http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 41#2173041
Introduction
This article is motivated by several things. First and foremost, it stems from my personal experience as a debater and a mafia player for three years. I have learned first hand how to argue, and how not to argue. Second, it is motivated by several years of playing and reading games, and getting extremely frustrated by the fact that people just don’t know how to argue, or what they should be trying to accomplish when they enter into an argument with other players. For the most part, I really just would like to see players get better at these things, because it leads to more enjoyable games. Everything is selfish, right?
The article will be divided into two parts. First, I will address what is the purpose of arguing from both a scum perspective and a town perspective, as it is the starting point from which the rest of my advice flows. Secondly, I will break down the previous analysis in practical terms. That is, I will show what I think are the most ineffective arguing techniques and common pitfalls, and show you why they are outside of the purview of effectively playing the game of mafia.
Arguing Motivations
So what should you be trying to accomplish when you’re entering into dialogue with other players? Obviously, this depends on your motivations in doing so, which depends almost completely on your role PM. It is the assumption of this article that scum players and town players enter into arguments for completely different reasons (such is the whole premise of the game)
From a town perspective
As a town player, there are what I describe as two different modes of operation in an argument. That is to say that I think that town players generally have two different reasons to argue with other players, and that this wildly changes the styles in which they argue.
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.
The second mode of argumentation style that should be used as townies occurs only about 25% of the time, and that is the convincing argument. This occurs when you believe that you are arguing against scum, based on their other interactions with players, and your own analysis of them based on the first mode of argumentation. In this mode, your job is not necessarily to interact with the actual player you’re arguing with at all, as his opinion of whether or not he is scum is probably not going to change. Instead, this form of argumentation is geared towards making other players in the thread agree with you. This is important, as you can have scum dead to rights in your own mind, but if you do not get other players to latch on, it will never result in a lynch. You should frequently reference, and ask other players in the thread to comment on parts of the argument, so as to draw players who are not paying attention as much as they should into the discussion. Distinct from the first form, in this form you WANT to win the argument. The difference is that winning is not determined by you and the other player, but rather by the other players in the game. You should be scoring points in this form of argumentation, but it is important to remember that you want to be comprehensive, and always earnest. If your opponent makes a point which is valid, don’t gloss over it or try to discredit it. In some ways this second mode is a subset of the first, because you do want to be open to discovery. If in the process of this mode you change your mind, admit that you have changed your mind. You want every point you score to be legitimate. Crap logic just makes you look like scum.
It is very important here to note that when you are arguing with other players, it is important to realize which mode of argumentation THEY are operating under. Convincing can often look like scum, especially if it is done wrong. By thinking in terms of “what is the other player attempting to do in this argument” you give yourself a huge leg up towards reading her motivations and therefore his alignment.
From a scum perspective
Scum come at arguing from a much different perspective. There aren’t so much modes for scum as there is one goal that is more important than any other: staying alive. That means your style of argumentation should mimic the town as much as it possibly can without harming your ability to fulfill your win condition. As with all facets of “playing scum” your job is to convince the town that you are town. A great way to do that is by actually scum hunting. It is the opinion of the author that town players will make enough mistakes, and by mistakes I mean plays that are contrary to their win condition, that you should be able to operate almost exactly as a townie should in terms of argumentative scumhunting. It is most important to note here, however, that this should not be set in stone. As a scum player, you want to leave yourself open the option of making plays which townies wouldn’t, if you think you can get away with them. If there is a town player that you can get lynched by pressuring them a little bit and getting them to explode, or a way to win through using crappy logic, then by all means you should go for it if it is not going to get you lynched. This is the delicate tight rope that scum enter into in a game of mafia. Every argument you make you should be asking yourself “Is this something that makes me look like scum, and if so, how likely is it that I am going to be called out on it.” A simple case of risk vs. reward helps you figure out these scenarios.
Practical arguing, or, what to avoid.
So now that we’ve got the motivations out of the way? How do we effectively argue? In this section I am going to go over some common problems with how players argue on this site, and show you why they don’t work.
First, arguing to win the argument. As we discussed in the previous section, a large percent of the time the player that wins the argument is irrelevant. When town players argue to score points and to win the argument, they are arguing exactly how scum has significant motivation to do. Take a step back, and make sure that you have your motivations firmly in mind when you’re arguing with another player. Are you trying to figure out what her alignment is? Then why do you care if she’s right about whether or not she voted a player later than she should have? As long as her thought process and motivation seem to be town to you, then attacking with the intent to beat her is 100% incoherent.
Second, arguing while you are angry or emotional. Mafia takes a lot of analytical and planning skills. These skills are adversely effected in a significant way when you argue when you are pissed off. Players are irrational when they’re angry, and therefore you should take a step back, and calm down before you write that next post. Remember clearly what you’re trying to accomplish, and you will realize that responding with anger and vitriol is ineffective a large large majority of the time.
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. What do I mean by subjectivity, well lets look at a practical example. In gangland mafia, Kuribo states:
In this example kuribo fails to realize that his job isn’t to state that the assertion he is making is right to him, but rather than his job in this situation is to convince other players, namely vollkan, that SCAM is scum. By referencing his own subjective opinions, he creates a situation where we can never evaluate his position, because it is not one which is logically externally verifiable to us. Relativism has no place in the game of mafia.“No, pay attention to what I'm saying instead of trying to bully the town into seeing things your way:
SCAM said that scum would have no motivation for doing what she did. I counter that there are a myriad of reasons that pro-town players would see her action as scummy--- whether those reasons are right, wrong, or retarded doesn't make them any less valid in the minds of the people making the assertation. Otherwise, they would not see the action as scummy. Just because the two of you think any possible motivation would be stupid doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you.”
I hope that this has been helpful, and I am really looking forward to some feedback on it.
