Best Voting System

[Marshmallow Marshall]

What is, in your opinion, the best voting system in Mafia? Majority, the common lynch when 50 % + 1 players want someone lynched? Plurality, the "mandatory lynch" at EoD? Plurality with majority enabled? Condorcet voting? Other systems?


I personally believe that plurality + majority makes the game more interesting, because it forces lynches, which adds more chat-based content to the game. Condorcet is also interesting, because of its "objectivity" (it's very hard to mess with, and represents people's thoughts quite accurately).

Discuss ^^

[Voss]

Condorcet is 100% hands down the best voting system. Insta-lynch 51% end game is archaic, and only being able to submit a single preference doesn't let you push multiple trains.

More thoughts:

https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...l=1#post739399

https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...ting-EXPLAINED!

[Damus_Graves]

I prefer mandatory Lynch with majority upon EoD.
No hammers

It is strictly personal preference that I prefer only pushing one evil at a time for lynch targeting. As an evil I very much prefer having this method because I can use it to my advantage by pressing on an already suspected evil to hide myself in plain sight.
There is also no need to rush the debate because the day is going to last the full term anyways. That gives players the time to debate and discuss the potency of their Lynch.

I dislike condorcet because of its natural tendency to favor a township over evils. It forces evils to power wolf or play the towns game

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I prefer mandatory Lynch with majority upon EoD.
No hammers

It is strictly personal preference that I prefer only pushing one evil at a time for lynch targeting. As an evil I very much prefer having this method because I can use it to my advantage by pressing on an already suspected evil to hide myself in plain sight.
There is also no need to rush the debate because the day is going to last the full term anyways. That gives players the time to debate and discuss the potency of their Lynch.

I dislike condorcet because of its natural tendency to favor a township over evils. It forces evils to power wolf or play the towns game

That's plurality without majority, btw.

I'd say majority is part of the game, though. Not having it makes the game a bit "boring", because people tend to be more passive. Majority keeps some kind of "urge". And condorcet has majority IIRC, so it's pretty good.

[Voss]

Players being passive because majority isn't enabled sounds like a player problem. Not a vote system problem.

I'd also argue that having no majority more easily allows you to have competing trains. Which is good for town.

[Damus_Graves]

That's plurality without majority, btw.

I'd say majority is part of the game, though. Not having it makes the game a bit "boring", because people tend to be more passive. Majority keeps some kind of "urge". And condorcet has majority IIRC, so it's pretty good.

oh is that what it is? I was under the impression it wasnt, since the person with most votes gets lynched thus being majority.
but anyways. Majority is not necessary to the game honestly, hence why it works without it.

[DJarJar]

oh is that what it is? I was under the impression it wasnt, since the person with most votes gets lynched thus being majority.
but anyways. Majority is not necessary to the game honestly, hence why it works without it.

Plurality means the person with the most votes (even if it’s only 1 vote) gets lynched at EOD, and there is never an early lynch.

Majority means the first person to get votes >1/2 the player count gets lynched instantly, but if nobody gets there then nobody gets lynched.

Plurality + Majority is like majority but if nobody gets enough votes to be lynched then at EOD whoever has the most votes will get lynched.

[Arsonist]

Plurality means the person with the most votes (even if it’s only 1 vote) gets lynched at EOD, and there is never an early lynch.

Majority means the first person to get votes >1/2 the player count gets lynched instantly, but if nobody gets there then nobody gets lynched.

Plurality + Majority is like majority but if nobody gets enough votes to be lynched then at EOD whoever has the most votes will get lynched.

I think we already have mechanic like this in mafia...

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I think we already have mechanic like this in mafia...

This is FM Discussion, we are talking about the names of these systems.

[Damus_Graves]

Shoulda added a pill here.

Is there a Lynch system we DONT use?

[Kenny]

I'd love to see a game with anon votes

[Voss]

I just realized 'best' could mean many different things.

most fair?
most interesting?
etc.

[Ganelon]

The default majority lynch we typically use on-site isn't bad. It does its job well (it does have some hiccoughs though).
I like plurality, and majority + trial as well.
Anonymous voting sounds interesting, but I feel as though it would be a bit too Mafia-sided.

