Fire Emblem 6 Mafia: (Day 4)

[Vhaltz]

I am dismissing the risks that scum have from outing that information early. From possible roles like a suspicious vig or harmful ITP.

Yeah okay I can see how you could've meant that. What do you think of people that aren't SB?

Prims play the game. Gutvoting is bad coming from you because I know you could explain where the gut comes from.

Forgot where Bear's vote was and thought he had been cheerleading the wagon while on somebody else.

Checking back to where he voted I noticed I missed this earlier. Bear's #53 makes no sense. He had reasoning to vote prims that was silly yet understandable from earlier and dug out something else to warrant voting Rapier but then just goes for an RVS vote on Paper which is ???

Reads like he was just posting for the sake of posting and looking active/town.

Also:

#92 "Paper specifically said that he found SB defensive, how is that a failure to give reasons?"

#112 "Restating that you found SB defensive =\= explaining what was defensive. I didn't see the defensiveness so I want an explanation On that"

I don't see town forgetting their own opinions in such a short time window, it feels like Bear just wanted to avoid moving his vote and sit on the growing wagon.

##Unvote

##Vote: Bearclaw

Eh now that I've checked Rapier, Paper's point in #115 is very similar, I agree that he contradicts himself wrt Paper's SB point and I also agree with the point about buddying up to bear. Rapier's contradiction also enabled him to vote Paper so there's scum intent to be had there too, but eh, I could see Rapier being town and drawing a wagon onto himself just due to being too loud. Not opposed to voting Rapier but I prefer Bear atm, he is as bad if not worse and nobody is caring to read him iirc.

"Vhaltz's scumhunting has just read as weak and forced to me."

ED1 scumhunting quality

That aside, care to tell me what part of my post back there was fluff, Refa?

Keeping an eye on Poly for reasons.

[Rapier]

lolwhat. The accusing side can never be absolutely certain that they'll catch scum barring extreme circumstances, and the defensive side being able to use it is fucking retarded. The defensive side should prove their towniness, not be like "WELL THIS ACTION COULD COME FROM TOWN INTENT." Also it's a bit high of you to complain about someone's ED1 vote on a potentially null tell when you haven't had any stronger votes yourself.

Except Xin couldn't link scum intent with what SB did. His reason to vote was more like "hey, there could be town intent and scum intent on this, but I go with the scum intent part". Why? Xin justified himself by saying that SB's defense was weak and faulty, but I disagree with him since I also think it is a null tell.

SB pointed out before that it was a nulltell and that it meant nothing. Cue Paper thinking he's overdefending himself for answering someone who voted him, which is an absolutely legit action from SB. This is why I don't like Paper's vote on him, it seems opportunistic.

Don't throw around terms you clearly don't know the meaning of. You say she's misrepping your position, prove that that is the case, don't just wuss out.

That should be obvious, especially after Xin admitted it:

It's admittedly an extremism, not intended as a strawman.

This is BS, you're essentially voting Xinny because her vote wasn't strong enough to you, rather than because you're finding any scum intent from it. Your vote is worse than hers.

Saying someone is scummy over a nulltell is opportunism in my books, hence why I wanted an answer from both him and Paper and it's also why I switched my vote. Xin justified himself, Paper only explained himself better after being questioned later. I still don't like Paper because he found SB's answer as overdefensiveness just because he answered a "vote with contrived reasoning":

SB responded to a vote that had pretty contrived reasoning, which I think is totally unnecessary. I'm getting really annoyed that I've had to explain this to you multiple times and you just go "lol not good enough."

Going back to Paper for a bit.

I don't buy that derp excuse. If someone votes you, even if the reasoning is contrived, you ought to ANSWER back and defend yourself (I just did that with Prims). That's the most plausible thing to do and it's so elementary that I dislike this excuse a lot. You can say that it was ED1 and that I'm overreacting here, but that doesn't explain why you'd see it as right if SB ignored Vahltz's vote.

I thought your Paperblade case was fine, but then I realized my problem with you. You're just going around and laying easy prodvotes. No doubt if the Paperblade bandwagon hadn't picked up, you'd have voted me and told me to post more. After Xinny started actually arguing back you just sort of gave up on your case (tbf it kind of sucked anyways), and prodded someone else.

"Easy prodvotes", huh? Then explain to me why I went after Xin instead of targetting someone who hadn't posted at all, like Euklyds, Shinori, Prims or you. I've also never seen prodvotes backed up with content. You're both oversimplifying my content and misrepping me.

His scumhunting amounts to a bunch of prodvotes and telling people their arguments aren't good enough. I don't think I've seen a single action from him where he actually looks at the scum intent of the person involved, yet he complains that Xinny and Paperblade are voting SB for what amounts to a null read; hypocritical much? Additionally, he's clogging up the thread with his prodvotes and defense of his superlame actions.

"Bunch of prodvotes" and "clogging the thread with his prodvotes", except I only voted two people thus far and there were (and are) people who are way more inactive than those who I voted. You're exaggerating a lot, kind sir.

As for reads...

I don't like Paper, for reasons that I've stated before and in this post.

Xin is clinging to that opportunistic vote on SB and it only slightly bugs me less than Paper.

Bluedoom gave a weak reason to vote Paper, almost completely based on meta, and his reasons to find me scummy also make no sense since he agrees with the logic I'm clinging to and kind of misrepped some stuff (saying I had an OMGUS), I don't like his response that much because it seems he doesn't even have a grasp of the situation.

Prims lolvoted me and disappeared into the mist without showing content or justifying his vote at all ("Hey he gives me bad vibes so *vote*"). This is anti-town in many ways.

Shinori lolvoted Paper and didn't justify his vote as well. Same about what I said about Prims.

Other people, such as Poli and Bear, need to exist more. I can understand Bear's case since he said on the sign-up thread that he was going to be busy with stuff and his D1 was going to be almost unexistant, though.

Scorri, I can see you're here! Say something, don't be shy.

[Rapier]

Eh now that I've checked Rapier, Paper's point in #115 is very similar, I agree that he contradicts himself wrt Paper's SB point and I also agree with the point about buddying up to bear. Rapier's contradiction also enabled him to vote Paper so there's scum intent to be had there too, but eh, I could see Rapier being town and drawing a wagon onto himself just due to being too loud. Not opposed to voting Rapier but I prefer Bear atm, he is as bad if not worse and nobody is caring to read him iirc.

Explain to me where I am contradicting myself, please. Do you mean this?

Rapier is scummy because he has like twice as many posts as everyone else and is just pushing nonsense and switching his vote around, he goes "Paper made a point about SB" and then switches to "Paper has not explained his SB read." Which is it?

I'll reiterate. He said SB was being too overdefensive and that's why he voted him. Yes, I acknowledge that. My question to him was WHY Paper found SB to be overdefensive (he replied NOW that Vhaltz's vote was bad and SB shouldn't have bothered with it, and I replied back right now). There is no contradiction.

[Shinori]

##Unvote:

WRT the people who commented on my vote I was just teasing. I hadn't even seen paper was getting votes. I was all "RVS HO!"

Replying to this topic was a pain cause of the rapier and poly spam early on followed by like nothing. Also Xinnidy's avi makes me chuckle.

However I heavily disliked poly's post #82. It really really seemed bad to me. I guess defensive could be the word? I'm not sure which word I'm looking for but I hated it. OH I KNOW. Deflecting. I hated how he deflected and just pushed onto Paper saying "Oh he's doing the same thing."

He then followed this up with a vote later on post #94. He basically said "Paper is doing the same thing why aren't people questioning him?" in one post then followed it up with a vote in a post later with this as the reasoning.

I feel like his trying to make that point about SB's defensiveness fails to make a lot of sense, then proceeds to not explain in any way how exactly SB's behaviour was defensive to him. Moreover, he had an actual dislike of Vhaltz' point, so why didn't he call him on it more than he did? It seems like lazy scumhunting on his end.

Refa has pointed out what I found extremely weird with this thread in post #98.

@Rapier: Why is Paper worse than Poly in this regard? Or is it just the biasity on him saying there was something bothering him about your posts?

I dislike most of the Paper votes I've seen, specifically the one's from Rapier and Poly. Bear didn't even give a reason for his vote, it honestly looked like he was defending Paper in the post he made after voting Paper. The fuck?

@Bear: Your posts seem to be really wafflie on Paper. Do you think he's scum or not? If so then why? Specifically do you think his vote on SB was good or bad? And why?

