The Instigator
drafterman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Resolved: In the game "Mafia," the Town should abide by the Policy, "Lynch All Liars"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,802 times Debate No: 20331
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (2)

 

drafterman

Pro

I'd like to thank F-16 for accepting this challenge and for suggesting the idea of debating Mafia theories and practices.

Resolution: In the game "Mafia," the Town should abide by the Policy, "Lynch All Liars."

Definitions:
Mafia - common party game that pits an uninformed majority against an informed minority (for those not in the know).
Town - the uninformed majority
Lynch All Liars - A policy in which, when a player has been caught in a lie, the Town, in response, should lynch them, removing them from the game. Lynch All Liars is commonly abbreviated as: LAL.

Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 4: No new arguments

Pro (me) will defend the resolution. Pro has burden of proof.
Con (F-16) must refute Pro's arguments or demonstrate that a burden of proof has not been met.

Voting period: 2 weeks
Argument time: 72 hours
Max Characters: 8000
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

I thank Drafterman for this fun challenge, accept the terms and look forward to the debate. The first five comments give clarifications on the terms and definitions.
Debate Round No. 1
drafterman

Pro

As stated, Lynch All Liars is "a policy in which, when a player has been caught in a lie, the Town, in response, should lynch them, removing them from the game. Lynch All Liars is commonly abbreviated as: LAL."

To get into further detail (1):

"Quite simply, most Townies have no reason to lie about their actions, motivations, or roles. Many newish Townies will attempt to lie in attempts to gambit, and fail miserably by hurting the Town in the process. These lies can be indistinguishable from deliberate scum gambits, and leaving them unpunished reinforces the behavior as a viable option for scum."

The only people in the game that have to lie are Mafia. At the very least, they have to lie about the fact that they are Mafia. Thus, if you were to take from the set of all players a subset of lying players, and then lynched each member of that subset, you would be guaranteed to win, as you would have lynched all mafia. This simple mathematical illustration is, essentially, the core of the argument.

Yes, you will lynch townies in the process but to strictly avoid town deaths, even by lynching, is an unreasonable ideal to hold.

The primary objection to LAL is to cite specific instances where a Town-sided player had a good reason to lie. The problem is, this doesn't actually refute or undermine LAL. The policy here is: "Lynch All Liars" not "Never Lie." Indeed, I will concede immediately that, in some circumstances it is, indeed, beneficial for a Town-sided player to lie; I am not suggesting that Town-sided players never lie. Rather, I am arguing that, once caught in a lie, the response of the Town, as a whole, should be to lynch that person.

Contentions:

C1: Strategies vs. Tactics

Tactics and Strategies are both ways of handling certain situations, specifically in the military arena, but also in the arena of competitive games. Tactics are plans for securing immediate, short-term goals. Strategies, however, are broader plans for achieving long-term goals. With this in mind, the decision of an individual Town-sided player to lie, to achieve some goal in a specific game (such as avoiding or drawing the Mafia night kill), is a tactic. The overall response of Town to lynch liars in any game is a strategy. Classified as such, we can see that lying and LAL are not in competition with each other. They are not mutually exclusive choices. In fact, lying, if used, should be used in light of the strategy of LAL. Consider, "rather than wind up on the receiving end of Lynch All Liars, it is best not trying to gambit unless you fully understand the implications of your actions." So I say lie, but lie with the notion that, if caught, you will die.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but sacrificial tactics are common in all areas of competition. In chess you may sacrifice a piece to capture a more valuable piece or to achieve are better position on the board; baseball has a number of sacrificial plays in order to earn runs; the entire phrase "lose the battle but win the war" is based around this notion. The game of Mafia has a number of roles that deliberately exploit and support sacrificial tactics: Bomb, Hunter/Vengeful, and Oracle are three.

C2: Town Lies vs. Scum Lies

One way of looking at the strategy is to consider the state of the game if it was not employed. If we eschewed LAL, then we have no guiding strategy for what to do with liars. On what basis, on what criteria, would lying get a player lynched? Obviously the opposite contention, that we lynch no liars, is not viable. That leaves us with lynching some liars. But who? What qualities distinguish a lying Town-sided player from a lying Scum?

If such qualities existed, then the Scum players would simply adopt those qualities or make sure they only lie in those situations, thus closing the gap. Furthermore, this puts the judgment into the subjective hands of individuals. This is, essentially, the status quo, as everyone already assesses existing situations using personal judgment to distinguish Town from Scum. Since the status quo of any balanced game favors no side, Scum can lie with impunity, fearing a lynch no more than normal. By lynching all liars, we are guaranteed to catch scum. We remove the window in which lying scum can pose as lying townies.

