Mini 301: Berry Kingdom Mafia II -- (Game Over!!)

[Commodore Amazing]

I strongly oppose no lynch.

I can go for a lynch on either Bacde or Ameliaslay. Ameliaslay has been very guarded, even though the town seems to be in lylo. And Bacde's lynch happy.

Or maybe I'm just repeating everything that the town says since I'm the SK, and I don't really have a choice in the matter anyway.

Honestly, I haven't seen much to sway me to lynch someone. I am still opposed to a Yosarian2 lynch.

[ziliu]

If you look at my post by post analysis of Bacde, I can't see why you'd think he's scum. This could mean I've made an assumption thats wrong, and I would have expected some response on it from the anti-Bacde camp.

If your sure Bacde is scum, why aren't you making noises to encourage us towards making a decision? Being quiet after just making your own decision is a bit... well quiet!

I don't think "making noises to encourage us towards making a decision" benefits town. I don't want to manipulate you guys into a decision, I want you to reach the decision independently, providing your own reasoning. If I really started making a huge case against Bacde, if he is innocent, it would be too easy for scum to jump on. It'd be too easy for scum to jump on if he is scum too for that matter, no, I'm more of the lay back and observer-player, I want everybody to provide there own reasoning for their actions, only then can we find scum. 'nough said.

Though it is a little bit quiet here, so I'll comment the PBPA of yours.

Post 33... Bacde moves vote onto Lloyd after his joke.

Post 49... Bacde defned making a third vote on Lloyd for his April Fools dya joke, as "If 3rd vote = scum, then we'd never lynch anyone." (his words). His vote had nothing to do with the other two votes on him. Which is odd.

I still do stand by my comment on Bacde's 3rd vote; I was not saying that the fact that it was the 3rd vote was scummy

per se

, but the fact that the reasoning for that 3rd vote was so crappy, he voted Lloyd for two jokes,

admitting that they were only jokes

.

Post 58... Bacde defends Ciprian's 'your side' comment. Ciprian, we know is Town, so would be odd to defend this slip that had been pounced upon by Y2, instead of supporting a potential lynch, if he were scum.

WIFOM. Actually, I think that posts makes it more likely Bacde's scum. I don't think the your side-reason had much merit, (which is easy to say for me in retrospect, but whatever), but the point is, I don't like the way Bacde defended ciprian there. A pro-town, IMHO, would be more careful of defending somebody because they couldn't really know if ciprian were scum or not, whereas a scum, knowing that ciprian was innocent, would see it as an opportunity to gain some innocence for later on... (cont.)

Post 68... Then votes Ciprian (some time later) with the reason "I guess his whole "Posting mental notes is scummy" Tyrade is pretty stupid. Either way, voting Ciprian is better than no vote at all, and I think Lloyd stopped being so crazy." This was the 3rd vote.

(cont.)... except that won't really work if the town didn't know ciprian was innocent, hence, it's better if scum lynch him to make sure.

Also, add my comments to those two posts in post 137.

Then CA finishes Ciprian him off for the day with the semi-cop claim and call for a doctor protection. In post 73. That was a quick lynch.

Post 86... Bacde avoid an early 2nd lynch, but points at Y2 and CA. We know CA laters claims SK, but he was forced to.

Post 98... Bacde votes for CA, with the good reason that he's bitten of more than he can chew.

Y2 then fingers Bacde, mentioning a speedlynch.

Post 102... Bacde unvotes due to the CA claim.

Up until now, Bacde has shown pro-town behaviour and I no suspicion from me. The next post was got me thinking.

As you probably see, I don't agree with that. First, #98 is a small scum-tell in itself, I still think a pro-town would be more careful, and realise lynching the SK meant goodbye. Bacde votes CA, maybe hoping for a quick-lynch, and doesn't unvote till Yosarian tells him to. Very scummy.

Post 114 ... In response to Y2's list of possible scum: "In making a list, excluding yourself on the basis "I know I am protown" is a highly anti-progress thing to do. " I disagree. Everyone will always say they are pro-town (unless already claimed or proven, I guess), so didn't see this as anti-progress.

I actually agree that including yourself is more pro-town, but I do believe a true townie or a careful scumbag would exclude themselves. I don't like Bacde's quick attack on Yosarian2 though; I read it as trying to start an accusation.

