Mafia Debate: Behavioral Analysis On D1

== Rebuttal == I'll start with definitions. "Random" means acting "without definite aim, direction, rule, or method"; "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern." [1] "Rational" means "based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings." [2] Town act with a definite aim, direction, and purpose. Their goal is to find the mafia and lynch them. Even when town act irrationally (i.e. based on emotions or feelings), they still act with that specific intent. The idea that town always act randomly is simply untrue. The idea that behavioral analysis cannot be rational is also untrue. The differences between town and mafia are "facts." Votes, reads, and claims are "facts." Themes are "facts." These "facts" provide a "rational" basis for analyzing the game. The behavioral analysis I cited earlier is an example. It refers to the specific facts in the game, and provides reasons (not emotions or feelings) why those facts lead to a certain conclusion about alignment. NOTE: Bossy's argument rests on a logical fallacy. He conflates the words "random" and "irrational" (he says town plays randomly because they cannot justify anything they do rationally). But irrational acts can be and often are non-random. Bossy gives no reason to think otherwise. == What if town always play randomly? == For the sake of argument, let's assume town always play randomly. Sometimes, these random actions will look scummy. Sometimes, these random actions will not look scummy. That's the nature of randomness, right? So, sometimes, town will do random things that mafia would not do (because mafia do not act randomly). That means, at the very least, town can use behavioral analysis to locate other townies via town-tells. Under this logic, there's no such thing as a scum-tell, but there is such thing as a town-tell. If you can find all the townies, you've effectively found all the mafia through process of elimination. The net result of analyzing behavior is thus positive even if we assume town always act randomly. NOTE: I'm not conceding that town always play randomly. I'm just testing out the hypo to show that bossy's argument is wrong and his framework incoherent. I say the framework is incoherent because the moment town start locating town-tells, town aren't acting randomly anymore, so the framework collapses. == Begging The Question == "Begging the question" means "assuming the conclusion of an argument" (i.e. circular reasoning). Bossy seems to love the phrase. For almost everything I argue, he claims I'm begging the question. The irony of bossy's position is that he's begging the question, not me. This is bossy's argument: "Town and mafia behave the same because town play randomly. Town play randomly because they cannot distinguish town behaviors from mafia behaviors. Town cannot distinguish town behaviors from mafia behaviors because town and mafia play the same." That's circular reasoning. The argument I made is not circular. I begin with the facts. Town do not know alignments; mafia know alignments. Town must lynch; mafia need not lynch. Town need not fake reads; mafia must fake reads. These facts are not in dispute. From these facts, I argue that town and mafia act differently. I apply common sense. When town read the game, they're looking for the mafia. When mafia read the game, they're looking for townies to mislynch. That means town and mafia will interpret the game differently. The result is that town respond to new facts (votes, reads, and claims) differently than mafia. I'm assuming that anyone reading this debate has played mafia. Just recall your experience as town and your experience as mafia; the two experiences are entirely different. The way you think about the game is different. I argue that town and mafia manifest these differences in their behaviors. This is common sense. I support the argument with a specific example (e.g. the degree of certainty tell). I could cite many more examples. Finally, I argue that if town and mafia manifest different behaviors, then town should be able to locate these differences. If town and mafia play differently, then those differences should theoretically be identifiable. The data supports that thesis, since town's that use behavioral analysis do better than those that don't use it (bossy concedes this point earlier in the debate). There are countless examples of games where town destroys the mafia on D1 (and the rest of the game) using only behavioral analysis. That suggests that town can indeed locate town behaviors and mafia behaviors with better success than random. At no point does my argument beg the question. Only bossy's argument uses circular reasoning. My argument flows logically from the initial facts I started with, which themselves are not in dispute. By contrast, bossy's argument never starts with any facts. Instead, he starts with conclusions ("town always play randomly," or "town and mafia play the same"), which he never justifies except by reference to other conclusions. == How to start D1? == When the game first starts, the town needs to do something to get the game moving. They can do this in different ways, but the most popular way is a random voting stage ("RVS"). We describe the votes at this stage as "random," but usually players attach some "reason" for their vote. For example, someone might say, "FourTrouble sounds like trouble, so I'm voting him." Or they might refer to a player's history: "Khaos is always mafia, so let's start there." Or they might apply a rule (e.g. the inactive rule or noob rule). These votes are not based in anything from the game yet, but they do flow from players having different alignments and goals. Sometimes, these RVS-votes reveal stuff about alignments because mafia are trying to blend in, whereas town are trying to get the game moving. These different goals can and do create differences. Even if no differences emerge during RVS itself, responses begin to create meaningful information. Town and mafia will interpret RVS-votes differently simply because their perspective on the game is different. The mafia know which votes are wrong and which votes are right; the town don't. The perspective on these initial random votes is different, so the responses to them are (at least sometimes) different. This eventually leads to a meaningful discussion about behaviors. That discussion itself produces more meaningful discussion. Eventually, RVS is the further thing from your mind. The players are pushing votes on people they ACTUALLY think are mafia, or mafia are pushing votes on people they're ACTUALLY trying to mislynch. At that point, nothing is randomly anymore. Town and mafia each have specific goals they're trying to accomplish, and that leads the town and mafia to manifest differences in their behavior. Bossy says all responses are random, but like I explained earlier, that's simply not true. Town will respond to RVS votes by looking for scum. They look for something they can start meaningful discussion about. Examples of RVS moving into meaningful discussion are everywhere. You can look at almost every game where town lynched on D1. Or any game on mafiascum. Or F-16's game cited earlier. The town starts with RVS and eventually moves into meaningful discussion. At some point, folks push lynches they believe in. And that's the point where nothing is random anymore, because that's when you can actually analyze the motives behind those pushes. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...