C3: Overall Success

Another way of looking at a strategy is to consider the situations it is employed, and to evaluate the overall success. Now, we may be tempted to say that lynching a Town-sided player (a mislynch) is a failure, but this is not the case. In this game, the Town always outnumber the Scum. Ratios of Town to Scum almost never exceed 2:1. With twice as many Town as Scum the only way LAL fails, on the whole, is if half the Town lies. Even then, it only fails to win the game if the lying Town-sided players are lynched before the Scum players.

Unfortunately, since LAL is not consistently used in the Mafia games of DDO, we cannot perform, in actuality, this type of analysis.

C4: Changing how the Game is played

Since LAL is a strategy, one must look at behavior across games. If the overall Town response to lies is caution, rather than lynching, the Scum, over the course of the games will be more bold in lying, giving them an advantage as they have less to fear from doing it. However, a strong stance on LAL puts the mafia in a worse position. They have to be more careful with their lies. It also forces the Town to play better. There are many instances of Town lying for no foreseeable goal. Town have lied about their characters simply because they felt their given character or role would have drawn suspicion (2) (3).

C5: Lying vs. Misleading

I'll reiterate that I am not saying that Town-sided players shouldn't lie, but rather they should lie as a tactic with the understanding and acceptance that they will be lynched if they are caught. This outcome should be factored into their decision when weighing the pros and cons of lying as a tactic.

However, there are other alternatives to lying. As stated, the reasons a Town-sided player may lie usually involve either avoiding or attracting mafia attention. One need not lie to do to this. There are a number of behaviors or statements that a person can make that imply, or allude, to roles or abilities which can make people think the person has a role worth killing or avoiding in the night. This is perfectly acceptable, and expected, game play.

While this may seem like splitting hairs, there is a clear distinction here. The Mafia are still the only players that have to unambiguously lie during the course of the game. The Town-sided players do not have to lie to win the game, even if they wish to mislead as part of a tactic.

Summary:

All mafia have to lie. Town does not have to lie and, even if Town-sided players choose to lie as a tactic, they are still less than the Mafia. Ergo, Lynching all Liars effectively lynches all the mafia.

[1] http://mafiascum.net...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

I thank Drafterman for his detailed and interesring arguments. I am going to present my arguments first and then rebut Pro's arguments. My position is that town should not lynch all liars because doing so would decrease the likelihood of a town win which is the ultimate goal for town.


C1) LAL absolves the mafia members from responsibilty for the lynch

When a player is lynched based on a "policy" or a "theory," the mafia members no doubt will pile on to ensure that the lynch happens especially if the lynched player has a powerful role. After the alignment is revealed, the usual response would be to say that the lynched player "deserved" to be lynched for lying and move on. This robs the town of information that is revealed in a normal (non-policy) mislynch. This is because the response of all the mafia members to the mislynch would be to say "Lynch all Liars." This distances the mafia members from being accountable for the mislynch and allow them to blame it either on the policy or on the lynched player.

If LAL is avoided however, lynch bandwagons would be more carefully scrutinized and the mafia cannot say that they contributed to the mislynch based on a policy. They will have to own up and give more detailed explanation which can in turn be scrutinized to assess their guilt.


C2) LAL gives the mafia free mislynches

Pro's argument here is that he doesn't advocate forbidding all lies but rather says that when a player lies, they should do so with the understanding that they will be lynched. However, this strategy causes unnecessary lynches and has the potential games due to the fact that most games allow approximately about 2 to 3 mislynches before the town loses. If Pro finds out that 4 players lied, he would not be able to lynch all 4 players with the certainty of finding scum because the game may well be over before he has the chance to actually reach the scum. Townies lives are scarce and important. Mislynches are how the mafia wins the game and must be kept to a minimum. Lynching based on a "policy" is likely to give mafia a "free" lynch whenever a townie lies. This moves the mafia that much closer to their win as they can all bandwagon onto a lying townie and focus on getting those townies lynched.

C3) Town Liars vs. Scum Liars

Pro advocates finding out the subset of players who lied and lynching them all. However, town liars are far more likely to be lynched first than scum liars. The reason for this is that the scum are an informed minority. They can work together to move the town's focus onto a lying townie. Assuming my opponent is a townie, player A and B are lying scum, and players X, Y, and Z are lying townies, my opponent would have no preference over who to lynch first, and neither would the other townies since the important point is to lynch all liars. The town players will not be able to work together privately to determine who they will lynch first. The scum on the other hand would be able to work together, make a coherent plan and ensure that the lying townies are lynched first. If enough lying townies are lynched in order to allow scum to gain voting majority, the scum will have already won.

Pro asks "what qualities distinguish a scum liar from a townie liar?" If such qualities existed, wouldn't scum adopt those qualities?

Mafia as played at DDO is highly dependent on character and role claims and the theme of the game. In most games, the town players would have a character that is a relatively major character or one that is considered "good." The role of that player in most games matches the character and mods go so far as to explain why that character has that role. Mafia members on the other hand have to choose a character and a role and somehow have to make it fit into the game lying along the way. When a town player is caught lying, they can backtrack and give up their real character and role which will fit into the game. Scum on the other hand have no real character or role to rely on if things get rough and they are caught lying. Using information such as this and factoring it into the decision to lynch or not lynch a liar will yield more productive results than indescriminately lynching all liars.

C4) Overall Success

Pro says that the only way town loses is if half the town lies. This isn't true. Consider a 14 player game with 4 scum. It affords town approximately 2 to 3 mislynches based on other factors such as the number of no lynches. All that has to happen for the town to lose if LAL is followed is that two to three townies need to lie. It is not true that half the townshould lie.

Of course, those 2 to 3 townies need not be lynched before any scum that were caught lying. They can be lynched at any point. Unless every single scum is lynched (even the ones that flew below the radar and weren't caught lying) beforethose few lying townies are lynched, town is assured a loss unless they try to distinguish town lies from scum lies and follow a more refined strategy than indescriminately lynching every liar.

C5) Pro's examples

"The only people in the game that have to lie are Mafia"

However, we know that this is not true. Firstly, townies lie as can be evidenced from the two examples that my opponent provided under this section. Both examples show mislynches where townies lied and got lynched. It is also interesting to note that his examples are both from the same game. If my strategy of not lynching every liar was used in that game instead of Pro's strategy of LAL, then two mislynches could have been avoided. My opponent's strategy in that game put town on the verge of defeat where if only the mafia were more active, they could have won. This is one example of how Lynching all Liars loses games for town.

It is also not easy to catch a player lying. In the example Pro cites, for instance, the town was only able to catch other townies lying and through process of elimination found out the mafia. They found 2 players that lied and eliminated both those players. However, 100% of the players who lied ended up being town. Pro's strategy only works if you find allthe liars and eliminate the scum liars BEFORE the town liars.

C6) Lying vs. Misleading

Pro advocates misleading the mafia as opposed to unambiguously lying. However, due to the way the game of mafia is played, players need to make unambiguous statements. When pressured for a claim, it is generally not enough to make ambiguous statements and hints that discourage the mafia from targeting the player in question. Players pressure another player with the explicit purpose of getting a claim and are usually not content with ambigious statements. Misleading therefore is not a viable alternative to lying.

C7) Caution vs Lynching in response to lying

Pro says that if the town's response to lying is caution as opposed to lynching, the scum will be more "bold" in lying. It still doesn't change anything as the scum have to lie regardless. He also says that it will force the town to play better. However, as I have shown through the course of this round, NOT lynching all liars is what makes the town play better by forcing them to be more discerning in who to lynch as opposed to making a broad susbset "liars" and lynching everyone within that category which all but assures a town loss.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Debate Round No. 2
drafterman

Pro

Rebuttals and Support:

C1) LAL absolves the mafia members from responsibilty for the lynch
C2) LAL gives the mafia free mislynches

Both of these are basically of the same vein and only involve the bad consequences of lynching a townie that lies. Sure, I acknowledge that these situations would happen, but this is not a problem with LAL, it's a problem with the cavalier nature in which Townies lie. In HvV: Cartoon mafia, and twice in Tarantino mafia, we had townies that just up and decided to lie about their characters and they were lynched for their efforts. Why did they lie? Their lie was not a tactic designed to out mafia and help win the game. In short, they lied because they didn't like the claim that was given to them and that is a poor reason to lie. We should not be in the business of enabling poorly thought-out tactics.

The point of LAL as a strategy is to affect the overall course of the game. In this regard it should discourage townies from making such frivolous lies and lie only when it is actually in the best interest of the town, not because they didn't get a character they liked.

C3) Town Liars vs. Scum Liars

Con takes the position of 3 townies lying and 2 scum lying. This is an absurd position. While I certainly accept that townies can lie as a deliberate tactic, I think these situations are few and far between. There shouldn't be so many lying townies in a single game; there is just no call for it. Yes, LAL can be detrimental when the Town lies with such ease and without good cause. This is not a problem with LAL, it is a problem with lying with such ease and without good case!

C4) Overall Success

The impression given here is wrong. With 10 town and 4 scum, the Town can afford 4 mislynches, all other things being equal.

DP1 - 10/4 - ML - 9/4
NP1 - 9/4 - NK - 8/4
DP2 - 8/4 - ML - 7/4
NP2 - 7/4 - NK - 6/4
DP3 - 6/4 - ML - 5/4
NP3 - 6/4 - NK - 5/4
DP4 - 5/4 - ML - 4/4 - Town Loses

Yes, this is not quite half (half being 5) but 4 is also not 1/3 of 14 either, which is what my statement was based on. Furthermore, my opponent is consistently only assuming the worst case scenario (many town members lie without good reason, all lying townies are necessarily lynched first).

What he fails to consider is:

1. Lying should be done with a purpose. So when he is considering the lying townies in his situation, what are the potential gains? Did their lies out a mafia scum who would then be lynched? That is a good reason to lie and affects the scenario. My opponent only considers lynching lying Townies without factoring in what the Town gained through that lie. If the Town gains nothing, then it was a bad lie and should be discouraged, which is what LAL does.

2. Certainly mafia will push to lynch lying townies first, but with LAL in affect we lynch liars as they are caught, which can be in any order, and there is no reason to believe that Town liars would get caught before mafia liars.

C5) "The only people in the game that have to lie are Mafia"

My opponent says this is false, but does not show why. In the example mention, the town's people in question didn't have to lie. They just did because they wanted to. My opponent says that LAL almost cost the game. I say that pointless lying almost cost the game. With LAL in affect, such lying would be discouraged and such mislynches wouldn't happen. When such lynches do happen, the proper response should be criticizing the lying townies for lying, rather than LAL.

Yes, of course if we do not use LAL we won't have such mislynches. We also won't have the lynches where we successfully lynch lying scum. Since all scum have to lie and since the number of lying scum should outnumber lying townies, it is clearly better to lynch liars than to let them go.

C6) Lying vs. Misleading

I've never seen a person lynched for refusing to give a claim. Most cave under the pressure. Furthermore, the town is usually not content with being lied to either. Even though LAL isn't an officially or widely accepted maxim, there is still a general suspicion of liars. While individuals may cite LAL as a personal philosophy it is, by far, not widely accepted. Yet.

C7) Caution vs Lynching in response to lying

Con says that not lynching all liars forces the town to be better, but the problem is, the examples used by Con are those of Town lying very poorly. Why should everyone else have to settle for that? Should not the appropriate response be to say: "Hey, that was a poor lie that only got you killed and served no purpose." LAL doesn't discourage or eliminate the need to be more discerning in lynching. Again, Con proposes extreme scenarios that either happen very rarely, or would happen very rarely if LAL was strictly enforced. Most lynches are not policy lynches and, therefore, still require the types of skills necessary to determine who is mafia.

F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

C1) LAL removes the mafia's responsibiltity from a mislynch

Pro doesn't really respond to my argument that Lynching all liars gives the mafia free mislynches. It also removes any accountability on their part for those mislynches. Analyzing votes on a mislynch is a useful strategy in a mafia game as scum are often in on mislynches. After eliminating all the confirmed townies on a wagon, there is a good chance that some of the remaining players are mafia. Their reasons for voting on that lynch can be scrutinized and attention can be focussed on them. However, with "policy" lynches such as LAL, this scrutiny is completely thrown away as all the scum have a ready answer. "He lied!"

Townie: "Why did you vote on the mislynch?"
Scum: "Drafterman's Rule #1."


C2) LAL gives the mafia free mislynches

Pro claims that the free mislynches is not a problem with LAL but rather with townie lies. However, Pro doesn't advocate that townies shouldn't lie at all. All he says is that while townies can lie, they must do so with the understanding that they will be lynched. This is where the problem lies: Townies may lie with the understanding that they will be lynched - and they will be lynched. However, these lynches move the mafia closer to their win without giving the town any new information at all so LAL is actually a pro-mafia strategy.

My opponent might argue that in multiple games, LAL is an overall better strategy as it discourages lies. However, his position is not that townies should not lie but rather that liars should be lynched. If all liars are lynched, this discourages townies from lying even when it helps the town.

Pro points out examples from the HvV game as well as the Quentin Tarantino game to show that townies lie because "they don't like their role." Pro is completely unaware of why said townies lied. Unless he can provide confessions from the endgame, it is just as likely that they lied to help the town or get the mafia to target bulletproof players. Pro is unaware of why they lied and his argument on that matter is nothing more than a guess.


C3) Town Liars vs. Scum Liars

Pro does not adress my argument that scum can work collectively to out-persuade the town to get townie liars lynched first. Add that to my C1 on scum being absolved of responsibility for the lynch and the result is a mislynch with town none the wiser as to who the mafia could be.

Pro also drops that character and role-claims are used extensively at DDO and can be used to distinguish lying town from lying scum. Pro doesn't want to distinguish lying town from lying scum and simply wants to discourage town from lying by lynching every liar. However, a town that does that is just lazy and is unlikely to win many games. Finding scum requires hard work and just lynching every liar without considering other factors inhibits town from learning the skills needed to find mafia.

"Yes, LAL can be detrimental when the Town lies with such ease and without good cause. This is not a problem with LAL, it is a problem with lying with such ease and without good case!"

What if there IS a good cause for lying? LAL would advocate lynching those liars as well which is overall a detriment to the town.

C4) Overall Success

It is true that with 10 town and 4 scum, town gets 4 mislynches. However, this is only true assuming that town never no lynches, and the vig never makes any mistakes. In reality, town makes mistakes and lynches people for reasons other than lying. For this reason, a better situation to consider is when town is a lynch away from losing.

Here is the most important part: Pro says that I am assuming that all lying townies are lynched first. I am not assuming that. Consider a MYLO situation with four mafia M, N, O, and P and five townies A, B, C, D, and E. One townie (E) lies and the four mafia lies. If LAL was used and M was lynched first, then N, then O, and only then is E lynched, town still loses. For town to win in this situation or any MYLO situation, they have to lynch ALL the lying scum before moving onto the lying townie. LAL is a horrible strategy. I am not saying that all lying townies will be lynched first, but if any lying townies are lynched, then town loses.

This answers my opponent's assertion that liars are lynched as they are caught. If a townie lies and is caught before any mafia liars, then town can lose.

C5) Pro's examples

Pro gives two example from the Quentin Tarantino game which I turned to show that in those very examples, LAL nearly cost the game for town. Pro instead says that pointless lying was what cost the game. It is obvious that the reason the game was nearly lost was due to both lying and LAL. If town players hadn't lied, town wouldn't have nearly lost. If LAL wasn't followed, town wouldn't have nearly lost. To avoid similar situations, one has to go: Lying or LAL. I ask: Why should townies stop lying? Why can't we abolish LAL? Both have the same result. Pro wants to abolish lying and I want to abolish LAL.

Now let's look at practicality issue to see how it could be done. Pro wants to use LAL to discourage and abolish lying. However, if the negative effects of lying are removed, why would lying need to be discouraged at all? If townie liars and not lynched, and scum liars are lynched, town will be coasting their way to victory every game. Why do we specificallt need a detrimental strategy like Lynching all Liars to discourage something that doesn't really do more harm than LAL itself? Whatever harm that lying does, LAL does the same harm, so what is the point of following it.


C6) Lying vs. Misleading

Pro says that misleading is an alternative to lying to which I responded that players are generally not content with ambiguous statements. Pro doesn't advance his point that there are alternatives to lying. He just says that most players cave under pressure and claim anyways. My point is that a lie could get the town off their back in a way that misleading cannot so misleading is not an alternative to lying.

Townies also can have good reasons to lie. If their role is very important and there are no protective roles, a good decision by a townie under pressure would be to lie about their role.

C7) Caution vs Lynching in response to lying

Pro says "Should not the appropriate response be to say: 'Hey, that was a poor lie that only got you killed and served no purpose'."

As I explained through the course of this round, doing that would put the mafia one step closer to victory while at the same time giving town no information at all from the mislynch because the scum have ready answers on the tips of their tongues when asked why they voted on the mislynch:

Drafterman's Rule #1.
Debate Round No. 3
drafterman

Pro

C1) LAL removes the mafia's responsibility from a mislynch

Con fails to explain why this is a reason LAL should not be used. This is important because this objection is not limited or unique to LAL. For any bandwagon to form, there must be a reason. If the reason is good enough to convince people to hop on the bandwagon, then any mafia on that wagon can use that reason as their explanation for the lynch.

The only alternative is that every single person on a lynch must have their own independent and individual reasons for voting someone; it is not allowed for anyone else to agree with another player. After all, you'll just run into this scenario:

Townie: "Why did you vote on the mislynch?"
Scum: "Because of the reasons presented for the lynch."

Ergo, lynches should not have reasons or arguments in support of them, as this removes mafia's responsibility. This is obviously absurd. LAL provides no more a haven for absolving mafia than does any other reason behind a lynch.

