Agreed. I think this really nicely explains the value of argument as a tool in mafia (as opposed to the accusation that I've sometimes seen tossed around of "arguing for the sake of arguing"; the accusation being one which ignores the value of argument as a means of teasing out motivations and so on).TSQ wrote:
The first mode is discovery. This is when town players enter into discussion and argument in order to figure out the alignment of other players. This represents the largest proportion of your arguments as a town player, because it is how you should be relating to most of the players in the game (on average 75% of them) This mode of argumentation should be geared towards evaluation. Basically that means that the player that wins the argument is not important. When arguing in this mode you should be trying to get two things out of it. First, you want to make the other player take stands on issues. Who do they think is scummy? Why? Who do they think is most likely to be scum at this point, what do they think about the argument that the other 3 players in the thread have been having the last 3 pages? The answers to these questions are important, and valuable for evaluating that player both in terms of the player itself, and in terms of interactions with other players later on. Second, you should be trying to evaluate the players thought process and arguing techniques that THEY are using. The underlying motivations of the other player can be easily apparent from looking at their arguing style. Is that player trying to win the argument? Are they trying to score points with other players? Are they trying to figure out what alignment you are? The answers to these questions, while subjective, are very valuable to reading that players alignment. The thought process of players you are arguing with is often your most valuable tool in order to figure out if they’re on your side or not. When a player appears to be arguing with you solely to make you look bad, or win the argument, then this should send up red alarm flags in your mind, because that is not how a town player, trying to read you, should act.
I really like your treatise. The only qualification I have is that there is overlap between the first and second categories. It isn't uncommon to begin with first category argument and, at some point because of the person's responses,
/strongly agreeTSQ wrote: Third, arguments from subjectivity have little to no place in the game. That is to say, your own subjective opinion is not effective for a) figuring out people alignment, OR convincing others that you are right.
SerialClergyman wrote: The problem with denouncing relatavism is that inevitably the lynch will come down to a variety of reasons in the minds of all of the players and, unfortunately, there isn't much concrete to hold players to. A good deal of the time your argument will be dismissed by something like 'nah, I have a gut read he's scum vote'
I agree that you can't appeal to it, and the argument that everyone has their own reasons and they are all valid is irritating, but your treatise seems to me to assume there's more content in the game to construct arguments around than there often is.
This is a game of imperfect information. Hence, we have to make judgments about whether or not is more likely that something is towny or scummy. In many cases, there won't be one definitely right answer to that question. But that provides no justification for the subjective play that TSQ gives an example of. There's a huge differnece between having to make a judgment on imperfect information and making a judgment based entirely upon "that's what I think"
eg. in the example TSQ quotes, kuribo had attacked SCAM because something SCAM did was 'possibly' (by kuribo's own admission) scummy. I argued that this was a ridiculous standard of proof. And kuribo's response, as quoted, was that my argument was irrelevant because kuribo didn't agree with me. What kuribo should have done is explain why he disagreed with my arguments against his standard of proof.