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

BurdensI would bargain that it's far too late to discuss burdens, but I'll bite. In round 3 I make an argument as to why FT has the burden of proof: He proposes a change in the status quo. He's placing a restriction that does not currently exists onto players. If we were to do nothing we would retain the status squo and my strategy would be allowed. Because he advocates a change from the status quo, he must justify why we should make that change and he has the burden of proof. His argument is that I should have the burden of proof because I depart from convention and common sense. Convention is the status quo, the status quo allows my strategy to exist, therefore convention is on my side. Departure from common sense is a non-argument, ignore it. FT has the burden of proof.FT's RebuttalsAnswer to (1) Strategic value is irrelevant The chess example is a false analogy. I'm not claiming that rooks should be allowed to move diagnally because my strategy operates within the rules under the status squo. For evidence: I already utilize this strategy in practically every mafia game I play. FT's position is the one seeking a rule change. I am saying that if a queen is allowed to move both diagnally and horizonally, then player's should be ready to utilize all possible moves. FT is saying that this is too strong and instead queens should only be able to move along one axis.Answer to (2) Positional LimitsRemember that FT said under his burdens, "The debate’s about whether players should be allowed to play the first day phase without knowing their alignment." He used this reasoning to explain why burdens are equal, but now he's claiming, "It doesn’t matter if the debate’s about not-knowing on D1." Either it matters, which is implicit in FT's derivation of equal burdens from the former claim, or it doesn't, which is explicit in FT's derivation of impacts here. Absent the blatantly contradictory logic, I have answered this point thoroughly. I stated in round two, the first round of argumentation, that "I am only responsible for defending my strategy as I implement it." Never in this debate does FT deny that my burden of defense is limited to the method in which I implement it. In Argument B of FT's round 3 he claimed again that I have to defend positional limits without explaining why I have to defend positional limits. In my round 3 I again point this out and then provide 3 further reasons as to why I do not have to defend positional limits. In addition to providing three reasons as to why I do not have to defend positional limits, I said that even if FT proves I have to defend positional limits, there are ways for moderators to check extraneous uses of this strategy.FT never responds to any of my reasons why I do not have to defend positional limits, and he never provides a reason why I have to defend positional limits, instead he simply responds to the argument I provided simply in case he decided to justify this burden by saying that while he can argue players must look at their role pm DP1, something moderators would have to enforce, I am not allowed to argue that players must look at their role pm NP, something moderators would have to enforce. Either FT is justify's moderator action in trying to affirm the resolution, in which case I can defend moderator limits on extraneous uses of my strategy (which again, are beyond the limits of what I actually have to defend), or he does not justify moderator action in which case he cannot affirm the resolution.Answer to (3) BalanceThe non-quote that FT quotes is quite the misrepresentation of my position. At this point he's no longer arguing that the mafia is unfairly advantaged, so I assume he's conceding that point as he's adamantly defended it prior to round 4. What we have left is whether the player is breaking the moderator's games. His argument can be interpreted in one of two ways. First, the game becomes imbalanced when my strategy is implemented, therefore the game is broken. FT fails to justify how the game is imbalanced when my strategy is implemented and never refuted my arguments claiming that it does not imbalance the game but instead provides stability to DP1. That's that game-theory optimization does, it stabilizes outcomes. Deny this interpretation. The second interpretation is that the game is not played out how the moderator expects it to play out when my strategy is implemented. Deny this interpretation as well. Moderators can design the game but they cannot choose the strategic avenues that players take. If the moderator could dictate how the game played out, there would be no need for players to begin with.Answer to (4) Public Knowledge(1) Bussing isn't relevant to there being a conflict- This was meant to respond to the false equivocancies made, but okay.(2) Bussing involves intent- My strategy involves the intentful decision not to look at your role pm and the intentful acceptance that you may that early setbacks in order to set yourself up for future success.(3) You never know when the game will end as an answer to continuity- Only one game in the history of DDO mafia out of the 260 logged in the archives ended on DP1: World's Fair Mafia. In World's Fair Mafia, there wasn't even a Mafia faction. Not only are we looking at 0.004% of games ending on DP1, but it was a game which had a structure specifically designed such that it may end DP1. It's safe to assume that the game will not end DP1, World's Fair is the extreme exception, not the rule. Continuity stands as a justification for my arguments.The BreakdownThis debate should be exceptionally easy to judge. What this comes down to is whether or not we should change the status quo to restrict a certain strategic choice. Throughout the debate FT has argued through various avenues, and they have all been dropped or refuted.FT's Round 2(1) Not Knowing Your Alignment Renders the Game of Mafia Incoherent- Refuted, given up on by the end of the debate(2) If Everyone Refused to Look at Their Role PM DP1, DP1 Would be Meaningless- Refuted, given up on by the end of the debate- Further, I have argued that the implementation of my strategy makes DP1 more meaningful. Insofar as FT believes that DP1 is valuable, I am winning the debate on the grounds that I provide more value to DP1. This is never contested.- Further, I have argued that even if I were taking value from DP1, something FT never proves, I am adding equal or greater value to later DPs. This is an argument that FT never even attempts to address. Keep in mind that my argument that I add value to later DPs operates independent of whether or not I actually siphon that value from DP1. It can entirely be the case that I add value to DP1 and to later DPs, which are claims that FT never contests in any round. As it stands, all DPs are more meaningful when players are allowed to implement my strategy than when they are not. On this basis alone you may vote CON.(3) I Necessarily Have to Defend Players Never Looking at Their Role PM- Refuted, not only do I provides arguments as to why I do not have to defend this stance which he never responds to, but he never provides arguments as to why I do have to defend it.FT's Round 3(A) Meaningful Conflicts Require Knowledge of Affiliation- Refuted, this argument assumes that mafia is a single-stage game. It is an iterated game in which the stages has continuity between them.(B) Positional Limits- Refuted, again, FT never explains why I have to defend positional limits, I explain (1) why I don't have to defend positional limits,and (2) even if I do, how those limits can be enforced while maintaining my strategy.(C) Unfairly advantages mafia- Refuted, given up on by the end of the debate(D) Public Knowledge- Refuted, FT just ignores that my public/private knowledge distinction was a response to a false analogy. His only real argument here is that continuity is not guaranteed, but I have shown that 99.996% of mafia games on DDO have not resulted in a DP1 victory for one side of the other. In the one exception, there was no mafia in the game to begin with. Continuity is statistically guaranteed.FT's Round 4 has been addressed this round.Voters(1) FT has the burden of proof. He's failed to show why we would make a change away from the status quo. Default to a CON vote.(2) Every argument offered by FT makes numerous assumptions. These assumptions have been challenged consistently and never has FT attempted to defend them. He legimitately has no argument that you are justified in voting for.(3) I increase the meaningfulness of DP1 with the implementation of my strategy, and I also increasing the meaningfulness of later DPs with the implementation of my strategy. Mafia is more meaningful with my strategy than without it.