Ethics: Type-2 Metagaming

[jeep]

The etymology of a word doesn't change the fact that it exists and has its own meaning... It's like the difference between gender and sex. [/hijack]

-JEEP

[VisMaior]

I disagree with you there, but I wont go OT anymore. LAL=good. Townies now that they should not lying. Scum has to lie. I agree if there were no LAL people could lie, but as it standsm LAL helps winning games for town, so why is it immoral?

[VisMaior]

And the logical thing to do is not voting for him if you think he is townie. That does not do anything with ethics tough.

[Fiasco]

Most people here have misunderstood my position. I think lying is bad for the town in the vast majority of cases. I think most liars should be lynched. But to me, "Lynch All Liars" implies more than that; it implies you should lynch even liars that aren't scummy, otherwise it'd be "lynch most liars". As a townie, you should lynch exactly those liars whose lynch you expect to help the town more than the alternatives; no more, no less,

even if

lynching more liars than that prevents future bad play.

I'm not trying to give some general pro-liar argument. I'm just arguing metagaming isn't a legitimate reason to lynch liars, or to do anything else. This thread was intended to be about whether it's OK to metagame, not whether it's OK to lie.

WHY do you think he was an innocent townie?

By assumption, I have a good reason of some sort to believe he was an innocent townie. Maybe I have a 99%-trustworthy innocent cop result on him. I'm not saying the average liar is likely to be innocent; I'm saying that it's possible for liars to be probably innocent based on the information available, and I'm saying that in such cases, it's bad to lynch them.

LAL is a mindset to help you deal with this situation. In games, I assume all players will play to the best of their ability and that their ability is comparable to my own.

But that's not always true. You shouldn't assume things that aren't true. If you do, you're not playing optimally.

I disagree, obvoiusly. I think you CANNOT avoid meta gaming. Yes, it sucks when you get killed N1 every time, but it's cyclic.

It's simple to avoid metagaming in the sense that I just defined. Just do whatever is most likely to lead to the win, regardless of future consequences on bad play. Getting killed N1 sounds like (what I think the wiki defines as) pseudometagaming, i.e. using information from past games. I think that's perfectly acceptable. You're ethically allowed to use people's past behavior as a guide; you're just not ethically allowed to anticipate people using your past behavior as a guide and choose play that will be convenient for you in future games over good play.

You have a duty toward your fellow players to maximize your team's chances of winning in the game you are currently in.

Within reason. Clearly, you shouldn't cheat to do so. So what are your boundry conditions? Is using outside information legit?

You should play for the win within ethics. There is an ethical rule that says not to cheat. There may or may not be an ethical rule that says not to use outside information. There is IMHO no ethical rule that says you have to go out of your way to punish bad play using in-game methods.

Basically, mafia playing styles work in a Free Market system-bad styles don't emerge and good styles are recognized as good styles. Lying has never emerged as a good playing style for townies.

Lying is usually bad play, but that doesn't follow from your argument. If people lynch anyone who says "fishsticks", that doesn't mean the free market recognized saying "fishsticks" as intrinsically bad play.

Let's say I run a spider on these forums and figure out what words people use when they're scum and not when they're town.

I'd put that in the same category as computer-assisted chess. If it's agreed to be OK in advance, great. If it's agreed not to be OK, it's cheating.

Just a nitpick: "ethical", this word does not really exists.

Does too:

conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior

[Seol]

Ethics is a difficult topic to discuss in respect of a game like Mafia - what does "ethical" mean? As far as I'm concerned, it's "play for the win, and win by any means possible within the game's framework". Anything allowed by the rules is fair game, and playing with any objective

other

than winning is arguably

un

ethical (as you damage the chances of victory for those allied to you, and are betraying your true purpose in the game).

I don't see the ethical dilemma in discussing the tactical merit of Lynch All Liars. If we're talking ethics, we are, I presume, talking about the ethical merit of

metagame ploys

- or, to put it another way, being prepared to sacrifice optimal strategy in one game to improve performance in

other

games. Lynch All Liars is perhaps the most meritworthy metagame ploy I've seen, which means it is, in some ways, a bad example for discussing the ethics of metagame ploys.

LaL works on the following principles:

1: Townies never

need

to lie.
2: Scum often

do

need to lie.
3:

If everyone is aware

that lying will result in them getting lynched, then nobody will lie unless they need to.
4: If nobody lies unless they need to, all liars are scum.

Therefore,

as long as LaL is fully understood and adhered to

, it is foolproof. This then raises two questions:

1: What if it is not fully understood and adhered to?
2: Does adhering to it have a cost?