[Damus_Graves]

Anon votes be revealed upon EoD possibilities

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Shoulda added a pill here.

Is there a Lynch system we DONT use?

Do you know of another one?

I just realized 'best' could mean many different things.

most fair?
most interesting?
etc.

That's part of the discussion ;)

I personally think it's all the same, though, since an interesting voting system is inherently fair, at least to me. If it favors one side to the point where it can realistically (and not in a 0.1% scenario) influence and imbalance the game's outcome, then I don't think the system is interesting.

The default majority lynch we typically use on-site isn't bad. It does its job well (it does have some hiccoughs though).
I like plurality, and majority + trial as well.
Anonymous voting sounds interesting, but I feel as though it would be a bit too Mafia-sided.

I'm currently playing a game in which votes are sent by PM to the host, and then revealed at EoD (only the final votes). It makes the game much more hidden, because without seeing actual votes, it's hard to keep track of reads. It's possible, but hard.


What was a strange but very fun system was the Turnabout Mafia (AKA the game about trials) one. Of course, it is complicated, but I think this system could be an inspiration for other ones that would "split" the voters in small discussion groups. That being said, I don't think it should become something standard on the site.

[Ganelon]

It really depends as with most things. Overall, plurality+majority/pure majority are the best I believe. As in, they work in lots of different setups. Some election systems, like condorcet, are very interesting (and some would say fair), and somewhat townsided, but to me it seems as though a voting system like that is quite difficult to analyze correctly (simply because of how many variables come into play).

I would say pure plurality+majority is not only the best one overall, but also the most balanced voting system. It allows for town to pressure suspects, whilst also making it relatively easy for scum to hide in the voting patterns, and it seems quite intuitive, unlike a Condorcet-style system, which has a depth to it (I think the depth is actually n-1, which is massive compared to plurality which has a depth of 1).

I do feel like anonymous voting would be interesting if (possibly) quite scum-sided. I fear that anonymous voting wouldn't really be that different from normal voting, as (under normal circumstances) town members have little reason to lie about their vote (and should indeed announce who it is they are voting for) and so would (at least at first) collapse into a public vote. It would only be at the very end that the voting system would start showing its teeth (or in one of those rare setups involving multiple, relatively powerful scum factions).

[Voss]

It really depends as with most things. Overall, plurality+majority/pure majority are the best I believe. As in, they work in lots of different setups. Some election systems, like condorcet, are very interesting (and some would say fair), and somewhat townsided, but to me it seems as though a voting system like that is quite difficult to analyze correctly (simply because of how many variables come into play).

I would say pure plurality+majority is not only the best one overall, but also the most balanced voting system. It allows for town to pressure suspects, whilst also making it relatively easy for scum to hide in the voting patterns, and it seems quite intuitive, unlike a Condorcet-style system, which has a depth to it (I think the depth is actually n-1, which is massive compared to plurality which has a depth of 1).

I do feel like anonymous voting would be interesting if (possibly) quite scum-sided. I fear that anonymous voting wouldn't really be that different from normal voting, as (under normal circumstances) town members have little reason to lie about their vote (and should indeed announce who it is they are voting for) and so would (at least at first) collapse into a public vote. It would only be at the very end that the voting system would start showing its teeth (or in one of those rare setups involving multiple, relatively powerful scum factions).

"condorcet, are very interesting (and some would say fair), and somewhat townsided"
I'll go ahead and beat the dead horse and say that condorcet isn't townsided. Majority is mafia sided.

"[condorcet] is quite difficult to analyze correctly"
Not true. You literally see everyone's preferences, and good players will say why they have their preferences in that order. If it's too difficult, one could ignore the list, and just look at the top of the list. Now you're back to analyzing the good ol' 'majority lynch' way.

"[non condorcet setups] allows for town to pressure suspects"
This implies that Condorcet doesn't pressure suspects. This is not true. It actually allows town to pressure ALL the scummiest people. If people don't feel pressured because they're on the top of the list, they're really just playing stupidly. Which would be equivalent to not bowing down to pressure in majority, even though they're at like L-2 or something. Others may say that the #1 spot moves a lot during the course of a day, but I'd counter and say that the top 3 scummiest people generally will be dead by end of day.

