A few years ago, I read an SF novel by Samuel R. Delany, Babel-17. In the novel, during an interstellar war, one side developed a language that was actually a weapon. Learning the language would turn the learner into a traitor by changing how they could think and what they could think. The language was initially thought to be some sort of code or cypher. The novel explores the “peculiarities of language, how conditions of life shape the formation of words and meaning, and how the words themselves can shape the actions of people.” The novel was based on Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, which posits that the structure of a language affects the ways in which its respective speakers conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view, or otherwise influences their cognitive processes. The strong version of the theory is pretty deterministic - linguistic categories limit cognitive categories. The weak version of the theory states that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behavior.
The theory has been long discredited, and in fact I think had already fallen into disrepute before this novel was written. Language and linguistics have been subthemes in several of Delany’s novels, including his Neveryon series, that takes place at the dawn of human civilization.
So, what does this have to do with mafia?
When I first started playing mafia, I often struggled to explain my reasons for thinking another player was scum because the mafia vocabulary in use on the site was pretty limited. “because behavior X is scummy” works for absolute tells (a bad word, but bear with me), but completely failed to capture the significance of relative tells: “because player A tends to exhibit behavior X in situations like Y”. I started importing non-mafia concepts into my mafia vocabulary in an effort to better express cases. “pattern matching”. “body of work”. “trajectory”. “appetite for this lynch” and assorted other phrases that conveyed my observations and conclusions better than “because behavior X is scummy”. Basically, I could write a longwinded explanation of “pattern matching” - something that goes by terms like “meta analysis” elsewhere - give it a snappy label and hope it caught on. And, maybe I wouldn’t have to write another long explanation the next time I caught someone doing something I thought was scummy for them given their historical play and how their game had developed over time.
I wasn’t alone in vocabulary enrichment of course, and the mafia lexicon grew deeper, more complex, and I am not even sure whether the language drove player improvements or player improvements drove the language in that environment.
Since then, playing in environments where the communities’ raison de etre is Mafia and they function as a sort of Mafia Mecca, I have found that the lexicons in use are orders of magnitude more rich and varied than on sites where the same 30-50 people play games over and over and over again.
But, I think that language is still something of a limiter. Some terms may have distinct meanings for a while, but over time they dissolve a little, become too generalized, and perhaps too well known. This is particularly true of named tells, e.g., Amished. Awareness of a particular scumhunting tool or technique shapes player behaviors, and the tool’s “finds” become less pronounced and less of a sure thing regarding a player’s alignment. I liken it to an arms race.
Is the language of mafia practice and theory robust enough? Are there concepts that have fuzzy expression or virtually no expression? How does a more or less agreed upon vocabulary shape or limit the way the game is played? Are poorly expressed or intentionally unexpressed or mis-expressed scumhunting concepts or techniques a competitive advantage? Or do they limit a player’s effectiveness in making cases and influencing other players?