The tactical discussion of LaL covers both of these questions, but the ethical discussion only gets involved with the first point, as this addresses the false positives.

Let's take a situation where a new player fake claims doc when he's a vanilla townie. This is later caught as a lie (by, say, a tracker) and then they admit to lying, because they didn't want to be lynched. Someone cites LaL and the player then claims he'd never heard of that before - a perfectly viable explanation. LaL demands the player be lynched regardless, and to

not

lynch him weakens LaL.

However, his behaviour shows no signs of him being scummy - the original claim came as a result of a random day 1 bandwagon, and the

only

reason for suspicion on him is the lie about the role (a lie which, as a new player, is understandable).

If we amend "Lynch All Liars" to "Lynch All Liars except when they have a plausible reason to lie or they weren't aware of LAL", then it becomes next to useless, as experienced players can often retcon plausible justifications for lies and inexperienced players can always claim ignorance - it no longer actually achieves anything. Therefore, if LAL is to remain useful, we have to lynch players who are caught in lies

regardless of the circumstances

.

Now, as I said, I am not arguing the tactical merits of LAL here, and it is debatable whether it is correct to do so or not. However, if we're talking about the

ethics

, then this is where the issue comes up. In order to maintain LAL as a metagame ploy, we will occasionally have to do things in games which are likely counterproductive to our chances of winning

that

game, using the justification that it will result in maintaining a useful analysis device which will improve the chances of the town winning

future

games.

Is it

ethical

, in a Mafia context, to

deliberately

perform an action which damages your chances - and your team-mates chances - of winning the game? If you accept my approach to ethics, which says your purpose within the game is to play to win, then the answer surely has to be "no".

Furthermore, just talking briefly about tactics:

What good does it do to improve the town's chances of winning future games - games which (if you play in) you stand as good a chance as anyone as being scum in? You're not even increasing

your own EV

over future games by increasing the power of the town. So, you're sacrificing your chances of winning in exchange for something which may help

or may hinder

you in the future.

Mafia is a zero-sum game - every win for one group is a loss for all others, and metagame ploys which increase the strength of the town will be balanced by setups favouring the scum to compensate. The impact of LaL in future games should, ethically speaking, not be a consideration - but tactically speaking, why do you

want

to assist the town in future games?

[Fiasco]

This thread was intended to be about whether it's OK to metagame, not whether it's OK to lie.

...so let me change my example.

You're the cop in a C9 game. D1 you lynch an innocent, so it'll be lynch or lose. N1 you investigate Bob, who turns up innocent. D2, before you claim, Bob claims cop with a guilty result on someone.

Stupid move, right? But do you lynch Bob, or not? If not, you're not a believer in LAL.

(edited to say: I agree with Seol's take on what the question is.)

[Infested-jerk]

Lying can benefit a town.

Example:
End of day 2, a suspected person is on three votes. The person about to be lynched is a mafia person. Since a undecided townie (player X) thinks Player (F) (I would have used Y as the) variable, but it looks like a part of human anatomy...) is the cop, and player F is the cop, who has been pushing extremely hard for the lynch. SO this townie, sensing that Player F will be night killed, he makes a role claim right before he casts the final vote, lynching the mafia player.

Now, because of the Cop Claim, that townie might have taken the bullet away from the real cop. Obviously, the mafia would face a descion, kill the guy who claimed cop, or who pushed hard for a lynch. I think they'd take the claim kill, because it seems simpler. Less fus, some guy claimed cop, so he got killed, letting the real cop survive to investigate another day.

[Seol]

Lying can benefit a town.

Example:
End of day 2, a suspected person is on three votes. The person about to be lynched is a mafia person. Since a undecided townie (player X) thinks Player (F) (I would have used Y as the) variable, but it looks like a part of human anatomy...) is the cop, and player F is the cop, who has been pushing extremely hard for the lynch. SO this townie, sensing that Player F will be night killed, he makes a role claim right before he casts the final vote, lynching the mafia player.

Now, because of the Cop Claim, that townie might have taken the bullet away from the real cop. Obviously, the mafia would face a descion, kill the guy who claimed cop, or who pushed hard for a lynch. I think they'd take the claim kill, because it seems simpler. Less fus, some guy claimed cop, so he got killed, letting the real cop survive to investigate another day.

Or alternatively -

The Mafia don't kill player X, because they're worried he'll be doc-protected and miss their kill. The next day, the real cop counterclaims, Player X confesses he lied, gets lynched and the cop is exposed anyway.

[Infested-jerk]

True, but what if the doc just got lynched?



But why would the real cop counterclaim? Unless the townie who claimed started trying to pick of people the real cop knows is clean, why should the real cop speak up?