@Marth: Why was the vote on SB from Paper weak specifically? I would honestly say getting pissed because you were voted would count as being defensive. It doesn't matter the reason, that's kind of what defensive would be. And I'm sorry you can't just say that the Rapier vote is easy while saying that the SB vote is weak.

##Vote: Bear

Bear > poly > other random people at the moment.

[Vhaltz]

Eh actually I just went back to check the context and that contradiction was actually a misrep by Paper

Paper made a point about SB, but Xin's lacks substance and looks slightly like parroting especially because he didn't expand on his motives. He just took one extreme ("Hey, I don't see much town content from what SB said, and I don't think the 'it could be a town or mafia thing' as a good excuse, so I'll go with the 'scum content' extremity) and left without further explanation. In my books, this is worse than Paper.

Note that the bolded part can go either ways if you just read the first sentence, Rapier could be meaning that he agrees with SB's point or he could just be using it as comparison to Xin's to explain why Xin's is worse. Paper's interpretation would be okay in this case, but then there's the underlined part of the post that implies that Rapier already considered Paper bad at this point, so he never actually considered that Paper's SB point was ever good.

Happier with where I put my vote now.

[Xinnidy]

Sometimes I kinda wish people wouldn't call me a he so much

How were scorri's interactions any better than SB's?

Timing and reaction.

Vhaltz claims they're 'guilty of the same thing', but I think scorri's answer is more likely to be a 'going with the flow' thing to get some conversation going.

Before you get your ass on fire like every fucking body about how this is a weak reasoning, remember that all I've done is actually pushing ED1 pressures and then Rapier started supertunneling me like this is D2 and my reasonings and votes should be oh-so-superior like his apparently are.

I may or may not be kinda mad right now.

That's bad scumhunting. Noone is going to be the ideal perfect townie 100% of the time, so it's important to search for actions that specifically have scum intent. It's one thing if you felt his action had scum intent (according to your post, it just didn't benefit town), but saying that "well it could be scum" is a rather weak reason to be voting someone (especially since that could be applied to almost every other player).

The fact you're applying such a read to my really early vote is actually very scummy, I find it really bad and a half-assed attempt to show a scumread on me.

Pro-tip: I wanted a better reasoning out of SB, I found it scummy that he defended himself by claiming that his action was a nulltell the way he said it. Therefore, I found his reasoning suspect. The reasoning he gave is very unsatisfactory and does not make me want to take my vote out of him.

If you want to argue there's been more content at the time and I shouldn't have held to it for so long, while I disagree for starters, I also basically got roped into somebody supertunneling me.

That said, where have I ever said something implying "well it could be scum"? Rather than "I don't like this I find this suspect/scummy"?

If you still think this is valid, there's a high chance you misread my post like Rapier did.

It honestly feels like I'm defending against the same thing over and over, only worded differently.

lolwhat. The accusing side can never be absolutely certain that they'll catch scum barring extreme circumstances, and the defensive side being able to use it is fucking retarded. The defensive side should prove their towniness, not be like "WELL THIS ACTION COULD COME FROM TOWN INTENT." Also it's a bit high of you to complain about someone's ED1 vote on a potentially null tell when you haven't had any stronger votes yourself.

Daily reminder that you're a hypocrite.

On the same post.

Other people bothering me are Xinny and Vhaltz. For Xinny, it's not so much the weak case on SB that bothers me as her holding onto it for so long. Also note that her case on SB involves him being overly defensive, but then she spends a good deal of her posts defending her actions (although tbf that's probably because Rapier is pushing that case for so long) which just bothers me (wouldn't really call it hypocritical though).

Why would you point that I'm being hypocriticaly defensive considering my SB vote and yet understand that being defensive when supertunneled is not quite the same thing. This does not make me sure that your stance is something you're sure of at all, and it's basically worded to inviting you changing your mind easily if it suits you. What the heck.

Also like I said a while above, it's hard to not keep my vote when I answered SB disagreeing with his second defense. And every other content in the thread pretty much summed up to somebody tunneling me hard, one guy questioning me well, gut feels, and sheeps.

I honestly find that a terrible read.

(and why does Vhaltz bothers you? just the 'pot calling the kettle back' thing?)

...You know what SB can stay go and keep playing with his puppy.