Post 134: bacde votes Ameliasaly for not getting the right finding scum vibes. Weak, but re-reading there's been little input from her to this point.

Post 142: Bacde points out the lynch or lose situation, and that killing the SK would end the game if there's the standard 3 Mafia.

Post 148: Bacde asks me a direct question. "@TheCesspit- What part of what I am saying seems to be intended to misdirect? "

In answer, after this long post-by-post.

UnFOS

Nothing. I was going with the gut on one comment, NOT on the actual content through out. I don't think you're right in your assesment that your the only one looking for scum, but I do think you ARE looking for scum.

I would say that Ziliu or Ameliaslaty are the quietest up until recently, and I didn't really see much of interest from either. They've recently been circling Bacde, but there's plenty I see that suggests we should look else where.

[Yosarian2]

It's very interesting that TheCesspit first FOS'd Bacde, then unFOS'd him, and is no defending him. Possible link?

[Yosarian2]

...and is

now

defending him, I mean.

[Bacde]

I can go for a lynch on either Bacde or Ameliaslay. Ameliaslay has been very guarded, even though the town seems to be in lylo. And Bacde's lynch happy.

I don't understand how I can seem lynch happy for advocating the lynch of someone no one else agrees with.

[Ameliaslay]

I apologize to everyone, but I do have an answer to who I am suspicious of my thoughts, etc., I just don't have time to lay out my case until Thurs. I've been testing this week, and have time for nothing other than brief check-ins. And again I apologize...

[Bacde]

Ugh, ziliu your post was so riddled full of holes it makes me begin to suspect you as top suspect.

I don't think "making noises to encourage us towards making a decision" benefits town. I don't want to manipulate you guys into a decision, I want you to reach the decision independently, providing your own reasoning. If I really started making a huge case against Bacde, if he is innocent, it would be too easy for scum to jump on. It'd be too easy for scum to jump on if he is scum too for that matter, no, I'm more of the lay back and observer-player, I want everybody to provide there own reasoning for their actions, only then can we find scum. 'nough said.

If I am innocent, game over, unless you REALLY want to rely on Commodore Amazing making a kill. (Not a good plan in I hope anyone's opinion).

Though it is a little bit quiet here, so I'll comment the PBPA of yours.


I still do stand by my comment on Bacde's 3rd vote; I was not saying that the fact that it was the 3rd vote was scummy

per se

, but the fact that the reasoning for that 3rd vote was so crappy, he voted Lloyd for two jokes,

admitting that they were only jokes

.

Have you really read my posts? The way you are talking suggests you haven't, else you would have read that I voted for Lloyd

BECAUSE

he joked, not because I thought he was serious.

WIFOM. Actually, I think that posts makes it more likely Bacde's scum. I don't think the your side-reason had much merit, (which is easy to say for me in retrospect, but whatever), but the point is, I don't like the way Bacde defended ciprian there. A pro-town, IMHO, would be more careful of defending somebody because they couldn't really know if ciprian were scum or not, whereas a scum, knowing that ciprian was innocent, would see it as an opportunity to gain some innocence for later on... (cont.)

You admit that it is WIFOM, and then go on to argue that it makes me more likely scum? What are you trying to pull here? I think you also missed the part where I made it clear I was defending ciprian's word choice, rather than him as a player. Read please.

(cont.)... except that won't really work if the town didn't know ciprian was innocent, hence, it's better if scum lynch him to make sure.

Stupidest reasoning ever. So you are accusing me of defending ciprian and then lynching him even though I thought he was protown? When did I actually defend

ciprian

, instead of his word choice.

Also, add my comments to those two posts in post 137.

Obviously my opinion changed...

As you probably see, I don't agree with that. First, #98 is a small scum-tell in itself, I still think a pro-town would be more careful, and realise lynching the SK meant goodbye. Bacde votes CA, maybe hoping for a quick-lynch, and doesn't unvote till Yosarian tells him to. Very scummy.

You didn't even say

why

it was scummy. Just saying "Very scummy" at the end of a statement doesn't make it true. I think you were clawing at the idea that my vote was an intended vote to create a quick-lynch, but that doesn't even make any logical sense.
Were I scum, then a quick lynch couldn't have happened because the quick-lynch principal assumes that all scum vote for a particular person already.

