Mini 911 - Mike's Pizzeria Mafia (Game Over)

[Seven]

After doing the first couple ISOs in my notes I decided I'm going to wait before actually posting them until they're all finished. And I might be unavailable tomorrow so keep your pants on if I don't post until Friday night.

[Seven]

EBWOP for the long one:

Obviously I meant I don't know if he [SP] is "town", and not "down"...

[danakillsu]

Dana, how hard can it be for scum to submit a random vote? Not one mafia would be afraid of doing the RVS gig. Also, how is aggressiveness bad?

First of all, sorry for taking so long to answer. I was trying to deal with Idiotking's attacks first.
I'm not sure I understand the first question, but my answer would be that it's not any harder than it is for anyone else. That being said, if someone wants to skip the RVS, that seems to indicate that they have information on which to vote already. That can only mean they are scum. This kind of aggressiveness is bad because it indicates an overreaction to a single vote against Idiotking. He seems to need to vent his frustration instead of actually giving a defense, indicating that whatever defense he has is weak. Aggressiveness also makes the game not as fun by making a show of insults rather than using logic.

[danakillsu]

Dana, how hard can it be for scum to submit a random vote? Not one mafia would be afraid of doing the RVS gig. Also, how is aggressiveness bad?

First of all, sorry it took me so long to answer your questions. I was trying to deal with Idiotking first.
My answer to the first question is not any harder than for anyone else. But his rush to get out of the RVS means that he thinks he has information that other people don't have. Agressiveness is bad because it shows that there is no real defense for Idiotking. He has to focus on insulting me instead of actually defending himself, and all over one vote. Agressiveness=Insecurity.

[danakillsu]

I can't seem to get in the long post I keep trying, so this is a test.

[danakillsu]

Finally. That took forever. Sorry about the many posts. Ignore the second and third ones. They are meaningless.

[Thor665]

Thor:

I have a few more reads on potential scum now then I did then

I look forward to hearing about these at some point.

Is this a specific question of which I should address and is there any sort of timeline you're suggesting I should follow? You seem to be implying something here, but I'm too dumb to figure out what and need your help.

@danakillsu

Interesting to get to see two versions of your answer to the same question. What made you change this;

That being said, if someone wants to skip the RVS, that seems to indicate that they have information on which to vote already. That can only mean they are scum.

to this;

But his rush to get out of the RVS means that he thinks he has information that other people don't have.

In the first you're making a strong definitive statement; this action = scum. In the second you're making a veiled commentary; this action = he may have prior information which can imply the possibility that he knows something already which implies he is scummy.

Why try to soft sell it?
Do you believe it's a sign of scum or not?

[Idiotking]

That being said, if someone wants to skip the RVS, that seems to indicate that they have information on which to vote already. That can only mean they are scum.

Or they completely, utterly hate the RVS and want to get it over with as fast as possible. Who

doesn't

what to skip the RVS? It's meaningless in the long run and ultimately does little to get discussion going, since the discussion it

does

create is based on "dude OMGUS" or "that was a serious vote" "no it wasn't" "yuh huh" "nuh uh" and so on and so forth.

Basically you are wrong because you jump to conclusions based on your own opinion of the RVS. Again, theory disputes shouldn't have any bearing on alignment in any given game. You're saying I

have

to be scum if I don't like the RVS. Where exactly are you drawing this information from? Where is your evidence, your proof? Or is it just coming from your own idea of how the game is meant to be played? Stop being so orthodox if you can't react to unorthodoxy.

This kind of aggressiveness is bad because it indicates an overreaction to a single vote against Idiotking.

Yes, because it can't

possibly

be because your case against me is nonexistent save for the bits on game theory.

He seems to need to vent his frustration instead of actually giving a defense, indicating that whatever defense he has is weak.

How do you expect for me to defend against a case that is as follows: "he's aggressive and he doesn't like the RVS, so he must be scum"? AGGRESSIVENESS IS NOT A SCUMTELL, AND 95% OF PEOPLE WHO PLAY MAFIA HATE THE RVS. There can be no defense because

there is no real case against me

. And don't you dare say that I'm denying it's existence. I've read every single thing you've posted and addressed every single thing dealing with me.