##Unvote

##Vote:Refa

I find your scumhunting spread and contradicting itself, I don't believe you can find both me and Rapier scummy with the reasons you yourself provided. And find the apparent sub-cases you have on me and Vhaltz very sloppy.

Nice job idly commenting on the situation without offering any new thoughts on it, your position on the matter (notice how he waffled), or really anything productive. 48 points.

Also, try to not get too toxic with your wording. This right now is kinda fine, I can get the tongue-in-cheek, but I'm a mafia worrywart.

@Prims

Thanks for voting me without using arguments as a back up. Your weak gut-read vote contributes a lot to the discussion and scumhunting in general.

you too. That barely counts as a "defense" against Prims, you're just prodding him and applying aggression towards his "gut-vote", which can pretty easily form yet another of the reads you're keeping on the few people you're constantly pressuring.

I want to read rapier again but I got pretty tired with this so more on 12 I guess.

Pedit: Or not because he posted and it looks very glaring.

Except Xin couldn't link scum intent with what SB did. His reason to vote was more like "hey, there could be town intent and scum intent on this, but I go with the scum intent part". Why? Xin justified himself by saying that SB's defense was weak and faulty, but I disagree with him since I also think it is a null tell.

I could very fucking well link scum intent to it, and, aside from the fact there was little else that stood out to me, it's a major part why I stuck to it, and I've explained it over and over. I responded to his second defense, he hasn't said anything still.

I will not accept this bullshit.

SB pointed out before that it was a nulltell and that it meant nothing. Cue Paper thinking he's overdefending himself for answering someone who voted him, which is an absolutely legit action from SB. This is why I don't like Paper's vote on him, it seems opportunistic.

Pointing out it is a nulltell does not mean it is a nulltell.

Something that I find has more drawbacks to town than scum happening in early day 1 and then getting quick defended by using "it could be done by scum or town" logic then defended again

That should be obvious, especially after Xin admitted it:

*quote of my post*

What part of "not intended as a strawman" do you not understand.

Extreme parallels do not work that way.

I said it was valid, and you even had to stop dismissing it and give an opinion. What you're saying is untrue.

Saying someone is scummy over a nulltell is opportunism in my books, hence why I wanted an answer from both him and Paper and it's also why I switched my vote.

I disagree due to reasons I've said over and over about why I find SB scummy, I will not repeat myself and will assume you're misrepping my read on him.

You also keep pushing the same reasoning over and over to on me and paper. This is objectively weak and tiring and is only a thing because you keep pressuring it in literally all the posts you do.

As for reads...

I don't like Paper, for reasons that I've stated before and in this post.

Xin is clinging to that opportunistic vote on SB and it only slightly bugs me less than Paper.

Bluedoom gave a weak reason to vote Paper, almost completely based on meta, and his reasons to find me scummy also make no sense since he agrees with the logic I'm clinging to and kind of misrepped some stuff (saying I had an OMGUS), I don't like his response that much because it seems he doesn't even have a grasp of the situation.

Prims lolvoted me and disappeared into the mist without showing content or justifying his vote at all ("Hey he gives me bad vibes so *vote*"). This is anti-town in many ways.

Shinori lolvoted Paper and didn't justify his vote as well. Same about what I said about Prims.

Other people, such as Poli and Bear, need to exist more. I can understand Bear's case since he said on the sign-up thread that he was going to be busy with stuff and his D1 was going to be almost unexistant, though.

Scorri, I can see you're here! Say something, don't be shy.

This listpost is lazy and only serves to apply suspicions to everybody you can mention.

It tells absolutely nothing that you haven't said before and is very bad opportunistic filler.

This is basically prodding everybody you can find scummy even if it's with as little reasoning attached.

Xin is clinging to that opportunistic vote on SB and it only slightly bugs me less than Paper.

Also, you have never reached a stalemate with me at all, you're STILL pushing any suspicion onto me as you can based on the SB vote. Hell, I've already said that in this post a ton of times. I do not think you're bringing any new reads to the table, and is just parroting the same suspicion over and over again. And I find that annoying and extremely fluffy.

Yeah okay I can see how you could've meant that. What do you think of people that aren't SB?

Right now I find Refa and Rapier pretty terribly scummy over the reasons I've posted. As you can probably see.

[Shinori]

Oh yeah Xinnidy's posts I kind of skimmed or skipped cause jesus.

