Voting Systems

I’m curious. What do you guys think of a voting system where during the first 24 hours players rank players in condorcet-style voting from towniest to scummiest (so in reverse order), with ‘lynch’ votes being distributed by towniness? So the towniest player gets 3 votes, the next X get 2 votes, and the rest one vote.

It solves the issue with kingmaker where one person has the authority to decide the lynch, and also deals with the problem inherent in a democratic lynch wherein scum still have a say in the lynch.

What you call a problem inherent to democratic lynch is what I call the point of the game. Scums want to direct the lynch, not just to rely on night actions.

I like the idea of the system, though, simply because it's a way to implement town-hunting. Perhaps three and two votes is a bit too much, though; balance would have to be made. For example, I could see everyone have two votes, and the others having 3 and 4 votes. It would be more balanced. It's complicated to do on a forum, though.

Maybe as a one off for a game. But otherwise, voting system is GR8

What BananaCucho said. A good experiment but grants evils too little control to undermine society.

I don't think that would be weighted against evils at all. Really this idea just rewards the most town-read players and gives them the ability to do whatever they want. I like that idea quite a bit because the highest townreads are usually those putting in the most effort. It feels proportionally fair.

I love the idea conceptually! The only problem with mixing in ranking is that you run into this mathematical feedback loop where the people that are towniest might be considered that way because the 'scummiest' people are voting them there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

I don't think that would be weighted against evils at all. Really this idea just rewards the most town-read players and gives them the ability to do whatever they want. I like that idea quite a bit because the highest townreads are usually those putting in the most effort. It feels proportionally fair.

---

also this 100%. evils aren't punished. the scum read people are.

My next setup will be using this voting system, along with 72h days. I’m curious how it will play out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

also this 100%. evils aren't punished. the scum read people are.

---

But in order to be pushing a scum agenda, evils will need to do inherently bad things.
I think the game with this sort of voting will not have things like:
fast hammers
scum-lead turbo lynches
scum-lead lynchings of town leaders who are town

It also reduces the amount of cooperation needed for town to lynch in an order, as one person will continue holding the vote power

__

On the plus side it might reduce lurking.

I don't know why there's reason to think the game should play much differently. If there is no limit on how many people the third-tier vote can be placed on, then you can imitate a "normal vote" by voting everyone except the scumread.

I think everyone will naturally converge to doing that. If it's EOD and the two lowest voted players are your townread and your scumread, you'll put your tier 1 vote on the townread and tier 2/3 vote everyone else, even if that townread isn't your strongest townread because you're not gonna vote "in the spirit of the system" once you're 43 hours balls deep lol.

Though, I suppose the psychology of fearing "few votes" will be quite different to fearing "many votes".

Yeah, I partially rescind that. I think the tiers of voting will make the game inherently different in the details. But I still think, at least in the early days, on the macro scale, the important decision isn't which 6 players you're not interested in lynching. The important decision is which, of these 3 players everyone scumreads, you'd rather lynch. Simply voting 5 or 6 townreads will have little effect on the critical decision, and will effectively be a suboptimal vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by secondpassing

But in order to be pushing a scum agenda, evils will need to do inherently bad things.
I think the game with this sort of voting will not have things like:
fast hammers
scum-lead turbo lynches
scum-lead lynchings of town leaders who are town

It also reduces the amount of cooperation needed for town to lynch in an order, as one person will continue holding the vote power

__

On the plus side it might reduce lurking.

---

I'm reading this as the current vote system is scum sided.

I don't think yzb, or secondpassing has played a condorcet/ranked vote system game huh.

One other system I’m seriously thinking about is an ‘indirect’ democracy style of election. With players forming formal (haha) voting blocks; only the ‘party’ leader may vote, though their vote has power equal to the number of players in their party.

That, I suspect, would only work with larger games


Heres how I see things happening in the ‘weighted’ democracy i described in the OP:
People will try to figure out who the towniest people are, focusing primarily on electing a town leader. Some players will be officially supporting their own candidacy, others will debate and figure out who to vote for.

Highly townread people will probably be careful not to overstep their authority; this probably means that they won’t be voting if they think a push is safe to conduct, so it may a) restrain them or b) motivate them to try harder to convince their fellow townies. If all else fails they may attempt to push a lynch on their own, at the risk of antagonizing their supporters.

This would probably only work with plurality. Enabling hammering would make the game a bit restrictive. That, or there would be two rounds. Or a trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

I'm reading this as the current vote system is scum sided.

I don't think yzb, or secondpassing has played a condorcet/ranked vote system game huh.

---

I haven't. And frankly, I'm appalled by your attempt to use a voting system that most purely represents the will of the majority. That totally goes against what makes elections so engaging D:

I know you were being sarcastic here yzb, but the ‘tyranny of the majority’ is kinda what this vote system is designed to fight against. I don’t think inactives should have a significant say in the lynch, for instance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

This would probably only work with plurality. Enabling hammering would make the game a bit restrictive. That, or there would be two rounds. Or a trial.

---

How about normal voting for majority, but if there is no majority hammer then at EOD the lynch goes to a Condorcet type system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

How about normal voting for majority, but if there is no majority hammer then at EOD the lynch goes to a Condorcet type system?

---

So basically, if no majority occurs as EoD just run condorcet? Could work too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

I'm reading this as the current vote system is scum sided.

I don't think yzb, or secondpassing has played a condorcet/ranked vote system game huh.

---

I'm saying Ganelon's vote system is town sided.

And no, I haven't. Hopefully it worked out and people liked playing with the condorcet voting system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by secondpassing

I'm saying Ganelon's vote system is town sided.

And no, I haven't. Hopefully it worked out and people liked playing with the condorcet voting system.

---

i've a few post rants on why things like hammering and majority lynch should be considered "scum sided", as opposed to "not town sided", but mag and aamirus are going to kill me if I derail it.

to be more on topic:

mag, maybe this will suit your purpose? use condorcet to give vote power, and then use a concurrent other vote system like plurality to actually dish out lynch votes?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

i've a few post rants on why things like hammering and majority lynch should be considered "scum sided", as opposed to "not town sided", but mag and aamirus are going to kill me if I derail it.

to be more on topic:

mag, maybe this will suit your purpose? use condorcet to give vote power, and then use a concurrent other vote system like plurality to actually dish out lynch votes?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

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.

---

whatdegree r u working on.master? phd?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theoneceko

whatdegree r u working on.master? phd?

---

Master's. Wanna do a phd. Applying this September.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

My next setup will be using this voting system, along with 72h days. I’m curious how it will play out.

---

72 hr days? God help us all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

Master's. Wanna do a phd. Applying this September.

---

Wow good luck.