Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Plurality Lynching

tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:06:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can someone please explain to me why this is used and how it makes sense?

With plurality lynching, couldn't the mafia always put their votes on one person and never need a town majority?
yang.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:16:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It doesn't make sense. Mods who use it do it in order to combat inactivity and allow the active players to control the game. Personally, I just "prod" people to be active if they haven't posted in 24 hours and if replacements are available, I will replace them.

My view is that if town can't get their sh!t together in 72/96 hours, there should be a no lynch. Compromising is very important. I also never extend deadlines. I can't believe that some mods actually step in to give a few more hours to town so they can have a lynch. That's mod intereference. If you are at a chess tournament for instance, would you appreciate the mod giving your opponent an extra minute?

In all my games, I'll make sure that if a vote is cast even a second late, it won't count.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:19:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 9:06:25 PM, tulle wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why this is used and how it makes sense?

With plurality lynching, couldn't the mafia always put their votes on one person and never need a town majority?

1. Plurality only kicks in if there isn't a majority. So long as the game is still going, the Town has the majority and can counter any plurality lynch.

2. The mafia would give themselves up doing that. It'd be a one-time gambit with no payoff.

Plurality lynching compensates for inactivity by allowing the remaining active players to still get something done, rather than every phase end in a no lynch. It maintains the pace of the game.

Yes, it makes the game more swingy depending on where the active players lie. If most of the active players are mafia, then that gives them a lot of power, but not much more than they already have by controlling the flow of the game.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:55:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 9:19:26 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:06:25 PM, tulle wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why this is used and how it makes sense?

With plurality lynching, couldn't the mafia always put their votes on one person and never need a town majority?

1. Plurality only kicks in if there isn't a majority. So long as the game is still going, the Town has the majority and can counter any plurality lynch.

2. The mafia would give themselves up doing that. It'd be a one-time gambit with no payoff.

Plurality lynching compensates for inactivity by allowing the remaining active players to still get something done, rather than every phase end in a no lynch. It maintains the pace of the game.

Yes, it makes the game more swingy depending on where the active players lie. If most of the active players are mafia, then that gives them a lot of power, but not much more than they already have by controlling the flow of the game.

Pretty much this. I get your point F-16, but what happens when every dayphase starts ending in a no lynch like Danielle's game? That itself is advantageous to mafia since they can start picking off townies one at a time. Not to mention it makes it very miserable for the few players actually trying to do anything. I think the best solution is just not to let inactive players in your game to begin with, even if that means having smaller games.