Ethics: Type-1 Metagaming

[mith]

I haven't had a chance yet to read through all of the Type-2 thread and figure out what I want to say, so instead I'll start on this.

By "Type-1 Metagaming" I am referring to making decisions in a current game based on events that happened outside the game previously (this could mean events in a previous game, or outside Mafia entirely; whether the distinction matters is perhaps worth discussing later). This is opposed to "Type-2", which is making decisions in a current game in order to affect future games.

I'll start with Aliases, and maybe work my way through the alphabet (probably not, I am just unreasonably amused by "The A to Z of Type-1 Metagaming").

Question 1:

It is common in Mafia to compare a player's behavior in a current game to their behavior in past games, in order to help deterimine that player's alignment. It is not so common (though by no means unheard of) for players with an extensive track record (good or bad) to play games under an alias. This can be for a variety of reasons, but one result is the other players can not use the Metagame against them in this way. Is this an unfair or unethical advantage?

(Note: This should not be confused with the practice running games

entirely

under aliases.)

[MrBuddyLee]

It would definitely give long-time players an advantage to roll with an alias, but I don't have a problem with it. My job when I accept a role is to strip the disguises from a few dozen anonymous characters, and there's plenty to work with even without meta type-1 info.

One perfectly reasonable use of an alias would be to try out a new persona without making your "main character" look like a crackpot.

[Fiasco]

I don't have a problem with it, given that newbies and players from another site have the same advantage.

There's a strange dynamic at work in the "try to convince people you're protown" part of the game. If you're good at it, people will eventually catch on, and they'll lynch you when you seem less protown than usual, and your record will worsen. Using an alias is a way to "reset" your record; in a way, you become a different player. If people paid a lot of attention to win/loss ratios, and people included different aliases in their win/loss record, then this might be an issue, but as it stands, I don't care.

[Yosarian2]

I don't have a problem with either one. There's nothing wrong with using metagaming to figure out a normal player's playstyle and if they've deviated from that, to use a player's precieved skill to decide who's a good choice to kill/protect/investigate night 1, to use a people's known weaknesses against them, ("person X HATES getting voted for, let's see if I can get a reaction out of him") ect. And of course it goes both ways; the defense that goes "this is just my playstyle, looks at game A, B, and C" is just as fair as attacking someone else for changing their playstyle (and can be a valid defense, although it's sometimes overused...but that's a different discussion).

There's also nothing wrong with using an alias for stratigic reasons in order to avoid such metagame ploys, although I would suspect that most people enjoy the fact that other people know who they are, and many times a person using an allias will give themselves away eventually anyway. Anyway, I'm not sure that's always to your advantage anyway; having a reputation, a track record, and a known playstyle can work to your advantage as often as not, especally for more experenced players; for example, people tend to pay more attention to the unbacked opinion (the "scumdar") of experenced players. But no, I don't think there's anything unfair about using an alias.

[Iammars]

I tried using an alias once, because I wanted to try out a new person. The players didn't care, but the mod did, and I was replaced.
But I have no problems with it.

[Rainbow Brite]

had to answer this one as brite, obv.

this one is actually interesting. i'm tempted to go off about the tactical merits of aliasing (i never aliased for tactical reasons), but that's missing the point. the question be considered to read "does the act of allowing prior games, where available, to be used as reference material compel players to ensure such information available and accessible?"

i think there's more of an ethical question about the legitimacy of using previous games as reference than there is about allowing people to make such information harder to use, and i don't think that's much of an ethical question either. the metagame is a tool that is permissible, but not an entitlement.

also: the phrase "type-1 metagaming" conjures thoughts of wishboards and maindeck darkblasts.

[Aelyn]

had to answer this one as brite, obv.

this one is actually interesting. i'm tempted to go off about the tactical merits of aliasing (i never aliased for tactical reasons), but that's missing the point. the question be considered to read "does the act of allowing prior games, where available, to be used as reference material compel players to ensure such information available and accessible?"

i think there's more of an ethical question about the legitimacy of using previous games as reference than there is about allowing people to make such information harder to use, and i don't think that's much of an ethical question either. the metagame is a tool that is permissible, but not an entitlement.

also: the phrase "type-1 metagaming" conjures thoughts of wishboards and maindeck darkblasts.

You thought of that too huh?

I feel type-1 metagaming, both in the sense of using an alias to hide who you are and in the sense of using past info to judge someone's style, is fine. I don't personally do it, but I'm OK with other people doing it.

And I was wondering when Brite would arrive. You know your Brite DVDs are still at home?

[Shamrock]

I think it's fine, and in some cases it's impossible to avoid (ie. anyone who's played with BJ or Fritzler has encountered their playstyle and makes allowances for it).

[Iammars]

had to answer this one as brite, obv.

this one is actually interesting. i'm tempted to go off about the tactical merits of aliasing (i never aliased for tactical reasons), but that's missing the point. the question be considered to read "does the act of allowing prior games, where available, to be used as reference material compel players to ensure such information available and accessible?"

i think there's more of an ethical question about the legitimacy of using previous games as reference than there is about allowing people to make such information harder to use, and i don't think that's much of an ethical question either. the metagame is a tool that is permissible, but not an entitlement.

also: the phrase "type-1 metagaming" conjures thoughts of wishboards and maindeck darkblasts.

You thought of that too huh?

I feel type-1 metagaming, both in the sense of using an alias to hide who you are and in the sense of using past info to judge someone's style, is fine. I don't personally do it, but I'm OK with other people doing it.

And I was wondering when Brite would arrive. You know your Brite DVDs are still at home?

Well, that makes three of us. 'Cept that I usually don't play Type 1.

[jeep]

I don't have a problem with using aliases. I think it's more fun to get to know the people I'm playing with, but I'm fine either way.

