Finished Mafia LXI: Forest Fire: Game Over!

[NinjaPenguin]

Day 5: Vote Count 1​

Jabberwock (1)-scattered mind
Not Voting: bbninjas, Ephemera, Jabberwock, Jadethepokemontrainer

If the day ended right now, Jabberwock would be eliminated. There are 72 hours remaining in the day.

Vote History:

Spoiler

Spoiler: Day 1

#20-Celever voted bbninjas
#23-Amici voted Celever
#27-Ephemera voted Celever
#30-Vom voted Fiery_Lugia
#32-Ephemera voted Vom
#41-Ephemera voted Ephemera
#42-Ephemera voted Vom
#47-Vom voted Ephemera
#51-Jadethepokemontrainer voted MegaPod_781
#55-Celever voted Ephemera
#81-MegaPod_781 voted bbninjas
#102-bbninjas voted Ephemera
#120-Ephemera voted bbninjas
#123-Ephemera voted MegaPod_781
#139-MegaPod_781 voted Ephemera
#151-Scattered mind voted Amici
#162-Ephemera voted Celever
#244-MegaPod_781 voted Celever
#249-Jadethepokemontrainer voted Celever
#268-scattered mind voted Fiery_Lugia
#276-Ephemera voted bbninjas
#288-scattered mind voted Celever
#297-Celever voted bbninjas
#302-Fiery_Lugia voted Celever
#304-Celever voted Amici

Spoiler: Day 2

#308-MegaPod_781 voted bbninjas
#320-scattered mind voted bbninjas
#348-bbninjas voted MegaPod_781
#353-Amici voted Ephemera
#357-Vom voted scattered mind
#358-Ephemera voted bbninjas
#390-Jadethepokemontrainer voted MegaPod_781
#392-Ephemera voted Amici
#395-Vom voted MegaPod_781

Spoiler: Day 3

#404-Vom voted scattered mind
#405-Ephemera voted Amici
#418-Jadethepokemontrainer voted Amici
#420-bbninjas voted Amici

Spoiler: Day 4

#453-Jabberwock voted scattered mind
#454-Ephemera voted Jabberwock
#513-Ephemera voted bbninjas
#517-bbninjas voted Vom
#538-Ephemera unvoted bbninjas
#566-scattered mind voted Jabberwock
#567-bbninjas unvoted Vom
#574-bbninjas voted Vom
#587-Ephemera voted Jabberwock
#607-Ephemera voted scattered mind
#613-Ephemera unvoted scattered mind
#624-Vom voted scattered mind
#651-Jabberwock voted Vom

#686-scattered mind voted Jabberwock

The following players have not posted in the past 24 hours and are being tagged (this isn't a warning or anything, just a reminder):
@Celever

 

[Jabberwock]

Jabberwock changed the vote on me to vom. Did he do that knowing that flipping me as town will lead him to be the only suspect? Actually that makes a lot of sense because the town points that I gave him back then were because I was sure that was MYLO. If he is scum he knew that it is not.

I've explained the thought process behind my vote switch three times now. If you missed it, it's in posts #649, #668, and #675.

As for the case on me- Basically you need to stop judge me as a perfect townie player or scum - there is the other option - a town player that screw up sometimes or doesn't have the time to post things in the right time you expected.

The issue is that many of the things you've done aren't just oops-coincidentally-anti-town, they also betray a scummy mindset.

• You kept your reads back for the sole reason of trying to construct an independent narrative and then later fitting it to the reality of the thread. Only scum have any need to construct an independent narrative.
• The Celever vote went against beliefs you earlier professed to hold about eliminating lurkers on D1 (in post #180). After that, only scum would say "Either he is scum or he doesn't care about this game. Either works" to justify Celever's elimination.
• Dropping the Amici case in mid-D1 despite her not answering your questions is further indication of malleable beliefs and a willingness to switch to whatever elimination is the most feasible, but the real kicker here is how you've talked about it since then. Pointing out your initial Amici read in #438 is not something town would do because you hadn't pursued it since then and the initial read had no relevance in D3 anyway, but is something scum would do to try and gain some superfluous towncred.

I've said all this before and I have no idea why everybody keeps skipping over it. These aren't WIFOMy, edge-case scenario points; there's legitimately no town explanation that I can see for them. There's always a possibility that I'm wrong — and I still want to go back and check bb just because I feel like having townread him for so long has given me a really warped perception of his posts — but having already gone back to check his most recent rebuttal of the case on you, I'm not seeing much to clear you of the points above.

##VOTE: scattered mind

Explained above.

Umm.. Life? I do try to focus on my game when I play, trust me, but sometimes I need to do other things. Like when my mom calls and thinks it would be great to talk on the phone for 30 minutes.

These seem legitimate, though. The vote-switch and the timing aren't that weird and you've explained them fine.

I'm not writing off anyone as town (duh), but right now I feel pretty good about Ephe and bbn.

Elaborate?

I also haven't read bb's case on Scattered from yesterday yet, so that too.

bb's big posts on scattered yesterday were refutals of my case on scattered. My case starts in #550, but there's been a lot of deliberation/refutals/refutal-refutals since then. My most recent posts about it are #676 and this one.

 

[Scattered mind]

You kept your reads back for the sole reason of trying to construct an independent narrative and then later fitting it to the reality of the thread. Only scum have any need to construct an independent narrative.

I already explained that I kept my reads for the first hours of D1 ONLY because letting scum know early on who town thinks is scummy or townie early on is not good.

 

[Scattered mind]

The Celever vote went against beliefs you earlier professed to hold about eliminating lurkers on D1 (in post #180). After that, only scum would say "Either he is scum or he doesn't care about this game. Either works" to justify Celever's elimination.

Nope. If I wasn't too tired to do this I could find many quotes from past town players saying how they don't mind eliminating an inactive player because they deserve not to play - this was said out of frustration and in an attempt to force him to react to me. I already said it was a mistake - not a scummy mindset.

 

[Jabberwock]

I already explained that I kept my reads for the first hours of D1 ONLY because letting scum know early on who town thinks is scummy or townie early on is not good.

That's not what you said D1. vv

I’m not really holding information, just not compiling them in my mind yet because I don’t want any micro read to affect my judgement so I focus first on the puzzle of players and then compiling the random thoughts I have into more solid thing I can compare with the puzzle. Which seems long but it’s actually really short and I’m about to start sharing my reads soon. It’s just that it has been j a day since I begun this process.

 

[Scattered mind]

Dropping the Amici case in mid-D1 despite her not answering your questions is further indication of malleable beliefs and a willingness to switch to whatever elimination is the most feasible, but the real kicker here is how you've talked about it since then. Pointing out your initial Amici read in #438 is not something town would do because you hadn't pursued it since then and the initial read had no relevance in D3 anyway, but is something scum would do to try and gain some superfluous towncred.

Pointing that I voted first Amici was not to alert everyone to look at me and how townie I am - it was to remind my point on her from back then and add it to the general case that was developping on her. Perhaps with mild frustration at the accusation on me next to the case on her.

 

[Scattered mind]

That's not what you said D1. vv

Umm I didn't say anything instead. Maybe something about "I would like to keep it to myself for now" but thats it. The thing is I already posted that explanation later on.

 

[Scattered mind]

That's not what you said D1. vv

Oh I didn't see the quotes

That was about the comment that was made on the probability thing. It's not related.

 

[Jabberwock]

Nope. If I wasn't too tired to do this I could find many quotes from past town players saying how they don't mind eliminating an inactive player because they deserve not to play - this was said out of frustration and in an attempt to force him to react to me. I already said it was a mistake - not a scummy mindset.

Nono I agree that plenty of town players eliminate lurkers in general; it's problematic, but that part's NAI — the scumminess is that you said in post #180 that you completely agree that as long as there are "bigger fish to fry" (Amici's words, which you quoted), "lurkers [were] out of the question" (your words). Supposedly, you had at least three actual scumreads at the time, which would certainly qualify as "bigger fish," and yet you put them aside for the leading case because if he wasn't scum, "he didn't care about the game," and you were happy with either. Policy eliminations are common enough for town to push that by itself it wouldn't be indicative, but this is a direct contradiction of your own words.

That said, the bolded is making me reconsider this point. Frustration would be a legitimate reason to vote Celever there from a town perspective, and it would also check out with your response in #563 to my initial case. Are you saying then that your main purpose in voting Cel wasn't to elim, but rather to provoke a reaction?

Pointing that I voted first Amici was not to alert everyone to look at me and how townie I am - it was to remind my point on her from back then and add it to the general case that was developping on her. Perhaps with mild frustration at the accusation on me next to the case on her.

You didn't bring up your point on her from back then, though. You just say "Just a reminder that I was the first to read Amici as scum or at least the first to vote her. You can find our talk to each other on page 7 I believe." You never followed through on that point, so this reads entirely like a grab for towncred.

That was about the comment that was made on the probability thing. It's not related.

It's totally related; you said it right after Vom said this:

Yeah, I know scattered's a good player so I'm sure he has some reason to openly admit to withholding information.
...
Ok now that I typed that it seems really scummy. I can see town!scattered waiting for a reaction or something before giving out reads, but I'm having more and more trouble believing that the longer he waits.

What probability thing are you talking about?

