Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

The failure of "Lynch All Liars" (LAL)

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:20:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some have claimed that the LAL policy is always beneficial to town, and that townies that lie always harm the town. I was told that there was a mathematical proof, though doubt it, since that would required assigning value to information.

We almost had a situation where a townie lying would have swung the game from a mafia sweep (winning without losing a single scum member) to a townie win. Beginners game 35.3 DP3, 7 players left (with 3 mafia), it only takes 4 to lynch. With the 3 mafia, we only need 1 townie to mis-vote and we can jump to vote to get to 4 and win the game.

Khaos was popular (so it took 5 for him), but he claimed bomb (he was a townie that lied, for shame). Had we 3 mafia jumpped on him after Yama voted on him (as we tried, but one of us was offline at the time, and Yama unvoted) we would have thought the game was over and begun our "gg, we scum won!" and even if we didn't outright say it, the 3 unjustified votes just seconds apart would be a give away.

Now, if Khaos came out and said "Ha, I'm actually popular so I was not lynched, now we know that you three are mafia!" The LAL policy would still say "lynch Khaos for lying" and thus lose the game. This is why it fails, it punishes townies who try to think outside the box to trick the mafia to shift some advantage towards town.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:30:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First, I was universal backup, technically. LOL

But, while lying is a tricky business, anyone who lies should be ready to be lynched. They can fight it, but they need to be lynched unless they are convincing.

In this case, the truth would be mod-confirmed, and, assuming we knew it was LYLO, it mod-confirms me as town, with no killing roles.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:30:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
First, I was universal backup, technically. LOL

But, while lying is a tricky business, anyone who lies should be ready to be lynched. They can fight it, but they need to be lynched unless they are convincing.

In this case, the truth would be mod-confirmed, and, assuming we knew it was LYLO, it mod-confirms me as town, with no killing roles.

Right, you were UB until you became the popular, but regardless. There are some that have said that they 100% follow LAL.

"Lynch all liars...I'm still going to stick by it. Because TOWN HAS NO REASON TO LIE...I refuse it. Simply because you cannot trust someone who has been proven to be a liar....If it means I'm insane to follow this logic on DDO, I must be the single craziest person here."

and

"LAL is mathematically provable mafia fact. It is probabilistically true without exception. I'll get to it when I'm on a computer."

If this is the case, then it would be better for town to have lynched you then to lynch mafia in that last game, even if you were role confirmed because you were not lynched. There are people that believe that there are no exceptions at all.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:01:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I thought that a good enough example was how overpowered town was in Beginner's 35.2 in comparison to mafia...but they had to lynch the fvcking doc...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:14:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 11:01:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I thought that a good enough example was how overpowered town was in Beginner's 35.2 in comparison to mafia...but they had to lynch the fvcking doc...

Like, I'm absolutely convinced that there should be no further debate on whether or not it's good for town.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 8:28:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think LAL is more so to keep mafia from just conveniently "lying" whenever they are caught. For example, what is the difference between a mafia who claimed BP, gets caught for it, then claims Doctor saying they needed to lie to protect their role, and a townie who does the same?
I bring this up because I'm prettty sure this is where this issue started. Sure, in the end Ore was town, but it's too risky for the town to believe liars because it opens up way too many scum gambits.

Now there is a difference between lynching a liar due to something like CC, and lynching a liar when someone rolecops them for instance. If you were rolecopped, and they found you were doc, and not BP, there wouldve been no reason to lynch you due to being confirmed. Other than confirmation however, LAL I think is a good policy.

In the end though, if you can maintain a good enough lie, go for it as town. If it really doesn't hurt town at all, and you can maintain it, whatever I say. Just don't get caught ;)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 8:32:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:40:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/25/2015 10:30:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
First, I was universal backup, technically. LOL

But, while lying is a tricky business, anyone who lies should be ready to be lynched. They can fight it, but they need to be lynched unless they are convincing.

In this case, the truth would be mod-confirmed, and, assuming we knew it was LYLO, it mod-confirms me as town, with no killing roles.

Right, you were UB until you became the popular, but regardless. There are some that have said that they 100% follow LAL.

"Lynch all liars...I'm still going to stick by it. Because TOWN HAS NO REASON TO LIE...I refuse it. Simply because you cannot trust someone who has been proven to be a liar....If it means I'm insane to follow this logic on DDO, I must be the single craziest person here."

and

"LAL is mathematically provable mafia fact. It is probabilistically true without exception. I'll get to it when I'm on a computer."

If this is the case, then it would be better for town to have lynched you then to lynch mafia in that last game, even if you were role confirmed because you were not lynched. There are people that believe that there are no exceptions at all.

LAL is a good rule of thumb, but sometimes, you ignore the rules.
It depends on the magnitude of the lie, and how easily the truth is revealed, and how evident the motivation is.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 9:43:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 8:28:22 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I think LAL is more so to keep mafia from just conveniently "lying" whenever they are caught. For example, what is the difference between a mafia who claimed BP, gets caught for it, then claims Doctor saying they needed to lie to protect their role, and a townie who does the same?
I bring this up because I'm prettty sure this is where this issue started. Sure, in the end Ore was town, but it's too risky for the town to believe liars because it opens up way too many scum gambits.

Now there is a difference between lynching a liar due to something like CC, and lynching a liar when someone rolecops them for instance. If you were rolecopped, and they found you were doc, and not BP, there wouldve been no reason to lynch you due to being confirmed. Other than confirmation however, LAL I think is a good policy.

In the end though, if you can maintain a good enough lie, go for it as town. If it really doesn't hurt town at all, and you can maintain it, whatever I say. Just don't get caught ;)

What Khaos said. My issue is not with lynching because because they break trust. It is when people say that it is a 100% policy with no exceptions and even try to claim there is mathematical proof for that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 9:55:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 9:43:18 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/26/2015 8:28:22 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I think LAL is more so to keep mafia from just conveniently "lying" whenever they are caught. For example, what is the difference between a mafia who claimed BP, gets caught for it, then claims Doctor saying they needed to lie to protect their role, and a townie who does the same?
I bring this up because I'm prettty sure this is where this issue started. Sure, in the end Ore was town, but it's too risky for the town to believe liars because it opens up way too many scum gambits.

Now there is a difference between lynching a liar due to something like CC, and lynching a liar when someone rolecops them for instance. If you were rolecopped, and they found you were doc, and not BP, there wouldve been no reason to lynch you due to being confirmed. Other than confirmation however, LAL I think is a good policy.

In the end though, if you can maintain a good enough lie, go for it as town. If it really doesn't hurt town at all, and you can maintain it, whatever I say. Just don't get caught ;)

What Khaos said. My issue is not with lynching because because they break trust. It is when people say that it is a 100% policy with no exceptions and even try to claim there is mathematical proof for that.

I'm assuming the mathematical proof will show that liars are more often scum, ergo, it is best to do so. Some people like to play by the numbers and little else.
My work here is, finally, done.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 1:07:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Khaos had no reason to do what he did in your example. You seem to be saying that Khaos was pushed to claim at LyLo, and Khaos had enough votes on him so that mafia can quick-hammer him.

In this case, it didn't matter if he lied. He could have simply not claimed, and Mafia would still have tried to quick-hammer him, and the 3 quick-hamerers would still have outed themselves.

If town did not buy his claim, then they would have realized that Khaos lied, they have to wonder if he was the mafia mimic or role-stealer, and only claimed bomb to explain why he wouldn't die at night.

If town did buy his claim, then there is no liar.
0x5f3759df
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 1:12:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What's that saying - "exception that proves the rule?"

I'd say lynch all liars, except when lying couldn't conceivably have scum motivation. As khaos said, if you lie be prepared to be lynched for it. If the gain for town doesn't outweigh your own mislynch, do not lie.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 1:16:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have a word document that I'm working on with the proof of LAL. The statement is that "when a player is found to have irrevocably lied, and all other players have an equal chance of being scum, it is always the probabilistically best option to lynch said player."

Where irrevocably means the player can't be confirmed in less steps than it would to use other roles, and that the player was flavored and had a chance of not knowing who he was anyway. Probabilistically means it's not every time that LAL will turn up scum, but if a person lies than the probability of his being scum is higher.

There is no "motivation" argument for dispelling an LAL situation, because scum can play the exact same motivation if lying was allowed. Literally the only non-behavioural self-exuded thing in game to catch scum is the lie, and if scum were caught lying they could always come up with a "town motivation" excuse. If they claim an important power role, they could just say they were trying to draw the NK, if an unimportant one, they could just say they were protecting the utility of their role.
0x5f3759df
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 1:20:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 1:12:17 PM, Raisor wrote:
What's that saying - "exception that proves the rule?"

I'd say lynch all liars, except when lying couldn't conceivably have scum motivation. As khaos said, if you lie be prepared to be lynched for it. If the gain for town doesn't outweigh your own mislynch, do not lie.

I'm going a step further and claiming that town should never lie if the game is played properly.

I'll have the proofs and shyt up after I get my mafia game up and I have time.
0x5f3759df
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 5:09:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
People don't like liars. So naturally they want to lynch them. But mafia isn't about who you like or dislike. It's about lynching scum.

Town shouldn't care whether someone lies; what they should care about is why that person lied.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 6:10:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 1:07:01 PM, Bullish wrote:
Khaos had no reason to do what he did in your example. You seem to be saying that Khaos was pushed to claim at LyLo, and Khaos had enough votes on him so that mafia can quick-hammer him.

In this case, it didn't matter if he lied. He could have simply not claimed, and Mafia would still have tried to quick-hammer him, and the 3 quick-hamerers would still have outed themselves.

If town did not buy his claim, then they would have realized that Khaos lied, they have to wonder if he was the mafia mimic or role-stealer, and only claimed bomb to explain why he wouldn't die at night.

This is inaccurate. When people pressured Khaos to claim, he has three choices...
1) true claim
2) fake claim
3) refuse to claim

If he refuses to claim, town will build pressure and possibly even lunch him themselves, to where mafia doesn't need to orchestrate all three to hammer, they may only need 2 or 1, in which case, not all would be outted, or they could get the extra vote to over power his popular ability.


If town did buy his claim, then there is no liar.

Regardless if town bought his claim or not, he still lied. Lying is the act of telling something untrue, not the act of getting caught.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 8:36:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 5:09:03 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
People don't like liars. So naturally they want to lynch them. But mafia isn't about who you like or dislike. It's about lynching scum.

Town shouldn't care whether someone lies; what they should care about is why that person lied.

You can almost never tell why a person lied, there is almost always possible scum and town motivation.

"Lynch liars when you think they lied because they're scum" isn't very robust guidance.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 9:33:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 8:36:24 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:09:03 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
People don't like liars. So naturally they want to lynch them. But mafia isn't about who you like or dislike. It's about lynching scum.

Town shouldn't care whether someone lies; what they should care about is why that person lied.

You can almost never tell why a person lied, there is almost always possible scum and town motivation.

Under that theory, you can never tell town from scum, because anything has a "possible" scum and town motivation. But that's not how mafia works. You distinguish town from scum via a probability analysis, not by multiplying possibilities.

Re: lying -- if the effect was pro-town (i.e. claiming bulletproof when you're doctor, or ensuring a lynch on D1), probability that it's town motivated goes up.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 9:38:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 8:36:24 PM, Raisor wrote:
You can almost never tell why a person lied, there is almost always possible scum and town motivation.

Also: if you can never tell why someone lied, then it's not a scum-tell and therefore isn't basis for lynching. So even if you don't buy the intent argument, at the very least you shouldn't be advocating for LAL.
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:06:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 9:43:18 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/26/2015 8:28:22 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I think LAL is more so to keep mafia from just conveniently "lying" whenever they are caught. For example, what is the difference between a mafia who claimed BP, gets caught for it, then claims Doctor saying they needed to lie to protect their role, and a townie who does the same?
I bring this up because I'm prettty sure this is where this issue started. Sure, in the end Ore was town, but it's too risky for the town to believe liars because it opens up way too many scum gambits.

Now there is a difference between lynching a liar due to something like CC, and lynching a liar when someone rolecops them for instance. If you were rolecopped, and they found you were doc, and not BP, there wouldve been no reason to lynch you due to being confirmed. Other than confirmation however, LAL I think is a good policy.

In the end though, if you can maintain a good enough lie, go for it as town. If it really doesn't hurt town at all, and you can maintain it, whatever I say. Just don't get caught ;)

What Khaos said. My issue is not with lynching because because they break trust. It is when people say that it is a 100% policy with no exceptions and even try to claim there is mathematical proof for that.

Yeah. You can't kill confirmed towns, even if they lie. But lying without being confirmable is sketchy af, since mafia in general are always lying. It really is more about how you read someone who lies.

Although there probably is mathematical proof that lynching all liars results in more scum results than town, I don't think it's the best policy to live by. Just use your reads.