Ethos, Pathos, Logos. Yes, that again.

I probably just typed the three most overused words in FM theory lol. There is still a lot left to discuss about them, though!

The last game, La Cosa Nostra by Naz, was strange from a logical point of view. @Frinckles , who was Mafia, kept making cases that made absolute sense. They were convincing, coherent, usually quite strong by their essence, etc., yet he was scum. He's not the only person I know who does that as scum.

That brings a very important question : is the game impossible to be entirely solved by use of pure logic by mere mortals who cannot break down every single mini-tell?

What's the actual place of logos in FM? What's the relative place of ethos and pathos?

If you are as stupid as to follow someone's words instead of making a case of your own, cross-examining if what the other says has basis IN-game mechanics, then yes. You will lose to scum.

I haven't busted out the Legos in a while but I'll try to contribute to the topic from my point of view mostly on days one and two.. Again, some of this / my reads maybe incorrect -- but this is my recollection.


Logos: (Blind them with Science.)
As with most Mafia games, initially there isn't much to substantiate evidence against other players. And while most of us interact with each other to try to get reads, others like to rely on meta readings instead. Having not played more than 2 FM's prior and not knowing your metagames, I decided to take up against it where needed and to some town members it seemed like a logical argument. Of course metagaming has real uses but if I could promote the argument that it was a crutch, unreliable or otherwise illogical -- I'd gain town credibility.

Somewhere along the line of the first day (while we all just cruising along) Blink said something particularly strange from my point of view. While at the time -- no scum knew IF we had an Actress, Blinkskater's statement could be turned on it's head to seem like a slip if it was framed in the right light. I tried extremely hard to promote the idea that "It looked like a slip.. It sounded like a slip.. It read like a slip.. It was timed like a slip.. etc," almost causing Blinkskater to by lynched. Making compelling arguments is substantially easier when you use the other person's words against them -- and no, you don't have to twist their words out of context. Simply analyzing what Blinkskater said about an Actress and applying the knowledge (or lack of) that we all had about the game's roles would yield similar results for all parties.


Ethos (I use this in conjunction with Logos.)
At day one EOD, I feel like I had gained some credibility as a town member -- so much that people hardly read the argument as TVS but rather TVT. Seemingly players like SB16, Unknown, Rumox and a few others town-read me for or at least agreed with a logical approach. Though it wouldn't have mattered (because of the SK) I could have ridden that momentum into the next day if we hadn't killed Blink.

Day two, when mechanics came into play things changed quite a bit. I had the option of backing off MM and pivoting somewhere else but an interesting opportunity arose when Unknown managed to guess Magoroth's visitation at night:

Simply stop MM from being town-read / controlling the narrative by completely discrediting his claim in favor of my ally's (now kenny.)

We used the concept of probability/likelihood to promote Kenny as the most confirmed person there and in doing so, helped control the narrative by making him credible. It's possible without this, I would have been on the rope far quicker than Efe. Being town-read is important, but if you can take a comfortable backseat to an ally with pull: Do it.


Pathos (Not big on this one, but it has it's uses.)
For day one, Blink and myself argued in ways that were cyclical.. and tedious but he managed to avoid the rope by appealing to emotion -- if not, indirectly. There were plenty of players in that clusterfuck thinking "Awh, but I don't want Blink lynched! C'mon bro" ..and it was enough to essentially kill the Actress argument that I invested into until lategame when people got paranoid.

As an aside: I'm still not too sure how to feel about one of Blink's counterarguments during EOD. It's quite difficult to combat "yeah well, I'd be gamethrowing since I'm voting myself!" If anyone wants to give me tips on that one, I'm all ears.

Day two I postured myself to use an Efe lynch to my advantage when I knew he was about to die. Knowing he would flip as a Citizen, I planned to argue that I was the one who didn't want him lynched and instead wanted MM's head for causing a mislynch. Unfortunately, Efe tried to blitz me and I wasn't having that shit so it looked a bit awkward.. ..Also nobody really missed Efe at all so it was hard to get some emotional appeal.


Will add on more later! Gotta catch a bus. c: Feel free to respond in the meanwhile.

What it boils down to from my point of view is that players have different styles that they prefer.

-I like reasoning and being townread for it.

-Some players like being townread and then reasoning.

-And often mixed in are appeals to emotion, anecdotal talking points and fearmongering (he's an actress get em!)

I often see the second from prominent players on this website and that's completely fine. The logic-first approach is easy to scumread and while I learned that early on, its also saved me from a loss.

For what it's worth, when I play IRL Mafia a friend of mine literally always says on trial, "I'm a townie-through-and-through." Sometimes it works lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reemus

If you are as stupid as to follow someone's words instead of making a case of your own, cross-examining if what the other says has basis IN-game mechanics, then yes. You will lose to scum.

---

This topic was set in forum mafia. Not arcade mafia.

Forum mafia gives you a lot more time to make long cases. But GOOD long cases take a lot of time. Time where you are ideally discussing with other players and forming reads.

You don’t always GET a mechanical confirmation in forum mafia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frinckles

I haven't busted out the Legos in a while but I'll try to contribute to the topic from my point of view mostly on days one and two.. Again, some of this / my reads maybe incorrect -- but this is my recollection.