Let me read her posts specifically. SIGH.

[Xinnidy]

Pointing out it is a nulltell does not mean it is a nulltell.

Something that I find has more drawbacks to town than scum happening in early day 1 and then getting quick defended by using "it could be done by scum or town" logic then defended again

*by stating "telling a fact isn't scummy" wasn't something that made me satisfied. I feel SB IS trying to push the "This is a nulltell stop reading it otherwise" card too hard.

Now I unexplode somewhere for the time being.

[Prims]

Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Oh my god I haven't read this game yet and posting walls on D1 doesn't make me want to.

[Rapier]

Eh actually I just went back to check the context and that contradiction was actually a misrep by Paper

Note that the bolded part can go either ways if you just read the first sentence, Rapier could be meaning that he agrees with SB's point or he could just be using it as comparison to Xin's to explain why Xin's is worse. Paper's interpretation would be okay in this case, but then there's the underlined part of the post that implies that Rapier already considered Paper bad at this point, so he never actually considered that Paper's SB point was ever good.

Happier with where I put my vote now.

When I said "Paper made a point", I meant he stated his reason (though he hadn't explained at that time). I didn't mean it in the informal way, which means "he was right". That happens when you're not a native, sorry. =P

Kinda tired, I'll refrain from doing stuff for the night.

[Shinori]

Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Oh my god I haven't read this game yet and posting walls on D1 doesn't make me want to.

This was most of my thought process for a lot of reading.

[Shinori]

When I said "Paper made a point", I meant he stated his reason (though he hadn't explained at that time). I didn't mean it in the informal way, which means "he was right". That happens when you're not a native, sorry. =P

Kinda tired, I'll refrain from doing stuff for the night.

Can you at least answer my question in my post?

[Vhaltz]

Uh wait a sec.

Shinori, why Bear over Poly?

[charlie_]

Paper made a point about SB, but Xin's lacks substance and looks slightly like parroting especially because he didn't expand on his motives.

Both you and Paper fail to answer why SB's content was scum inclined and how it couldn't be a null tell. You're the worst offender because of the parroting.

Aren't these blatant contradictions? Pedit: Apparently not, but I'm still not happy with completely dismissing it. Your Paper vote also looks highly reactionary. To answer your question from before, I voted you in the first place because you were pursuing a serious read and hadn't gotten your vote down, so it seemed to lack any conviction, and nothing else stuck out to me. I also have no real idea what you're talking about when you post about me, it looks like you agree with Xinnidy but at the same time you're attacking her for it? It also kind of bugs me how he lists a bunch of reads but most of them don't amount to anything more than "post more".

Xinny's "I wanted a reaction" kind of reminds me of Toonami? Nothing else really stuck out as scummy though, and her Refa content seems good, and I think if she was getting so much shit for her vote on me as scum she would've backed down by now.

Obviously I disagree that my posts were defensive as opposed to just responding but I don't really agree with the Paper wagon, I don't think he's scummy, the only thing that bothers me is his most recent(?) post where he says I'm scummy for responding to a vote on me, which did seem serious (until I remembered that Vhaltz did this exact same thing in the first game I played with him a couple of minutes ago.)

[...]Also Rapier vote feels too easy as well because he forgets that Rapier has a meta of doing dumb stuff and when he could defend Proto based on meta in CYOR mafia then you'd expect him to do the same for Rapier over here. Feels opportunistic to me.

Why are you completely dismissing the fact that Rapier could be mafia? Saying that someone isn't allowed to scumread someone else is just wrong imo.

Part of Eurykins' Rapier suspicion seems to be because he's... active? (wow I never thought I'd say that for Rapier.) This is kind of odd and I don't like it.

Oh my god the wall posts (that I'm probably not helping with). I feel like we're going in circles atm and am tempted to just do something stupid. Happy voting Rapier atm, will look at Bear and Refa more closely in a few minutes.

[Prims]

Changed my mind; Rapier is town for tryharding. I'm also like 99% certain Eury is town on word choice.

People voting Paper for not going into detail about how SB was defensive is silly as hell. There was a RVS vote on SB and SB started looking into the details when it was just that, a RVS vote.

People Who Look Really Terrible:

- bearclaw because Vhaltz's case is 10/10 would sheep.

- Bluedoom because the Paper vote is part "I don't agree with you", part irrelevant meta because Paper isn't voting Rapier for doing silly shit he usually does like people were voting Proto for doing. If anything, Rapier's play this game is unusual for him (although I think it's town)

- Refa who is playing like he does when he's scum lmao. A quote wall with snippy responses to ED1 posts is useless at this point. He has way too many irrelevant jabs at people that could be condensed down to a more reasonable post and reeks of padding. Also agree with Xinnidy that his sub-cases are sloppy and look like further padding.

People Whose Posting Styles Look Really Terrible:

- Rapier

- Refa

- Xinnidy

As is I am barely reading this game because you people use too many words and line breaks to say too little. Come the fuck on.

##Vote: Refa

[Shinori]

Because I think they are both equally scummy except I really want Bearclaw to do something besides what he's been doing. I also want him to explain his stuff a bit better.

Overall reading his posts I felt he could swing either way on the Paper case and his original vote placement on Paper seemed like RVS because of lack of anything when he made the post. He also hasn't said anything really except about Paper.

[Prims]

##Unvote, ##Vote: Refa if unvoting is an issue.

[Shinori]

PRIMS WHAT AM I?

[Rapier]

Can you at least answer my question in my post?

Uh, I don't think I understand your attempt to link Poly's case with Paper's.

I also have no real idea what you're talking about when you post about me, it looks like you agree with Xinnidy but at the same time you're attacking her for it? It also kind of bugs me how he lists a bunch of reads but most of them don't amount to anything more than "post more".

what

I never said I agreed with Xin.

@Prims

This is exactly why I end giving up on Mafia. Can't deal with the huge amounts of posts and content.

[Vhaltz]

Prims and Xin calm down a little please =/

[Xinnidy]

Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Oh my god I haven't read this game yet and posting walls on D1 doesn't make me want to.

No. Fuck off. Never tell me to shut the fuck up.

I finally sort out enough free time after stopping being a terrible person about study and work ethics and this is what I get back.

When I spoilered my walls back around 6 months when I still played, people complained. I see that not doing it changes fucking nothing.

...Whatever, I'll be off until like midnight my time. Staying like this is just unhelpful. :/

I'll try to do waste more of my time and link-compress when needed like back in Volcanic mafia or something

[Prims]

Xinnidy that was directed at the game in general and mostly facetious. I'm not actually mad. But like, Rapier, if you gave up on mafia because you couldn't keep up with walls, then why would you turn around and do the same shit that made you quit?

Shinori you're probably town for bothering to ask me that. idk lol

[charlie_]

I find it kind of weird how Refa was around and jokeposted but didn't put any actual content up till 2 pages later. His "nobody will be a perfect townie" point is stupid because if we went off of that we would just no lynch ourselves to death. Also:

lolwhat. The accusing side can never be absolutely certain that they'll catch scum barring extreme circumstances, and the defensive side being able to use it is fucking retarded. The defensive side should prove their towniness, not be like "WELL THIS ACTION COULD COME FROM TOWN INTENT." Also it's a bit high of you to complain about someone's ED1 vote on a potentially null tell when you haven't had any stronger votes yourself.

Isn't this exactly what I've been accused of? You even say that I'm null later on in the post. He also says that he dislikes how Rapier is going for easy votes then adds his vote to the Rapier wagon which seems hypocritical to me. The scum meta thing from Prims is kind of valid too but he hasn't claimed cop yet so we can't be sure.

Still don't like Rapier and disagree that effort = town (see Vhaltz last game) but I think Refa's is scummier.

##Unvote

##Vote: Refa

Agree with Vhaltz, please can people calm down.

[Elieson]

Modnouncement:

Cool your Shiz before posting. Even insults not intended may come across as such, and I'd prefer to see gameplay done without hostilities, intentional or not.

[Vhaltz]

I have to proofcheck them tomorrow because I'm tired but I think the Refa cases are ok for the most part. Still like Bear better though at least atm.

Shinori is giving me odd vibes. The vote on Bear over Poly is confusing even after the explanation, he had several things on Poly he heavily disliked while it seemed that his reasons to vote Bear were more of a prodvote so it doesn't feel like legit priorities, it feels more like when I was BSing my way out of voting BBM late D1 last game even after repeatedly claiming he was scummy.

Gonna go bed now.