Your case against me absolutely does not exist within the bounds of this particular game

.

Aggressiveness also makes the game not as fun by making a show of insults rather than using logic.

When have I insulted you? When? Do you really think sarcasm is insulting? Really? GROW SOME THICKER SKIN.

[danakillsu]

@danakillsu
Interesting to get to see two versions of your answer to the same question. What made you change this;
Quote:
That being said, if someone wants to skip the RVS, that seems to indicate that they have information on which to vote already. That can only mean they are scum.

to this;
Quote:
But his rush to get out of the RVS means that he thinks he has information that other people don't have.

In the first you're making a strong definitive statement; this action = scum. In the second you're making a veiled commentary; this action = he may have prior information which can imply the possibility that he knows something already which implies he is scummy.

Why try to soft sell it?
Do you believe it's a sign of scum or not?

Sorry about that. I had no way to repeat exactly what I said before. I meant what I said the first time, but not necessarily what I said the second time, because I was just trying to remember what I said before. Does that answer all of your questions?

[danakillsu]

I claim town. At least if you lynch me you're not losing out on a power role. *shrug*

Since I've only been here a month:
How normal is it to claim at L-2? Anyone?

[Idiotking]

If the pressure's up this high, fairly normal.

[Thor665]

I meant what I said the first time, but not necessarily what I said the second time, because I was just trying to remember what I said before. Does that answer all of your questions?

So you're going with your initial concept - anti-RVS = scum?

Do you legitimately believe that if someone states they don't like the RVS that it means they're scum? I'm pretty sure we had three people express the concept that they didn't like RVS - do you believe they are all scum? If so why is your vote where it is instead of on one of the other anti-RVSers?

Whether or not I buy into your aggressiveness opinions your anti-RVS logic appears very weak and poorly thought out and my initial reaction is to presume either a) you're questionably helpful town using very bad logic or b) you're scum trying to bandwagon someone over questionable logic. What am I missing here?

[Parama]

Okay, first off, Homer - what kind of case do you have against Idiotking that makes him look scummy to you? Aggressive play CAN be scummy but not always - I have had a first-hand experience with this misconception which lead to me focusing more on a fellow townie than anyone else.

Parama explain how my posts are odd please.

Okay, let's look at some particular posts.

Seems like Seven is trying to free SP, a potential scum buddy, of some early pressure. Its strange to me that Seven would take issue to DRK voting SP when he himself voted Chamber for very similar reasons.

That said...

vote: Seven

Your reason for Seven being scum assumed that SeerPenguin was scum as well, providing nothing leading to this assumption.

Oh boy, scum-group speculation this early?

Cuet, do you understand why saying Seven is scum because he was defending hypo-scum me doesn't make any sense, considering I have not yet been revealed (As scum or otherwise), and that argument would not work unless I was revealed as scum. Therefore, your vote on Seven is based on me being scum, so why say you that I am scum?

This reaction and you subsequently saying that Seven isn't being very scummy without presenting an argument why Seven isn't being very scummy strengthens my argument that both you and Seven are scum buddies.

Also, earlier you took a jab at Parama for helping facilitate a town discussion. IMO, town discussion is always good even if the discussion is started by scum. A game with lurkers and no content is bad for the town, while a game with discussion and content is good for the town.

Also, Seven advised you and DRK to quit arguing earlier. I think arguing is good for the town because it adds to the discussion. He is scummy for trying to diffuse you guys' argument.

So from my calculations, you and Seven have tried to defend each other three times already in this very short game. Really the only people who would have incentive to defend someone are scum because they don't have strength in numbers like the town does. You and Seven defending each other makes me very suspicious of the both of you.

You misrep'd SP's opening comment to my questions (which I did not see as a personal attack btw, don't see how you would) which just bothers me.
Also, your comment about arguing... it can lead to discussion, but if the argument uses terrible logic both ways and is based on an RVS vote, I would have to agree that it's pointless and is distracting from scumhunting. Basically, arguing is a double-edged sword in this way - it can help catch scum, but if two townies are arguing it can also distract attention away from scum. And DRK vs SP was more of a distraction than anything.
Next, defending others isn't always a scummy thing to do (though a majority of the time it is), but you seem to imply it always is. Not trying to role speculate here, but what if one has a role that's leading him to defend the other for a pro-town reason? It's not out of the question. Or maybe it's a gut reads on each other that are leading to defense? Or a newbie reacting to being defended as town by defending the one who is defending him? ...okay WIFOM alert moving on...

Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy,

however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.

Can you cite where DRK pushed suspicion on people please?

*quotes*

SP claimed that DRK had been pushing suspicion on anyone; meaning, FMPOV, that DRK had been trying to make cases on multiple people. I reread the thread and decided that DRK had only been pushing suspicion on SP only. I asked SP to cite where DRK had pushed suspicion on people because I knew that DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP and I wanted to get his reaction. What I got was both you and SP's reactions and they both were fail. Both of you only cited where DRK had pushed suspicion on SP. No where did I find where DRK had pushed suspicion on other people. Thus, I think SP's initial claim was an example of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is an attack of an exaggerated position. SP exaggerated DRK's position by claiming that he had been pushing suspicion on anyone. In actuality, DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP himself.

And this here comes off as an attempt to defend DRK by defending his suspicions. Like I said, this isn't inherently scummy by itself, but now you're contradicting yourself. Which IS scummy.

Honestly, something feels off about Cuetlachtli now that I examine his posts even more. I don't like his posting at all.

Vote: Cuetlachtli

partly for his posts and partly for the terrible gut read I'm getting on him.

Seven, you don't need to and in fact SHOULDN'T be responding to every post about you. It makes you look like you're scrambling for any chance to defend yourself and then saying as much as possible in an attempt to look more townie. And tbh I'm barely even reading your posts anymore. Just a lot of pointless fluff intermixed with defensive points. If you want to convince us you're not scum, you're going to have to help the town find the scum. And your posts are nearly devoid of scumhunting.

Dana, being anti-RVS is not scummy. RVS, honestly, is pointless for the most part. Trying to find a direction for conversation to take off is its only purpose; the rest of it is mostly pointless votes with BS reasons. But some find it fun, while others do not. I personally have a blast in the RVS because there's no real stress at that point. And I already explained my stance on aggressive posting.

[Parama]

EBWOP:
faillack of

unvote

Vote: Cuetlachtli

[Lastsurvivor]

Dana, how hard can it be for scum to submit a random vote? Not one mafia would be afraid of doing the RVS gig. Also, how is aggressiveness bad?

First of all, sorry for taking so long to answer. I was trying to deal with Idiotking's attacks first.
I'm not sure I understand the first question, but my answer would be that it's not any harder than it is for anyone else. That being said, if someone wants to skip the RVS, that seems to indicate that they have information on which to vote already. That can only mean they are scum.

Unless I'm mishearing, you're saying that "It's not that hard for a mafia to do the RVS, but the fact that he knows he'll vote for a townie means that he'll want to skip it?" Because that makes no sense whatsoever.

This kind of aggressiveness is bad because it indicates an overreaction to a single vote against Idiotking. He seems to need to vent his frustration instead of actually giving a defense, indicating that whatever defense he has is weak. Aggressiveness also makes the game not as fun by making a show of insults rather than using logic.

Your case was weak. He defended himself fine. He did not insult you.

And, I'll say this again. I find your weak case scummy, and the fact that you still find it justifiable is even more strange.

[DeathRowKitty]

It's best to lynch someone who claimed vanilla to avoid outing any power roles. We should lynch Seven.

Unvote, vote Parama

[Lastsurvivor]

It's best to lynch someone who claimed vanilla to avoid outing any power roles. We should lynch Seven.

Unvote, vote Parama

Which is why you're lynching Parama...?

[DeathRowKitty]

Which is why you're

voting

Parama...?

Fixed.

[Lastsurvivor]

Which is why you're

voting to lynch

Parama...?

Fixed.

Fixed again. None of these fixes satisfy my confused thought process that the question mark in my original post implied.

[DeathRowKitty]

What exactly are you confused about?

[Thor665]

I'll go out on a limb and guess he's confused about you saying we should lynch Seven whilst voting to lynch Parama.

I know I'm confused by that.

Are you really so dense you didn't follow his question? Because you're being awfully obtuse methinks.