"[non condorcet setups] make it relatively easy for scum to hide in the voting patterns"
In other words, hosts need to make it harder for town to vote, which basically sounds like vote disenfranchisement to me. Which really is scum sided. And then people wonder why playing citizen is shit.

[Voss]

I know I came off a bit harsh, but you're still awesome Ganelon <3

[Voss]

NYC is going to start using using a form of bird voting!

[Voss]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc...-ocasio-cortez

[Marshmallow Marshall]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc...-ocasio-cortez

Wow, that's pretty nice! Bird voting IRL is great and should be applied pretty much everywhere imo.

[Stealthbomber16]

Wow, IRL bird voting!

[OzyWho]

I would like to propose another alternative.


Have 2 plurality + majority at the same time:
1. plurality + majority from [vote].
2. plurality + majority from Lock Vote.

Mention host and say "lock vote Distorted". You have a vote on Distorted that you can't remove, it stays until day is over.

majority lynch happens whichever of the 2 happens first.
See, if 10 players in game, 4 of which have lock vote on 1 person, 4 others have each on a different person - then that player with the 4 votes on him gets lynched, even though it was 4 votes, not 6.

Plurality lynch - the "system" with more votes is the chosen one. In case of tie - lock votes have priority.


I'm betting I completely screwed up explaining the idea. Facepalm
Hard to explain..

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I would like to propose another alternative.


Have 2 plurality + majority at the same time:
1. plurality + majority from [vote].
2. plurality + majority from Lock Vote.

Mention host and say "lock vote Distorted". You have a vote on Distorted that you can't remove, it stays until day is over.

majority lynch happens whichever of the 2 happens first.
See, if 10 players in game, 4 of which have lock vote on 1 person, 4 others have each on a different person - then that player with the 4 votes on him gets lynched, even though it was 4 votes, not 6.

Plurality lynch - the "system" with more votes is the chosen one. In case of tie - lock votes have priority.


I'm betting I completely screwed up explaining the idea. Facepalm
Hard to explain..

Maybe I'm dumb, but what does that actually bring to the game in terms of fun, or improvement in gameplay or mechanics? I don't see it, it just seems... complicated...

[OzyWho]

Maybe I'm dumb, but what does that actually bring to the game in terms of fun, or improvement in gameplay or mechanics? I don't see it, it just seems... complicated...

Some sites have lock votes automatically on LYLO days. First vote is your only vote.
There is some fun in-game discussion surrounding it.
Should the most scummy or the most townie person be the first to vote? What's balance between "we trust this guy being town and making the best decision for us" vs "we have to let the most scummy people vote first for more information in hopes he isn't town".
Obviously having both, normal and lock, at same time defeats that purpose. But it would bring in something extra to work with in the legendary 0 mechanics setup called Black Flag Nightless.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Some sites have lock votes automatically on LYLO days. First vote is your only vote.
There is some fun in-game discussion surrounding it.
Should the most scummy or the most townie person be the first to vote? What's balance between "we trust this guy being town and making the best decision for us" vs "we have to let the most scummy people vote first for more information in hopes he isn't town".
Obviously having both, normal and lock, at same time defeats that purpose. But it would bring in something extra to work with in the legendary 0 mechanics setup called Black Flag Nightless.

Maybe at LYLO, and even then, I'm not a fan of that system when it's in one of my games (I've already played in a game like that at LYLO on MU). But before LYLO, it cuts a big part of the game off : the ability to change your mind. It's horribly scum-sided, and takes away one of the strongest tools of the Town to pressure people without overcommiting.

[Ganelon]

I’m going to tryna use majority+trial in my next setup

[OzyWho]

it cuts a big part of the game off : the ability to change your mind.

And that's why the suggestion to have both at the same time
But yeah, if town isn't careful - its incredibly mafia sided.

[OzyWho]

I’m going to tryna use majority+trial in my next setup

How does Trial work in FM in practice?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

How does Trial work in FM in practice?

https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...urnabout-Mafia

That's the only Trial that I know of. That game was insanely fun, btw.

[OzyWho]

https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...urnabout-Mafia

That's the only Trial that I know of. That game was insanely fun, btw.

It looks fun tbh

[Ganelon]

How does Trial work in FM in practice?

no clue, mod-style trial's never been done before I think