Were I innocent, then I (obviously) wouldn't want a quick-lynch. I figured out that yes, lynching him puts us most likely into a loss. Hell, I could even say that that honest mistake showed I wasn't counting numbers as diligently has I should have, as a scum would have been doing, but that would be WIFOM wouldn't it.

I actually agree that including yourself is more pro-town, but I do believe a true townie or a careful scumbag would exclude themselves. I don't like Bacde's quick attack on Yosarian2 though; I read it as trying to start an accusation.

You get a cookie if you can show me where I accused Yosarian of anything besides doing something anti-progress. Honestly, where is it? I still stand by the idea that if you are trying to work with everyone, you can't exclude yourself from the pool. If you are only posting your notes for your own sake, then what is the point of even posting them?
----
Of course, in my entire response to you, I was being overly kind. I don't wish to misrepresent your situation, but I feel very differently than you (obviously). At the moment, I think it is VERY likely that you are scum, and that you voted me thinking that I would be an easy lynch. What I don't think you planned on, was TheCesspit not advocating your lynch. You, realizing that being hypocritical would be scummy (since your main accusation is on the basis that I search for affirmations before I do anything, which is proved false by my actions on Ameliaslay today anyway), decided that keeping your vote on me would be your best choice of action, and are now stuck in a rut, and have decided to keep firing away at me, even though you've got no ammunition left.

In case you wanted to know, yes, when I said "Not doing anything about it" I meant you not voting me. I find it

very

interesting that you didn't vote me until I pretty obviously pointed out that you should follow your suspicions.

So with out further adeiu,

FoS: ziliu

, and I still am waiting for Ameliaslay to say whatever she was going to.

[Yosarian2]

You admit that it is WIFOM, and then go on to argue that it makes me more likely scum? What are you trying to pull here? I think you also missed the part where I made it clear I was defending ciprian's word choice, rather than him as a player. Read please.

...


Stupidest reasoning ever. So you are accusing me of defending ciprian and then lynching him even though I thought he was protown? When did I actually defend

ciprian

, instead of his word choice.

When I attacked ciprian because of a possible Freudian slip, and you disagree with my attack on ciprian, that counts as you defending ciprian. That's how people defend other people, is by ripping apart the attack on them. And that's fine; but ziliu does make a point that it seems unusual for you to defend him on one point, then turn around and vote for him because of something else.

As you probably see, I don't agree with that. First, #98 is a small scum-tell in itself, I still think a pro-town would be more careful, and realise lynching the SK meant goodbye. Bacde votes CA, maybe hoping for a quick-lynch, and doesn't unvote till Yosarian tells him to. Very scummy.

You didn't even say

why

it was scummy. Just saying "Very scummy" at the end of a statement doesn't make it true. I think you were clawing at the idea that my vote was an intended vote to create a quick-lynch, but that doesn't even make any logical sense.
Were I scum, then a quick lynch couldn't have happened because the quick-lynch principal assumes that all scum vote for a particular person already.

When yoiu first cast your vote for CA, my initial thought was that this was the beginning of a speed-lynch; that the other two people voting for CA were town, and you were hoping your two scum mates jumped on the bandwagon before anyone else noticed.

It's interesting, though, that you actually unvoted before either of the other people did. That's not the way I would have expected you to act if you were trying to start a speed-lynch and your partners just didn't show up in time.

If you're not scum, then by my "why didn't the scum speed-lynch CA" question, the most suspicious person would be TheCesspit, as I still think Lloyd is most likely a GG. However, it is also possible the speedlynch didn't happen scum were just lurking or being cautious.

[ziliu]

Ugh, ziliu your post was so riddled full of holes it makes me begin to suspect you as top suspect.
[...]
You admit that it is WIFOM, and then go on to argue that it makes me more likely scum? What are you trying to pull here? I think you also missed the part where I made it clear I was defending ciprian's word choice, rather than him as a player. Read please.

Just as Yosarian said, if person A says person B is scum because of [reason], and person C says [reason] is not a valid reason, I consider person C to be defending person B.

I say that my first reaction was "WIFOM!", but when I thought a little about it, it's WIFOM pushed a little away from equilibrium, because of the "I'll be defending an innocent" thing.

Stupidest reasoning ever. So you are accusing me of defending ciprian and then lynching him even though I thought he was protown? When did I actually defend

ciprian

, instead of his word choice.