I don't find it unethical. I don't find it unfair.

-JEEP

[Dragon Phoenix]

glad to see that so far alias usage is not frowned upon, as I have been doing it a couple of times this year. Of course, every time I managed to blow my own cover by posting once as DP, but that is a different story.

[MeMe]

I tried using an alias once, because I wanted to try out a new person. The players didn't care, but the mod did, and I was replaced.
But I have no problems with it.

Since you brought it up, Iammars -- I didn't have a problem with you using an alias and said as much to you when you told me it was you. I

did

, however, have a problem with the fact that you 1) were playing in a newbie game AS a newbie and 2) weren't trying to

win

but were actively screwing your side over through faux idiocy. And saying that the "players didn't care" isn't quite accurate as the players didn't KNOW -- but, actually, I seem to recall a couple of players having a problem with your playstyle (said you might be trying to sabotage the game/you weren't helping). If you remember, I kept your actual identity concealed 'til now so that it wouldn't reflect poorly on you (Newbie 175, for interested parties). And I'm actually surprised that you're portraying me as the heavy here when you seemed in agreement with my fully-explained decision at the time.

And that little story sums up my whole feeling about aliases, really. Is it to shake the meta-game? Fine. Is it to play-act rather than play to win? Not so fine.

[VisMaior]

I think if you cant act the same independent of your alignment, you will be lynched anyway. No harm in metagaming type 1 or whatsamacallit.

[VisMaior]

Meme, so what if it were not Iammars, but soem random newbie? The acting thing were then just a playstyle, were that a reason for a replacement?

[Rainbow Brite]

And that little story sums up my whole feeling about aliases, really. Is it to shake the meta-game? Fine. Is it to play-act rather than play to win? Not so fine.

that's less to do with aliases, though, and more to do with randomly trolling and ruining it for everyone else.

Meme, so what if it were not Iammars, but soem random newbie? The acting thing were then just a playstyle, were that a reason for a replacement?

without having read the game, just meme's account, the problem wasn't that iammars was being disruptive or just plain bad - it was that he was being

deliberately

disruptive/jpb. he wasn't playing to win, he was playing for kicks - and in the process, he was damaging his team-mates chances of winning.

it's all about intent, really.

[VisMaior]

Yes, it is clear that Iammars intent was not winning. But, if it were a random person, you could not know what his intent was so easily. Maybe he just sucks blaz. Is it reason to kick a player if he plays terrible? How can you tell if bad play is intended or not?

[VisMaior]

Also, how can you claim he is playing bad? Maybe he has some weird plan to draw out scum or somesuch. I mean, just watch BJ or IS.

[VisMaior]

I remember a game where someone pretended to have a smileys-only restriction thing, and pinged al scum that way, but I cant find it...

[Rainbow Brite]

Yes, it is clear that Iammars intent was not winning. But, if it were a random person, you could not know what his intent was so easily. Maybe he just sucks blaz. Is it reason to kick a player if he plays terrible? How can you tell if bad play is intended or not?

when you know iammars is not an idiot, and then he uses a psuedonym and acts like an idiot - and an actively counterproductive one, too - it's a reasonable conclusion it was deliberate. also:

I did, however, have a problem with the fact that you ... weren't trying to win but were

actively screwing your side over through faux idiocy

.

And I'm actually surprised that you're portraying me as the heavy here when you seemed in agreement with my fully-explained decision at the time.

the fact that meme discussed it with iammars

and he agreed

certainly makes it look like meme isn't just guessing at his intentions. this is an unusual case because we actually

know

the intent.

[VisMaior]

Yes, and I dont criticise MeMe; her decision was a well grounded one. I am discussing hypothetical situations here.

[Rainbow Brite]

Yes, and I dont criticise MeMe; her decision was a well grounded one. I am discussing hypothetical situations here.

yea, like i said, it's about intent. if you're intending to play wackily because you think it might help, there's nothing unethical about that. if you're playing wackily with the intent of being disruptive and counterproductive, that's not.

[VisMaior]

Yes, I agree with that, Its just that you, as a mod or another player, cannot tell the difference.

[Iammars]

I tried using an alias once, because I wanted to try out a new person. The players didn't care, but the mod did, and I was replaced.
But I have no problems with it.

Since you brought it up, Iammars -- I didn't have a problem with you using an alias and said as much to you when you told me it was you. I

did

, however, have a problem with the fact that you 1) were playing in a newbie game AS a newbie and 2) weren't trying to

win

but were actively screwing your side over through faux idiocy. And saying that the "players didn't care" isn't quite accurate as the players didn't KNOW -- but, actually, I seem to recall a couple of players having a problem with your playstyle (said you might be trying to sabotage the game/you weren't helping). If you remember, I kept your actual identity concealed 'til now so that it wouldn't reflect poorly on you (Newbie 175, for interested parties). And I'm actually surprised that you're portraying me as the heavy here when you seemed in agreement with my fully-explained decision at the time.

And that little story sums up my whole feeling about aliases, really. Is it to shake the meta-game? Fine. Is it to play-act rather than play to win? Not so fine.

Because at the time I was also feeling a little depressed with mafia anyway, and not only was I using it to get away from Iammars (bad as scum, not great either as town), but I just needed to get back to the basics. I admit, I went back a little too far, and when you brought that up, I realized that I had and agreed with what you did. If I made you seem like the heavy person there, sorry. (But in all fairness, no one would've known if you hadn't said that.) I might try that once more, but less acting and more logic. (Or I'll use my PookMafia Account, if that will ever end.)

[MeMe]

Vis -- I've never replaced a newbie for anything other than disappearance.

Iammars -- so we're good? Good.

[VisMaior]

Never assumed otherwise. No offense meant.