MAFIA XXXVI: ODDJOB'S REVENGE

[Balki Bartokomous]

@Foxy --

Other than daring me to vote for you, are you going to respond to my theory?

You said that you thought I decided to leave my vote on RagingIke, and then I left the game for 40 minutes so that I would have "plausible deniability," right?

But your whole argument is that I am Scum bussing Scum RagingIke. So...why would I need plausible deniability? Do you see why that was a bizarre thing to say from someone who is pushing a theory that it was Scum Balki pushing Scum Ike?

Why would Scum Balki need plausible deniability at EOD after voting for Scum Ike?

[Balki Bartokomous]

He's really not doing anything that outs PRs, but he is trying way too hard to make it look as if he doesn't want to out PRs.

What does that mean? Like what?

I mean your play so far today has been more primarily focused on avoiding outing PRs, particularly the cop but secondarily a CC to the doctor (since you seem to be convinced, maybe rightly so, that Ike is not the doctor), than it has catching the mafia. I understand that Ike is your strongest scumread, but to discount other scumreads that you or others have simply because they don't fit into your arbitrary definitely-not-cop category is pretty absurd.

My play today is not "primarily focused on avoiding outing PRs." I made a post or two about that. I just want Town to be thinking about the costs of shrinking the Cop pool. I think that is a cost that we should take into consideration. That's all. Not trying to end all scumhunting, and I'm sharing plenty of other thoughts about other folks inside and outside that pool.

[Foxcastle]

Because with 40 minutes to go, you didn't know what was going to happen. That's plenty of time for a lot to change, and you know it. Peter was still a viable wagon when you vanished. Snowy could have happened. On Day 2, you whipped Stressedline's lynch into place in just 20 minutes.

I think it's a bizarre thing to assert that scum-Balki didn't need plausible deniability, even pushing scum-Ike. Scum always benefit from plausible deniability. "Sorry guys, real life caught up with me, I totally would have jumped on whatever to prevent the Town lynch if I'd been around!"

[bo_sox48]

Generally, I reject scumhunting that says: "X is not making sense so he's scum. Y said something inconsistent, so she's scum. Z says things that are logical and asks lots of questions so he's town."

I look for someone who is manufacturing arguments, trying to blend in with town, trying to avoid suspicion.

So you reject scumhunting based on weak cases? I don't understand how you can single out Ike as the only person that follows such a pattern. Yes, his play early on in the game fit that mold, but by page 10 are you really in a place to judge whether someone is trying to gain some early intelligence on things and putting pieces together in a simple manner or whether they are simply trying to fly under the radar?

I think it's safe to say that I disagree with the above assessment that I just quoted, especially at such an early juncture. I don't see the difference between someone doing that because it's early in the game and they're trying to keep things easy and simple while things develop around them or someone doing that to keep from garnering any negative attention. If the latter was Ike's ploy, it obviously didn't work.

You can find people who are trying to blend in because they may ask lots of questions, but the questions are not part of a sincere scumhunt. They don't really care about the answers. Their not really trying to solve a puzzle, they are trying to look like they are trying to solve a puzzle.

Again, yes, maybe that flies today, but not on page 11. Assuming you have ever actually put together an actual puzzle, you know it gets a lot easier over time. In the beginning, though, it takes a lot more vision to figure out what piece goes where with so little to work with, and some people just don't have all that much vision.

It didn't seem to me like he cared what the answers were.

I don't know how you interpreted that, but that could be a fair point so long as you can back it up.

Likewise, why didn't you jump to bozo? You were coming at him pretty good when you up and left for the day.

You can find the answer to this in the thread too, and it dovetails with my basic thinking on mafia described above. When I questioned Bozo about his late vote switches, his responses seemed sincere and not panicked, or premeditated. He was not coming up with good excuses or making any effort to avoid suspicion for some very late vote flops, and it just struck me as townie. It struck me as someone who was floundering around in the dark, not someone who was doing something with a purpose and with a ready made alibi.

Yeah, I found the answer in the thread. It wasn't very good. Hell, it was one sentence that said "but I think he's town because of what he just did" and gave no rational explanation for why what he just did = town. Your explanation here just now does, though, so thank you.

[bo_sox48]

I agree that we need to be careful about not lynching or forcing the cop to reveal and ASSUMING that Ike is either scum or doctor, he will simply be (or claim) RB'd ever day so if we mislynch we wouldn't really be losing a PR.

How did you come to the bolded conclusion?

[Balki Bartokomous]

Because with 40 minutes to go, you didn't know what was going to happen. That's plenty of time for a lot to change, and you know it. Peter was still a viable wagon when you vanished. Snowy could have happened. On Day 2, you whipped Stressedline's lynch into place in just 20 minutes.

I think it's a bizarre thing to assert that scum-Balki didn't need plausible deniability, even pushing scum-Ike. Scum always benefit from plausible deniability. "Sorry guys, real life caught up with me, I totally would have jumped on whatever to prevent the Town lynch if I'd been around!"

Plausible deniabilility for what? If my vote was on scum, and Ike flipped, I did not need to deny anything. If my vote was on scum, and somebody else flipped, what would I need to deny?

You think it’s bizarre to assert that scum voting scum don’t need deniability? The whole purpose of scum bussing scum is to get credit for voting scum, right?

[Foxcastle]

Because with 40 minutes to go, you didn't know what was going to happen. That's plenty of time for a lot to change, and you know it. Peter was still a viable wagon when you vanished. Snowy could have happened. On Day 2, you whipped Stressedline's lynch into place in just 20 minutes.

I think it's a bizarre thing to assert that scum-Balki didn't need plausible deniability, even pushing scum-Ike. Scum always benefit from plausible deniability. "Sorry guys, real life caught up with me, I totally would have jumped on whatever to prevent the Town lynch if I'd been around!"

Plausible deniabilility for what? If my vote was on scum, and Ike flipped, I did not need to deny anything. If my vote was on scum, and somebody else flipped, what would I need to deny?

You think it’s bizarre to assert that scum voting scum don’t need deniability? The whole purpose of scum bussing scum is to get credit for voting scum, right?

At this point, you've locked onto a phrase I used without a lot of thought as a placeholder for "scum scheming". I don't not even remember what my original point is, so congrats on lawyering this to death.

But you certainly haven't convinced me you're Town. You look scummier than ever to me at this point.

[DemonRHK]

Crackpot therory:

- snowy is The Godfather - if snowy is scum, this is the only way I haven’t been killed.

- Balki is scum, but never intended to save snowy D2 - He planned on staying off the lynch, but the wagon took off.

- bo is right, both snowy and Jamie are scum - Jamie ended up voting along someone he was just voting D2.

- peter is scum and has been bussing RELENTLESSLY - almost every vote from peter has been Ike, Jamie, and Balki

[Balki Bartokomous]

At this point, you've locked onto a phrase I used without a lot of thought as a placeholder for "scum scheming". I don't not even remember what my original point is, so congrats on lawyering this to death.

But you certainly haven't convinced me you're Town. You look scummier than ever to me at this point.

(1) Why do I look “scummier than ever”? What are your reasons for reading me as scum?

(2) Just to back up on the earlier discussion — your went back and re-read EOD1 and you said that it implicated me further because I did not post for the last 40 minutes of the phase. You said you thought that made me look like scum because, as scum, I would want to have an excuse, or an alibi, or some kind of protection after the flip.

My point is that does not make sense if you truly think RagingIke is Scum. If you think RagingIke is scum, then Scum Balki would not have any incentive to run away from that vote or to hide during the final minutes of the phase.

So, the phrase you used does not matter. The point still stands. The Day 1 Top nteractuon of Balki/Ike is just inconsistent with some kind of “distancing” or “bussing” exercise. And my lack of posting for 40 minutes before EOD does not support your theory.

What’s odd to me right now is that you don’t seem to care about the facts at all. So, you’re either locked into confirmation biased land, or you’re scum pretending to suspect me. Sadly, I’m not sure I’ll know the answer until we see Ike flip.

[Foxcastle]

(1) Why do I look “scummier than ever”? What are your reasons for reading me as scum?

(2) Just to back up on the earlier discussion — your went back and re-read EOD1 and you said that it implicated me further because I did not post for the last 40 minutes of the phase. You said you thought that made me look like scum because, as scum, I would want to have an excuse, or an alibi, or some kind of protection after the flip.

My point is that does not make sense if you truly think RagingIke is Scum. If you think RagingIke is scum, then Scum Balki would not have any incentive to run away from that vote or to hide during the final minutes of the phase.

So, the phrase you used does not matter. The point still stands. The Day 1 Top nteractuon of Balki/Ike is just inconsistent with some kind of “distancing” or “bussing” exercise. And my lack of posting for 40 minutes before EOD does not support your theory.