[VisMaior]

I cannot think a situation in a C9 where a lying townie benefits the town.

Saying that, there seem to be some misconception here.

I think most liars should be lynched. But to me, "Lynch All Liars" implies more than that; it implies you should lynch even liars that aren't scummy, otherwise it'd be "lynch most liars". As a townie, you should lynch exactly those liars whose lynch you expect to help the town more than the alternatives; no more, no less, even if lynching more liars than that prevents future bad play.

Yes, but
1. if he is caught in a lie, his scumminess jumps a lot.
2. LAL doe snot mean you really have to, and obliged to, and simply MUST lynch everybody who lied. If you happen to know for sure he is innocent, of course you dont kill him. Its a metagame ploy, thus, a reason to vote for or lynch the liar, but as all reasons, you dont

have

to listen to it.

Generally you dont have 100% information on anybody. And even if you are 99% sure someone is innocent, if he is caught in a lie, you should modify your assuredness to somewhere 0%-99%, (varying on individual cases).

[Yosarian2]

Saying untruthfully "I'm a cop and X is scum.. lynch them!" (just because you think X is scummy) is stealing away each townie's job of thinking for themselves about who is scum and voting accordingly. That's OK when it's your role to do that, but if it's not your role, then it's an unfair strategy (no matter the outcome).

That's not an unfair stratagy at all. I doubt it would often be a good stratagy, but part of the game is trying to manipulate other people into doing what you think will help your side win. They can choose to either believe you or not.

[VisMaior]

Just a little bit of addition: lynching someone on LAL is not immoral. the dilemma of morality does not come up, as it is the norm to do so. in fact, lynching a townie is not unetchical, altough it is bad for your chances to win.

The morality question emerges in other situations, like, breaking the rules, or ruining the fun of others. metagaming does not fall in any of these.

[Seol]

Yes, but
1. if he is caught in a lie, his scumminess jumps a lot.
2. LAL doe snot mean you really have to, and obliged to, and simply MUST lynch everybody who lied. If you happen to know for sure he is innocent, of course you dont kill him. Its a metagame ploy, thus, a reason to vote for or lynch the liar, but as all reasons, you dont have to listen to it.

Except that, if you

don't

listen to it, then it doesn't work any more. In order for LAL to actually be a reliable tactic, you have to use it, otherwise it's "LynchSomeLiars" and in the future scum will know it's possible to wriggle out of it.

LAL

does

mean you simply MUST lynch everyone who lied, otherwise you're not applying LAL properly. It's that extreme which makes it a debatable principle, but also that extreme which makes it

powerful

.

Just a little bit of addition: lynching someone on LAL is not immoral. the dilemma of morality does not come up, as it is the norm to do so. in fact, lynching a townie is not unetchical, altough it is bad for your chances to win.

The morality question emerges in other situations, like, breaking the rules, or ruining the fun of others. metagaming does not fall in any of these.

Well, the second paragraph applies to real-world ethics, but there's also the question of game ethics - how we ought to play. When we have a situation like enforcing a metagame strategy, and in the process harming not only your chances of winning but everyone else on your side's, it is arguable that

within the context of the game

that is unethical behaviour.

[VisMaior]

LAL does mean you simply MUST lynch everyone who lied, otherwise you're not applying LAL properly. It's that extreme which makes it a debatable principle, but also that extreme which makes it powerful.

That is wrong. You can sometimes deviate from it, and that does not take away its power. Its still a valid reason to vote someone in the next game.

When we have a situation like enforcing a metagame strategy, and in the process harming not only your chances of winning but everyone else on your side's, it is arguable that within the context of the game that is unethical behaviour.

And lynching a townie harms not only our chances of winning, but everyone elses in our side. i fail to see the moral dilemma: you cannot claim that LAL harms your chances, except when you have 100% sure evidence that the person lying is in fact innocent. thus the same rule should apply as by hammering a townie: you could not have known better.

[Seol]

Saying untruthfully "I'm a cop and X is scum.. lynch them!" (just because you think X is scummy) is stealing away each townie's job of thinking for themselves about who is scum and voting accordingly. That's OK when it's your role to do that, but if it's not your role, then it's an unfair strategy (no matter the outcome).

That's not an unfair stratagy at all. I doubt it would often be a good stratagy, but part of the game is trying to manipulate other people into doing what you think will help your side win. They can choose to either believe you or not.

Agree 100%. I think it's bad play, but I don't think it's unethical. It's not codified into the rules of the game that the townies aren't allowed to lie.

[VisMaior]

That is true too. But applying LAL and lynching the liar is not immoral either.

