Mini 901: Real Time Mafia (Over)

[Annachie]

I'd rather look for people who are scummy in this game.


(and crap, I used a wrong pro-noun in #68. Sorry about that Ellibereth)

[manho]

so what is a policy lynch? and why CSL is a good policy lynch?

[CSL]

Post 55, and the link that Elli posted.

[Snow_Bunny]

I don't think all policy lynches are anti-town, I am just not seeing anything bad on CSL so far.

However, over-eagerness to get one is another point.

[Ellibereth]

Out of curiosity, how many people here would agree to policy lynching zwet?

[Annachie]

I've never experienced Zwet, but in a large there's time to let them hang themselves so I wouldn't do that either.

[Annachie]

Policy Lynching = Scummy.

Reasons: Lynching a player you don't want in the game. Mostly a VT, whom, in the long run if you find yourself at lylo, you'd be wishing you didn't Policy Lynch.

This type of Policy Lynching has always been described to me as getting rid of players that you

don't

want at LYLO, reguardless of alignment, before you get there.

Tell me why you think different.

[Plumegranate]

Out of curiosity, how many people here would agree to policy lynching zwet?

I guess it depends. But I wouldn't agree to it on page one, or very early in the game, probably not on D1. Possibly later, depending on his play, or the game situation in general.

[CSL]

@ annachie: WHAT IF, for argument's sake, that they find scum 9 times out of 10, BUT, they have an anti-town playstyle, and gets lynched early?

[Ellibereth]

Good job not answering the question.

[Annachie]

Not quite the same arguement but if I may paraphrase Adel: Good policy is to lynch Adel after he gives D2+ reads.

Good policy for that said player is to make Adel's claim, "Get my reads and then lynch me" and link to games where it worked, or provide some other evidence of same.

After all, if the town wins then all townies win. Even if lynched.

That is a different type of policy lynch from what we are talking about.

[DeathRowKitty]

@ annachie: WHAT IF, for argument's sake, that they find scum 9 times out of 10, BUT, they have an anti-town playstyle, and gets lynched early?

WHAT IF, for argument's sake, that you find scum 1 time out of 10, BUT, you have an anti-town playstyle and get lynched early? I'm not giving up on a perfectly good policy wagon just because you think you shouldn't be lynched.

If you think this is so terrible, then vote me for it. Unless of course you have a better lynch you'd like to suggest.

[Annachie]

DRK, in that case he is earning his lynch with his anti-town playstyle. This is where I feel that this type of Policy lynching falls down.

It's not as terrible as advocating a random lynch though. That will always earn my vote.

[Ellibereth]

Go look at his history and read his posts. Or just skim any of his completed games. While you look for pro-town play, I'll be hunting for a purple boar that flies and eats flaming pineapples.

[Juls]

Family members have all left my house so now maybe I can enjoy mafiascum for a bit before school starts back.

Couple of things. First, in response to Elli's most recent question:

Out of curiosity, how many people here would agree to policy lynching zwet?

If ever there were a person that would be a good choice for a policy lynch it would be zwets BUT a grand majority of games I have played with zwets, he has been town. The only time he wasn't town was in a marathon game where I was also scum (the mafia god's hate me clearly!)

So I am anti policy lynch. I have never done it (as bad as I have wanted to). I don't think it makes for good play because even if these people are anti-town you have to grow to learn to read them no matter their alignment. Was Elli being anti-town for suggesting it? Probably not. Kinda a shaky limb to step out on in pregame.

@Plumegranate: Plum or Pomegranate in this game or both?

[Plumegranate]

Go look at his history and read his posts. Or just skim any of his completed games. While you look for pro-town play, I'll be hunting for a purple boar that flies and eats flaming pineapples.

I know what you mean, but I still disagree.

But then again, in the only game this half has played with CSL, he was a jester. [Warning: Ongoing game.]

[Ellibereth]

The mechanics for this is not a normal game though.
We first place an "insurance lynch" on CSL on the immediate start of D1. This way, assuming we're unable to reach a consensus of lynching a player we deem more likely to be scum, the policy lynch for CSL can comfortably go through with no deadline rush etc. Especially since each day is essentially 7 days.
If we find someone more likely to scum, we can just switch our votes over.
I don't see what's anti-town about this strategy at all.

[Plumegranate]

@Plumegranate: Plum or Pomegranate in this game or both?

We are both playing, and we have both posted. But I'd rather if people didn't ask this type of question much anymore.

[Juls]

We first place an "insurance lynch" on CSL on the immediate start of D1. This way, assuming we're unable to reach a consensus of lynching a player we deem more likely to be scum, the policy lynch for CSL can comfortably go through with no deadline rush etc. Especially since each day is essentially 7 days.

And I counter that if this situation arises that everyone give their top 2-3 suspects and vote for the one who has the most suspicion rather than getting "behind". It's better than a policy lynch.

[Plumegranate]

The mechanics for this is not a normal game though.
We first place an "insurance lynch" on CSL on the immediate start of D1. This way, assuming we're unable to reach a consensus of lynching a player we deem more likely to be scum, the policy lynch for CSL can comfortably go through with no deadline rush etc. Especially since each day is essentially 7 days.
If we find someone more likely to scum, we can just switch our votes over.
I don't see what's anti-town about this strategy at all.

How would this hypothetical "we" decide whether if CSL is a better lynch than some other player? They can't be compared, because they aren't of the same category: one is a policy lynch, and one is a scummy lynch. What if players disagreed?

[Ellibereth]

If/When he starts playing anti-town, are you guys planning to meta-excuse him?
I'll agree to not policy lynch him if we all agree to throw meta out the window for this game, at such a fast pace any anti-town play-style should be unacceptable.

[Plumegranate]

The mechanics for this is not a normal game though.
We first place an "insurance lynch" on CSL on the immediate start of D1. This way, assuming we're unable to reach a consensus of lynching a player we deem more likely to be scum, the policy lynch for CSL can comfortably go through with no deadline rush etc. Especially since each day is essentially 7 days.
If we find someone more likely to scum, we can just switch our votes over.
I don't see what's anti-town about this strategy at all.

Whom is the 'royal we' of which you speak of anyway?

If/When he starts playing anti-town, are you guys planning to meta-excuse him?

Possibly. But that's meta. It plays a large role in scumhunting- get used to it.

I'll agree to not policy lynch him if we all agree to throw meta out the window for this game, at such a fast pace any anti-town play-style should be unacceptable.

I don't agree to that, and I doubt there will be a policy lynch on CSL anyway.

[Plumegranate]

To conclude what my other fruit just said: If he plays anti-Town, I'll try to get him to stop hurting the Town. If he plays scummy, I will vote him and try to get him lynched. It

is

harder to read people who

always

play anti-Town to begin with, but it is absolutely possible to do. I'll give CSL the benefit of the doubt until he looks scummy. Got it?

Elli, I love how you try to suggest a policy lynch, try to act like it's something we all want (clearly not the case), and then generously offer to trade it for throwing meta out the window (bad because meta is often very useful in determining if someone is actually expressing a scumtell and what personal scum/towntells are specific to a given player).

I dislike the idea of initially piling onto CSL all at once at the beginning of the day anyway; likely that we'll end up not agreeing enough and not doing enough about it because we have a (supremely sub-optimal) fallback lynch. Especially with scum manipulation, this could happen way too easily. Or we'll split onto different wagons (which will all be better than a policy-based wagon because they're based on scumhunting and will give us real information as opposed to information about players' Mafia theory beliefs) and when we can't agree instead of working things out, compromising, generating more discussion we'll believe that because CSL is thjust say 'but we agreed on CSL before' and fall back on it. Okay, the example was a bit repeptitive, but I'm frustrated at the very suggestion, which is akin to "let's immediately put anti-Town player at like L-3 at the beginning of Day 1 and scumhunt from there' - there are reasons, similar to what I've illustrated, why this

never

happens.

[Bogre]

The mechanics for this is not a normal game though.
We first place an "insurance lynch" on CSL on the immediate start of D1. This way, assuming we're unable to reach a consensus of lynching a player we deem more likely to be scum, the policy lynch for CSL can comfortably go through with no deadline rush etc. Especially since each day is essentially 7 days.
If we find someone more likely to scum, we can just switch our votes over.
I don't see what's anti-town about this strategy at all.

The problem with this is that it will probably bog the actual lynch discussion down, with people staying on for policy, rather than contributing to an actual worthwhile bandwagon. The problem is not everyone will switch their votes over as simply as you state.

Secondly, having a policy lynch as a competing bandwagon is worse than having a stagnant second bandwagon, because its not based on scumminess or substance but on a meta read of the person. It in effect takes up the place a second wagon on a second scummy player could take. Plus, you'd get very little reads from the people joining it/leaving it.

As I've said before to this question, I don't think that policy lynches should occur.

[Bogre]

The mechanics for this is not a normal game though.
We first place an "insurance lynch" on CSL on the immediate start of D1. This way, assuming we're unable to reach a consensus of lynching a player we deem more likely to be scum, the policy lynch for CSL can comfortably go through with no deadline rush etc. Especially since each day is essentially 7 days.
If we find someone more likely to scum, we can just switch our votes over.
I don't see what's anti-town about this strategy at all.

The problem with this is that it will probably bog the actual lynch discussion down, with people staying on for policy, rather than contributing to an actual worthwhile bandwagon. The problem is not everyone will switch their votes over as simply as you state.

Secondly, having a policy lynch as a competing bandwagon is worse than having a stagnant second bandwagon, because its not based on scumminess or substance but on a meta read of the person. It in effect takes up the place a second wagon on a second scummy player could take. Plus, you'd get very little reads from the people joining it/leaving it.

As I've said before to this question, I don't think that policy lynches should occur.