Search:

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;915987]Against the winning scum strategy called [I]lurking[/I], there is the winning town strategy called [I]PoE[/I]. Lurking scums have lost their recent games, if I'm not mistaken. Plus, plurality + majority is the norm on most sites, and lurkers don't get treated so kindly there either. It's all about learning to deal with scum lurkers.[/QUOTE]
In this case, PoE is a fancy word for lynching the #1 inactive player? I believe it wouldn't take too much effort to not be #1 inactive but rather #2 or #3, which is good enough to be called lurking.
The point was that majority pressures everyone to become more active whilst providing towns with info how different slots react to pressure themselves and the pressure on different slots.
Though, granted, perhaps that's just fantasy play at this point and nobody cares - which would make Voss right and players bad. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Against the winning scum strategy called lurking, there is the winning town strategy called PoE. Lurking scums have lost their recent games, if I'm not mistaken. Plus, plurality + majority is the norm on most sites, and lurkers don't get treated so kindly there either. It's all about learning to deal with scum lurkers.

In this case, PoE is a fancy word for lynching the #1 inactive player? I believe it wouldn't take too much effort to not be #1 inactive but rather #2 or #3, which is good enough to be called lurking.
The point was that majority pressures everyone to become more active whilst providing towns with info how different slots react to pressure themselves and the pressure on different slots.
Though, granted, perhaps that's just fantasy play at this point and nobody cares - which would make Voss right and players bad. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[QUOTE=Voss;915945]Majority is strictly more scum sided than plurality, even without a game of inactives. If a scum is close to being yeeted (call it one away), and there are towns people voting other players and have been vocal about it, scum aren't going to vote their partners. They would much rather let it skip, thus starving the town a chance to use their most reliable tool to eliminate scum.[/QUOTE]I disagree.
Majority without Plurality, sure is more scum sided. But Plurality with Majority is more town sided than without it.
In my book, the only scenario where Majority would have a drawback would be when Scum did hammer townies left and right and Town never called them out for it, whilst never using the benefits they got from having Majority.
Every other case - Majority just gives extra tool to town in terms of pressure which gives them more info. Without it, the Scum have this winning strategy called [I]Lurking[/I].

Those are just my opinions though.



[QUOTE=Voss;915945]Also plurality (and condorcet) don't mandate a yeet. That's just what the group prefers. They prefer a yeet because yeets are good for the town, (no matter what Light Yagami says). If the group preferred a skip day, they'd vote skip day. Plurality and condorcet don't have mandatory no skip days.[/QUOTE]
-Skip is so bad, that I don't see it even worth a mention or a thought. No reason to not ignore the existence of it. As such I still stand to what I said earlier - that as far as the topic of this thread is concerned, plurality and condercet are both the same in the sense of mandatory lynch at EOD. The existence of "-Skip" is so inconsequential that I don't see how it could be used for an argument why what I said in the previous sentence is wrong.

Originally Posted by Voss

Majority is strictly more scum sided than plurality, even without a game of inactives. If a scum is close to being yeeted (call it one away), and there are towns people voting other players and have been vocal about it, scum aren't going to vote their partners. They would much rather let it skip, thus starving the town a chance to use their most reliable tool to eliminate scum.

I disagree.
Majority without Plurality, sure is more scum sided. But Plurality with Majority is more town sided than without it.
In my book, the only scenario where Majority would have a drawback would be when Scum did hammer townies left and right and Town never called them out for it, whilst never using the benefits they got from having Majority.
Every other case - Majority just gives extra tool to town in terms of pressure which gives them more info. Without it, the Scum have this winning strategy called Lurking.

Those are just my opinions though.

Originally Posted by Voss

Also plurality (and condorcet) don't mandate a yeet. That's just what the group prefers. They prefer a yeet because yeets are good for the town, (no matter what Light Yagami says). If the group preferred a skip day, they'd vote skip day. Plurality and condorcet don't have mandatory no skip days.

-Skip is so bad, that I don't see it even worth a mention or a thought. No reason to not ignore the existence of it. As such I still stand to what I said earlier - that as far as the topic of this thread is concerned, plurality and condercet are both the same in the sense of mandatory lynch at EOD. The existence of "-Skip" is so inconsequential that I don't see how it could be used for an argument why what I said in the previous sentence is wrong.