[Cuetlachtli]

Okay, first off, Homer - what kind of case do you have against Idiotking that makes him look scummy to you? Aggressive play CAN be scummy but not always - I have had a first-hand experience with this misconception which lead to me focusing more on a fellow townie than anyone else.

Parama explain how my posts are odd please.

Okay, let's look at some particular posts.

1.

Seems like Seven is trying to free SP, a potential scum buddy, of some early pressure. Its strange to me that Seven would take issue to DRK voting SP when he himself voted Chamber for very similar reasons.

That said...

vote: Seven

Your reason for Seven being scum assumed that SeerPenguin was scum as well, providing nothing leading to this assumption.

2.

Oh boy, scum-group speculation this early?

Cuet, do you understand why saying Seven is scum because he was defending hypo-scum me doesn't make any sense, considering I have not yet been revealed (As scum or otherwise), and that argument would not work unless I was revealed as scum. Therefore, your vote on Seven is based on me being scum, so why say you that I am scum?

This reaction and you subsequently saying that Seven isn't being very scummy without presenting an argument why Seven isn't being very scummy strengthens my argument that both you and Seven are scum buddies.

Also, earlier you took a jab at Parama for helping facilitate a town discussion. IMO, town discussion is always good even if the discussion is started by scum. A game with lurkers and no content is bad for the town, while a game with discussion and content is good for the town.

Also, Seven advised you and DRK to quit arguing earlier. I think arguing is good for the town because it adds to the discussion. He is scummy for trying to diffuse you guys' argument.

So from my calculations, you and Seven have tried to defend each other three times already in this very short game. Really the only people who would have incentive to defend someone are scum because they don't have strength in numbers like the town does. You and Seven defending each other makes me very suspicious of the both of you.

You misrep'd SP's opening comment to my questions (which I did not see as a personal attack btw, don't see how you would) which just bothers me.
Also, your comment about arguing... it can lead to discussion, but if the argument uses terrible logic both ways and is based on an RVS vote, I would have to agree that it's pointless and is distracting from scumhunting. Basically, arguing is a double-edged sword in this way - it can help catch scum, but if two townies are arguing it can also distract attention away from scum. And DRK vs SP was more of a distraction than anything.
Next, defending others isn't always a scummy thing to do (though a majority of the time it is), but you seem to imply it always is. Not trying to role speculate here, but what if one has a role that's leading him to defend the other for a pro-town reason? It's not out of the question. Or maybe it's a gut reads on each other that are leading to defense? Or a newbie reacting to being defended as town by defending the one who is defending him? ...okay WIFOM alert moving on...

3.

Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy,

however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.

Can you cite where DRK pushed suspicion on people please?

*quotes*

SP claimed that DRK had been pushing suspicion on anyone; meaning, FMPOV, that DRK had been trying to make cases on multiple people. I reread the thread and decided that DRK had only been pushing suspicion on SP only. I asked SP to cite where DRK had pushed suspicion on people because I knew that DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP and I wanted to get his reaction. What I got was both you and SP's reactions and they both were fail. Both of you only cited where DRK had pushed suspicion on SP. No where did I find where DRK had pushed suspicion on other people. Thus, I think SP's initial claim was an example of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is an attack of an exaggerated position. SP exaggerated DRK's position by claiming that he had been pushing suspicion on anyone. In actuality, DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP himself.

And this here comes off as an attempt to defend DRK by defending his suspicions. Like I said, this isn't inherently scummy by itself, but now you're contradicting yourself. Which IS scummy.

Honestly, something feels off about Cuetlachtli now that I examine his posts even more. I don't like his posting at all.

Vote: Cuetlachtli

partly for his posts and partly for the terrible gut read I'm getting on him.

Seven, you don't need to and in fact SHOULDN'T be responding to every post about you. It makes you look like you're scrambling for any chance to defend yourself and then saying as much as possible in an attempt to look more townie. And tbh I'm barely even reading your posts anymore. Just a lot of pointless fluff intermixed with defensive points. If you want to convince us you're not scum, you're going to have to help the town find the scum. And your posts are nearly devoid of scumhunting.

