Ethics: Type-2 Metagaming

[VisMaior]

So? that does not change a thing from the persons POV who is applying LAL. Its not like the liar said "I dont agree to LAL, but Im the cop" or something. LAL is worth applying, because more likely than not it catches scum.

I think the whole debate has nothing to do with ethics tough. I think the OP failed to represent a situation that requires a moral decision.

[Fiasco]

There's a tradeoff between good play (that is, achieving a win for your current team (ignoring cults for the moment)) on the one hand, and achieving your personal goals on influencing people's behavior in future games on the other hand. (Possibly those goals are shared by your teammates, possibly not.) You're weighing the interest of one group of people against the interest of another group of people (including yourself). To me, that makes it an ethical issue.

My current opinion is still that metagaming is not OK; even extreme rudeness should not be a cause for lynching except to the extent that scum are more likely to be rude than townies. There are other ways to deal with rudeness that don't involve players using the mechanics of the game itself. (It's the mod's responsibility, mostly.)

Games like Mafia have rules (and specifically, win conditions) designed to set up certain conflicting goals among players. It's the mod's (or the game designer's) responsibility to choose rules and win conditions such that, if all players play as well as possible (in the sense of doing what gives them the best chance of winning within ethical constraints), the resulting game dynamics are fun. When you compromise good play in favor of other goals, you are unilaterally changing the game dynamics to something different from the game dynamics the players coordinated on by signing up for the game. If the mod did a good job, that means the game will be less fun, and if the mod did a bad job, that means the mod is relying on the players to make the game fun by making it a different game than it was designed to be.

That's my understanding of why it's ethical to play for the win when possible. I'm not completely sure it makes sense, though. Blah.

[VisMaior]

There's a tradeoff between good play (that is, achieving a win for your current team (ignoring cults for the moment)) on the one hand, and achieving your personal goals on influencing people's behavior in future games on the other hand. (Possibly those goals are shared by your teammates, possibly not.) You're weighing the interest of one group of people against the interest of another group of people (including yourself). To me, that makes it an ethical issue.

But, the situation cannot come up where you have to make that decision, because you cannot know you are doing that. The only case in wich this decision would come up is if you are 100% sure (via copinvestigation or otherwise) that the lying person is in fact a townie. And in that case, enforcing LAL is clearly stupidity. But that case does not make LAL less viable in any other situations.

[Fiasco]

The only case in wich this decision would come up is if you are 100% sure (via copinvestigation or otherwise) that the lying person is in fact a townie.

Maybe the cop investigation is almost certainly accurate. If you're 90% sure the lying person is a townie (after taking the lying into account), you still get a worse expected score by lynching him than by not lynching him. There's still a tradeoff.

In most cases, a liar is more likely than average to be scum. There are some exceptions, though, and in those exceptions there's a tradeoff between lynching scum and lynching liars.

[VisMaior]

My point is you cant be 90% sure, if he is caught in a lie.

[VisMaior]

Its not like the metagaming reason has no base. There is no reason for a protown person to li,e while scum is forced to. If the metagaming reason was to "lynch all who says "duck"", id agree. Then the only thing keeping up the validity of the metagame ploy is that the players do know the rule. This is however not the case with LAL. LAL has validity even if the players do not know about it.

[Fiasco]

If you can be 100% sure, why not 90%?

Lying is partly a stupid move in itself, and partly a stupid move because people metagame against it. I accept that metagaming against lying may improve play quality on the site. But then at least admit that you're choosing to play worse to increase play quality in future games. I don't think it's ethical to use in-game means to coerce people to play a certain way, at least not until you've exhausted other means, such as writing a document explaining why lying is almost always bad. We're supposed to use votes/lynches/abilities to

actually play the game

, not to reward or punish each other for behaviors we (perhaps rightly) like or dislike.

[VisMaior]

because 100% leaves no place for doubt. 90% does leave, and beeing caught in a lie should let that doubt grow a lot.

[Fiasco]

Well, it might have been 99% or 99.9% before the lie, so the lie did let doubt grow a lot.

[VisMaior]

My point is: applying LAL enhances the chances of your side winning. I think the unethical would be to not apply it.

But then at least admit that you're choosing to play worse to increase play quality in future games

How am I playing worse if I apply LAL? The ONLY case... I feel like repeating myself here.

[Fiasco]

If you apply LAL, you're lynching even those rare liars that aren't more likely than average to be scum. If LAL just means lynching liars who look scummy (which

is

the vast majority), then it doesn't need a principle of its own, and it's not a metagame ploy.

[VisMaior]

But, scum can appear very protown. Lying is a scumtell, independent of LAL. LAL exists only, because lying is that strong a scumtell. There is no such animal as a liar who appears protown.

[Mr. Flay]

There is no such animal as a liar who appears protown.

Doctor with a scum bandwagon on him.

[VisMaior]

A bit more detailed example please? I didnt said a lying townie does not exist, I just said a lier wo appears protown, does not exist.

[Fiasco]

What about a liar found innocent by a 99% reliable cop? (i.e. 99% of scum turn up guilty, 99% of townies turn up innocent)

[VisMaior]

Its still not an ethics question. You obviously decide for the option that maximises your chances in that particular game.

[Fiasco]

So that means you agree LAL is bad? Because some people

don't

think you should maximize your chances in that particular game. It's not LAL if you don't LAL.

[VisMaior]

I think LAL is extremely good. People who dont think you should maximise your chances of a game are playing bad. The two does not correlate.

[VisMaior]

What Im trying to say is, that the problem actually does not exist in real games. A situation where you have to decide to apply lal and go with the worse chances or dont apply and have better chancec simply does not come up. Because, independent of LAL, lying is extremely scummy.

[Fiasco]

Well... I guess we could argue about this all day, but it turns out we agree about the underlying issue, which is that metagame ploys are bad. Right? I took LAL as a well-known example of a metagame ploy because that's what the wiki page says it's supposed to be, but it looks like a few people (at least you and Jeep) are now arguing that it's not.

[VisMaior]

which is that metagame ploys are bad.

No. I dont think applying metagame ploys is immoral. Its part of the game. Like when I know someone who gets nervous and jumpy when scum, I vote for him based on that, and I dont think Im doing an evil thing. Pokerface is a skill that players should evolve. If someone lurks and is active elsewhere on the site, I draw conclusions form that. These all enhance the chances of winning whatecer side Im on, so not applying them would be the unethical thing, IMHO.

[VisMaior]

I take thet back. It would not be unethical to not apply them.

[VisMaior]

Basically, I think there are a set of rules, and as long as you dont break the rules, noone can throw a stone at you.

A much more interesting thing would be the modding aspect, as mods do not have rules to them.

[Fiasco]

That's not what I meant by "metagame ploy", but it turns out that also counts as metagaming according to the wiki, so I guess I should have been clearer. By "metagame ploy" I meant playing to affect future games instead of playing for the win. That's also what people mean when they say LAL is a metagame ploy.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I would like to point out that something like lynching rude people is not anti-town or unethical as long as people don't go crazy with it. Rude people can be detrimental to the enjoyment of the game and by extension to the amount of motivation people have and therefore also the participation. Lynching rude people can certainly have a direct positive impact on the town.

And I think this is true of most so-called metagame ploys. They may be considered meta-gaming, but I think that in reality it's the direct in-game benefits that make people follow it and not future games.