Yes I'm accusing you of first defending Bacde and then lynching him. Defending somebody's word actions counts as defending that person, how else could you defend someone???

Obviously my opinion changed...

So you're saying you first thought ciprian was innocent and then not? But at the same time you still didn't

defend

the person whom you thought to be innocent? Also, it was a very quick change opinion methinks.

You didn't even say

why

it was scummy. Just saying "Very scummy" at the end of a statement doesn't make it true. I think you were clawing at the idea that my vote was an intended vote to create a quick-lynch, but that doesn't even make any logical sense.
Were I scum, then a quick lynch couldn't have happened because the quick-lynch principal assumes that all scum vote for a particular person already.

Voting on a claimed SK, whose lynch, if he were indeed the SK, would hand scum a definite win is scummy. I thought I didn't need to point it out.

With quick-lynch, I meant the possibility that TheCesspit and Lloyd are innocent, and you knew it, and added a vote hoping for your scum-buddies to pile on their two votes, lynching CA, and winning the game. Or if one of TheCesspit and Lloyd are scum, it could be actually you put on the vote to start a bandwagon hoping that an innocent would be uncareful, and your second scumbuddy would hammer. Or it could be that one of TheCesspit, Lloyd are scum, and you thought: "aha, lynch-or-lose, and one innocent has a vote on CA, therefore with three scum votes CA will be lynched," without realising that you needed five votes. Anyway, there are a lot of possibilities, but voting the claimed SK does not put you in a favorable light.

Were I innocent, then I (obviously) wouldn't want a quick-lynch. I figured out that yes, lynching him puts us most likely into a loss. Hell, I could even say that that honest mistake showed I wasn't counting numbers as diligently has I should have, as a scum would have been doing, but that would be WIFOM wouldn't it.

You figured out that lynching him would most likely put us into a loss, yet you voted him, without being more careful and considering other options?? Doesn't sound pro-town to me.

You get a cookie if you can show me where I accused Yosarian of anything besides doing something anti-progress. Honestly, where is it? I still stand by the idea that if you are trying to work with everyone, you can't exclude yourself from the pool. If you are only posting your notes for your own sake, then what is the point of even posting them?

Okay, you didn't accused him for anything besides anti-progress. But I still think, in mafia, any kind of accusation saying somebody's actions do not help the town is an attack casting suspicion on that person. Moreover, since scum usually want to lay low, subtle accusations, trying to manipulate people into believing somebody is suspicious, without actually explicitly saying: "I think you are scum", are even more scummy.

----
Of course, in my entire response to you, I was being overly kind. I don't wish to misrepresent your situation, but I feel very differently than you (obviously). At the moment, I think it is VERY likely that you are scum, and that you voted me thinking that I would be an easy lynch. What I don't think you planned on, was TheCesspit not advocating your lynch. You, realizing that being hypocritical would be scummy (since your main accusation is on the basis that I search for affirmations before I do anything, which is proved false by my actions on Ameliaslay today anyway), decided that keeping your vote on me would be your best choice of action, and are now stuck in a rut, and have decided to keep firing away at me, even though you've got no ammunition left.

Well, bring on the not-so-overly-kind response too. I want to hear. And my vote is on you because I thnk you're scummy. I don't agree with that I haven't got any ammunition left, I think you are avoiding my points.

Besides, that paragraph was very manipulative in tone, and fallacious in logic. It could be just your style of writing, but I don't like it. You are basically saying that because I keep my vote on you, I must be scum, giving an example: "Assuming he were scum, it would be hypocritical to unvote me, and he would keep my vote on me. Ergo, because he's keeping his vote on me, he would be scum." What you don't say is the same argument would hold if I were innocent.

The "since your main accusation is on the basis that I search for affirmations before I do anything, which is proved false by my actions on Ameliaslay today anyway" defense is invalid as well, duh, I am not saying you

always

search for affirmations, just that you did it with ciprian and it was scummy.

In case you wanted to know, yes, when I said "Not doing anything about it" I meant you not voting me. I find it

very

interesting that you didn't vote me until I pretty obviously pointed out that you should follow your suspicions.