Dana, being anti-RVS is not scummy. RVS, honestly, is pointless for the most part. Trying to find a direction for conversation to take off is its only purpose; the rest of it is mostly pointless votes with BS reasons. But some find it fun, while others do not. I personally have a blast in the RVS because there's no real stress at that point. And I already explained my stance on aggressive posting.

1.

I did explain my assumption that SP and Seven were scum buddies. In my first game on MS, I was scum. On D1, my scum buddy was under pressure for his lack of pro-activity. I saw another player that acted the same as my scum buddy so I tried to deflect attention on to the innocent player. No one saw this scum slip until the endgame and I ultimately got lynched because of it.

Now in the RVS, DRK said that SP and me had to be scum buddies because we confirmed at the same time. Right after DRK posted that, Seven asked DRK why he would vote SP and not me. It seemed to me like a noob scum slip for two reasons. First, why would anyone actually take RVS seriously? And two, it seemed like Seven was trying to get pressure off SP while pushing suspicion onto me. It was a soft tell and I made the decision to vote Seven for it. At that point in time I wasn't really sold that Seven was scum. But he hasn't given me a reason to unvote thus far.

2.

Ok when I was scum last game, I took little jabs at the townie that was trying to lead the town. SP's comment reminded me of my comments from last game.

Now you said something like SP and DRK were using terrible logic in attacking each other. Umm....last time I checked, scum use terrible logic. Why would you want to stop this? Now I can understand if they take up the entire Day arguing, but the fact is they didn't argue for that long. We still had plenty of time left in the Day to scum hunt.

You mentioned that defending someone isn't always scummy. Well that is true, but the fact remains that both SP and Seven defended each other when there wasn't that much content available to make such a bold judgment. Look, SP said that Seven wasn't acting very scummy when really his only posts were about his philosophy oh RVS. Well of course that is not scummy. RVS is a controversial issue and a lot of people are against it. My point is that at that point in the game, there was no evidence that suggested that anybody was town. SP and Seven made the point in emphasizing that the reason they were defending each other is because they don't want to see a town lynched. This strengthens my argument that they are scum buddying because I haven't seen any evidence thus far that suggests ANYBODY is town.

Also you mentioned that "Next, defending others isn't always a scummy thing to do

(though a majority of the time it is)

. It seems like you are trying to allude to Seven's counter argument that I am "scum budding" with DRK. This has been noted, thank you.

Power roles. PR's haven't been activated yet since we haven't gone through a night yet, therefore a PR has no reason to defend a townie.

3.

I wasn't defending DRK at all. TY for misrepresenting my argument. Let me reiterate it.

SP claimed that DRK was pushing suspicion on anyone. In other words, SP was arguing that DRK was making fallacious attacks on various people. In actuality, besides RVS, DRK only attacked SP. I interpret SP's attack on DRK as straw manning, which is a scum tactic. I wanted to see how SP responded to my question, but instead of SP answering himself, Seven did for him. This strengthened my argument that Seven and SP are scum buddies because really only SP should be able to answer that particular question. It wasn't an obvious answer like Seven claims it was because I was asking SP where DRK had pushed suspicion on people. Seven only cited where DRK had pushed suspicion on SP. Thus, Seven unintentionally strengthened my argument that SP was strawmanning DRK.

I can see how you can misinterpret what I just said as a defense of DRK. But in actuality, it is an attack on SP.

Also, Parama, you telling Seven what to do is pretty scummy to me. If we do lynch Seven and he does flip town, we can always look back at today and identify the scummy arguments that led to Seven's lynch. If Seven really is a noob town, you shouldn't try to teach him the right way to play until the game is over. In my last game anyways, my scum buddy and I took advantage of the noobs by making fallacious arguments about them. It seemed like we were going to get away with murder, but in the end the town identified our fallacious arguments and ended up winning the game.

It seems to me like 2 out of 3 scummies are being pressured by the town right now and Parama (scum number 3) is trying to scramble and engineer a mislynch on someone other than scum. If we do lynch Seven and he flips scum, SP is almost guaranteed to be scum and with 2 out of 3 scum out of the game, it would make it very hard for that last scum to win.

"Dana, being anti-RVS is not scummy. RVS, honestly, is pointless for the most part. Trying to find a direction for conversation to take off is its only purpose; the rest of it is mostly pointless votes with BS reasons. But some find it fun, while others do not. I personally have a blast in the RVS because there's no real stress at that point. And I already explained my stance on aggressive posting."

