Theory Schools

[Shanba]

This is essentially a vanity topic, but I believe that it could have serious applications.

As far as I can tell, there are (at the moment) basically two broad schools of thought that are permeating mafia discussion: the one that I agree with and lots of scumchatters do, and the one that the fonz and yos2 and others agree with and push in MD. Maybe this is a bit simplistic, but I think it helps for a basic structure, which is what I'm after.

Why do we need this structure? Well, for a number of reasons. Firstly, to highlight that there are differences of opinion on these topics; that is, to raise the profile of the debate and stop either school being able to claim their ideas are fact when there's no one in the game to oppose them.

Secondly, to help organise the wiki for when we add theory articles. Otherwise, I can easily see contentious theory becoming a hotbed of edit wars/whatever. Using mafwiki articles to show that some theory is contentious is the correct way forwards, imo.

Thirdly, it helps keep a historical record and allows ease of use when trying to refer to a particular viewpoint. "x school of thought" is a considerably easier way of referring to the slew of interconnected ideas (like "anti-town is scummy, lynching lurkers is good, etc.") than having to reference each one in turn. As for historical record; well, ideas move on, but it would be a shame if after ideas have moved on we have to reinvent the wheel each time because the basic structure laid down by the theorists of each group is lost in the archives of mafia discussion.

Fourthly: come on, we could have our own schools of theory! How awesome is that! It's like we're proper philosophers!

Finally, I think it might help to contain the debates between the two schools to have a concise view of what each school believes and why.

I made this thread to suggest names for the schools of thought.

[Vi]

Firstly, to highlight that there are differences of opinion on these topics; that is, to raise the profile of the debate and stop either school being able to claim their ideas are fact when there's no one in the game to oppose them.

Wouldn't that suggest that everyone else in the game is at best neutral toward what they're saying? In that case, wouldn't that mostly apply during Newbie games?

I don't think it's a terrible idea and keeping it loose would be a nice way to generalize positions, but I can see either of these schools "splintering" into subgroups (some of which will be comprised of one person but will insist upon recognition) or people who reject both schools and go their own way, unrepresented. And of course should Fonz or Yos2 ever change their mind about something, they get to deal with "I THOUGHT YOU SAID" etc. In other words, I think it will lead to more broad generalizations; just different ones than we have now.

[Ether]

"x school of thought" is a considerably easier way of referring to the slew of interconnected ideas (like "anti-town is scummy, lynching lurkers is good, etc.")

I agree with one of those examples, and disagree with the other. So perhaps I'm biased when I say that I have no clue which schools of thought you're referring to and think it's an awful idea to lump them all together.

[Elmo]

I can think of about a billion different ways to frame this.

In general, Fonz / Yos-types are more theoretical, and the other school is more empiricist. That is, they tend to draw up a model of how they think people will (or should) play, and base their play around that. A good example is the standard argument of why lurking is scummy. This is because Fonz / Yos are good scum, and therefore generally more worried about good scum since they can think of all the nasty shit they could get away with in a certain situation. This mean that, in game theory terms, they tend far more towards being unexploitable because theoretically scum can play quite well. Following on from that, they (uniquely, I think) believe that there are objectively pro-town things, and that people who do them are more likely to be town; consequently it's a townie's responsibility to act in a pro-town manner, since this is an objectively known quantity. They also tend to see setup / night game stuff as far more important (i.e. someone who comes up with a plan for the town to use the setup better is more likely to be town).

The other school tends to draw on experience and regard models with significant skepticism; arguably focus on the day game more; be more likely to think that scum make exploitable mistakes; be skeptical of "objectively pro-town"; try to figure out someone's behaviour as opposed to expecting them to behave a certain way (since they don't necessarily believe townies are likely to do a particular thing).

tbh Yos isn't strictly in the "yos school" since he's more like a good mix. Vollkan started out very in that school and got a lot more open minded before he buggered off someplace. The only person I really know of there is Fonz. But I suppose the continuum exists since MD is pretty sparely populated.

[Shanba]

Okey doke, a few points:

This isn't intended as a dichotomy. You can disagree with both if you like. If you think there are more schools of thought than I am suggesting, you can explain what you think defines another school of thought that has a significant presence in MD.

Attempting to appease people yet still keepign fairly broad tents:
School x:
Beliefs:
Policy lynching is inherently bad.
Talking about "scumtells" as a broadly generalisable thing is bad.
Emphasis:
Meta and context is key to scumhunting.

School y:
Beliefs:
Anti-town play is inherently scummy.
Policies like Lynch all Lurkers are either (or both) good for the game or good for the town.
Emphasis:
I'm not confident defining the positions of people who I am not in a clear and unbiased way.

[Lord Gurgi]

The scumchat school is basically completely theoretical. The Adel School like data. Fos (Fonz and Yos) seem to take a balance of the two.

[Elmo]

The scumchat school is basically completely theoretical.

I'd have to disagree with this for a literal interpretation of theoretical.

Who is in the Adel school apart from Adel?

[Elmo]

To be specific: when trying to figure out (say) how often a fair coin flips heads, a theoretician would study the structure of the coin and try to draw a model of how a coin behaves based on what they know. An empiricist would flip a coin a large number of times and study at the data to try and figure out what was going on. Obviously those are extremes.

[Lord Gurgi]

Off the top of my head, Vi and some of the other newer players.

[Lord Gurgi]

Well Adel's school has the monopoly on data collection, the Yos school seems to think that there is a possibility for gaining good from that. The scumchat group (Don't kill me if this is wrong JD) thinks that too much data would ruin the game because people would have statistics at every turn.

Also Zoraster would be an Adel school guy.

