#1: A treatise on arguing in the game of mafia:

[Quagmire]

tl;dr

[Thestatusquo]

tl;dr

</3

[magnus_orion]

I disagree only on the point that subjectivity has no place in the game, because there is very little factual information to actually deal with.
Also, throwing extreme subjectivity into the agruement and guaging your opponent's reaction is very useful for scumhunting. Scum often have a doublecheck on how this will make me look idea, and something that they have no idea how to deal with can provoke interesting reactions.

[NabakovNabakov]

What about the mode of town argument that is a response to the first mode of town argument? If a player is prodding you and asking you to justify your opinions and take stands, what should be your goals and motivations? Responding in kind with your own prods and questions would be silly, but the essay also implies that attempting to win the argument or prove your points is scummy.

Townies must have (and in practice, we typically see that they

do

have) a certain amount of interest in preserving their own reputation. Otherwise, they would have no incentive to respond to Shea's first mode, and if we gather a group of townies so focused on asking and probing that they put no effort into answering or responding (actions which, at their core, do little to hunt scum), there are no illuminating arguments to speak of.

[Yosarian2]

(nods) Yeah, that's basically what I said, NN; there's a third valid mode Shea didn't mention here, which is "arguing with the goal of convincing others that you're town."

[SerialClergyman]

I disagree only on the point that subjectivity has no place in the game, because there is very little factual information to actually deal with.

This.

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.

[vollkan]

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.

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).


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,

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.

/strongly agree

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.

[Xylthixlm]

My own subjective opinion is

excellent

for figuring out people's alignment. It's pretty horrible at convincing anyone else, but I can live with being Cassandra.

[Cobalt]

My own subjective opinion is

excellent

for figuring out people's alignment. It's pretty horrible at convincing anyone else, but I can live with being Cassandra.

Of course, when you're scum then your Cassandra role would be very handy. "Oh yeah guys, sorry not good at explaining things but he's scum lynch nao. You know how good my scumdar is..."

[Vi]

My own subjective opinion is

excellent

for figuring out people's alignment. It's pretty horrible at convincing anyone else, but I can live with being Cassandra.

I share this sentiment.
There is no "I" in Team (or Town) (or Vi) but there definitely

is

one in "Vig".

[animorpherv1]

I don't understand you there, Vi.

[Thestatusquo]

He's saying "Fuck convincing the town, I'm just gunna kill who I think is scum as vig"

[PokerFace]

That is an awesome vidge startegy there. I ironically kill, lynch, and argue better as vidge then as any other role.

When I am scum I never think about how I look, I think about who should I get rid of next whether its via kill or tricking everyone to lynch X. Every game I've been scum I've had 1-4 players say I looked like town. Either its happening without me worrying how I look or its happening without me realizing I really am worried about how I look

[Xylthixlm]

My own subjective opinion is

excellent

for figuring out people's alignment. It's pretty horrible at convincing anyone else, but I can live with being Cassandra.

Of course, when you're scum then your Cassandra role would be very handy. "Oh yeah guys, sorry not good at explaining things but he's scum lynch nao. You know how good my scumdar is..."

But I'm

never

scum...

[The Fonz]

My own subjective opinion is

excellent

for figuring out people's alignment. It's pretty horrible at convincing anyone else, but I can live with being Cassandra.

Of course, when you're scum then your Cassandra role would be very handy. "Oh yeah guys, sorry not good at explaining things but he's scum lynch nao. You know how good my scumdar is..."

If you're Cassandra, no-one listens to you, so, er... no.

[Talilan]

Cassandra

[The Fonz]

No, Cassandra:

In Greek mythology, Cassandra (Greek: Κασσάνδρα, "she who entangles men"[1]; also known as Alexandra[2]) was the daughter of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy. Her beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so that no one would ever believe her predictions.
Contents
[hide]

[springlullaby]

Not a fan. The 'discovery mode' for town is totally futile, evaluation serves about nothing as long as there hasn't been a card flip because there are too many variable/different type of players D1.

My credo is

Make Cases on Guts To Lynch On D1

, than analyze later.

+ You forgot the whole very important defensive side of town play which is pretty much

Survive D1

, so you can analyze later with better info.

[Thestatusquo]

Bump this to be discussed with the second article if people like.