What’s odd to me right now is that you don’t seem to care about the facts at all. So, you’re either locked into confirmation biased land, or you’re scum pretending to suspect me. Sadly, I’m not sure I’ll know the answer until we see Ike flip.

1) Because that's my reaction to it. And part of my reaction to it is that you very good at twisting things around, which I think you're doing here, under the guise of playing hard defense.

2) What facts are you saying I'm unclear on? Your demand that I read certain situations according to the suppositions you insist on is different from not caring about "facts".

[Balki Bartokomous]

(1) Why do I look “scummier than ever”? What are your reasons for reading me as scum?

(2) Just to back up on the earlier discussion — your went back and re-read EOD1 and you said that it implicated me further because I did not post for the last 40 minutes of the phase. You said you thought that made me look like scum because, as scum, I would want to have an excuse, or an alibi, or some kind of protection after the flip.

My point is that does not make sense if you truly think RagingIke is Scum. If you think RagingIke is scum, then Scum Balki would not have any incentive to run away from that vote or to hide during the final minutes of the phase.

So, the phrase you used does not matter. The point still stands. The Day 1 Top nteractuon of Balki/Ike is just inconsistent with some kind of “distancing” or “bussing” exercise. And my lack of posting for 40 minutes before EOD does not support your theory.

What’s odd to me right now is that you don’t seem to care about the facts at all. So, you’re either locked into confirmation biased land, or you’re scum pretending to suspect me. Sadly, I’m not sure I’ll know the answer until we see Ike flip.

1) Because that's my reaction to it. And part of my reaction to it is that you very good at twisting things around, which I think you're doing here, under the guise of playing hard defense.

2) What facts are you saying I'm unclear on? Your demand that I read certain situations according to the suppositions you insist on is different from not caring about "facts".

1) What have I twisted around? Also, you came into this discussion thinking I was scum. Why?

2) You first said something to the effect of me being locked onto Ike and so I couldn’t switch to save him. That was not true — I actively considered switching to Bozo in the thread. As other have noted, I aggressivly questioned Bozo. I definitely would have had an “alibi” if I wanted to move off Scum Partner Ike to lynch a townie. I was in no sense locked in on RagingIke.

Then you said you thought that because I did not post in the last 40 minutes, that I was trying to build up an excuse or plausible deniability for the flip. But that didn’t actually make sense, as you were arguing that I was Scum bussing Scum, which would mean that I hoped to get credit for the vote, not to create an excuse for the vote.

So, I can read that you think I am scum. But you had basic assumptions that were wrong or inconsistent. So, confronted with those inconsistencies, it is interesting that your opinion does not change.

Now, lots of Townies get things wrong. And lots of townies make mistakes about facts and remain dogged about their opinions because they suffer from confirmation bias. So I have to decide if you’re a conf biased towny or scum. That’s a hard call to make, but the good news is that we learn a ton about your alignment from a RagingIke flip. If Ike is Scum, you’re almost certainly Town. If Ike is Town, I’m pretty sure you’re scum.

[Foxcastle]

2) You first said something to the effect of me being locked onto Ike and so I couldn’t switch to save him. That was not true — I actively considered switching to Bozo in the thread. As other have noted, I aggressivly questioned Bozo. I definitely would have had an “alibi” if I wanted to move off Scum Partner Ike to lynch a townie. I was in no sense locked in on RagingIke.

Then you said you thought that because I did not post in the last 40 minutes, that I was trying to build up an excuse or plausible deniability for the flip. But that didn’t actually make sense, as you were arguing that I was Scum bussing Scum, which would mean that I hoped to get credit for the vote, not to create an excuse for the vote.

So, I can read that you think I am scum. But you had basic assumptions that were wrong or inconsistent. So, confronted with those inconsistencies, it is interesting that your opinion does not change.

Now, lots of Townies get things wrong. And lots of townies make mistakes about facts and remain dogged about their opinions because they suffer from confirmation bias. So I have to decide if you’re a conf biased towny or scum. That’s a hard call to make, but the good news is that we learn a ton about your alignment from a RagingIke flip. If Ike is Scum, you’re almost certainly Town. If Ike is Town, I’m pretty sure you’re scum.

Perhaps you are unclear on what a "fact" is... A fact is a thing that can be proven with, for example, "Balki voted for Ike, and did not post in the last 39 minutes of Day 1." We know these things because there's a record of them.

