Ethics: Type-2 Metagaming

[VisMaior]

Fiasco, do understand: while you have no reliable information on the real alignment, any lynch is actually good game. You cannot claim that someone was playing against the win, simply because they had no information a priori. Thus, the problem is a made up one. It never actually arises!

[Fiasco]

Information can come with many different degrees of reliability. Would you really say lynching a liar confirmed by a 99%-reliable cop is good play, just because there's no absolute proof that he isn't scum?

You may be able to argue that situations like that are very rare in practice, but you can't argue it's theoretically impossible.

[VisMaior]

I agree with you that lynching someone against your judgement just to keep consistent with some metagame-rule is bad play. (altough LAL would not fall into this category) But its not unethical.

[Norinel]

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?

Well, setups changing in favor of the metagame notwithstanding, you are more likely to be town than scum in any single game, so by increasing the odds of the town winning in general, you're increasing the chances of you winning on average. Granted, not in a way that helps anyone else less than you.

And maybe it's not a matter of winning in the long term, but some more "noble" goal. It could be argued (I'm not sure if I want to do it just yet) that a mafia game where the town plays better is more interesting/fun/exciting to play in

no matter which side you're on

, so helping the town at large makes the game more enjoyable in the long term (For you, at least), if not more winningful. And that's not zero-sum, but is it an ethical goal to pursue?

[MrBuddyLee]

Why should scum have a monopoly on artful skullduggery?

If you can fool scum and maintain the trust of your fellow townies, I'd say you deserve praise for your deceptions.

[mathcam]

Let me preface this by saying I haven't read every post in this thread (but most of them), but I've spent a good amount of time thinking about these issues over the past few years, and wanted to write them down:

I'm a rather firm opponent of the "lynch all liars" policy. There is, of course, a correlation between lying and being scum, and perhaps even a strong one, but the sweeping conclusion of LAL is, I feel, hardly merited. If nothing else, a far saner policy would be "If you're otherwise stuck on who to lynch, lynch someone who's been caught lying." The train of thought I'm most opposed to is the following meta-LAL argument: Townies don't need to lie, therefore lynch all liars, therefore don't lie as a townie. Could there ever be a more devastating blow to the imagination involved in a game of mafia than "You don't

need

to do suchandsuch, so

don't

do suchandsuch?"

I, perhaps rather immodestly, count myself as a player who has done much more good than harm by being willing to lie as a pro-town member. As a weak pro-town role, you can claim a fake stronger role which forces the mafia to make some decisions that might eventually lead them to being outed. As a strong pro-town role, you can claim a weaker role to avoid being targeted (though this obviously gets complicated). There are instances where it's advantageous to act slightly scummy, to fake a posting restriction, etc., all of which are just other forms of lying (or at least deceit). In none of these instances does a townie

need

to lie to be effective, but I'd argue that there exist a variety of plausible instances where a townie would do well to do so. The perpetually-honest townie is the "pusher" in a game of ping-poing between the town and the mafia, perfectly happy to return the ball every time and hope the other side messes up, but reluctant to take a first stab to

induce

the error.

Further, it's not like the mafia

need

to lie all that often either. Only the mafia that allow themselves to be caught up in elaborate schemes of lying and deception (like, unfortunately, myself) need to be worried about keeping their story straight. The issue of being a good fake-claimer aside, once a mafia has been forced into making a claim, it's a simple matter for him/her to write it down an exact role PM describing such a role, and pretending to follow that role to the letter.

Finally, an interesting addenda ties in nicely with another ethics thread: What if I consider my goal not to be to win with the town, but to emerge as a winner no matter what team I end up on? Might it not be to my advantage to occasionally lie to my current team to set up a more likely overall victory for myself? And what if it is, and I confess to such? Would you propose lynching me for following optimal strategy, for putting my goal of winning over my loyalty to the team?

Cam

[Mr. Flay]

mathcam FTW. Lynch-all-liars is unnecessarily dogmatic, and allows players to assume that someone who tells the truth is more likely to be pro-town than someone who lies for metagame reasons. I've used this to my advantage on a number of cases, as scum; I lie as little as possible, and yet still am scum. It makes it infinitely easier to keep your lies straight, as my daddy taught me.

[teucer]

Why should scum have a monopoly on artful skullduggery?

If you can fool scum and maintain the trust of your fellow townies, I'd say you deserve praise for your deceptions.

You forget, of course, that LAL can only be applied if the liar is caught. Someone skillful enough at lying that nobody knows they are will never be lynched under LAL. So, despite the phrasing, it's actually "lynch everyone caught in a lie."

Also, remember that you lying doesn't give me any information about your alignment - in fact, it deprives me of some if I trust you - but since most liars are scum, it's in my best interest to vote for you if I know about the lie.