I wasn't sure about you back then. And I didn't want to put a vote on you without reading through more carefully. And yes, I admit, it was also because I didn't want to appear hypocritical. But only because I didn't want to appear hypocritical doesn't make me scum.

And besides, the difference is, that you didn't state any opinion of your own in

Where are you guys getting these gut feelings on Ciprian? I'd love to join the bandwagon if I knew why.

,
but only solicited opinions to join an easy bandwagon without risking that someone would attack you for bad reasoning. Nobody could, since you didn't provide any reasoning.

I clearly stated my opinions on you in my #137, methinks as long as I make clear I'm thinking you are scum because of that-and-that, a vote really does nothing but a formal difference.

[Cherry]

Yosarian doesnt appear to b scum to me ironicly from his vote. i can see how scum would let us get reason to vote someone and then follow that reason to appear to b a good guy. but Yosarian's vote is out with backing and therefore not scummy.

Ziliu i think has his interest in the town by investigating Bacde's "scummy actions" which appears to b pro town to me, esp because i agree with his reasoning against him.

at this point i want to find out who is pro-town instead of who is scum. this way we can find who is scum by who isnt pro-town (stupid comment but im making a point ) it also prevents us from speed-lynching someone without taking everyone else into consideration.

[TheCesspit]

It's very interesting that TheCesspit first FOS'd Bacde, then unFOS'd him, and is no defending him. Possible link?

Hmmm, I'd hope my unFOS and defence were in the same move of the long PBP account. This is why I asked Ziliu for his feedback, as if he' sure, there must be something I've missed.

My defence is simple: I don't want town to be lynched. If -I- think someone is Town, I'm going to be anti-lynching them unless I can be shown that by thoughts are wrong.

I am very glad that my comments have generated some debate now, as we did seem to be stuck. Ziliu's made some interesting replies to my post, for which I'm glad. I didn't accept his non-comittal vote earlier, but now I can see his reasoning, I'm happier.

More later on the developments.

[Bacde]

I don't think you understand how tired I am of people with 300 or less posts doing a "PBPA" on me, misrepresent the situation, try to wagon me and fail, and then get on with the rest of the game. I think something even more protown than looking for scum is the ability to doubt yourself, so you can check on your accusations from a new mindset, to make sure that your position at least holds some fucking water. This just seems to happen to me every damn game.

Need examples?

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 68&start=0
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 67&start=0
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 52&start=0

There is an ongoing theme game where this has happened too, but I won't link you to it because it is bad form to refer to ongoing games.

I'll tell you why your entire post misrepresents the entire game later, but not now because I'm so frusterated at the idea of this happening again. If you want an example of how you are

strawmanning

(https://www.mafiascum.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Straw_Man), I'll show you one.

You figured out that lynching him would most likely put us into a loss, yet you voted him, without being more careful and considering other options?? Doesn't sound pro-town to me.

Shouldn't it be obvious that when I said "I found out that lynching him would be a loss" I was talking about where I unvoted him? How is avoiding a loss something that isn't protown?

OR What about this gem

Besides, that paragraph was very manipulative in tone, and fallacious in logic. It could be just your style of writing, but I don't like it. You are basically saying that because I keep my vote on you, I must be scum, giving an example: "Assuming he were scum, it would be hypocritical to unvote me, and he would keep my vote on me. Ergo, because he's keeping his vote on me, he would be scum." What you don't say is the same argument would hold if I were innocent.

First of all, I thought it was obvious in my previous post that my final paragraph WAS my "not so kind to your position" paragraph, where I posted my opinion rather than mere fact. I already stated that I think it is very likely that you are scum, and I stated what I thought your position in the game is. You already stated that one of your main goals was to avoid looking scummy or hippocritical. I think that is stupid if you are town, since town players are playing to find scum. I'm also very tired of people saying that changing opinion is not allowed. If people were not allowed to change their opinions in mafia games, then the scum would always win.

Now answer me this question:

Why do you care about looking scummy if you are protown?

[TheCesspit]

More later on the developments.

Sorry, no more, tired and busy and barely keeping up here.

In short: Ziliu or Bacde? Ziliu or Bacde? Dunno, got to exercise those tiny grey cells.

[Bacde]

I'd rather wait on Ameliaslay than pretend that one of us

must

be scum. In short, I'd like to hear from everyone who hasn't been talking much.

[Lloyd]

I just don't have time to lay out my case until Thurs.

