Mafia Debate: You should not be allowed to play on D1 without knowing your role/alignment

Answer to (A) Meaningful Conflicts Require Knowledge of AffiliationCross apply my arguments from last round answering back his second argument. FT never responds to these: (1), DP1s in which players are deciphering WIFOM of whether or not other players have actually declined to look at their role pm adds depth to DP1 and makes the DP more meaningful. If FT is looking for meaningful DP1s, then a metagame in which you must analyze a player's likeliness overall to not look at their role pm, and their likeliness to not have looked at their role pm in the particular DP1 in which you are playing given their actions thus far has more depth and is more meaningful than a DP1 absent this metagame-induced analysis. (2) DP1 being meaningless does not make the game meaningless. FT entirely ignores this argument. Don't accept any of FT's arguments claiming that you affirm in order to maintain value in DP1 if he doesn't justify why DP1 inherently must be valuable.I would also like to introduce one more argument, which FT is free to respond to next round: Assuming that FT proves DP1s must necessarily be meaningful in order for the game to have meaning, it is still acceptable to sacrifice meaning DP1 insofar as it adds meaning of equal or greater value to later DP1s. Once DP2 begins, it's up to players to either stay consistent with their DP1 behavior or change course, now that they know their alignment. While many games are won in the early stages as FT said, many are won in the later stages as well. DP2 becomes significantly more valuable under the metagame I propose, as do later DPs. There is no justification as to why DP1 should be more valuable than later DPs, and it the argument I made last round that this metagame adds value to later DPs has been uncontested. Note, this argument is not entirely new, I already argued that this strategy adds value to later DPs, which was dropped, and am simply explicating in this round that the value added to later DPs can compensate for value lost in DP1.Answer to (B) I Must Justify Limits to my PositionI straight up said in the last paragraph of my opening arguments that I do not have to defend players never looking at their role pms. FT has not yet justified why I have to defend these limits. (1) The resolution states DP1, not all DPs. (2) My personal strategy is limited to DP1, and this debate started over FT contesting my personal strategy. (3) The logical application of my strategy as a game-theory optimized approach to DP1 leads you to looking at your role PM during NP1, because the value gained from not looking DP1 cannot be actualized until you learn your role and proceed accordingly. I have already made all of these arguments as to why I do not have to defend limits beyond DP1, and FT has simply ignored them and failed to provide a single reason as to why it is my burden to defend such limits. Ignore the entirety of this point; not only do my arguments preclude his, but he has yet to explain why his arguments here are relevant.Further, even if he justified the need for limits, moderators can require confirming role pms by NP1 and then the limits are explicitly placed. There you go, the entire contention is refuted in one sentence. Another one-second refutation: Players can force other players to look at their role pm by VTLing them and demanding a claim.On World's Fair Mafia: To take one game that, by the way, did not even have a mafia faction, and to then declare that all games should be changed to account for that game ending DP1, is not a sound policy. We don't dictate policy based off of exceptions. I'd also like to point out the irony that the entirety of World's Fair Mafia was made meaningless by FT himself refusing to participate after not receiving a town role pm during a time in his mafia career in which he would openly state that he would not play any game in which he was not town. His replacement was lynched on the argument that if FT replaced out, he must be mafia, because he always says he would replace out if he wasn't town. That's one hell of an exception to pick in order to make an argument.Answer to (C) My Position Unfairly Advantages MafiaOn the argument of balance: This (1) assumes that moderators actually know how to balance games, (2) that moderators have some right to dictate the pace of the game that is greater than the right of the players to play the game, and (3) that not having a meaningful DP1 destroys have balance. Until FT provides justifications for these arguments, ignore them. Also, on (3) cross-apply my arguments that (i), DP1s are more meaningful under a metagame where players may decline to look at their role pm DP1, (ii) that DP1 being meaningless does not make the game meaningless, and (iii) that DP1 can be meaningless if other DPs become more meaningful as a result.On the point of cheating, FT misunderstands what game-theory optimization strives to achieve. Take the an iterated prisoner's dilemma for example. Two players have the choice to cooperate or defect. If both players cooperate, they get one point. If one player cooperates and the other defects, the defector gets 3 points and the cooperative party gets zero. If both players defect, neither player gets points. The goal is to maximize your points. The most effective strategy possible is to always defect when your partner always cooperates. This is called maximally-exploitative play. Given you are able to be exploitative in a particular instance, that is the action that yields the best results. However, long-term this is not feasible, eventually your partner will not cooperate and you both lose. Game-theory optimization is an approach to iterated simulations such that variables are accounted for. In this case, game-theory optimization would hold that one always cooperates insofar as their partner always cooperates, and to defect if their partner defects in order to promote cooperation. This not the most effective strategy, but it's unexploitable over a long enough timeframe. This is relevant for mafia because it is not a strategy that makes mafia win more often, it simply saves face DP1. While this indeed shifts that balance towards mafia DP1 in that they cannot be read and are not expected to fake-claim, they are then tied to their analysis DP1 and must maintain consistency after they become informed. This is incredibly difficult and is not to be underestimated. To shift from uninformed to informed and not change your behavior is harder than to have always been informed. Moreover, if the mafia player is particularly good at town-play, they may often lynch scummates DP1. This would make the game significantly more town-bias if strong players followed this metagame. What I'm saying here is that while there are aspects that appear on face to be mafia-bias, they are only mafia-bias DP1 and become town-bias in later DPs, and there are other aspects that are clearly town-bias, and thus we cannot take for granted that this strategy overpowers mafia, it actually advantages town.Answer to (D) Public KnowledgeAgain, FT fails to adequately respond to my arguments. The public knowledge argument was a response to the sports-analogy and clearly serves its purpose. The murder mystery argument talks about a different aspect of public knowledge than knowing which basketball hoop you ought to shoot at. The difference is continuity. In sports, one gains no advantage in scoring for the other team. In mafia, one may gain an advantage by playing for the other team because the game continues beyond single-stages. The game is not confined to DP1, but to the totality of DPs. What happens in each DP feeds into the following DPs. Bussing is considered a legitimate strategy despite is being, definitionally, playing for the other team because of this continuity. Unless FT can defend why temporarily playing against one's team, such as in bussing, should not be allowed, this entire line of questioning is irrelevant.ConclusionFT just picks random sentence fragments and purports them to be my entire argument. Remember that he has the burden of proof in claiming that one should not be allowed to do something, i.e., a restriction should be placed. I have not only refuted all of his arguments thus far, in ways that he has yet to respond to, but I have also argued how the strategy I propose creates a metagame that adds more depth to the game, particularly to DP1, also in ways that he has declined to respond to.