 

[Scattered mind]

That said, the bolded is making me reconsider this point. Frustration would be a legitimate reason to vote Celever there from a town perspective, and it would also check out with your response in #563 to my initial case. Are you saying then that your main purpose in voting Cel wasn't to elim, but rather to provoke a reaction?

Oh I was ready to eliminate in the moment but I did want the reaction. That was the driving force behind that post.

 

[Scattered mind]

You didn't bring up your point on her from back then, though. You just say "Just a reminder that I was the first to read Amici as scum or at least the first to vote her. You can find our talk to each other on page 7 I believe." You never followed through on that point, so this reads entirely like a grab for towncred.

You quoted the part where I tell people where to go to find my point on her..

 

[Scattered mind]

What probability thing are you talking about?

The post where I talk about the probability of some players to be scum together. Vom alerted about it that I talk in probabilities no in my own opinion.

 

[Jabberwock]

Oh I was ready to eliminate in the moment but I did want the reaction. That was the driving force behind that post.

Okay I think this does check out. My last problem with it was that you definitely seemed to be voting to eliminate, which wouldn't have lined up with just wanting to provoke a reaction, but frustration -> ready to eliminate in the moment is an understandable progression.

You quoted the part where I tell people where to go to find my point on her..

If you intended it as a legitimate way to substantiate the Amici case, why wouldn't you just reiterate the point? Why send people back to page 7 to look for it?

And again, if you saw it as a legitimate point against Amici, why didn't you ever follow through on the point to begin with? You said in #563 that it was at the back of your mind because of the Celever elim (though, honestly, you dropped it way before you began to see the Cel elim as viable) and that you decided you would return to it on D2, but despite opportunities to do that at the beginning of D2, you never did.

The only conclusion I can draw from your having dropped the Amici case in mid-D1 (and not resuming it in D2, etc) is that she was no longer one of your scumreads. That would be supported by the fact that you mention your cases on Lily and Jade, but not Amici, at the beginning of D2. But if that's what happened, then why on earth did you bring that case up again on D3? The only explanation I can see is that it was a grab for towncred.

The post where I talk about the probability of some players to be scum together. Vom alerted about it that I talk in probabilities no in my own opinion.

So like, Vom's post #130? I don't buy that there's a distinction. Vom is saying you're talking about probabilities and not contributing any of your actual reads. You respond that you're trying to puzzle ... something ... out (a potential scumteam?) without relying on reads, and then seeing how the puzzle fits what's happened in the actual game. I just cannot figure out why town would do it in that order. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for scum to look at interactions and construct that alternate narrative, because that's what they have to push to win.

I already explained that I kept my reads for the first hours of D1 ONLY because letting scum know early on who town thinks is scummy or townie early on is not good.

Can I also get you to quote where you said this? You've referred to it twice now but I can't remember you actually saying it.

 

[bbninjas]

Oh boy, I'm far too exhausted to read the past few pages today - I'll have to get to it tomorrow. If there's any particular points that people are specifically wanting me to address then please tag again

 

[Scattered mind]

If you intended it as a legitimate way to substantiate the Amici case, why wouldn't you just reiterate the point? Why send people back to page 7 to look for it?

And again, if you saw it as a legitimate point against Amici, why didn't you ever follow through on the point to begin with? You said in #563 that it was at the back of your mind because of the Celever elim (though, honestly, you dropped it way before you began to see the Cel elim as viable) and that you decided you would return to it on D2, but despite opportunities to do that at the beginning of D2, you never did.

The only conclusion I can draw from your having dropped the Amici case in mid-D1 (and not resuming it in D2, etc) is that she was no longer one of your scumreads. That would be supported by the fact that you mention your cases on Lily and Jade, but not Amici, at the beginning of D2. But if that's what happened, then why on earth did you bring that case up again on D3? The only explanation I can see is that it was a grab for towncred.

1) I guess I could find it and quote it. Still don't see what is scummy about it.

2) By the time of the Celever wagon I was gone due to IRL stuff. I guess I would pursue it more if I was playing the game at that period of time - you can see the first post I posted and quoted later on that shows that I have returned back to the game after disappearing.

3) I read Jade/Lily and Amici scummy together- I decided to first pursue Lily and Jade and then I had to disappear because of IRL stuff. Being scum is not the only explanation unless that is your goal to prove that I'm scum.

 

[Scattered mind]

So like, Vom's post #130? I don't buy that there's a distinction. Vom is saying you're talking about probabilities and not contributing any of your actual reads. You respond that you're trying to puzzle ... something ... out (a potential scumteam?) without relying on reads, and then seeing how the puzzle fits what's happened in the actual game. I just cannot figure out why town would do it in that order. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for scum to look at interactions and construct that alternate narrative, because that's what they have to push to win.

Trying to figure out which pairs of players fit tofether or not as scums is what I meant by puzzle solving- How is this scummy?

