Ethics: Policy Lynchings

[Kelly Chen]

What happens if that player is poor town but good scum

by choice

? For example - and this has come up before in Scumchat - some people will refuse to claim if the evidence against them isn't solid (be it a random bandwagon, a massclaim, etc.). This action hurts them if town but helps them if scum. As long as they have the policy of not claiming, is it OK to wagon them by default?

Refusing to claim when there's no argument against them "hurts them if town"? How? Are you assuming they end up lynched?

Then you ask if it's OK to run these people up, knowing you won't get a claim? Why would you want to throw these players under a train just because they don't want to claim unless they're actually suspected? Shouldn't you wait and see if there's a reason to suspect them?

[Kelly Chen]

No metagame strategies have merit, in my opinion, but I'm inclined to look more favorably on metagame strategies to discourage unethical play (such as punishing the no-claim policy) than on metagame strategies to discourage merely bad play (such as the no-claim policy itself).

I think he's saying the no-claim policy discourages bad play but is still unethical (if applied blindly to all situations).

[Kelly Chen]

If there's a good reason to lynch them, do it.

A "no claim" policy is just an extension of the principle that you shouldn't claim for no reason.