thought of all this. And I just can't think of a pro-town ability that would be that GREAT to compensate for reducing town to 8 on D2 while not being game-breaking, especially in a mini.
So based on that line of reasoning, I'm inclined to think that there were at least one scum on the Seraphim bandwagon.
This assumes that the Seraphim lynch was pro-town, and those who opposed it were scummy. We don't even know if Seraphim was telling the truth, let alone whether it will be good for the town in the end. If Seraphim was revealed to be town, then you would be right - though statements that start with "If I were scum, this would (or would not) be my play" are fairly WIFOM.ortolan wrote:After Seraphim claimed, what would scum want us not to do? Lynch Seraphim. What would want to do after he was lynched? Try to get the people on his wagon lynched, using justification like veerus'.
Please point out where I make this accusation in 129. You'll find that I don't, at all.Percy wrote:I realise in fact the gist of Percy's 157 is entirely different. In fact it's pretty much entirely at odds with Post 129 where he suggests the manner of the Seraphim wagon was scummy as all hell.
Percy wrote:@Panzerjager: Now that you've done a complete reread of yesterday and all the posts leading up to the reply you're about to make, which players are scum, and why?
You kept your vote on Seraphim without continuing to participate in the discussion of his lynch. I'd like to know why you continued to vote for him, given that your last discussion of your vote was post 66, which was a defensive post.Percy wrote:Saying 'it's inevitable' and actively making it so is bad enough. Not addressing the arguments of why it'sbad,not inevitableand thereforeshould be actively stoppedis ridiculous. It's either pro-scum or anti-town.
I don't see the contradiction.ortolan wrote:So, you think the wagon was scummy, but you equally want to investigate the people not on the wagon? Even if you hadn't contradicted yourself here you need to be far more specific- why was the manner in which the wagon proceeded scummy?
That was the post where I said this in summary (after posing questions that are still unanswered):ortolan wrote:Yes, I agree with this, and I wonder if we are talking at cross purposes. While you've contradicted post 129, I do pretty much agree with the content of 157.
If you don't agree with that, what do you agree with?Percy wrote:Of all the lynchers, afatchic (now zwet) is top of my scumlist, but the others are not far behind.
Simplifying my arguments make them easier to attack. Don't do it.ortolan wrote:This, again, contradicts your assertion that the wagon was somehow inherently scummy.Percy wrote:I admit that the probability of all the scum being on the wagon is the same as all the scum being off it, all things considered.
(emphasis added)ortolan wrote:Voting for the wagonwas not inherently all that scummy- two of those who voted for him are now confirmed town. Rather than broad generalisations and modguessing, you should look at each player's motivations, their reasons (or lack thereof) for contributing to the wagon, and so forth. If you want to make an argument against each of those players, then actually do it.
So, you were already in 11 games when you replaced into this one. Now you're in 12. I asked for this:Moratorium, from [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?t=10103&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=]Prisoner's Dilemma Mafia II[/url] wrote:Games zwets is currently in
Sushi Mafia! Day 5
Prisoner's Dilemma Mafia II
open 122 - Near Vanilla (day 1)
Mini 746: Speed Dating Mafia - Hour 1 - Love is in the Air!
Martyr Mafia - Day Two!
Open 111 - Immunity Mafia: Day 2, see who was killed!
Open 120 - Rebels in the Palace - Day 1
Mini 734 - GrimMafia
Open 121: Two of Four (b9) - Night 1
-Xylbot- Game in progress: Day 2 - 16 players alive.
Mini 725: Mafia in Happiville! Night 3 - Actions in 48 hours
I doubt you're even reading this game. I doubt you're reading any of your games.
Why are you even here? Why did you bother to offer to replace in?
...any comments? Or are you just too busy to play this game in a way that can help the town find scum?Percy wrote:I will thereforeFoS: zwetschenwasseruntil he delivers some scumhunting and analysis. Then, and only then, can you shake off the horrible stench of afatchic's anti-town BS.
If you read carefully, you'll find that that's not my case at all. Nice misrep, though.zwetschenwasser wrote:So... half of your case is that my predecessor was outspoken and the other half is that I'm in a lot of games. Makes perfect sense, Percy.
Simply changing your opinion, divorced from context, is a null tell. Changing your poorly expressed opinions to even more poorly expressed, and possibly scummy, opinions is a scumtell.zwetschenwasser wrote:Changing opinions is a null tell.
