Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?
Register

User Tag List

Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1

    Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    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?
    Last edited by OzyWho; January 13th, 2021 at 09:44 AM.

  2. #2

  3. #3

  4. #4

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    No, go away with those heretical ideas! So many games were dull and boring because we could never reach an agreement. Having inactives, even if they aren't that many, completely kill games with majority only. Yes, in theory, it forces everyone to do something. In reality, it just results in some people actually trying to win and some others being potatoes and killing the fun.

    DOWN WITH THE HERETICS, UP WITH THE PLURALITY
    CHOO CHOO
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  5. #5

  6. #6

  7. #7

  8. #8

  9. #9

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    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.

  10. #10

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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.
    i didn't mean condorcet. I think voss expressed interest in other kinds of new voting systems too
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  11. #11

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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.
    Your presentation of condorcet is categorically false, but I'm not going to derail your thread on it.

    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.

    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.

    If anything, I regret introducing condorcet to the community before running multi vote plurality systems. That would have been an easier pill to swallow, and much simpler to understand.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  12. #12

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    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.

  13. #13

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    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.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  14. #14

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    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)_/¯

  15. #15

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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)_/¯
    Depends on how inactive the player is. If he's totally inactive, he's gonna get replaced out, which solves the problem. If he's really a lurker in a strategic manner, chances are he'll be in the PoE, and people will want to lynch him more than Mr. Inactive because while the latter will get replaced out and was simply not there, the former has been scummy for doing things like fluffing or fencesitting without giving any conclusions, often by being noncommital and afraid to vote.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  16. #16

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    I disagree.
    Majority without Plurality, sure is more scum sided. But Plurality with Majority is more town sided than without it.
    This sentence just disagrees without saying why.

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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.
    Why does town need the day to end early? Wouldn't it be better to see who's voting for X and react to it at the end of day, rather than logging in 3 hours before normal day end and finding that your scummiest read hammered, making day end early?

    What about the following scenario: Some PTR is at L-1 on LYLO and they reveal as mayor. Scum sees this and early hammers giving them the game. It's a dumb example, but illustrates my point of an early hammer to a day can never be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    -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.
    Idk, I'm not understanding, or the goal posts are moving. Do you think it's good for town when town is trying to yeet a scum, but they have 49% of the votes, and some other town is being stubborn? My point in bringing up skip is that if the group doesn't find someone that you can get 51% of the votes for, is that the day would skip without a yeet (in majority). So even though it's bad, it'll happen more often in majority games.

    I'd also like to point out that you can have 51% hammer on/off and have majority/plurality, mix and matching the two. For example, you can have a majority yeet game where there is no hammer. The game just won't end the day early. I'm trying to pose the following two ideas: 1) that hammer is bad for town and 2) majority is scum sided vs plurality.

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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)_/¯
    The meta on this site is to make trains on people and move around. If you find yourself as the train in the beginning of the day, you know you ain't getting yeeted. Ergo, yes, nobody does actually care and people should not be feeling pressure because they should know the meta that it'll move off to someone else. ESPECIALLY if you play inactive. (I of course would never play inactive, but I will tell the train to fuck off because I know it'll move elsewhere.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  17. #17

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    The meta on this site is to make trains on people and move around. If you find yourself as the train in the beginning of the day, you know you ain't getting yeeted. Ergo, yes, nobody does actually care and people should not be feeling pressure because they should know the meta that it'll move off to someone else. ESPECIALLY if you play inactive. (I of course would never play inactive, but I will tell the train to fuck off because I know it'll move elsewhere.
    False: if your name is @Varcron , a train against you on D1 is a death sentence.
    More seriously, D1 trains can be damning if you play badly around them. We may be a little bit less tunnelly than most sites when it comes to D1 trains, but that doesn't mean they are pointless or pressureless.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  18. #18

    Re: Should Plurality lynch be as common as it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    False: if your name is @Varcron , a train against you on D1 is a death sentence.
    More seriously, D1 trains can be damning if you play badly around them. We may be a little bit less tunnelly than most sites when it comes to D1 trains, but that doesn't mean they are pointless or pressureless.
    I agree with this post

    You guys have no idea how infuriating getting murdered by a D1 lynch train is every game

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •