"Random" voting

[mith]

I can't think of a single time I have made a truly random vote.

[aside]I was going to say that in the theoretical perfectly played game, all votes would be random, but I don't even think that's completely true. The Mafia would surely find some very small advantage to voting for each other sligthly less, and thus the Town would have something to go on, even if the outcome was virtually random.[/aside]

For me, the important thing is that people get involved in the game early on. Jokes, comments on night scenes, and so on tend to be a part of this. Once the process is started, I trust post analysis, even on little things, far more than =RAND().

It's obviously much easier IRL to start a game off. You can just look around at people to get a feel for things. That said, I have always been baffled at random voting online being so popular. I recognize that some people have trouble getting started, but I think the metagame has taken us to a point that random votes and random bandwagons are just ignored anyway. If everyone played this way, what we basically have is a couple completely random lynchings (plus, possibly, role claims, which is even worse) while we wait for the cop to tell us something.

IMO, Mafia is a lot more fun when people post and go with analysis (and hunches/feelings/guts!) rather than play by rote. Now, not only do we have half the players starting the game off with random votes, we're going to have rules on how they should be cast?

There are no rules for how I deal with random voters when looking for suspicious behavior. Mostly, I look for cases where a "random" is not actually random. It's pretty rare these days, as most people really do use RNGs for their votes (when "random" voting first started, I believe it tended to mostly be "first name that comes to mind" type votes, and the human brain is a terrible RNG), but even in little things like "I won't put a second vote on someone" or "I won't vote for someone that doesn't already have a vote" or "I usually do one of the first two, but am doing the opposite this time" you can start to get a feel for motivation. It really just depends on the person and what impression I'm getting from everyone, though.

As in "with nothing else to go on, at the start day 1 you vote for either the player who's worst at being a good guy, or for the player who's the best at playing scum" or something like that?

To add to what jeep said, I am very against the first, as killing off bad players automatically discourages them from getting better. I am against the latter because it's a cop out ("I'm not good enough to catch you if you're scum, so I'll just vote you automatically every time"). Besides, most good players are good on both sides.

i'm aginst random voting and mafia taking months to finish.

Do you think the two are related?

I think they may well be, to some degree at least.

1. Truly random votes are never likely to lead to a majority.
2. Randomly voting for someone because they already have one or more random votes equals a random bandwagon with no substance.
3. If people were lynched like this for absolutely no reason at all, it would be quite annoying. Likewise, it is almost impossible to defend yourself against nothing.
4. This could still lead to quick first days, except that random voters do tend to still recognize when someone is about to get lynched for no reason. The potential victim has no reason to say much in defense, and this means that there is little to confirm what little suspicion the bandwagon might be based on. So, we're left with a bandwagon that people are quite likely to jump back off for the smallest reason.
5. That might be ok, except that a lot of the random voters tend to be of the "we aren't going to learn anything day 1 anyway" persuasion, and therefore aren't actually paying much attention to the game. So we might get a few reasonably sized bandwagons, but almost no one switching to push one to a majority.
6. And that's not to mention role claims. If the bandwagon is based on very little to begin with, a role claim is almost certain to get people off it. So, short of a potential victim not defending himself at all, in which case we're stalled waiting for him, we're left jumping bandwagon to bandwagon.
7. Basically the only things that are likely to lead to a lynch is some actual information (in which case, random votes are pointless), people getting bored (usually only after it has gone on a while), or a deadline (ditto). And if we're depending on deadlines to end days because we can't come up with a better idea than random voting, why not just have the mod randomly handle the first two days, complete with a couple role claims?

I think I'm going to run a 3-3-10 all townie game soon, just to see how you people handle it.

[mith]

I never said that the town should automatically kill off bad players, I just mentioned starting out with a vote on a bad player instead of a completly random vote, and then changing your vote later if you have something to work with. Of course it's subjective, but I don't see it discouraging them from getting better; just the contrary, in fact.

If you know in advance that you're going to change your vote, why bother? All you're accomplishing is making someone feel like they're no good.

Of course, I play such that all of my votes are either because I am willing to follow through with them to a lynching, or because I'm laying some sort of trap, and not everyone plays like that. Still.

Basically, I think that if you have nothing better to say or nothing else to add, especally at the start of day 1, a random or semi-random vote can be a way to at least create a little bit of content and advance the game

And I think otherwise. What content does it add? How does it advance the game? It's just a waste of space.

Encouraging the mindset that you have somehow made a positive contribution by rolling dice is not good for the game. The Godfather does not play dice with Mafia.

However, I don't think random votes should be called random votes; if you're going to vote randomally or semi-randomally, you should just say vote:someone and see how everyone responds to that.

You: Vote: Someone
Everyone: Why?
You: Oh, no reason, it was just random.

Yes, that progresses the game so much more effectively than just calling it random in the first place.

Also, for those people who think random voting is a good stratagy

I never thought I would see "random voting" and "good strategy" in the same sentence. Random voting is not a strategy at all. At best, it's a harmless waste.

Granted that later in the game you hopefully have more information, but sometimes the entire town just gets stuck and has no idea what to do, everyone stops posting, and you don't have any idea who is scum either or how to proceed from there.

I think it almost goes without saying that if the entire town can not find something to vote on after day 1 and has to resort to random voting, the game has failed miserably.

I remember that I used to do the complete opposite, I used to vote the more experienced players, so they would post more, and it was easier to get a read on them.

This may only apply to me, but I can't think of an early random vote that has gotten me to post anything more. Back in the day, it might've gotten you a rant or a dirty look, but I believe most players with any experience ignore random votes.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how a random vote adds content to or progresses the game, other than what Speedy said. An actual example or two would be nice.

[mith]

Personally, I usually prefer to start by discussing stratagy, or trying to analyze the night-scene or theme for hints or something like that, but in a lot of normal games that's really not an option. So, what then? If you don't have anything else worth speculating on, and you are going to make the first post in a new game, what do you do? You can either attack someone else randomally or semi-randomally, or you can post a "hello everyone" kind of post; unless you want to do something drastic like role-claim on post 1, I can't think of any other real options you have. And I prefer a random vote to a "hello everyone" kind of post, because at least a random vote forces people who have information (like scum and possibly cops or masons) to make choices; does a scum vote for another scum, or does he vote for someone he knows is innocent, or does he "random" vote at all? Does a cop drop a random vote on someone he knows to be scum, or avoid random voting someone he knows is clean? Do masons avoid voting each other? These are small details, but can occasionally prove useful to refer back to later or to analyze if you have nothing else to go on; for example, masons almost never random vote each other, but scum sometimes do, so if you see a group of people who random vote each other but later claim mason you might want to question that. I have also seen cops drop hints in their random votes that don't become clear until after the cop is dead.

We are clearly talking about different things. I am talking about completely random draw-a-name-out-of-a-hat voting. You're not.

I could *maybe* see random votes as useful so that cops can hide some information in pseudo-random votes for later use without the mafia immediately catching on, but I find that dubious at best.

Everything in Mafia is a stratagy. If a person says they are random voting because it encourages discussion, what they most likely mean is that they want to encourage discussion because they believe that more discussion makes it easier to catch scum. The question is, is random voting ever a better stratagy then not random voting, and I think that there are times when it is.

I almost addressed "Everything in Mafia is a strategy." in my last post, as I was pretty sure someone would disagree with me. So, if we're going to get semantic...

1. No, random voting is not a strategy. A strategy is "an elaborate and systematic plan of action." The random voting that usually occurs in Mafia certainly isn't an elaborate plan, and it can hardly be called systematic when the basic idea is "I'll random vote until something better comes up".

2. Even if we relax the definition of strategy, the strategy you're talking about here is "get people to post more so I can catch scum".

3. Random voting could be a part of that, except that random voting itself does not encourage discussion. Discussing things encourages discussion. Random voting and discussion are polar opposites.

4. Ignoring all that, I propose that the thought that goes through most players head when they prepare to randomly vote is not "if I do this, it'll make it easier to catch Mafia", but "I'll random vote because I don't know what else to do, and I may as well do something".

5. No, random voting is never a better strategy than not random voting, unless you are admitting that your Mafia playing skills are worse than random.

Again, let's take the most basic situation. You are going to make the first post in a normal (non-theamed) game. Let's say that this game starts with day instead of night, so you don't have a night scene to analyze, and let's say that you are a basic townie with no information. How would you start the game?

It depends on the game, the role I have, the other players, etc., and could range from something funny and silly, to putting focus on a particular player that I feel I can get something out of, to divine inspiration (bow to The List!). Any of which are going to give me something more substantial to analyze than "random vote: ____".

[mith]

Warning: Long post with lots of quotes ahead.

So please, mith, enlighten the rest of us mere mortals and show us a game that starts without random voting and shooting the breeze, and without stalling.

1. Is the "mere mortals" sarcasm really necessary? This isn't a Mafia game, and I haven't even called everyone morons yet, so I'm not sure where this is coming from.