I look forward to you laying out your case.

[ziliu]

I just don't have time to lay out my case until Thurs.

I look forward to you laying out your case.

Ditto.

[Commodore Amazing]

I just don't have time to lay out my case until Thurs.

I look forward to you laying out your case.

Ditto.

Let's hear it!

Am I allowed to vote for her yet?

[Ameliaslay]

Here's to all who waited with bated breath: the person I'm suspicious of is Lloyd.
And what I was really waiting for was his reaction to the arguments of today beyond what he has said about CA, or more to the point suspicions of his own. His only comment on the matter hasn't even been very extensive-or to the point, he merely said:

I just don't have time to lay out my case until Thurs.

I look forward to you laying out your case.

All I've seen beyond this post recently, was a brief one 6 days before answering the reason his vote was still on CA.

Furthermore, considering that CA's claim has been called into question soley on the basis of Lloyd's claim of roleblocker, I wondered why his claim was accepted so readily and thought it was convenient that because of his role-blocker claim CA was allowed to slip conveniently and quickly into the shoes of an SK--and thus unlynchable in the face of destroying the balance of power.


And to comment, on the current Bacde/ ziliu question... Ziliu's posts appear most pro-town in sentiment, but some of Bacde's actions cause me to question his alignment. He seemed over-defensive and a bit angry in his response to the PBPA directed at him.

[Yosarian2]

Furthermore, considering that CA's claim has been called into question soley on the basis of Lloyd's claim of roleblocker, I wondered why his claim was accepted so readily and thought it was convenient that because of his role-blocker claim CA was allowed to slip conveniently and quickly into the shoes of an SK--and thus unlynchable in the face of destroying the balance of power.

So, your theory is that Lloyd and CA are scum together, and they planned this whole thing?

If they're not scum together, then how do you explain how Lloyd knew that CA tried to make a kill last night and was prevented if you don't believe his claim?

[Bacde]

Then what happened to the missing nightkill?

I think that Lloyd is most likely telling the truth.

[Yosarian2]

(nods) Yeah, I'd like to hear exactally how Ameliaslay theory would work.

[Lloyd]

considering that CA's claim has been called into question soley on the basis of Lloyd's claim of roleblocker

If you really mean "solely", then you are twisting the facts.

- Post 83, TheCesspit questions CA's implied claim from Day 1

- Post 85, Commodore Amazing claims Tracker

- Post 88, Yosarian2 doubts CA's Tracker claim

- Post 91, Cherry questions CA's motiviation in claiming Tracker

- Post 92, I claim to counter CA's claimed investigation from last night.

I blocked CA, so his claimed investigation didn't make sense to me.

[Ameliaslay]

What I meant, is that the reason he re-claimed was because you claimed. And because a vig. was killed d1, my theory about the nightkills was that the vig. killed the mason and the scum killed the vig which justifys there only being one night kill.

[Yosarian2]

What I meant, is that the reason he re-claimed was because you claimed. And because a vig. was killed d1, my theory about the nightkills was that the vig. killed the mason and the scum killed the vig which justifys there only being one night kill.

So you think CA invested the SK claim because Llyod said he blocked him?

I guess that's possible, if CA was really mafia. I was pretty sure CA was SK even before he claimed and even before Lloyd claimed he roleblocked CA, just because that's the only way CA's day 1 and 2 actions could make sense, but that's not 100% proof.

But in any case, I still don't really see how all that makes you more suspicious of Lloyd.

[Lloyd]

• [*]Fritzler,
  Raspberry (Vigilante)
  ,[/color]
  bashed Night One.
  
  
  [*]audacesiuvat,
  Cranberry (Mason)
  ,[/color]
  crushed Night One.
  
  
  [*]Ciprian,
  Blackberry (Villager)
  ,[/color]
  lynched Day One.
  
  
  [*]Coron,
  Strawberry (Cop)
  ,[/color]
  crushed Night Two.

my theory about the nightkills was that the vig. killed the mason and the scum killed the vig which justifys there only being one night kill.

According to your theory, audacesiuvat was

crushed

by Fritzler, and Fritzler was

bashed

by scums.

Since Fritzler died on Night 1, he couldn't have

crushed

Coron on Night 2.

How come Coron was

crushed

instead of being

bashed

?