They were reset. Why do you want to talk about this? How about I quote this for you for thePanzerjager wrote:What happened to the votes?
Percy wrote:@Panzerjager: Now that you've done a complete reread of yesterday and all the posts leading up to the reply you're about to make, which players are scum, and why?
Panzerjager wrote:Ortolan and Zwet are scum. I already went into why Orto is scum. Zwet is scummy because of afatchic who was incredibly scummy before she left. I answered this.
Percy you're voting me for not answering but I clearly answered the question before hand. and you're commenting on me not reading when you not realizing that the answer was clearly put out there.
FoS:Percy
Vote:Ortolan
Possible distancing here.
Er, let's start with most of the questions I posed to you in 176.ortolan wrote:Percy: which questions have I failed to answer?
Let's take a look at what I actually said, yes?ortolan wrote:I have. It is scummy to encourage town to tunnel on those on those on Seraphim's wagon. Thus I am currently critiquing you.Percy (176) wrote:And if there is something, why haven't you started talking about it?
I guess your answer says "there was nothing else to talk about at the start of the day, except the wagon. Therefore, I'm going to jump on whoever wants to talk about the wagon". This makes no sense.Percy wrote:Also, seriously, how else did you want a conversation to get started today?What else was there to talk about?And if there is something, why haven't you started talking about it?
Percy wrote:Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this idea being thrown around as if what makes a "Tarhalindur game" is well understood. Does this mean we can work under the assumption of different numbers of scum? Why?
ortolan wrote:Percy is not playing consistently with what I've seen from him previously. He seems very keen to justify his case against zwet but it doesn't change the fact that zwet is an easy target and he's acted no differently to his usual games- afatchic being flip floppy isn't exactly a scum-tell either. I've played with him before and he is, you know, kind of like that.
Firstly, let me say that ortolan, zwet and I are currently in another game together. Given that the three of us are all still alive, it makes this meta analysis kinda completely bullshit.ortolan wrote:lol the way zwet is acting is entirely consistent with other games I've seen him in- I know Percy knows this also.
Percy is scum.
The zwet bandwagon is rotten to the core.
Then again, a few days later:Percy wrote:Now he's been replaced by zwet. I will thereforeFoS: zwetschenwasseruntil he delivers some scumhunting and analysis. Then, and only then, can you shake off the horrible stench of afatchic's anti-town BS.
A few days later:Percy wrote:My FoS is staying where it is. Zwet was top of my scumlist when he was afatchic, now all I get is a blurry zwet-read. He claims to have generated content, but it's not really anything useful.
My case: No analysis, no scumhunting, defensive play, active lurking, lack of any contributions, no attempt to address or correct any of these issues. And now we can add misrepresentation, as he addressed none of these, instead saying:Percy wrote:The fact remains that I don't think you're playing this game in a way that is helping us find scum. Your posts seem to be based on quick reads of people, without any real analysis.
Now you say there's not much to comment on when I say "hey, you should do some scumhunting and analysis". And then you defend yourself, and defer to ortolan.
I think you're actively lurking - posting a lot, but nothing of substance. I think the fact that you're in a lot of games has something to do with that. If you insist that it's not, and that you can handle playing all these games, then actually play this one.
In response:zwetschenwasser 181 wrote:So... half of your case is that my predecessor was outspoken and the other half is that I'm in a lot of games. Makes perfect sense, Percy.
And he continues in fine form:Percy wrote:You know what else is a scumtell? Posting one-sentence defences that misrepresent the case against you, and that being youronly contributionto the game in recent (and almost all) posts.
zwetschenwasser 189 wrote:See? That's your case! Afatchic was indecisive, so you must me scum!
Keep saying it, maybe it will come true!zwetschenwasser 208 wrote:UnFoSPercy's case is that I'm in too many games and that afatchic was a freak.
You had only said it once before this post, and it's OMGUS bullshit, really. You haven't said why, you've just asserted that my case is scummy without analysing anything I've said. You've consistently tried to oversimplify everything that is critical of you. Your response to Trumpet's misrep call was "no it's not". Your response to Budja's claim that you are behaving scummily was "that's not true". Now you're not even paying attention to what's going on in this game. Well, that's what I assume since you flatly state that things are true when they're not - your playstyle would make being scum a breeze!zwet wrote:everyone's asking me to give my opinions on who's scum when I've said at least twice that I think you are.
Are you seriously askingortolan wrote:Are you seriously asking zwet this?Percy (231) wrote:So what is it, zwet? Are you an idiot, or are you scum?
zwet has offered more personal opinions and contributed more to Prisoner's Dilemma Mafia II than he has to this game. Most people think he's town there, and with good reason.ortolan wrote:Do you honestly think any of these points are legitimately deviant from zwet's meta? Genuine question (although you're scum )
You claim to have made it clear. Here are your posts before this one addressing this issue:zwet wrote:Trumpet, I think I made it clear enough that I think Percy is scum, because of this case that isn't based on my playstyle, but on his adding words to his read of it.
zwet wrote:So... half of your case is that my predecessor was outspoken and the other half is that I'm in a lot of games. Makes perfect sense, Percy.
How is it clear that you think I'm scum? It's clear that you don't like the case against me (which you misrepresent to add more weight to your dismissal), but that's it. This is pure, pure OMGUS.zwet wrote:See? That's your case! Afatchic was indecisive, so you must me scum!
zwet wrote:UnFoSPercy's case is that I'm in too many games and that afatchic was a freak.
Firstly, you had only said it once before this post. And that's it. Nothing but OMGUS.zwet wrote:How many more times do I have to say it then? You're throwing BS at me like "you're active lurking" which is completely untrue, and then everyone's asking me to give my opinions on who's scum when I've said at least twice that I think you are.
Emphasis mine. ortolan is clearly fishing for info.ortolan wrote:and who did you use it on?can you use it this twilight?
Oh, he shouldn't tell now, huh? Why was it OK for him to tell you before?ortolan wrote:Don't tell us who you're going to target tonight yet, it will give scum desired info.
Yeah, it is the pot calling the kettle black. veerus, malty and panzer have been the least involved, whilst budja and I have been the loudest. This analysis is crap.Panzerjager wrote:I'm gonna have to say that the scum team is Percy and Malty. Malty with his complete lack of content(pot kettle I know but your scum).Not sure if there are two scum teamsor if there is a third member. But I have reason to believe we should lynch one of Malty or Percy.
Percy seems to be scum due tohis immediately thinking there are two scum groups and.only scum would have reason to think that due to what could possibly be part of his role PM
Hahahahahahaha oh wow. In that post, I considered both three scum and four scum. I didn't imply that four scum meant two teams, or even imply it. The only reason you saw it in there was because you know there are possibly two teams, because you're "Alpha Mafia", like Budja.panzerjager wrote:There is No other way for there to be 4 scum in a 12 player game unless town are obscenely powerful. This is essentialy saying their are two scum groups. And there is no reason to suggest the number is any thing but 3 seeing as that is the normal number if there is 1 scum team.percy wrote:If we're looking at 4 scum, we'll be at 6v4 on Day 2. Mislynch, and it's game over. Day 4 never even comes close
So don't give me this BS with the bolded section. You didn't say 2 scum teams but that is implied.
I didn't think it, and there was nothing 'immediate' about the post you quoted. You have it in your role PM, scum. You're backtracking furiously because your stupid smear didn't work.panzerjager wrote:Percy seems to be scum due to his immediately thinking there are two scum groups and only scum would have reason to think that due to what could possibly be part of his role PM.
Do you realise how ironic this statement is?Budja wrote:You are a "watcher/cop" type role then. Oh and look, you just happen have a guilty on me . How very... convenient.
Nice bit of distancing, again. Why on earth do you think Panzer is scum? You've never expressed such sentiments. Last we heard, you didn't know what to think of him.Budja wrote:I am suspecting that Panzer and Percy could be from different scum teams.
I think you mean "give another explanation because I think this is the only one". To that I say, what about last night? There wasn't even close to 4 kills last night. I agree that there were four kill actions on night one, and I'm even willing to consider there being more than one scum group. The abilities in this game are much more complicated than in a normal game, and to say "4 night kills means Vig, SK and 2 scum teams" is a possibility, but certainly not the only conclusion.Budja wrote:Thats 4 NK attempts. SK, Vig and 2 scum groups. Explain that.