[Elmo]

What exactly distinguishes Adel-ites apart from liking raw data (i.e. empiricism)? I completely can't see any meaningful similarities between Vi and Adel. I haven't played with Zoraster.

[SpyreX]

Which school of thought is based around this being an organic game and what is necessary to find the scum is more contextual and related to the games state than any published list?

I mean I look at the Beliefs of school X and Y (not the Emphasis) and can, for the most part, agree with all of those tenants within the structure of certain gamestates. So...

[Lord Gurgi]

Adelschool:

We like data.
We play to win.
Much more can be done with data than is currently being done.

More stuff but I don't think the school is fully formed yet.

[Lord Gurgi]

Which school of thought is based around this being an organic game and what is necessary to find the scum is more contextual and related to the games state than any published list?

I think assuming that a school is based around a single tenet is a misconception. You will probably find a better fit in either the Adel or Scumchat schools on that alone, but that is because it seems like the Fos school thinks there are some things that are basically anti-town, not that they carry around a tablet with the tells of mafia on them.

The One True Faith isn't even a school of mafia, that's just the people who worship the wiki.

[Elmo]

Which school of thought is based around this being an organic game and what is necessary to find the scum is more contextual and related to the games state than any published list?

Scumchat-type, far more than the other(s).

Gurgi, everyone likes data and would probably like objective data. That doesn't make it an approach to Mafia per se. Playing to win is arguably separate because it doesn't concern how to play within a mafia game.

[Lord Gurgi]

Gurgi, everyone likes data and would probably like objective data. That doesn't make it an approach to Mafia per se. Playing to win is arguably separate because it doesn't concern how to play within a mafia game.

I do not really like data. I think that mining the forum for data will lead to people waving around their statistics and attempting to make a perfectly balanced game. I don't think that's a good way to go.

Playing to win is very different. The Adel school seems to think the primary goal in the game is to win, whereas others might say it is more important to have fun, but that winning is still important.

Edit: Also in regards to any of this, any people especially Adel who would clarify their positions or tell me how I'm wrong please do.

[Elmo]

There's a distinction between having access to data and what people do with the data. Almost everyone likes the former, even if the latter outweighs it.

[StrangerCoug]

Okey doke, a few points:

This isn't intended as a dichotomy. You can disagree with both if you like. If you think there are more schools of thought than I am suggesting, you can explain what you think defines another school of thought that has a significant presence in MD.

Attempting to appease people yet still keepign fairly broad tents:
School x:
Beliefs:
Policy lynching is inherently bad.
Talking about "scumtells" as a broadly generalisable thing is bad.
Emphasis:
Meta and context is key to scumhunting.

School y:
Beliefs:
Anti-town play is inherently scummy.
Policies like Lynch all Lurkers are either (or both) good for the game or good for the town.
Emphasis:
I'm not confident defining the positions of people who I am not in a clear and unbiased way.

I don't think I fit neatly into either of these. I hate most policy lynches (LALiars is the only one I really support, and I have exceptions to even

THAT

), yet I lump anti-town and scummy together and there are general scum tells (OMGUS, WIFOM, etc.) that I use a lot.

[Mr. Flay]

Edit: Also in regards to any of this, any people especially Adel who would clarify their positions or tell me how I'm wrong please do.

I'm a protoAdel, and I don't think data will lead to statistical dickwavery in game. I think it's impossible to use datamining for anything but the most basic tells (which is largely where JEEP's Common Tells came from, his body of experience). And anybody with sense knows that any tell can be invalidated for a particular player/situation/site.

Where I think they'll be useful is to counter some of the complete bullshit spouted in theory threads, game design, and forum rules. Some of THAT stuff, like "Cops are superoverpowered!" can be proven/disproven, but that's outside the context of a single game.

[SpyreX]

Maybe I just need more than an X or Y to understand the dichotomy here.

Hypothetically, from those knowing a lot more on the issue at hand than I do, I'd be a scumchatter. What would that "mean" in the grand set of tenets?

I mean I love data a lot. I hate meta a lot. I find most of the "general" scum tells to be more harmful than helpful. I don't like to waste time with trying to parse the difference between "anti-town" and "scum" because of the mental overlap. I still don't see a whole lot of actual "policy" lynches that are actually based on simple policy versus trying to find scum. I still find cognitive dissonance to be my number one killing offense - followed by its brother actively lurking.

Is there a school like that? Is this even something that is going to have enough definitive lines to make a difference?

Or is the method in which someone approaches the game truly going to be individualistic and, probably, malleable even from game to game?

[Lord Gurgi]

Flay: As it is, I have serious problems with the ideas that are taken as fact, and I think that the suspicion they are viewed with is healthy. If we actually had facts PROVING that cops are overpowered, I think it would aversely affect everything. People would have grounds for complaining about setups, people would want more and more balanced setups, etc, etc, apocalypse, meteor, global warming, human extinction. We already have enough definition between games that Tarhalindur would run and games that would be seen as balanced.

[Shanba]

guys:

this is not a dichotomy.

[Lord Gurgi]

Spy: A lot of what you're saying sounds like Adel. Some of it he would disagree with.

[Ether]

Even though I think this thread is mostly pointless, I also think that newbie games would be better if they paired up ICs with opposing philosophies so they could yell at each other. In fact, I think somebody should make a thread for experienced players to look for such people.

Yo. StrangerCoug. You're completely and utterly wrong about everything. Let's go. (Actually, let's do this when I'm not avoiding mafia. But seriously. Completely and utterly wrong.)

[Mr. Flay]

If we actually had facts PROVING that cops are overpowered, I think it would aversely affect everything. People would have grounds for complaining about setups, people would want more and more balanced setups

I'm really having a hard time figuring out how any of that is a bad thing. Can you elaborate?