What you are describing are suppositions, conjectures, postulations, or any number of synonyms. Obviously, besides what's in this thread, we only have your word for what you did and why. That is not something anyone but you can confirm, and there's no record of them. So they are not facts.

Am I really just supposed to say "Oh, Balki pinky promises that he really, really thought about switching to Bozo, so I should probably just beleive that"...? I'm sure you know that's not how the game works.

There are any number of reasons why you could have, as scum, both bussed Ike and vanished for the last 40 minutes. Insisting that it simply couldn't be true is, again, not a thing. Ironically, you haven't put out the most convincing reason, which is that you just weren't around.

Claiming my assumptions are wrong or inconsistent because you think they are is the height of moronic condescension in this game. Of course they're wrong and inconsistent: WELCOME TO MAFIA, A LIMITED INFORMATION GAME.

[Balki Bartokomous]

Claiming my assumptions are wrong or inconsistent because you think they are is the height of moronic condescension in this game.

First of all, fuck you.

[Balki Bartokomous]

Perhaps you are unclear on what a "fact" is...

Thanks so much for this.

[DrCJG]

I agree that we need to be careful about not lynching or forcing the cop to reveal and ASSUMING that Ike is either scum or doctor, he will simply be (or claim) RB'd ever day so if we mislynch we wouldn't really be losing a PR.

How did you come to the bolded conclusion?

Well you are making me question my logic... but I am not sure where I seem to be jumping to a conclusion if I am missing something please let me know...

If Ike is scum then lynching him is obviously great and gets us plenty of information to work with...

If Ike is doctor and mafia believes him (is this where I am making a logical jump in your mind?) then they can continually RB him (which they supposedly did last night) ensuring their NK attempt go through... I guess this isn't 100%, but I am not sure why they would try guessing to RB cop, when it simultaneously reduces their likelihood of NKing their target.

My overall point is simply that I don't think Balki is crazy for suggesting strategic lynching that reduces our odds of hitting the cop and that Ike may indeed be such a strategic option. If I have a logical fallacy please let me know.

[Balki Bartokomous]

@Foxy,

I do not suffer from any of the confusions that you identify in your letter to me.

You have tried several different ways now to avoid answering for the simple inconsistency underlying your accusation.

YOUR THEORY
You said that my failure to post for the last 40 minutes of the phase makes sense for Scum Balki because I wanted "plausible deniability" for my vote.

YOUR INCONSISTENCY
That is inconsistent with the whole theory that you have tried to articulate because your theory was that I was scum with Ike.

Now, of course, there are lots of reasons why I might not post for the last 40 minutes that have nothing to do with my alignment. I'd be happy to discuss them if anyone asks me. But that's really beside the point.

THE POINT
The point is that you developed an opinion, or strengthened your opinion about me based on an assumption that I was trying to avoid blame for a vote on scum! That, doesn't make sense.

And when I confront you with it, you don't go back and say...."yowzas, you're right, that does not suggest that you are scum at all if Ike is Scum." Instead, you come at me with condescension.

Yes -- there are plenty of reasons why I might not post in the last 40 minutes. Of course. But the one you gave -- the Scum Balki narrative that you weaved, was obviously wrong. Do you recognize that? Does discovering that your narrative was wrong cause you to reevaluate, or what? If not, why? That's the part you're not answering.

[Balki Bartokomous]

Claiming my assumptions are wrong or inconsistent because you think they are is the height of moronic condescension in this game. Of course they're wrong and inconsistent: WELCOME TO MAFIA, A LIMITED INFORMATION GAME.

I'm not claiming that your assumptions are wrong because I think they are. I am providing evidence in the thread for why your assumptions are wrong.

You said you thought I ended the day on Ike because I was locked into that vote. I provided evidence in the thread why that was wrong -- because I questioned Bozo hard about his vote flips, and so Scum Balki would have had flexibility to vote for Bozo. I am not asking you to rely on my mind, I am pointing you to things that happened in the thread to show that your theory is off baSE.

You also said you thought I skipped 40 minutes because I wanted an alibi for your vote. But that is inconsistent with your whole theory, and with an assumption that you say you are near certain about -- because according to your stated beliefs about the game, my vote was on scum all Day 1 -- I would have had zero crimes for which to develop an alibi.

[Foxcastle]

Balki, firstly, I apologize for being rude.

Secondly, we are obviously not getting through to eachother. I've responded to plenty. If other people have questions about any statements I've made, let me know, but this concludes our conversation.

[snowy801]

hello

[Foxcastle]

hello

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQHsXMglC9A