I'm not bulletproof. I have no ability to defend myself from night kills. The best I can do is copy myself and kill anyone who kills me, which I didn't do. Either I was protected or your claim is bullshit. Or both!Panzerjager wrote:Percy You're full of shit. You'd be dead. I'm Bulletproof Jack of all trades I shot you last night. Tonight I'm investigating Malty. Also I believe you have that same ability Orto did. I believe both scum. Also you were pretty sure about 4. And whta is the point of bringing it up if you don't think there could be 2 scum teams. It's obvious that you're scum percy.
Can you please indicate to me where I said I was pretty sure it was four scum? Is this it? Because this is not what you're trying to make it sound like. You said what you said because you wanted to find out if there was another scum team, and who it was, because you're in the "Alpha mafia".Percy wrote:If we're looking at 3 scum, we'll be at 8v3 at the start of Day 2. If we mislynch, we'll be at 6v3 at the start of Day 3. Mislynch again, and we're at 4v3 - LYLO. This is a worst case scenario, and in this instance it is (probably) in our advantage to have killed Seraphim early.
If we're looking at 4 scum, we'll be at 6v4 on Day 2. Mislynch, and it's game over. Day 4 never even comes close.
Or, you know, there are other combinations, such as 3 mafia and an SK, which would make things even more complicated.
Until you claimed to have investigated me (and got a guilty, no less) rather than your actual target veerus, I wasn't 100% certain you were scum.Budja wrote:Until your "guilty" on me, I wasn't 100% certain you were scum.
How about I make it real simple for you.Percy wrote:I'm not bulletproof. I have no ability to defend myself from night kills. The best I can do is copy myself and kill anyone who kills me, which I didn't do. Either I was protected or your claim is bullshit. Or both!
(Sidenote: Why the hell would you say "tonight I'm investigating malthy"? That is, without a doubt, the worst use of an investigate power I've ever heard. You don't announce it, guy. Truth is, you have no investigate power. You're scum.)
ROTFLOLPanzerjager wrote:Well I obviously lose this game. Budja and I are Alpha Mafia. Percy is part of Beta Mafia. All the members on both scum teams have the ability to survive 1 kill. This is why The kill makes a difference. Barring a claim we should lynch Malthesis incase he is scum.
This explains why me killing percy means he is scum. He might have his cop ability because
Anyway lynching malthesis is clearly the best opition because Veerus is confirmed town. Also Both me and Percy have chinked our armor off So we'll just shoot eachother tonight. Town has nothing to lose from lynching Malthy.
I guess he picked Day 3...roffman's role PM wrote:Global Roleblock- At the beginning of the game, you MUST choose a game day (Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc.). Any non-lynch action that would resolve during the chosen game day instead fails to resolve, regardless of whether you are alive.
What advantage was there to lynching you on Day 1? Is this relevant to the current discussion?Seraphim wrote:Looking back, I made a fatal, fatal error. I assumed that when I died, I'd be able to use abilities while I was in limbo. This was wrong and I probably should have asked before I tried to gambit. However, I'm glad I came back when I did...this was probably the only benefit from me returning from the dead.
I LOL'd.Panzerjager wrote:I'm scum, why won't you trust me.
What was that ability? Bringing back DGB with no vote power? Was this what we wasted a lynch for?Seraphim wrote:I have another ability but will not reveal it until tomorrow(if there is a tomorrow) as it will play no role in anything unless it goes through.
Or was there no calamity, simply that you could talk to dead people and the ability switches off on Day 4?Seraphim wrote:From my role information, killing me before day 4 will be really good for the town.
When I asked for info, you said:Seraphim wrote:Percy is Beta scum. I have this confirmed from several sources.
This seems more bizarre, the more I think about it. You say you have me asSeraphim wrote:I could give you more info but I think that you're scum especially since you're firing all your effort in discrediting me rather than scum-hunting.
The day started with Tarhalindur posting post 127. He posted three times in between then, so that's 53 posts in one deadline. We were told to pick up the posting.Tarhalindur 183 wrote:You pass the First Mod Deadline Review. Pick up the posting, or you won't pass the Second.
...and there were 52 posts. So it's possible we need to post 50 times in a week to pass the review.Tarhalindur 237 wrote:Second Mod Deadline Review... passed, barely. Final Day 2 Deadline set (see below). - Tar.
This is odd, it seems to have sprung from nowhere (your willingness to lynch me, that is). You were doing a "stand back and analyse from a distance" thing before, and with no case or opinion expressed you're now willing to kill me off?Trumpet of Doom wrote:if it's just another VC error, I'd be happy to hammer.