Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Policy Lynches

Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:00:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
- a lynch when there is no consensus on who is scum.
- because a lynch is generally the only way town can eliminate scum and none are to be wasted.
0x5f3759df
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:47:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:00:04 PM, Bullish wrote:
- a lynch when there is no consensus on who is scum.
- because a lynch is generally the only way town can eliminate scum and none are to be wasted.

Not even close.

A policy lynch is suggesting to lynch someone not because you believe them to be scum, but because there's something about their play or what they're doing that detracts from or harms the overall game and because of this they shouldn't be allowed to play the game anymore.

A classic example of this is the old saying "Lynch All Liars". It says that it doesn't really matter if you're actually town or scum, the mere fact that you tried to get away with a lie means that you should die.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 8:22:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A large justification is the crucial lynch at LYLO. You don't want to bring incompetent players to that point, so it's protown to lynch them early when there is a high probability of a mislynch anyway in order to increase the utility of the lynch. This is why, absent a major scum slip, policy lynches tend to be good in theory DP1, because you don't have much information to go on anyway at that point, and it removes the problematic player from the rest of the game.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 12:22:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Policy lynches are great for folks who are damaging to the town even when they're town. People should be more brave to do them.

Khaos is good example. Town's chance of winning goes up when they lynch Khaos, whether he's town or scum.

The problem with DDO is, replacements lead dead townies to come back in the game, which moots the value of policy lynching (and night-kill strategy).
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 12:25:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, policy lynches serve as a reality check -- they tell the player that they need to change because their current play is actively bad for the game, so bad in fact that it makes the game not fun for players involved, and causes massive problems for the town.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:21:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 8:22:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
A large justification is the crucial lynch at LYLO. You don't want to bring incompetent players to that point, so it's protown to lynch them early when there is a high probability of a mislynch anyway in order to increase the utility of the lynch. This is why, absent a major scum slip, policy lynches tend to be good in theory DP1, because you don't have much information to go on anyway at that point, and it removes the problematic player from the rest of the game.

While this is a good strategy, it does not help players learn, but more importantly, it does not allow the players to ever prove themselves.
My work here is, finally, done.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 9:31:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 5:57:16 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
What are they and what merits them?

they are bad.
An excuse to vote someone for being themselves.

it encourages stagnation.

If you take the pressure off the lynch you think less critically.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 9:32:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Policy lynches are a great way to remove players who play in a manner that damages the town. You needn't believe these players to be scum when policy lynching. Players who refuse to cooperate with the town, for example, generally deserve to be policy lynched. Many people believe refusing to claim at L-1 merits a policy lynch.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:26:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 12:22:12 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Policy lynches are great for folks who are damaging to the town even when they're town. People should be more brave to do them.

Khaos is good example. Town's chance of winning goes up when they lynch Khaos, whether he's town or scum.

How are these people going to improve if they're lynched early every game, by their own teammates, just because you don't like them?? How does this foster activity, participation, and player improvement, when players have to concern themselves with whether FT is going to come after them and get them lynched??

This is not a "policy" lynch, and calling it such is just an attempt to impose your will on the game. This is just your own personal preference. It is not, nor should it be, a "policy" adopted by the community, as a whole. This creates an environment where anyone who gets on FT's bad side gets killed off every game, by whatever means necessary, including playing by your own set of rules and lying to get that person lynched even if he's town. That is preposterous and the community suffers from this kind of behavior. I don't care how good you are, this kind of attitude, if allowed to take over, is detrimental to the mafia community, as a whole.

Mafia is a game that should be fun for the entire community. It isn't fun when one person tries to act like a dictator, including lying to get fellow townies lynched and marginalizing those he sees as being lesser than himself (which is pretty much everyone). Great leaders lead by example, and try to improve the situation of those he leads. What your "policy" does, is punish people for being wrong or disagreeing with you. IRL, we call those kinds of people "bullies".

Bottom line is that if you have to lie to get someone lynched, that you want lynched, one of three things is going on...A) You are scum and should be insta-lynched or vig-killed, B) The group doesn't agree with your "policy", or C) Maybe the rest of the town just doesn't see you as being quite as valuable as you think you are.

It's a GAME, FT, and everyone wants to feel like they can contribute. No one signed up to play "Follow the self-imposed dictator instead of thinking for yourself". Well, maybe Xlav, but most people didn't sign on to be told what to do and who to vote for, or "we're not lynching so and so".

The problem with DDO is, replacements lead dead townies to come back in the game, which moots the value of policy lynching (and night-kill strategy).

Inactives need to be replaced, as real life circumstances don't allow for people to be active at all times. There is a limited supply of players here, so there is no other option, but to use dead townies as replacements. Besides, this assumes that townies killing off townies has "value", and is in fact, a "policy". Not everyone subscribes to that theory.

Yes it does affect NK strategy, but thems the breaks. It's a disadvantage that everyone has the same chance of being affected by so it doesn't seem unfair to anyone in particular, so long as who is mafia, is assigned randomly. That disadvantage isn't greater than the harm to town caused when inactives have been assigned roles that were meant to give the town a chance to win.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:06:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 10:44:35 AM, Maikuru wrote:
I agree with FT.

In all regards or about the replacements?
About me? Because in a way I agree with him, as I sure as hell don't trust myself at LYLO. But, then again, by lynching based on this criteria (me or otherwise), it brings us closer to LYLO.
My work here is, finally, done.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:07:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 5:57:16 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
What are they and what merits them?

There are certain standards that the community adheres to, as a matter of policy, and are standard operating procedure. For example, townies don't lie or townie miller claims immediately when the game starts. If a player doesn't adhere to those standards that are enforced by the community, they are lynched as a matter of policy.

As town, we have to know that other townies are being honest when they give information. If we don't demand honesty, then it becomes impossible to distinguish between scum, and townies who are just wrong in their suspicions.

As for miller, unless town has a rolecop or lie detector, there is no way to distinguish between miller and scum fake claiming miller, since both will show guilty to cop investigations. Even if we have those roles, is it worth wasting them on a miller claim?? Most people don't think so, so demanding that millers claim immediately to open the game, thus setting themselves up to be CC'd if you are scum fake-claiming miller, is the best way to trust someone's miller claim, though it is not a sure-fire confirmation that the person is telling the truth. So if someone were to claim miller after having made numerous posts, after other people have claimed, or late in the game, then it appears as though they were stalling to decrease their risk of being CC'd, and are lynched or vig-killed, as a matter of policy.

What is "policy" isn't really a set of rules, but behavior that is enforced by community consensus. If the community at large allows some townies to lie to get lynches, but doesn't hold them accountable, then the lynch all liars policy, isn't really policy anymore. Thus policies evolve, according to the community attitude. A good example is that we use to lynch or vig kill all third parties, but that seems have gone by the way-side, since some third parties can win with either faction and can be seen as an extra vote.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:32:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 11:06:55 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/23/2015 10:44:35 AM, Maikuru wrote:
I agree with FT.

In all regards or about the replacements?
About me? Because in a way I agree with him, as I sure as hell don't trust myself at LYLO. But, then again, by lynching based on this criteria (me or otherwise), it brings us closer to LYLO.

In regards to policy lynches being good for players who are playing anti-town, to them being a "reality check" for some players, and to DDO's replacement policy making them largely pointless.

I don't agree that you should be a policy lynch, but when I was scum and you were not, I would tell the others in the mafia pm that we weren't going to kill you lol. People tend not to believe your reads, and you also draw a lot of attention to yourself and thus away from mafia members.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:39:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 11:32:49 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/23/2015 11:06:55 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/23/2015 10:44:35 AM, Maikuru wrote:
I agree with FT.

In all regards or about the replacements?
About me? Because in a way I agree with him, as I sure as hell don't trust myself at LYLO. But, then again, by lynching based on this criteria (me or otherwise), it brings us closer to LYLO.

In regards to policy lynches being good for players who are playing anti-town, to them being a "reality check" for some players, and to DDO's replacement policy making them largely pointless.
I think the ire on the replacement policy should be focused on players who (constantly) replace out. That is why I started the modding policy of refusing to find a player to replace for others, will mod-kill for inactivity, and no player with any knowledge can replace back in (basically anyone with a visiting role).

I don't agree that you should be a policy lynch, but when I was scum and you were not, I would tell the others in the mafia pm that we weren't going to kill you lol. People tend not to believe your reads, and you also draw a lot of attention to yourself and thus away from mafia members.

Ummm, you're welcome. LOL
Believe me, I've noticed this is the case, and I don't know why people don't simply do the opposite then. Town would win every game.
My work here is, finally, done.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:49:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 12:22:12 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Khaos is good example. Town's chance of winning goes up when they lynch Khaos, whether he's town or scum.

LOL

Sig'd
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 3:01:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whether a policy lynch is good or bad depends on the policy. For example, a "lynch all liars" policy is bad, because sometimes lying is pro-town in both effect and intent.

What's a good policy look like? Khaos gives a good example: lynch inactive players who keep signing up for games, not playing, and then replacing out. Rev is the best example of this and I'd policy lynch him on that basis. I think the pro-scum effect of inactivity is seriously underestimated. The problem is that not only are those players impossible to read (except via process of elimination), but also that it creates an atmosphere of apathy. When apathy settles in, towns lose. I've seen this happen over and over -- the best recent example being Subutai's game, where scum coasted to a win because the town was inactive to the point where apathy settled in even among the active townies, and nothing ever got done.

Another good policy: lynch players who quick hammer repeatedly without giving someone a chance to claim. There's no pro-town intent behind that behavior in any circumstances, and it often leads to pro-scum outcomes.

Khaos is a good policy lynch because his play has been sh!tty for over a year, and he hasn't changed or improved. He's harmful to towns. Even Maikuru admits this point, and note that Maikuru is a diplomatic guy who's not gonna advocate policy lynching established players like Khaos in most circumstances. But you gotta do it sometimes.

Royal, a chick who used to play when I first started, was the best example of a policy lynch. She openly admitted to playing scummy as town so that folks wouldn't lynch her when she was scum. That's another policy lynch that should have been, because that kind of play is DAMAGING to town even when the player is town.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 3:03:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 11:07:43 AM, medic0506 wrote:
As town, we have to know that other townies are being honest when they give information. If we don't demand honesty, then it becomes impossible to distinguish between scum, and townies who are just wrong in their suspicions.

This is not true. You can distinguish pro-town effects and intents from pro-scum effects and intents. If someone lies to do something pro-town, that's probably a townie. If someone lies to do something pro-scum. that's probably scum. Very easy to distinguish the scum from town re: lies.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 3:06:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 3:01:20 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Whether a policy lynch is good or bad depends on the policy. For example, a "lynch all liars" policy is bad, because sometimes lying is pro-town in both effect and intent.

What's a good policy look like? Khaos gives a good example: lynch inactive players who keep signing up for games, not playing, and then replacing out. Rev is the best example of this and I'd policy lynch him on that basis. I think the pro-scum effect of inactivity is seriously underestimated. The problem is that not only are those players impossible to read (except via process of elimination), but also that it creates an atmosphere of apathy. When apathy settles in, towns lose. I've seen this happen over and over -- the best recent example being Subutai's game, where scum coasted to a win because the town was inactive to the point where apathy settled in even among the active townies, and nothing ever got done.

Another good policy: lynch players who quick hammer repeatedly without giving someone a chance to claim. There's no pro-town intent behind that behavior in any circumstances, and it often leads to pro-scum outcomes.

Khaos is a good policy lynch because his play has been sh!tty for over a year, and he hasn't changed or improved. He's harmful to towns. Even Maikuru admits this point, and note that Maikuru is a diplomatic guy who's not gonna advocate policy lynching established players like Khaos in most circumstances. But you gotta do it sometimes.

Royal, a chick who used to play when I first started, was the best example of a policy lynch. She openly admitted to playing scummy as town so that folks wouldn't lynch her when she was scum. That's another policy lynch that should have been, because that kind of play is DAMAGING to town even when the player is town.

... Lol. In one part, you condem Lal but in another, you criticise someone's anti-town play.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:53:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:21:16 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:22:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
A large justification is the crucial lynch at LYLO. You don't want to bring incompetent players to that point, so it's protown to lynch them early when there is a high probability of a mislynch anyway in order to increase the utility of the lynch. This is why, absent a major scum slip, policy lynches tend to be good in theory DP1, because you don't have much information to go on anyway at that point, and it removes the problematic player from the rest of the game.

While this is a good strategy, it does not help players learn, but more importantly, it does not allow the players to ever prove themselves.

That's what the Beginner's Series is for. There are the minor leagues, and then there are the big leagues.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 8:08:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 11:53:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:21:16 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:22:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
A large justification is the crucial lynch at LYLO. You don't want to bring incompetent players to that point, so it's protown to lynch them early when there is a high probability of a mislynch anyway in order to increase the utility of the lynch. This is why, absent a major scum slip, policy lynches tend to be good in theory DP1, because you don't have much information to go on anyway at that point, and it removes the problematic player from the rest of the game.

While this is a good strategy, it does not help players learn, but more importantly, it does not allow the players to ever prove themselves.

That's what the Beginner's Series is for. There are the minor leagues, and then there are the big leagues.

Really?
So, your advice is to play in the beginner series, with strangers and noobs, in an effort to prove your mettle? Ignoring the fact that the beginners series should only be played when there are beginners, this is like proving yourself with DP1 reads. It is near impossible, since you must go from being the weakest player to one of the best.

All this does is foster a community of elitism.
My work here is, finally, done.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 9:28:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 3:03:45 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 2/23/2015 11:07:43 AM, medic0506 wrote:
As town, we have to know that other townies are being honest when they give information. If we don't demand honesty, then it becomes impossible to distinguish between scum, and townies who are just wrong in their suspicions.

This is not true. You can distinguish pro-town effects and intents from pro-scum effects and intents. If someone lies to do something pro-town, that's probably a townie. If someone lies to do something pro-scum. that's probably scum. Very easy to distinguish the scum from town re: lies.

Sometimes. I would agree that there are situations where the lie appears to be town motivated, but even if it results in a scum lynch it isn't always clear that it isn't a case of bussing. Or if the person is TP/cult, for example, the lie doesn't mean that the liar is town, even though he appears to show town motive. Killing TP/cult also has value for scum.

What about when the result is the lynch of a townie?? That is always and forever pro-scum, so the liar should always be lynched, correct?? You say no. So if lynching a townie is not inherently pro-scum, all scum has to do is argue that it was pro-town to lynch him, and according to you, he could skate. If you are allowed to lie with impunity when you are town, then how am I suppose to know when you're scum?? Would you let me get away with lying to get a townie lynched, just because I make some argument that it was town motivated?? I seriously doubt it, and you'd be a fool if you did let me off. So why would you expect us to let you play that way??

Part of the challenge of mafia, as a townie, is putting together a case for someone being scum, and convincing the group to lynch that person. You want to be able to circumvent that challenge, and be able to lie and make a person look more guilty than they actually are, in order to lynch whoever you want. And you don't think we should hold you accountable for the outcome. That changes the nature of the game in a negative way, and if everyone or even several people played that way, the game deteriorates into nothing more than a guessing game.

Townies shouldn't need to outright lie in order to get a lynch, period, and if they do they should be insta-lynched or vig killed as a matter of policy. It's one thing to withhold part of your role, or not say that you've used up your x-shot ability in order to attempt to draw a NK, or something along those lines. But when you outright lie and a townie is lynched, there is no excuse for not lynching or vig killing the liar.
XLAV
Posts: 13,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 9:56:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 9:28:27 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/23/2015 3:03:45 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 2/23/2015 11:07:43 AM, medic0506 wrote:
As town, we have to know that other townies are being honest when they give information. If we don't demand honesty, then it becomes impossible to distinguish between scum, and townies who are just wrong in their suspicions.

This is not true. You can distinguish pro-town effects and intents from pro-scum effects and intents. If someone lies to do something pro-town, that's probably a townie. If someone lies to do something pro-scum. that's probably scum. Very easy to distinguish the scum from town re: lies.

Sometimes. I would agree that there are situations where the lie appears to be town motivated, but even if it results in a scum lynch it isn't always clear that it isn't a case of bussing. Or if the person is TP/cult, for example, the lie doesn't mean that the liar is town, even though he appears to show town motive. Killing TP/cult also has value for scum.

What about when the result is the lynch of a townie?? That is always and forever pro-scum, so the liar should always be lynched, correct?? You say no. So if lynching a townie is not inherently pro-scum, all scum has to do is argue that it was pro-town to lynch him, and according to you, he could skate. If you are allowed to lie with impunity when you are town, then how am I suppose to know when you're scum?? Would you let me get away with lying to get a townie lynched, just because I make some argument that it was town motivated?? I seriously doubt it, and you'd be a fool if you did let me off. So why would you expect us to let you play that way??

Part of the challenge of mafia, as a townie, is putting together a case for someone being scum, and convincing the group to lynch that person. You want to be able to circumvent that challenge, and be able to lie and make a person look more guilty than they actually are, in order to lynch whoever you want. And you don't think we should hold you accountable for the outcome. That changes the nature of the game in a negative way, and if everyone or even several people played that way, the game deteriorates into nothing more than a guessing game.

Townies shouldn't need to outright lie in order to get a lynch, period, and if they do they should be insta-lynched or vig killed as a matter of policy. It's one thing to withhold part of your role, or not say that you've used up your x-shot ability in order to attempt to draw a NK, or something along those lines. But when you outright lie and a townie is lynched, there is no excuse for not lynching or vig killing the liar.

This is where behavior comes in. Is the behavior of the liar townish? Is the motivation townish? Was he very passionate about the CC/lie or whatever? If the liar's behavior was townish, he thought he was scum, and he was very passionate about CC'ing said person then lying to lynch a townie isn't necessarily pro-scum, its more of anti-town with town motivation, and anti-town =/= Scum.

It depends on the situation if lying is pro-town, anti-town, pro-scum, etc. Lying about being x-shots to confuse scum can be seen as a pro-town motivation. So lying isn't bad. You just have to know what you're doing if you are going to lie as town.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 12:00:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 9:56:30 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 2/24/2015 9:28:27 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/23/2015 3:03:45 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 2/23/2015 11:07:43 AM, medic0506 wrote:
As town, we have to know that other townies are being honest when they give information. If we don't demand honesty, then it becomes impossible to distinguish between scum, and townies who are just wrong in their suspicions.

This is not true. You can distinguish pro-town effects and intents from pro-scum effects and intents. If someone lies to do something pro-town, that's probably a townie. If someone lies to do something pro-scum. that's probably scum. Very easy to distinguish the scum from town re: lies.

Sometimes. I would agree that there are situations where the lie appears to be town motivated, but even if it results in a scum lynch it isn't always clear that it isn't a case of bussing. Or if the person is TP/cult, for example, the lie doesn't mean that the liar is town, even though he appears to show town motive. Killing TP/cult also has value for scum.

What about when the result is the lynch of a townie?? That is always and forever pro-scum, so the liar should always be lynched, correct?? You say no. So if lynching a townie is not inherently pro-scum, all scum has to do is argue that it was pro-town to lynch him, and according to you, he could skate. If you are allowed to lie with impunity when you are town, then how am I suppose to know when you're scum?? Would you let me get away with lying to get a townie lynched, just because I make some argument that it was town motivated?? I seriously doubt it, and you'd be a fool if you did let me off. So why would you expect us to let you play that way??

Part of the challenge of mafia, as a townie, is putting together a case for someone being scum, and convincing the group to lynch that person. You want to be able to circumvent that challenge, and be able to lie and make a person look more guilty than they actually are, in order to lynch whoever you want. And you don't think we should hold you accountable for the outcome. That changes the nature of the game in a negative way, and if everyone or even several people played that way, the game deteriorates into nothing more than a guessing game.

Townies shouldn't need to outright lie in order to get a lynch, period, and if they do they should be insta-lynched or vig killed as a matter of policy. It's one thing to withhold part of your role, or not say that you've used up your x-shot ability in order to attempt to draw a NK, or something along those lines. But when you outright lie and a townie is lynched, there is no excuse for not lynching or vig killing the liar.

This is where behavior comes in. Is the behavior of the liar townish? Is the motivation townish? Was he very passionate about the CC/lie or whatever? If the liar's behavior was townish, he thought he was scum, and he was very passionate about CC'ing said person then lying to lynch a townie isn't necessarily pro-scum, its more of anti-town with town motivation, and anti-town =/= Scum.

If someone is good at being scum, he knows to fake those things. Behavioral reads have their place, but many times they can be deceiving. Look how convincing Raisor was in bsh's game, he made that a very difficult decision to make. If you know that a behavior is scummy, scum knows they're scummy too, and will try to not act scummy, just like Raisor did. He said all the right things and did a very good job because, as scum, he knew how to act pro-town. Bottom line is, when someone lies, you can't determine their motivation. Sure, you may guess right once in awhile, but more often than not, you're going to be wrong and that person is scum. That's why the lynch all liars policy is a good one, most of the time it will catch scum because townies don't need to lie, scum do.

If you are town and you have to lie, then you need to check yourself. Maybe you aren't as good as you think you are, or are trying too hard to stand out above the rest, if you can't play by the same rules that most people play by, and are held to.

It depends on the situation if lying is pro-town, anti-town, pro-scum, etc. Lying about being x-shots to confuse scum can be seen as a pro-town motivation. So lying isn't bad. You just have to know what you're doing if you are going to lie as town.

I don't lie even about x-shot. I may imply that I could have more uses, but I don't say that outright, thus I don't lie because lying is scummy, always and forever. An omission of information is not a lie, and if forced to answer the question directly, I will tell the truth if I'm town. If you lie in a game, it affects my ability to trust you in future games, just like lying in real life makes you a person that people don't trust.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 1:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 12:00:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If someone is good at being scum, he knows to fake those things. Behavioral reads have their place, but many times they can be deceiving. Look how convincing Raisor was in bsh's game, he made that a very difficult decision to make. If you know that a behavior is scummy, scum knows they're scummy too, and will try to not act scummy, just like Raisor did. He said all the right things and did a very good job because, as scum, he knew how to act pro-town.
Raisor did do a good job spewing generic pro-town content, but that has nothing to do with lying explicitly.
Bottom line is, when someone lies, you can't determine their motivation.
Untrue. Just because you can't know for sure, doesn't mean you can't guess. Determining an aspect (subjective judgment) != ascertaining a truth.
Sure, you may guess right once in awhile, but more often than not, you're going to be wrong and that person is scum.
What if your guess is that the person lied for scum reasons? That's a valid guess right? If you guess such a way, wouldn't you be right more often than not, according to you? That's a contradiction to the 'wrong more often than not' assertion you've made, and arbitrarily favors some guesses over others.
That's why the lynch all liars policy is a good one, most of the time it will catch scum because townies don't need to lie, scum do.
No because your original presuppositions leading to this point don't even make sense.

If you are town and you have to lie, then you need to check yourself. Maybe you aren't as good as you think you are, or are trying too hard to stand out above the rest, if you can't play by the same rules that most people play by, and are held to.
We are arguing whether these rules are canon, so appealing to them as a reason to follow them is circular.

I don't lie even about x-shot. I may imply that I could have more uses, but I don't say that outright, thus I don't lie because lying is scummy, always and forever.
^Blatant assertion.
An omission of information is not a lie, and if forced to answer the question directly, I will tell the truth if I'm town. If you lie in a game, it affects my ability to trust you in future games, just like lying in real life makes you a person that people don't trust.
So ALL lying is bad? That seems to be what you're saying, but Mafia is a game of lying. I've fake-claimed cop/gunsmith as town and drawn the nightkill before. That's lying as town, and it clearly helps town. Why is it that mafia gets to lie in your book but not town? That seems incredibly arbitrary especially when considering policy lynch tenets aren't set in stone. Remember, we're debating whether lying should be such a tenet so appealing to it as a tenet doesn't support the case in the least.
Senpai has noticed you.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 1:25:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 9:28:27 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Sometimes. I would agree that there are situations where the lie appears to be town motivated, but even if it results in a scum lynch it isn't always clear that it isn't a case of bussing.

Agreed. Sometimes, lies are neither a town-tell nor a scum-tell.

What about when the result is the lynch of a townie?? That is always and forever pro-scum, so the liar should always be lynched, correct?? You say no.

Lynching town is not always pro-scum. That's the whole point of a policy lynch: to lynch someone because they are harmful to the town even when they are town. There are other cases where lynching town is pro-town: if the only option is lynching someone you think is town or not lynching at all, then lynching the guy you think is town is the better option. Or redirecting a lynch off of other town (which for all intents and purposes is what seems to have happened in bsh's game). There are tons of cases where lying to get a lynch that flips town is pro-town, in both intent and effect.

There's also a big difference between when scum lie to get someone lynched and when town lie to get someone lynched: when town lie, they don't know whether they're lynching town or scum; when scum lie, they know whether they're lynching town or scum. This makes all the difference in the analysis. Town don't lie to lynch town; they lie to do pro-town things, like ensure that a lynch goes through, or to try soaking a night-kill (as bulletproof, bomb, miller, etc.). Scum lie to do pro-scum things, like counter-claiming a townie (1-for-1 trades on DDO are almost always good for scum, because mods don't understand proper balance).

So if lynching a townie is not inherently pro-scum, all scum has to do is argue that it was pro-town to lynch him, and according to you, he could skate.

Town are uninformed about alignment, so from a townie's perspective, they don't know if they're lynching town or scum. What they can say, or should be able to say, is that they're lynching the most scummy player who they could lynch on that particular Day. If the most scummy player flips town, it's better than a no lynch. If you no lynch, then that player is still on the table for lynching the next Day, because they're scummy, and mafia in effect gains control over the game, because town has just lost an available mislynch, which is the town's only means for winning.

Lying to get someone lynched as opposed to a no lynch is pro-town. Lying to protect scum is pro-scum. Context matters. You seem to advocate ignoring context, and applying a rule that liars should be lynched, even though most of the time, players who lie and then fess up to lying are town (at least that's been the case in my experience on DDO).

If you are allowed to lie with impunity when you are town, then how am I suppose to know when you're scum?

By looking at intent and effect. If a lie is pro-scum in effect (e.g. redirecting a lynch from scum to town), then the lie probably comes from scum, not town.

Would you let me get away with lying to get a townie lynched, just because I make some argument that it was town motivated?? I seriously doubt it, and you'd be a fool if you did let me off. So why would you expect us to let you play that way??

Depends on why you lied and what its effect was.

Part of the challenge of mafia, as a townie, is putting together a case for someone being scum, and convincing the group to lynch that person. You want to be able to circumvent that challenge, and be able to lie and make a person look more guilty than they actually are, in order to lynch whoever you want. And you don't think we should hold you accountable for the outcome. That changes the nature of the game in a negative way, and if everyone or even several people played that way, the game deteriorates into nothing more than a guessing game.

You're mischaracterizing what I advocate. I advocate lynching over no lynching. I don't advocate lying to make a person look more guilty than they are.

Townies shouldn't need to outright lie in order to get a lynch, period, and if they do they should be insta-lynched or vig killed as a matter of policy.

I agree that townies shouldn't need to lie to get a lynch. But unfortunately, that's the state of affairs on this site. Players would rather no lynch than lynch, so unless you lie, or do something radical, town loses a mislynch for no reason whatsoever.

You have't actually given any argument against lying except that you don't like it, because according to you, it makes it impossible to tell the difference between town and scum. But as Xlav and I have already explained multiple times, telling the difference between a lie with pro-town effects and a lie with pro-scum effects isn't that hard, 99% of the time. Lies are like a window into someone's motivations. They're useful for determining alignment, in that limited sense. But you're stuck in a worldview where intent and effects of actions are irrelevant.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 1:33:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 12:00:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If someone is good at being scum, he knows to fake those things. Behavioral reads have their place, but many times they can be deceiving.

Scum can't fake being town because they're not town. Their actions are oriented towards a different win condition, and that means their behaviors will by necessity be different from the behaviors they exhibit as town.

Look how convincing Raisor was in bsh's game, he made that a very difficult decision to make. If you know that a behavior is scummy, scum knows they're scummy too, and will try to not act scummy, just like Raisor did.

Nah, I disagree that raisor wasn't scummy. He was scummy as fvck, if you know what you're looking for.

Bottom line is, when someone lies, you can't determine their motivation.

Not true. When someone lies, the question is whether their lying to accomplish pro-town things or lying to accomplish pro-scum things. Lies readily betray motivations.

Sure, you may guess right once in awhile, but more often than not, you're going to be wrong and that person is scum.

First off, it's not guessing. Don't force your own shortcomings onto others. I'm right more often than wrong, so your entire point is moot.

That's why the lynch all liars policy is a good one, most of the time it will catch scum because townies don't need to lie, scum do.

Scum won't tell you they're lying, and their lies are usually of this sort: "X is scum, Y is town," when they know that Y is scum and X is town. But of course, you'll never know they're lying on that basis, so you're back to square one.

If you are town and you have to lie, then you need to check yourself. Maybe you aren't as good as you think you are, or are trying too hard to stand out above the rest, if you can't play by the same rules that most people play by, and are held to.

What fvcking rules are you talking about? Mafia is about finding the scum and getting them lynched. If you're doing that consistently, then who gives a fvck how you get things done? What matters is results; the means are irrelevant. So yea, I'm wrong all the time, but I'm also right enough to win games if left alive. Literally, I haven't lost a single game where I've made it to LYLO. I lynch correctly on D1 4 times out of 5. But when town's proposing a no lynch, it pisses me off, so yes, I need to lie in those circumstances, because that's a town that doesn't know what's good for it, and being a leader and winning games sometimes requires doing that.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:14:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 8:08:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/23/2015 11:53:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:21:16 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:22:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
A large justification is the crucial lynch at LYLO. You don't want to bring incompetent players to that point, so it's protown to lynch them early when there is a high probability of a mislynch anyway in order to increase the utility of the lynch. This is why, absent a major scum slip, policy lynches tend to be good in theory DP1, because you don't have much information to go on anyway at that point, and it removes the problematic player from the rest of the game.

While this is a good strategy, it does not help players learn, but more importantly, it does not allow the players to ever prove themselves.

That's what the Beginner's Series is for. There are the minor leagues, and then there are the big leagues.

Really?
So, your advice is to play in the beginner series, with strangers and noobs, in an effort to prove your mettle?

A lot of regulars play in the beginner series, and it's tailored towards improving skills.

Ignoring the fact that the beginners series should only be played when there are beginners, this is like proving yourself with DP1 reads. It is near impossible, since you must go from being the weakest player to one of the best.

No, the person in question must simply become competent in the basics, not become one of the best players. I consider myself competent in the basics, and am definitely still learning. SURPRISE was a great educational experience until my untimely demise.

If the crappiest players are consistently policy lynched, they will return to the beginners series. They will get some more experience before venturing out again, and if they aren't 'blacklisted' once more, they continue on the steep learning curve, if they are then they return to the sandbox for a bit in order to refine their skills. Once a player returns to regular games they are given another chance. It seems like a good system geared towards both improvement and more enjoyable games for experienced players.

All this does is foster a community of elitism.

I'm actually quite fond of elitism, so that doesn't really bother me. Why shouldn't the best be on top if they choose to be on top?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
XLAV
Posts: 13,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 7:01:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 12:00:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If someone is good at being scum, he knows to fake those things. Behavioral reads have their place, but many times they can be deceiving. Look how convincing Raisor was in bsh's game, he made that a very difficult decision to make. If you know that a behavior is scummy, scum knows they're scummy too, and will try to not act scummy, just like Raisor did. He said all the right things and did a very good job because, as scum, he knew how to act pro-town. Bottom line is, when someone lies, you can't determine their motivation. Sure, you may guess right once in awhile, but more often than not, you're going to be wrong and that person is scum. That's why the lynch all liars policy is a good one, most of the time it will catch scum because townies don't need to lie, scum do.
True, some scums are good and can fake town behavior, but there will come a time when they will slip or act scummy.

I admit, I had a lean town read on Raisor DP1. My town read on Raisor deteriorated in DP2 when he defended Yama, but I had a lot of people in my scum pile, which is why I just placed him in my lean town list. When he defended himself in DP3, he was scummy as fvckkkkk.