[Seol]

That is true too. But applying LAL and lynching the liar is not immoral either.

We're looking specifically at a situation where we're relatively sure the liar isn't scum, but we lynch him anyway purely to maintain the metagame strength of LAL.

We're doing something knowing it will damage our chances of winning

this

game to help us in

future

games. If ethics exist within the game, they're based around the principle of "play to win", but to enforce LAL you're sacrificing your primary motivation in favour of something which is irrelevant in respect of that game. That's the argument why it's unethical in a game sense. If you're saying it's

not

unethical/immoral, that's the context to which we'd need a rebuttal.

[Adele]

We're getting a little obsessed with the "LAL" example here.

I argued in a recent game that someone was being rude and unpleasant to the other players and, in the absence of any useful leads, he made sense as the D1 lynch. If there were a metagame policy of "lynch all who are overly discourteous", I think that even the worst offenders would temper their language to an extent and upset less people - and, as we've seen, some people really do take offence startlingly easily, and should they be the ones to adapt, necessarily?

Of course, even if the rule were just "be more willing to lynch those who are impolite", it would likely adversly affect the game at first, then improve it - perhaps this better represents the issue, namely (as I understand it)

"should one be willing to sacrifice a current game for future gameplay?"

[MrBuddyLee]

Baby Jesus tries to lynch all claimed doctors D1.

If I'm ever the doc D1 and asked to claim in a game he's in, you can be pretty sure I'll say something besides doc. Maybe even the cop if that's a reasonable possibility and I can fake good enough claims for investigations without misleading town. Maybe when BJ's dead I'll come clean, and people can judge my lie on the reasoning behind it.

Lying in that case quite possibly benefits town and is not only the likely right move, but a completely ethical move.

Therefore, it's not LAL but rather LML. But LAL is so much catchier...

[Thok]

MrBuddyLee-the hope is that if you are a doc, you'll try not to put yourself at risk of a bandwagon D1. You shouldn't need to fake claim, because you shouldn't be in a position to claim whatsoever.

Notice that's a way of adapting to BJ's metagaming that doesn't require lying.

[Yosarian2]

I'm still waiting for a scenario when it makes sense. I firmly believe you don't need to do a full role reveal. So clearly you don't need to claim that you are a vest. You can claim Townie, because you are.

But if you claim townie, and the other good guy claims townie, there's a only 50/50 chance that the scum will try to kill you instead of the other guy, and thus a 50/50 chance the town loses. On the other hand, if you do claim doc and are convincing enough so that the scum believes you, then the scum will target you (as he'll assume the other townie is protected by you), his kill will fail because of your bulletproof vest, and the town will win.

It seems to me like a clear-cut example of a case where if you can lie convincingly you can significantly increase the chances of a town win.

An interesting side effect of LAL is that it actually makes it more likely that scum will believe townie lies, because everyone knows that good guys never lie.

[Adele]

It seems to me like a clear-cut example of a case where if you can lie convincingly you can significantly increase the chances of a town win.

An interesting side effect of LAL is that it actually makes it more likely that scum will believe townie lies, because everyone knows that good guys never lie.

heh, reminds me of an interesting case - guy got a "townie" role pm, and decided to claim unnightprotectable cop so as to "waste" a mafia kill. Turned out later he was a

triggered doc

(he hadn't been triggered when all this happened). Just goes to show that you just shouldn't try to produce fiction when you can't know if you're in possession of the facts.

[VisMaior]

We're looking specifically at a situation where we're relatively sure the liar isn't scum, but we lynch him anyway purely to maintain the metagame strength of LAL.

This is a contradiction in itself, You cannot be "relatively sure he is town" if he is caught in a lie, exactly because of LAL...

[Seol]

We're looking specifically at a situation where we're relatively sure the liar isn't scum, but we lynch him anyway purely to maintain the metagame strength of LAL.

This is a contradiction in itself, You cannot be "relatively sure he is town" if he is caught in a lie, exactly because of LAL...

That assumes everyone knows LAL and adheres to it. I suppose the situation we're looking at is one where the player isn't aware of the LAL principle, or possibly they just don't agree with it and disregarded it.

[Yosarian2]

We're looking specifically at a situation where we're relatively sure the liar isn't scum, but we lynch him anyway purely to maintain the metagame strength of LAL.

This is a contradiction in itself, You cannot be "relatively sure he is town" if he is caught in a lie, exactly because of LAL...

Sure you can. For example, if a person gets investigated as innocent, gets multiple scum lynched, but then later admits that he lied about his role day 1, you can still be relatively sure he's town, even though he lied. So, do you LAL, or not?