[QUOTE=aamirus;915788]Ozy you should talk to [MENTION=6527]Voss[/MENTION] he’s very interested in finding new voting systems that might be better than the existing/usual options[/QUOTE]
As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, plurality and condercet are both the same in the sense of mandatory lynch at EOD.

Me personally I'm not a believer in condercet. As much as I'm not a fan of a 3 way tie with 2 votes on each at EoD1 - I'm not confident that condercet improves that scenario. If anything I think it's the opposite and is similar to yzb's voting system where the scum could vote each other if the numbers allow it - making it in my eyes even less informative than a 3 way tie EoD1 with just ~50% of votes present.

Originally Posted by aamirus

Ozy you should talk to @Voss he’s very interested in finding new voting systems that might be better than the existing/usual options

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, plurality and condercet are both the same in the sense of mandatory lynch at EOD.

Me personally I'm not a believer in condercet. As much as I'm not a fan of a 3 way tie with 2 votes on each at EoD1 - I'm not confident that condercet improves that scenario. If anything I think it's the opposite and is similar to yzb's voting system where the scum could vote each other if the numbers allow it - making it in my eyes even less informative than a 3 way tie EoD1 with just ~50% of votes present.

CHOO CHOO

CHOO CHOO

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;915719]Pure majority is horrible when you have inactives[/QUOTE]But if you have Plurality, then there is not much incentive for inactives to become active. [IMG]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q49viZ74XZI/hqdefault.jpg[/IMG]
Like the difference in pressure to "do something" is just enormous! :O

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

Pure majority is horrible when you have inactives

But if you have Plurality, then there is not much incentive for inactives to become active.
Like the difference in pressure to "do something" is just enormous!

I was browsing the [I]Approved Setups[/I] page and noticed this old beauty - [URL="https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/42462-S-FM-Simple-Forum-Mafia-(9P)"]Simple Forum Mafia (9P)[/URL].

And I noticed something odd. Namely the fact that it doesn't have Plurality Lynch. Only Majority.
I've completely forgotten that's even a possible thing! :laugh:

I love the fact that Town is forced to come to an agreement. And likewise, the Mafia are forced to be more active too. At LYLO - analyzing the EoD votes of past days is just so much cooler. :weed:

Compare it to having a 13 player game that has a tie between multiple slots, with 2 votes on each.
The games are like night and day.

What is your opinions regarding Plurality lynch?
I realize that there's likely a consensus that it's very pro-town. But if you have a spear poking at your back, pushing you forward, while it's true that it would be beneficial for you if there was no spear poking at you - without it there would be nothing to drive you forward.
I don't think Plurality Lynch is strictly pro-town. I think the lack of it pressures [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]EVERYONE[/COLOR] and that is pro-town too. It evens out. Not perfectly, but somewhat. And I'd say that the very very slight imbalance towards the scum side, that comes from a lack of Plurality, is well worth the difference in gameplay.

What would people say on the proposition to have more games without Plurality?

[hr][/hr]

Quick question: Scum don't have a mandatory faction kill in almost any setup - correct?

I was browsing the Approved Setups page and noticed this old beauty - Simple Forum Mafia (9P).

And I noticed something odd. Namely the fact that it doesn't have Plurality Lynch. Only Majority.
I've completely forgotten that's even a possible thing!

I love the fact that Town is forced to come to an agreement. And likewise, the Mafia are forced to be more active too. At LYLO - analyzing the EoD votes of past days is just so much cooler.

Compare it to having a 13 player game that has a tie between multiple slots, with 2 votes on each.
The games are like night and day.

What is your opinions regarding Plurality lynch?
I realize that there's likely a consensus that it's very pro-town. But if you have a spear poking at your back, pushing you forward, while it's true that it would be beneficial for you if there was no spear poking at you - without it there would be nothing to drive you forward.
I don't think Plurality Lynch is strictly pro-town. I think the lack of it pressures EVERYONE and that is pro-town too. It evens out. Not perfectly, but somewhat. And I'd say that the very very slight imbalance towards the scum side, that comes from a lack of Plurality, is well worth the difference in gameplay.

What would people say on the proposition to have more games without Plurality?

---

Quick question: Scum don't have a mandatory faction kill in almost any setup - correct?