C2) LAL gives the mafia free mislynches

This contention is merely a matter of perspective. With LAL in place, it isn't LAL that gives mafia free mislynches, it is frivolous and pointless lying that garners no advantage. If the lie gets a townie lynched, but achieved some goal to the benefit of the town, that is not a "free" mislynch. The only way such a mislynch would be free is if the lie did not serve any benefit. I don't agree that we should permit such lies, and Con presents no reason why we should.

Con says: "This is where the problem lies: Townies may lie with the understanding that they will be lynched - and they will be lynched. However, these lynches move the mafia closer to their win without giving the town any new information at all so LAL is actually a pro-mafia strategy."

The question becomes: why would such a townie lie if it doesn't give the town any new information? That is a BAD lie. Such lies should be discouraged, and LAL does just that.

Regarding the reference to the Tarantino mafia:

Royal lied about her claim because she felt it wasn't believable (1). Likewise, TV gave the same reason for his lie (2), and this was after the events that unfolded with royal. Such lies serve NO benefit to the town and, indeed, they served no benefit to the town.

C3) Town Liars vs. Scum Liars

Con has put forth fantastical and unrealistic scenarios. I don't doubt that anyone could concoct imaginary situations where any strategy is bad. Con puts forth the scenario where we have a number of ousted liars and mafia will work together to make sure the lying townies die first.

With LAL, liars are lynched as soon as they are ousted. Con is suggestion that we wait until all liars have been ousted, THEN proceed to lynch them. This is not a realistic scenario and should not count against LAL.

Con does ask the good question: "What if there IS a good cause for lying? LAL would advocate lynching those liars as well which is overall a detriment to the town."

Unfortunately, he doesn't articulate what the good cause is. The only good cause is eliminating scum and a 1-for-1 trade off ALWAYS benefits the town. Ergo, LAL does not provide an overall detriment to the town.

C4) Overall Success

Con contradicts himself here. In Contention 3, he uses mafia working together to get lying townies lynched first as a basis for his argument against LAL. Here, in contention 4, he states he is not doing that. It cannot be both ways.

Again, he presents unrealistic scenarios. Why are the reasons for lying at MYLO? How is it possible for every single person to have been caught in a lie at the same time? What were the gains of the lie? These are important details necessary in a true analysis of LAL.

C5) Pro's Examples

Con continues to ignore and make excuses for poor lies. It is natural to distrust people that lie. After all, that is what the fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" was designed to teach: Don't lie or people won't believe you when you're telling the truth. The lies in Tarantino mafia were poorly thought out, short-sighted, self-serving and provided no benefit to the town, even if LAL wasn't employed.

I don't think townies should stop lying and it is not my position that townies should stop lying. I have been explicit in this from the beginning and to suggest that "Pro wants to abolish lying" is an outright misrepresentation of my position.

There are many circumstances where town should like. But everything town does should be with the object of the game in mind: Eliminating scum as a team. Any lie that doesn't serve that purpose is a bad lie, LAL or no LAL. LAL simply makes the consequences of such lies more real.

C6) Lying vs. Misleading

I agree that there are good reasons to lie. This does not contradict implementing LAL. If a townie wishes to lie, they should have LAL in mind.

Conclusion:

All my opponent has done is concocted bizarre and incomplete scenarios in an attempt to show how LAL could possibly, in such scenarios, LAL would not be the best choice.

However, LAL is a strategy designed to benefit town across games. There are no guarantees and Con would have you believe that if LAL would fail town in 1 in 1,000 games, but benefit in the other 999, then we shouldn't use it. After all, it failed town in that 1 game. Con has townies lying constantly, without reason or benefit, and has all liars ousted at the same time and townies being lynched first. These are unreasonable and unrealistic scenarios and LAL should not be judged against them.

Con misrepresents my position as an attempt to abolish lying, completely ignoring my statements to the opposite.

Most importantly, Con addressed none of the benefits of LAL, which is tantamount to a concession. LAL makes the game tougher for the mafia, since they must lie. With LAL in place, getting caught kills them. It may kill townies too, but if Con suggests that a game can be won without townies getting killed, then we're not talking about the game of Mafia.


[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...

F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

C1) Removal of responsibility
Pro says that any reason good enough to convince people to hop on the bandwagon can be used by mafia as their explanation for the lynch. Pro says that LAL falls into this category. The difference as I have been arguing through the debate is that LAL is a "policy." If a townie is acting in an anti-town manner, then other players would want them lynched. The mafia members would then bandwagon to ensure that the player is lynched. After the lynch happens however, the mafia members will be forced to explain exactly why they voted on the mislynch and to give details about how the townie was acting "anti-town." Mafia would need to articulate those reasons and use sound logic in order to not be suspected. With a policy lynch such as LAL, they no longer are responsible. LAL assumes that lying is the ultimate mistake and every liar is lynched regardless as to whether they are town or mafia.