Logos: (Blind them with Science.)
As with most Mafia games, initially there isn't much to substantiate evidence against other players. And while most of us interact with each other to try to get reads, others like to rely on meta readings instead. Having not played more than 2 FM's prior and not knowing your metagames, I decided to take up against it where needed and to some town members it seemed like a logical argument. Of course metagaming has real uses but if I could promote the argument that it was a crutch, unreliable or otherwise illogical -- I'd gain town credibility.

Somewhere along the line of the first day (while we all just cruising along) Blink said something particularly strange from my point of view. While at the time -- no scum knew IF we had an Actress, Blinkskater's statement could be turned on it's head to seem like a slip if it was framed in the right light. I tried extremely hard to promote the idea that "It looked like a slip.. It sounded like a slip.. It read like a slip.. It was timed like a slip.. etc," almost causing Blinkskater to by lynched. Making compelling arguments is substantially easier when you use the other person's words against them -- and no, you don't have to twist their words out of context. Simply analyzing what Blinkskater said about an Actress and applying the knowledge (or lack of) that we all had about the game's roles would yield similar results for all parties.


Ethos (I use this in conjunction with Logos.)
At day one EOD, I feel like I had gained some credibility as a town member -- so much that people hardly read the argument as TVS but rather TVT. Seemingly players like SB16, Unknown, Rumox and a few others town-read me for or at least agreed with a logical approach. Though it wouldn't have mattered (because of the SK) I could have ridden that momentum into the next day if we hadn't killed Blink.

Day two, when mechanics came into play things changed quite a bit. I had the option of backing off MM and pivoting somewhere else but an interesting opportunity arose when Unknown managed to guess Magoroth's visitation at night:

Simply stop MM from being town-read / controlling the narrative by completely discrediting his claim in favor of my ally's (now kenny.)

We used the concept of probability/likelihood to promote Kenny as the most confirmed person there and in doing so, helped control the narrative by making him credible. It's possible without this, I would have been on the rope far quicker than Efe. Being town-read is important, but if you can take a comfortable backseat to an ally with pull: Do it.


Pathos (Not big on this one, but it has it's uses.)
For day one, Blink and myself argued in ways that were cyclical.. and tedious but he managed to avoid the rope by appealing to emotion -- if not, indirectly. There were plenty of players in that clusterfuck thinking "Awh, but I don't want Blink lynched! C'mon bro" ..and it was enough to essentially kill the Actress argument that I invested into until lategame when people got paranoid.

As an aside: I'm still not too sure how to feel about one of Blink's counterarguments during EOD. It's quite difficult to combat "yeah well, I'd be gamethrowing since I'm voting myself!" If anyone wants to give me tips on that one, I'm all ears.

Day two I postured myself to use an Efe lynch to my advantage when I knew he was about to die. Knowing he would flip as a Citizen, I planned to argue that I was the one who didn't want him lynched and instead wanted MM's head for causing a mislynch. Unfortunately, Efe tried to blitz me and I wasn't having that shit so it looked a bit awkward.. ..Also nobody really missed Efe at all so it was hard to get some emotional appeal.


Will add on more later! Gotta catch a bus. c: Feel free to respond in the meanwhile.

---

I only exploited the game throwing talk because of the condorcet voting. It's not something I would have normally said if we were using Majority because I can't vote myself like that lol. I also would have taken a different stance to the game. You also did use the correct counter argument IMO of it's not game throwing until you're actually lynch and flip said alignment lol

I was also under the impression that the mafia knew each others roles, and it seemed to me like there was an actress play cooking up, that's why I mentioned it. You were right to try and use it against me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

I probably just typed the three most overused words in FM theory lol.

---

Ahh, I thought I was around sc2maf for quite a bit, but it's the first time I heard those words. I admit I also had to Google their meaning.

I quickly googled "ethos pathos logos forum mafia" but got 0 results.
Could you share a link to a previous discussion please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Ahh, I thought I was around sc2maf for quite a bit, but it's the first time I heard those words. I admit I also had to Google their meaning.

I quickly googled "ethos pathos logos forum mafia" but got 0 results.
Could you share a link to a previous discussion please?

---

Surprisingly, there are a lot of terms you won't find if you put "FORUM mafia" in your search terms. Just put "mafia" and it should work better.

The terms are often used in game as a part of an argument, or to explain something else, so there's no really easy to find thread talking about it, yet they're pretty much used everywhere without being explained.

https://pathosethoslogos.com/ that sums it up pretty well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reemus

If you are as stupid as to follow someone's words instead of making a case of your own, cross-examining if what the other says has basis IN-game mechanics, then yes. You will lose to scum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16

This topic was set in forum mafia. Not arcade mafia.

Forum mafia gives you a lot more time to make long cases. But GOOD long cases take a lot of time. Time where you are ideally discussing with other players and forming reads.

You don’t always GET a mechanical confirmation in forum mafia.

---

^ Pretty much this.

