Deadline Lynching?

[Axelrod]

Eh. In the games I have played so far, I can truthfully say I was always more annoyed when someone was lynched at a deadline with less than a majority. Requiring a majority "forces" the town to participate, and if they don't, well then, they should face the penalty.

I recognize the need to "keep the game moving," but from games I've seen, the town will usually learn its lesson the first time they "miss" a lynch because they couldn't agree. I'm running a game on another site, 20 players, no majority = no lynch, and I've imposed two deadlines. Each time the deadline galvanized the town and they did manage to accumulate the necessary votes.

Lynching the high vote getter actually enables lurking, since that particular incentive to vote is absent.

Games on this site, however, play at quite a different pace. That's a factor to take into consideration also. When single days take weeks and weeks, missing even one can drag the game out significantly. So, as a practical matter, I don't object. I just don't like it. It feels like you are saying "fine, whatever, let's just get this over with. You don't want to be here, I don't want to be here."

I guess my objection is mainly philosophical. If players aren't participating, they should be replaced.