Search:

[QUOTE=theoneceko;867397]whatdegree r u working on.master? phd?[/QUOTE]

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

Originally Posted by theoneceko

whatdegree r u working on.master? phd?

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

[QUOTE=Voss;867218]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?[/QUOTE]

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 [I]before[/I] 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.

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=Voss;866773]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.[/QUOTE]

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:

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:

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.

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.

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".

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".