In Forum Mafia, the idea is literally to NOT always have basis in the setup's mechanics, and to have basis in the most complex mechanic of the general game instead : logic. Nightless games with only citizens vs only "goons" (Mafiosi with a perma chat but no night kill in that case) can be won by Town using logic, and that logic simply excludes night actions, because they don't exist.

Of course, making a case of your own is ALWAYS needed... and that's the point of the thread : to discuss the best way to make a case of your own, and what is to be evaluated when you do it (when the answer is not "hurr durr i have a sheriff check on him", of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Surprisingly, there are a lot of terms you won't find if you put "FORUM mafia" in your search terms. Just put "mafia" and it should work better.

The terms are often used in game as a part of an argument, or to explain something else, so there's no really easy to find thread talking about it, yet they're pretty much used everywhere without being explained.

https://pathosethoslogos.com/ that sums it up pretty well.

---

Curious...
You quoted me but it wasn't in my notifications. Bug?

Also, thanks for the reply.

I'm a simple-minded person, and so I have very short opinions on these:

1) These terms are outdated, and every intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. I prefer to go to the opposite way and just use the words - Logic, Emotion, Charm.
2.1) On one hand each situation is different and each person is different, hence even discussing these terms I see as a lack of adaptiveness. As there are endless amounts of situations possible.
2.2) On the other hand - if you plan to play repeatedly with the same people, then only one of those 3 doesn't make you vulnerable to meta reads where you have to change your play style each game just so people can't meta read you. Only Logic should give consistently good results where it's impossible to meta read you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Curious...
You quoted me but it wasn't in my notifications. Bug?

Also, thanks for the reply.

---

The FM section disables notifications for quotes, just because it's not exactly fun to have 100 notifications when you come back from a 3 hours break from your FM game with 1k posts/day ;)

So no, it's perfectly intended lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

I'm a simple-minded person, and so I have very short opinions on these:

1) These terms are outdated, and every intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. I prefer to go to the opposite way and just use the words - Logic, Emotion, Charm.
2.1) On one hand each situation is different and each person is different, hence even discussing these terms I see as a lack of adaptiveness. As there are endless amounts of situations possible.
2.2) On the other hand - if you plan to play repeatedly with the same people, then only one of those 3 doesn't make you vulnerable to meta reads where you have to change your play style each game just so people can't meta read you. Only Logic should give consistently good results where it's impossible to meta read you.

---

Philosophy is never outdated. Sure, the terms are from really old versions of it, but they still apply better than the ones you gave, and they work pretty well. Logic and a quest for truth in statements is logos, and not just logic alone, although the meanings are pretty similar. Pathos is both emotion and charm, btw. Ethos is credibility and coherence with your person, your words and your actions.

Of course, I'm giving short definitions that could probably be objected on specific things, but the terms you propose aren't complete enough to be used for a complete Mafia theory, or for the purposes of the thread.


2.1: That's like saying math formulas are bad and a lack of adaptiveness because every math problem is different, or that laws shouldn't exist because every life situation is different. General rules and general theories are meant for general purposes, meant to apply to everything up to some extent.

2.2: If you look at Frinckles' game from La Cosa Nostra by Naz, a recent game, you'll see that logic, from a town point of view, also called uninformed point of view, is correct. The point I'm trying to make is that logic can't solve everything in a social game, when you play from an uninformed perspective (town).

The point of the thread is to find other ways to make reads and to sort things out in a game where logic isn't almighty, even though it takes a very important part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

2.2: If you look at Frinckles' game from La Cosa Nostra by Naz, a recent game, you'll see that logic, from a town point of view, also called uninformed point of view, is correct. The point I'm trying to make is that logic can't solve everything in a social game, when you play from an uninformed perspective (town).

The point of the thread is to find other ways to make reads and to sort things out in a game where logic isn't almighty, even though it takes a very important part of it.

---

We'll probably agree that logical assumptions are something to be aware of regardless of what faction you're on in a game. Reason being is that you need to be aware of the possibilities at each state of the game and not doing so could be seen as anti-town. This manifests in multiple ways -- take the example of a Mafia player who 'forgot' that there could only be one citizen remaining later in a game:

[Cop] [Doctor] [Citizen] [Mafia]

Not attacking your logical counterclaim directly (and as soon as possible) could be misconstrued as a slip in some sense. Likewise it shows that you aren't attempting to game-solve during a critical moment.

This is a niche example and I don't intend to claim logic is the strongest ways of articulating an argument. In fact, on the contrary -- it's weakest early on compared to more social implementations. What I mean to say is that like the Ethos & Pathos, it's a tool: Our skill at creating believable arguments out of logical assumptions is what will make or break your ability to use it effectively.

Again, the aforementioned Blinkskater-Actress shenanigan was designed to use common knowledge against a player by using his own words. Why would he say that? How could he know? What does this have to do with the previous arguments? Simple questions that anyone from any alignment could consider and yet, it wasn't quite strong enough to push the lynch through.

Anyway, you pointed out at the end -- using logic from a Town perspective doesn't always have the same benefits as using it while scum. But I'd ask you whether you thought the Blink-Actress argument was 1.) Sound 2.) An argument a Town member could make and 3.) An opportunity to read intentions of those not directly involved.