There is a difference between the mafia being forced to give concrete reasons for a mislynch and them being given a free pass by being able to say "he lied."

Pro's scenario:

Townie: "Why did you vote on the mislynch?"
Scum: "Because of the reasons presented for the lynch."

Well, the scum in this case would be accused of bandwagoning and would be unable to escape scrutiny. In my scenario however, when the scum says "Lynch all Liars" as a response to voting on the mislynch, they escape all scrutiny as long as the townies all agree that LAL is a sound strategy.
To summarize, LAL is not like any other reason given for a mislynch which are usually ambiguous. LAL is unambiguous, gives no leeway for discretion, and is unlike any other reason given for a mislynch. For this reason, LAL does in fact provide a safe haven for absolving mafia than any other reason for the mislynch.


C2) LAL gives the mafia free mislynches

Pro says: "Why would such a townie lie if it doesn't give the town any new information? That is a BAD lie. Such lies should be discouraged, and LAL does just that."

Pro himself proved my case through examples. Townies may lie to protect their role (QT mafia), to get the mafia to waste a kill (HvV), or to protect themselves from getting lynched (QT mafia). All of these scenarios benefit the player in question and by extension, town. If a townie lies to prevent themselves from getting lynched, they are preventing a mislynch which is ultimately an anti-mafia strategy. However, when they are caught lying, if the town lynches them for lying, they are mislynching as well as giving the town no information on how to catch the actual mafia. This moves the mafia one step closer to their victory.

These mislynches can be considered "free" mislynches because town is one player down and all the mafia cite the policy "Lynch all Liars" as a reason for the mislynch. The townie in question had good reasons to lie but town gains no information from those mislynches.


C3) Town Liars vs. Scum Liars

Pro calls a scenario where townie liars are lynched before mafia liars "fantastical." As I have explained before, mafia can work together as a team and if two liars are caught simultaneously, the townie liars are likely to be lynched first due to the collective persuasive power of the mafia.

Pro says that with LAL, liars are lynched as soon as they are ousted. I don't disagree with this at all. My point is that if a townie liar is caught in a mislynch or lose (MYLO) situation, then town loses. If a townie liar is caught at the beginning of the game, it moves the mafia one step closer to their victory. Townies are lynched for reasons other than lying. They could be counterclaimed, framed, have an unprovable role, and a whole host of other things. Half the town doesn't have to lie in order for town to lose which is what Pro claims.

Pro also claims that the only good cause for lying is eliminating scum and a 1-for-1 trade off ALWAYS benefits the town. However, other good causes exist such as lying to protect themselves from getting lynched which prevent a mislynch and makes it harder for the scum to get a win.


C4) Overall Success

"Con contradicts himself here. In Contention 3, he uses mafia working together to get lying townies lynched first as a basis for his argument against LAL. Here, in contention 4, he states he is not doing that. It cannot be both ways."

Pro completely misrepresents my point here and doesn't even address it. He initially said in round 3 that I am assuming that all lying townies are lynched before lying mafia. I clarified in my round 3 that I was assuming nothing of that sort. I gave my example with four mafia M, N, O, and P and five townies A, B, C, D, and E. I showed that if all the scum and one of the townies lied, even if three of the scum are eliminated first, the moment the lying townie is killed, the game ends. So, lynching all liars indescriminately (as they are caught) is a bad idea. Pro doesn't respond to it at all and fabricates a non-existent contradiction that he claims I have. I'll extend my points and add that were this debate were a mafia game, I would push for Pro's lynch due to his false logic.


C5) Pro's Examples

"I don't think townies should stop lying and it is not my position that townies should stop lying. I have been explicit in this from the beginning and to suggest that "Pro wants to abolish lying" is an outright misrepresentation of my position."

Pro suggests LAL as a means to abolish lying in the future. He imagines that liars are lynched with zero tolerance, they would be discouraged from lying and a utopia could be created where no townie lies. This is Pro's eventual goal and not a misrepresentation.

"Any lie that doesn't serve that purpose (to eliminate scum) is a bad lie, LAL or no LAL."

I have shown many instances where lying is justified and not "bad" even if doesn't directly eliminate scum. If the scum are eliminated indirectly (by powerful roles being protected or the scum being tricked into wasting kills,) the lie is still a "good" one.