 

[Scattered mind]

2) By the time of the Celever wagon I was gone due to IRL stuff. I guess I would pursue it more if I was playing the game at that period of time - you can see the first post I posted and quoted later on that shows that I have returned back to the game after disappearing.

Adding to that what I already said before- I didn't have questions to ask Amici further at that time. Maybe I needed to ask but I really didn't have anything to do but repeating myself.

 

[Scattered mind]

Can I also get you to quote where you said this? You've referred to it twice now but I can't remember you actually saying it.

@Vom - I read you as town funnily enough because of the case you made on me. It feels very likely to come from town plus your vote on Mega. I get that you think that me agreeing with mega was alarming to you that we were scumbuddies - but I think your main issue with me is the lack of transperency -The fact that I don't reveal my full rainbow list to people is not scummy - It comes from the idea that my reads are being read by scum and can be used like that. Which is ironically something I learned from Camoclone of all people. Revealing your full readlist early on can help scum more than town. Also if you need meta proofs- I did a full early readlist as scum. So not only that is not alignment indicative it is also not meta indicative on me.[/QUOTE]

 

[Scattered mind]

You did not need bbninjas vote to eliminate me. bbninjas would have realized when we were close to a tie and would have switched to me by EoD. Why did choose to trust his case over your own? even if you think bbninjas as townie as hell in your pov you are the towniest as town and should trust your insticts first, especially when you say yourself that you didn't understand the case on vom fully.

@Jabberwock - You kinda avoided this- I mean you quoted it but your response was "I already explained" - This is a comment on point 1 of your explanation.

 

[Ephemera]

Lemme go over yesterday's events.

Unless amici was primed, which seems incredibly unlikely, there were three people primed by scum who were alive yesterday.
Jade may have saved some, but we can't really know for sure, and neither did scum.
Regardless, three people were primed and ready in scum's eyes.

Vom is 100% primed. This is proven by the lack of igniting last night. Either that or scum got paranoid, but I don't think that's it.

Another is almost definitely jade. Out of everyone, he's the one who people could never push – even before he claimed.

That leaves one probable prime between me/bb/scattered/jabber.

If bb is not scum, he's almost definitely primed as well. Good thought process, and I doubt scum (which in this case would be scattered or jabber) would be able to push him enough to get him miselimmed – a great reason to prime bb if he's town.
Another point towards town!bb being primed is the fact that no one (besides my one emotional vote) ever tried to push him.

This could be ego, but I think if bb or jade aren't primed (either scum didn't choose them for some reason or bb is scum), I would be, with the same logic as bb not being pushed yesterday: scum's wincon would have been fulfilled if someone not primed was elimmed yesterday, yet no one tried to push me at all.

On the other hand, I don't think either jabber or scattered is primed. This is because if one of them is scum, they logically know that the other is their best bet at pushing, and if bb is scum, he knows that town will likely shoot there.

This makes the situation:

bb scum: primed vom/jade/me
jabber/scattered: primed vom/jade/bb

uh

i thought this was going to be more revealing ngl. i thought i was making progress but then i realized i forgot to include vom in the primed count.
ugh.

but
this begs the question
why would scum!bb push vom, when he knows well that she's primed? I mean, it could be an elaborate play to gain towncred, but the state on that day before his huge case on Vom was that we would shoot between scattered/jabber, and possibly me. It would be easy for scum!bb to push one of the non-primed people and just win it then and there.

I think that almost locks bb town.

However, let's consider: what if scum!bb didn't prime vom/jade/me, and instead primed a different combination?
Vom is 100% primed still. Paranoia from scum could be a factor but scum!bb just goes for the ignite last night if vom isn't primed, since it would be really easy to push whoever is left if somehow jade scored a firefighter save.
If the world is scum!bb then there are two primes between jade/me/jabber/scattered
I highly doubt bb primes jabber at any point. Prior to jabber subbing in, lily would have been an easy LHF to push near LYLO, and once jabber did sub in, there were less reasons to townread him, just for the fact that he was in the thread late.
I still think jade is primed here... which locks bb town, since if even one of jabber/scattered isn't primed, scum!bb attacks there.

The only way bb is scum is if the primed people were exactly vom/jabber/scattered, which would get him major towncred, but why would bb prime lily N1 or N2 when there was Vom/Jade still in thread, and Jabber N3 over, say, me or one of Vom/Jade who might not have been targeted?

Conclusion: bb is town.

TL;DR:
this is a kind of confusing post, it even confused me a little as i made it, but basically:
Vom was primed sometime before D4.
a potential scum!bb, knowing that, still pushes Vom? highly unlikely.
only way this happens is if both jabber and scattered are primed in addition to Vom, but I think we can all agree that's unlikely.