Yes RVS is pointless right? So why don't you find it scummy that Seven was bothered by DRK's RVS vote on SP?

Anyways, I am keeping my vote on Seven and

FoS

on SP and Parama.

[HomerSimpson]

Okay, first off, Homer - what kind of case do you have against Idiotking that makes him look scummy to you?

Well, allow me to quote myself:

I also want to

FOS: Idiotking

You're very abrasive, especially when suspicion is placed on you, like your conversation with danakillsu. Why do you react so badly? Does it scare you when votes are cast against you?

His response to this seemed sincere and logical enough that he's not really standing out particularly well on my scum radar. I mostly just wanted to see his reaction to my pressure in the first place.

Basically, arguing is a double-edged sword in this way - it can help catch scum, but

if two townies are arguing it can also distract

attention away from scum. And

DRK vs SP was more of a distraction than anything

.

This almost sounds like a slip to me, like you have knowledge that DRK and SP are townies.

Not trying to role speculate here, but what if one has a role that's leading him to defend the other for a pro-town reason? It's not out of the question.

Since we haven't had night yet, the only role that has any knowledge on other players right now is scum, so yes it is out of the question, under the theory that they are both town. Fits nicely into the theory that they are scum though (I'm actually not sure if you are talking about SP and Seven or SP and DRK here, but it's been SP and 7 defending each other a lot so I assume that, but it's not real clear)


Parama, this whole post just gives me a bad feeling about you. Between the potential slip, your obviously fallacious argument that power roles could have knowledge on other players in D1, and something I can't quite put my finger on, you're probably my #2 right now in scumtells (although if we lynch Seven and he flips scum, I think SP would still be my #1, with you my #2)

FOS: Parama

It's best to lynch someone who claimed vanilla to avoid outing any power roles. We should lynch Seven.

Unvote, vote Parama

I, too, am super confused by this, and don't care for DRK's responses when questioned on it. What gives?

[Seven]

chamber:

Literally has only 5 posts including confirmation. No original ideas besides his opinion of RVS. I'm really bothered by anyone lurking, especially on the first day like this.

@chamber:

Can you give a detailed reasoning for your vote on me in your own words along with 2 other players you think could be scum at this point and why? (scum or just the most anti-town at this point in the game)

Any kind of real content would be good.

[Seven]

Cuetlachtli:

I just noticed how early on you stated this: "Seems like Seven is trying to free SP, a potential scum buddy, of some early pressure. Its strange to me that Seven would take issue to DRK voting SP when he himself voted Chamber for very similar reasons." [ISO 3]

At this point in the game I think that was the only thing I had said linking me to SP. It was RVS, and I did think it was weird considering DRKs reasoning that he would choose to vote SP over you without saying why. Despite this I didn't think it meant anything at the time and the question was a joke. Considering how the game has unfolded I think it could be relevant now. The fact that I eventually ended up siding with SP for various reasons is circumstancial. I did "defend" him later on, as you called it, by answering for him. But my RVS question does not defend him in any way that I can perceive. I was curious, but I didn't push the matter further until now. I want to know how, at that stage in the game, you already thought I was defending SP when there was no real reason to believe so?

In ISO 5 you said I tried to diffuse DRK and SPs argument which is true. I'm not the only person who thinks the argument was distracting and useless for the purposes of hunting. You said later on in response to Parama's accusations that they eventually stopped fighting and so it was no threat to the hunt, but you fail to acknowledge the reason they stopped bickering in the first place which is because some of us pointed out that it was leading nowhere. I think it's strange that you would encourage their argument. You say it could lead to tells. So I want to know what you were able to gather from the DRK/SP argument?

Not only did you start the 7/SP lynch-chain, but now you're adding Parama as a third lynch. I can't express enough how scummy this is. You started off by tunneling on me for mediocre reasons (I think in general everyone has had good reasons for their votes, yours seems to be one of the weaker ones) and now you're trying to have everyone focus on SP and Parama next, with hardly anything to base your arguments on (in the case of Par, at least). In what circumstance do you think it's beneficial to set up your next three lynches?