C6) Lying vs. Misleading

I showed why misleading is not an alternative as players want unambiguous answers. Pro agrees and concedes his point.


C7) Caution vs Lynching

Pro made this contention claiming that mafia will be bolder in lying if the response was caution as opposed to lynch. After I showed that lynches will only put the mafia one step closer to their victory with no information gained, he drops the point entirely. He wants to lynch townies in order to discourage lying in future games, but by adopting a detrimental strategy of lynching townies, town is putting themselves at a disadvantage. Why deliberately lose games just to teach people not to lie in the future if you can still win while working with those lies?


Conclusion:


Pro never addressed my arguments about how LAL can be harmful to the town by moving the mafia closer to their victory simply dismissing them as "bizarre." What is so bizarre about MYLO? It routinely happens in nearly every game. Townies lying isn't a "bizarre" scenario either as Pro pointed to multiple games where townies have lied all of which finished in the previous couple of weeks. If we were to go further down, we would find even more lies.
Pro paints LAL as a long term strategy designed to discourage lying, yet he does not point out why lying is in any way more detrimental to the town than LAL itself. If Pro wants to discourage players from lying because it would lead to a town loss, how is going on a lynching spree lynching every person that lies and losing many games in the process any more beneficial?
Not all liars should be lynched. There are ways to find scum through character and role claims which forces town to be more discerning of their lynches. The mafia must not be given free passes by lynching all liars. Players have good reasons to lie such as protecting their role from being revealed or pretecting themselves from a lynch. LAL therefore in an anti-town strategy and in a mafia game, town should not lynch all liars but be more discerning in who they lynch.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
Uhm... it's a town strategy...
Posted by Marauder 2 years ago
Marauder
another thing I started to consider, though it was not brought up in the debate, about the long term stratagy argument. its inherently contradictory unless you know you will always be town.

assuming that LAL works, and that it does end town lying and catch scum all the time in the long run.....in the long run your going to be mafia a few times and LAL will cause you to lose in those games.

I have tried to never use arguments as a town I would be afraid to use as mafia one day and vice versa

in the long run we are all going to mafia one day, cult one day, jester one day, serial killer one day, miller one day, cop one day, vig one day, bulletproof one day, doctor one day, ect. ect. ect.
Posted by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
@BV: Yeah. I thought about that after having posted. Which raises another point: if BV couldn't have been exposed as a liar... how would LAL have had a bad affect on the situation?
Posted by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
Ok, fine, so BV's lie resulted in a NL (still bad for town, but not bad as a ML).

Since the end result of BV's lie was to be night killed immediately after telling it, how would LAL disrupted that, or made the game worse in that situation?
Posted by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
My role wouldnt have been made null and void. Had I stayed alive and got a guilty on someone, I would have just said that X's win with town statement came back false.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
And if he told the truth, he would have been lynched giving the mafia ALL the benefits of killing him, with their night kill free to be used on a different player. The lie resulted a VTNL which forced the mafia to use their kill on a highly suspicious player which basically wasted their nk which they could have used on a confirmed player.
Posted by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
I still fail to see how this is an example of a good lie. I Blackvoid felt he wasn't going to be believed as another cop, then his role as a cop (and he was a sane cop) as now rendered null and void by that lie. Not only would he have been 4th/5th cop, but he would have been claiming cop after lying about his role. That, somehow, would have made his role more believable to town?

The kill on him, as a sane cop, was hardly a waste in terms of mafia. They thought he was LD, and they thought they were getting rid of a legitimate thread. They were right, but for the wrong reasons.

So it seems that his lie got him killed, sabotaged any attempt for him to come clean later, and is why the mafia targeted him.
Posted by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
Actually though Torres was mafia at the time so I really dont know why he didnt go after me.
Posted by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
Torres' defense was based off me being the LD. His argument was that we shouldnt trust any of the cops (that got guilty on me) because they're flavored, but that we should trust me because I was LD. If I claimed cop that would have been out the window.
Posted by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
I disagree with that interpretation entirely. My perspective on that situation was the intervention of Torres saved Blackvoid. Torres disrupted the bandwagon on Blackvoid and the day phase stalled.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Marauder 2 years ago
Marauder
draftermanF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I used to think draftermans rule made sense but after reading this debate I question it now. it nullifies roles like bulletproof and can absolve mafia guilt. by the end of the debate I was left thinking that while 'stupid' lies should be discouraged in townies, lying in general should not inherently get you lynched, you should have to give a good reason for lying of course,or you will get lynched. all in all both did great in this debate though.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
draftermanF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments