Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Voltgloss]

My thought - which could be used in conjunction with yuma's soft-deadline idea and/or CF's plurality lynch idea - is for everyone, when they vote, to not only give their "primary" vote but also a secondary and a tertiary vote.  I.e., their top three candidates they are comfortable lynching.  Some people have already done this (Morgrim leaps immediately to mind, using this exact terminology:  I recall seeing others, or at least people saying "vote X and I'd also be ok with lynching Y"). 

I think if everyone does this, it should help us see which wagon(s) are actually viable and help channel towards a workable lynch.  I plan to do this when I post my case re: eHalcyon (I do expect eHalc to remain my primary vote, but I'll give secondary and tertiary as well).

[Captain_Frisk]

I'm not saying that the mods would make it a rule, but rather that town would just always do it.

Just like it's generally accepted that lurking is bad, no lynching is bad, mass claiming day 1 is a bad idea etc.

This I could get behind, for sure. We could use Yuma's soft deadline as our point? Seems reasonable. It's actually sorta similar to Yuma's plan, I think.

The pitfall I see with it is that if plurality lynches were really better than majority, then this would be commonly accepted town plans.

That's not necessarily true, mod's aren't going to make a rule thats bad for mafia and good for town, its up to town to agree or disagree on implementing there own strategies and theoretically the mod should have deadlines in place that make it bad to discuss and implement such a strategy if it would be detremental to one or more teams. (in this case if it is strictly better for the town its strictly worse for the mafia so the deadline the mod imposes should be short enough that in order to implement such a strategy costs the town the time they would have getting information about people in other ways)

[Captain_Frisk]

One problem (that's not really a problem at all) of Frisk's plan is that some people may be strongly opposed to this idea or refuse to vote. I struggle to see how that's pro-town though, and if people are really really against it, well that might be a scum tell right there.

It's not a perfect plan but it's a really really good idea. I'm at least willing to go with it as an experiment.

To be more specific, I'm talking about everyone voting for whoever has a plurality at the soft deadline.

Yeah, obviously we need a majority of people to agree to it in the first place, and then once the "deadline" passes, it will be interesting to see what happens.

For example: I may agree with it in principal now, but if it turns out that I'm selected, you can bet I'm not going to self vote.

[Voltaire]

My thought - which could be used in conjunction with yuma's soft-deadline idea and/or CF's plurality lynch idea - is for everyone, when they vote, to not only give their "primary" vote but also a secondary and a tertiary vote.  I.e., their top three candidates they are comfortable lynching.  Some people have already done this (Morgrim leaps immediately to mind, using this exact terminology:  I recall seeing others, or at least people saying "vote X and I'd also be ok with lynching Y"). 

I think if everyone does this, it should help us see which wagon(s) are actually viable and help channel towards a workable lynch.  I plan to do this when I post my case re: eHalcyon (I do expect eHalc to remain my primary vote, but I'll give secondary and tertiary as well).

Now we're getting somewhere.

I'll be V/LA this weekend, so I'll probably plop down my "triple" vote sometime today and see what we've got on Monday.

[Captain_Frisk]

So -

I Vote: YES to the Yumafrisk voting amendment of 2012.

[Insomniac]

I too will agree to the plurality lynch method.

[Dsell]

I'm great with the plurality method. I highly doubt we can do worse than our usual D1 lynch.

[jotheonah]

I'm in, tentatively. But lending my vote is still lending my vote, and I won't vote for someone I have a very high town read on. However, I think it's highly unlikely that will be a problem.

I want to hear Volt's eHalc case before I plop down my 3 though.

[Voltgloss]

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Plurality_voting

One potential problem with plurality voting is that, if town votes are scattered across a bunch of wagons, scum concentrating their votes can effectively decide the lynch by themselves.

But I see that as less of a problem Day 1 than it could be late in the game.  On Day 1, it poses a quandary for scum - should they cluster votes today to force lynch on a townie, knowing that they're going to be scrutinized as a potential scumbloc for the rest of the game?

Recommendation:  if we go with the plurality-lynch approach, we should only count apparently-a-doublevoter-Axxle's vote once.  No offense Axxle.

Could someone remind me when exactly is the soft-deadline yuma proposed? 

eHalc case is definitely going to be posted this evening.

[shraeye]

I propose an amendment to the plurality method where a votecount of at least 8 is necessary. For instance, if we made that soft-deadline now, Frisk or shraeye (am I counting right?) would get lynched with only 3 votes on them.  I hardly like lynching any candidate if only 3 people are willing to vote for them.

[Dsell]

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Plurality_voting

One potential problem with plurality voting is that, if town votes are scattered across a bunch of wagons, scum concentrating their votes can effectively decide the lynch by themselves.

But I see that as less of a problem Day 1 than it could be late in the game.  On Day 1, it poses a quandary for scum - should they cluster votes today to force lynch on a townie, knowing that they're going to be scrutinized as a potential scumbloc for the rest of the game?

Recommendation:  if we go with the plurality-lynch approach, we should only count apparently-a-doublevoter-Axxle's vote once.  No offense Axxle.

Could someone remind me when exactly is the soft-deadline yuma proposed? 

eHalc case is definitely going to be posted this evening.

Yeah that's a huge liability for scum down the road. HUGE. The town would probably have lynched a townie anyway.

Also I do kinda second jo's point...I really really hate the idea of voting someone I have a strong town read on (which is not really anyone at the moment), but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

[Captain_Frisk]

I propose an amendment to the plurality method where a votecount of at least 8 is necessary. For instance, if we made that soft-deadline now, Frisk or shraeye (am I counting right?) would get lynched with only 3 votes on them.  I hardly like lynching any candidate if only 3 people are willing to vote for them.

You have 4 now I think because of mine, but yes, I agree.

[shraeye]

I propose an amendment to the plurality method where a votecount of at least 8 is necessary. For instance, if we made that soft-deadline now, Frisk or shraeye (am I counting right?) would get lynched with only 3 votes on them.  I hardly like lynching any candidate if only 3 people are willing to vote for them.

You have 4 now I think because of mine, but yes, I agree.

Oh, I was single-counting Axxle a la Voltgloss.

[yuma]

So -

I Vote: YES to the Yumafrisk voting amendment of 2012.

I am willing to discuss both; however, my whole point in having the soft deadline is so that we can start wagons after the soft deadline on people who refused to help town get to a lynch. Look back at MVIII (sorry guys old game reference) Day 1 we no lynched. There were a handful of people more or less responsible for that, especially those that didn't vote. Galz and O jump to mind. Galz started another wagon and did try to get it to a lynch, but it wasn't soon enough, whereas O (remember, he was scum!) did nothing, he just argued how stupid it was to lynch Lekkit because he was obvtown (well of course he was obvtown to O, O was mafia).

But if we had been able to recognize how that worked, we could have put O up for lynch day 2 for preventing the day 1 lynch. But instead I was dumb and decided hey, let's try Lekkit again!

Back to this game.... if we get to the soft deadline and don't have a lynch. My focus is going to be on the handful of players who prevented the lynch from occurring, either by 1. not voting; 2. starting a new wagon really late or 3. keeping their vote on a player who was extremely unlikely to be lynched.

Plurality I feel is too easy for mafia to manipulate. But perhaps my suggestion is manipulatable as well.

[yuma]

Could someone remind me when exactly is the soft-deadline yuma proposed? 

Wednesday 11:59 pm forum time

[Captain_Frisk]

Without rolefishing, are we all agreed that axxle is the double voter?  I mean - its pretty clear that its followed him, and he does have the Axxle / Axxle2 meta....

[Voltaire]

Without rolefishing, are we all agreed that axxle is the double voter?  I mean - its pretty clear that its followed him, and he does have the Axxle / Axxle2 meta....

jotheonah pointed out the only other possiblity seems to be a secret voter trying to "frame" him. I think that's unlikely, but it is possible.

[Captain_Frisk]

Without rolefishing, are we all agreed that axxle is the double voter?  I mean - its pretty clear that its followed him, and he does have the Axxle / Axxle2 meta....

jotheonah pointed out the only other possiblity seems to be a secret voter trying to "frame" him. I think that's unlikely, but it is possible.

Wouldn't axxle just say "someone is framing me?"

[Voltaire]

Without rolefishing, are we all agreed that axxle is the double voter?  I mean - its pretty clear that its followed him, and he does have the Axxle / Axxle2 meta....

jotheonah pointed out the only other possiblity seems to be a secret voter trying to "frame" him. I think that's unlikely, but it is possible.

Wouldn't axxle just say "someone is framing me?"

Mmmmm that's too far over the line to "rolefishing" for me.

[cayvie]

I support Frisk's plan.

Partially because it means I can participate in the lynch without actually voting for the lynchee.

[ashersky]

I rescind my non-vote on Frisk, as he's back to what I think of as helpful Frisk.

I would be okay with plurality lynch, but I fear this gives us an excuse to not actually pursue wagons/lynches to the fullest.  If we can get to a lynch the normal way (half +1), I think we should try, and that plurality/etc. type lynching be only a last resort.

To put it another way, if we coast to the soft deadline with plurality in mind, maybe some aren't playing to the fullest.  It could result in thinking like "hey, cayvie's got the most votes for now, and I'm okay with that, so that's cool."  I think that's anti-town in a big way and won't help anyone.  We are building in a perfect excuse for people to coast/not-vote once 8 (or however many is decided to be required) do choose someone.  Sure, we can look at the non-voters, or the voted-when-it-was-easy-ers, but I fear that could be a large number, since 17 are not required to get the plurality if you go with the magic number 8.

So with that in mind, I guess I could support it, but only if it doesn't change the way we approach the game.  And I'm not sure we can keep it from doing that.  Six, seven, eight votes is significantly less than 13, when you are talking about such a small sample.  It sounds like faction-lynching, and anti-town, to me.

[Captain_Frisk]

I rescind my non-vote on Frisk, as he's back to what I think of as helpful Frisk.

When have you ever experienced "helpful" frisk?

[Voltaire]

If we do indeed decide to do this, here's my three votes. Probably gone this weekend, but I might have time to poke in. I don't have strong scum reads on anyone at the moment. This was tricky.

Primary Vote: ashersky (for lurking in plain sight while calling on others not to lurk, and for being on the terrible shraeye wagon)
Secondary Vote: jotheonah (He's squirmed a lot with only 1 vote on him, tried to drive ehunt wagon, thinks lynching lurkers is a bad idea...some of it seems like a difference in playstyles, some of it feels like a scum vibe)
Third Vote: Watno (I haven't gotten substance from him, his tunneling of Munch was bizarre, plus "gut feel" from earlier)

No vote on Frisk anymore as he's changed his behavior for the better. Doesn't make him town, but it takes him from scum to neutral in my eyes.

PPE: Ugh. Don't make me change my mind.

[ashersky]

I rescind my non-vote on Frisk, as he's back to what I think of as helpful Frisk.

When have you ever experienced "helpful" frisk?

Good point, helpful Frisk was MX.  Vote: Frisk.

[ashersky]

If we do indeed decide to do this, here's my three votes. Probably gone this weekend, but I might have time to poke in. I don't have strong scum reads on anyone at the moment. This was tricky.

Primary Vote: ashersky (for lurking in plain sight while calling on others not to lurk, and for being on the terrible shraeye wagon)
Secondary Vote: jotheonah (He's squirmed a lot with only 1 vote on him, tried to drive ehunt wagon, thinks lynching lurkers is a bad idea...some of it seems like a difference in playstyles, some of it feels like a scum vibe)
Third Vote: Watno (I haven't gotten substance from him, his tunneling of Munch was bizarre, plus "gut feel" from earlier)

No vote on Frisk anymore as he's changed his behavior for the better. Doesn't make him town, but it takes him from scum to neutral in my eyes.

PPE: Ugh. Don't make me change my mind.

I will mention that my in plain sight lurking has been predicated on me moving my entire family/household overseas at the moment.  In a hotel now, even.  At least I'm still contributing content when I can, unlike some others who are here.  You even mention some.

You know me fairly well as compared to others I think.  Other than posting less, do I seem different?