2. I *just* said how I personally would start a game. I also don't believe I have ever said I have a problem with "shooting the breeze". What more do you want, here? Should I completely fabricate a game full of mithClones? Do you expect me to somehow find a game *here* that meets your request, when almost everyone random votes for the first ten (or more) posts? I am baffled by this request.

I don't see how the statements

random voting itself does not encourage discussion.

and

the strategy you're talking about here is "get people to post more so I can catch scum".

belong in the same post.

3. Points for emulating my sarcasm from earlier, though I think you missed the boat when you changed from "I never thought I'd see" to "I don't see". Of course they don't fit if you don't agree with the latter statement. You believe random voting encourages discussion, I do not. Try arguing that point, rather than looking like you like basic reading comprehension skills.

If I vote "randomly", whether it's actually pulled out of a hat or not, it's to encourage discussion and get a reaction.

4. And this speaks for what you do, just as what I say speaks for what I do. It does not, however, speak for what everyone else does, nor does it show that you have actually managed to encourage discussion and get a reaction that you could not have gotten another way.

I don't vote for players who aren't in the game, or myself, because that doesn't help. I'm just as likely to give a suspicion on someone else's post as not, but there's a purpose to it.

5. I assume the first bit is related to your earlier post, though I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is at all relevant. And I'm not sure the second sentence even makes sense, so I'll let you clarify.

Well, I'm talking about a situation where many or most players show up and place a vote without saying why. Most of those votes will be "random", but it is assumed that only those who start the game with no information will vote completely randomly; a person with information, like a scum, will choose how to use that information in choosing their "random vote".

At the very least, if a cop random-votes person X day 1, I would assume that the cop did not get an innocent result for that person night 1. It's not much information, granted, but it is information. Same goes for if a mason gets killed night 2, I can look back and say "Well, he random voted for person X, so I assume person X is not his mason partner".

6. Once again, you are using the word random in a different way than I am. Which I said in the last post. To clarify, I am talking about definitions 1 and 3, not 2.

7. So, we come back to the bit where I said:

I could *maybe* see random votes as useful so that cops can hide some information in pseudo-random votes for later use without the mafia immediately catching on, but I find that dubious at best.

Which you didn't actually address.

8. I find it dubious because you have not suggested why perfectly random votes are the only valid way of running cover for pseudo-random ones; I have suggested one reason I might vote for someone in the very first post that isn't random, and I'm sure I could think of some others, if I were inclined to reveal everything about how I play the game.

I would say "not posting" and "discussion" are polar opposites. Any even vaguely game-related post can encourage discussion or contain information which can be used later, if the poster intended it to or not.

9. I was being slightly facetious, of course. But only slightly. Purely random votes (again, I am not talking about people voting without reasoning because they want to hide something for later) *can* encourage discussion, but you still have not shown that they encourage discussion more than anything else one could post early on.

Ok, first of all, I'm talking about random voting to encourage discussion, not random lynching.

10. Did I say anything about random lynching? This is not a trick question.

I would say that my mafia playing skills are better then random (even if only slightly sometimes ) but they're only better then random if people post.

11. I think you've lost the track of this particular line of discussion. When you brought up the "is random voting a good strategy?" thing, you were talking about later in the game, not before anyone has posted.

12. So, here's the underlying point. I'll even put it in bold for you.

If your mafia playing skills are better than random, even if only slightly sometimes, and you have a day's worth of posts to work with, how can voting completely randomly possibly be more helpful than deciding who you actually think is most suspicious and voting for them?

I don't think the current obsesson with "everyone must get on and random vote someone else and it must always be completly random" is always the best way to encourage discussion

13. And I agree. Except replace "always" with "ever".

Ok...so you sometimes like putting focus on a particlar player you feel that you can get something out of by doing that. That's actually a perfect example of the kind of "metagame vote" I was talking about before.

14. And I never said I had a problem with "metagame votes" (in the sense that I can't help knowing how players play, not in the sense that I'm going to hold a grudge or something, just so we're clear, here). I had a problem with the two that you gave, and I told you why.

Remember I'm not talking about completly random voting

15. Like I said, we're talking about different things, though I don't understand why you continue to use the term random if you're not talking about random.

And yeah, sometimes you can speculate on the game, or make a joke, or start trying to outguess the mod, something else like that. Sometimes there's no good way to do any of that, or at least not one that you see. At that point, then yeah, I would say voting without saying why, perhaps without a real reason at all, is a slightly more pro-town move then not posting at all or just posting a "hi everyone" message.

16. As I said, I can not remember ever making a truly random vote in any of my hundreds of games. When I am put in such a situation, then perhaps I will agree with you, but as it stands, your entire argument is standing on "but what if?" We can "but what if?" all the way back to the perfectly played Mafia-Townie-only game that I mentioned in my first post, in which the very first vote, and only the very first vote, will be completely random if it's made by a townie. If we're talking about any other game, then you can be sure that I will not be using random.org.

To clarify my main points:

A. For the purposes if these points, the term "random vote" will refer only to votes where a player selects from all the other players in the game with equal probability.

B. I do not believe that such a random vote adds any content.

C. I do not believe that such a random vote encourages discussion, excepting of course the almost obligatory discussion about the merits of random voting, and that there are other ways to get people talking.

D. I believe that random votes are a contributor to people not talking, not a cure. I believe that Mafia players need no better reason to post and discuss than that they are playing Mafia, that good players ignore random votes anyway, and that the current trend of lots of random votes before anyone says anything useful encourages a style of play with very short posts and little content.

E. I believe that, at the latest after everyone has posted at least once, if not sooner, there is more than enough information to look for suspicious behavior, even if it is vague or hunch-based.

F. I believe that most players vote randomly early on because they think they are supposed to, or because they think there is no alternative.

G. I believe that they are wrong.

[mith]

Bah, 8 minutes left. You'll have to wait til Monday for a response.

[mith]

What I *meant* is: "mith, you've been playing mafia longer than almost anyone here. Can you show us a game that started without the random votes/meaningless babble you seem to be complaining about? I'm interested in reading what you consider to be an effective/efficient game opener."

I'll once again note that I'm not complaining about meaningless babble. I *like* the occasional bit of meaningless babble.

There are a couple difficulties here. One is that the random voting trend has been going on a very long time; it just hasn't always been this annoying. Heck, even in The very first GL Mafia game the first vote was random. The second, of course, is that even if everyone had played like me at some point in time, *I* haven't even played the same way the entire time since 2000.

Heck, I may not remember making any completely random votes, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if there were some in the early games.

So, no, I don't think I have an example of this sort of thing in an actual game. Random votes have always been part of the game. My point is more that they're getting worse. Since I'm quite sure I could start a game with absolutely nothing to go on with more content that "random vote: ____", and that if everyone did likewise I would have more than enough to go on from that point, I fail to see why we're wasting a few pages or more with them.

All I see on this site, with a few players' notable exceptions, is random voting until someone says something strange/scummy/illogical, and then the actual votes can start.

~shrug~ I've only been in a handful of games on here recently, so the sample I'm working from may be unusual. That said, what I've seen is not so much "random votes until something comes up" but "random votes so we can hurry and get day 1 over with, because we don't know what to do with so little

actual

information". I'm certainly not saying it's everyone, but it still leads me to wonder what players on here would do with an all-townie game.

Further, my reaction in this particular thread is more based on the original question. A few random votes, while I still consider them pointless, are not particularly annoying. If it really does encourage people to post and they wouldn't otherwise, great. People actually having rules for how to random vote seems to be carrying the thing way too far. We're less concerned with playing the game and catching scum than we are with just blending in and not saying anything of substance.

Possible solutions:

As you said, lead by example. If you feel you need to start with a random vote, just don't leave that as your only post for the first three days. Check back and post something more substantial. If you can't think of anything to say, think a little longer! There's almost always something worth noticing. I certainly don't expect anyone to post 2000 word essays like I do occasionally, especially not early on, but post more than 3 words, even if it's just the first thing that comes to mind.

Practice makes perfect. Do something like mole said (and I've actually been thinking for some time of running a Verbose 2, where everyone has to post at least a minimum number of times with a minimum amount of content), demonstrate that games can be played without the random voting.

Discussions like this help. I have still yet to see anyone show that a random vote has *more* content than anything else one could post. All I have seen so far is that they are more likely to get people to vote or bandwagon randomly. (Unfortunately, the players that are the worst about not participating don't participate much in these discussions either.)

Change the rules. In meatworld, as I played it originally, we didn't even have proper voting. We talked for a bit, looked into each other's souls, and then ended up with a couple nominations to choose between. We do voting the way we do almost entirely because of the way I ended up running the first GL game (with minor evolutions along the way). It may well be the best way to do things, but it's certainly not sacred. (This is really just an extension of the first, but I suspect there are more rule-based solutions than just "you must post lots".)