I just think, without the threat of hammer, it encourages inactivity. If nobody can be lynched until EOD, then people don't need to worry until EOD.
Printable View
I just think, without the threat of hammer, it encourages inactivity. If nobody can be lynched until EOD, then people don't need to worry until EOD.
I think you have a point. What I’m worried about though is a very early hammer. It’ll be sorta restrictive to the people with many votes.
Some sites sometimes host very active games with only plurality lynch enabled; MU is the big and living example of this. If people think they can just go away because there's no majority threat, they didn't understand the game at all. You're not supposed to need a gun behind your head in order to be productive.
If you're afraid of an early hammer, you should give a no-lynch period of 24 hours once voting for lynch is enabled instead of disabling lynch completely.
I think this would come closer to rewarding the behaviour Mag wants. But to really work, I think you would need to do the vote that gives voting power before the actual plurality vote. If you do them simultaneously, people are just going to give voting power to whoever is supporting their top lynch candidate.
Also, how precisely would you use condorcet to rank voting power? If you mean using the preferences to fully rank people, you greatly increase the odds of "preference cycle"s by demanding a full ranking rather than just a first place winner.