"Random" voting

[Foolster41]

What are the unwritten rules of random voting? It seems like this got me in to trouble more than once.

Are you not supposed to random vote someone who has 1 vote already? I dind't think having two votes really mattered, and if we end up with everyone having one vote, isn't that the same as when we began and thus defeats the purprose of random voting?

Your thoughts please.

[Mr. Flay]

I'm beginning to join the anti-random-voting bandwagon. I don't think it really does much, except prove you can roll a die, go to random.org, or cast a supposedly-random vote against your scum-buddy. "Spurious" voting (for someone's avatar, delay in confirming, etc) at least has an element of humor and/or strategy to it... usually, I just wait until there's something, anything, to vote/FOS on...

On the other hand, I fear we'd have an even harder time with Day One discussion than we do now, if they didn't exist, so it's probably a necessary evil...

As for "rules", some people reroll if it'd be a vote for someone who's already got one (especially in Newbies/Minis), and I, at least, leave myself out of the calculation...voting for yourself is dum.

[Yosarian2]

In newbie games, you don't really want to put the second vote on someone for no reason, because then in theory the two mafia people could jump on the bandwagon and lynch them. Of course, they probably won't unless they're really dumb, but meh, you've still got to be a little careful.

Anyway, instead of random votes, what about metagame votes? 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?

Anyway, though, the thing that annoys me about random votes is when people SAY they're random votes. If everyone just voted without saying if they were random, it might get some interesting reactions or start discussion or let a cop drop a hint that'll matter later, but if everyone gets on and right away says

random vote:jimbob

then jimbob just ignores it, so does everyone else, and it dosn't seem to actually stir conversation or get reactions out of anyone but noobs.

[Aelyn]

I like to mix it up a little. Sometimes I'll vote truly randomly, sometimes I'll vote spuriously, sometimes I'll open with an OMGUS, and sometimes - but only rarely - I won't vote at all to begin with.

However, I very rarely say what type of vote I am using. Frankly, I rarely use strong analysis day one unless something very strange is going on - I treat the first couple days as the fun-for-the-sake-of-fun part of the game, and the rest as fun due to the intellectual exercise. Sometimes this leads to strangeness, but I'm relatively unbothered.

[halo freak]

In newbies people sometimes complain about putting two votes on someone because "mafia can jump on" which really makes you innocent, but i tend not to worry too much about it, a third vote is far more serious in my opinion

[Dasquian]

I think it's silly to jump on someone for placing a second "random" vote, particularly in a large game where it's something like 9 to lynch - perhaps a fourth or fifth vote with no acknowledgement of the bandwagon they're joining is worthy of comment. If you have a culture where second votes make you a target, then all you're doing is slowing down all of your games while people mill around for a few pages making sure their "random" votes don't clash with anyone else's "random" vote (which is a pretty ridiculous state of affairs )

[PeaceBringer]

I like to mix it up a little. Sometimes I'll vote truly randomly, sometimes I'll vote spuriously, sometimes I'll open with an OMGUS, and sometimes - but only rarely - I won't vote at all to begin with.

However, I very rarely say what type of vote I am using. Frankly, I rarely use strong analysis day one unless something very strange is going on - I treat the first couple days as the fun-for-the-sake-of-fun part of the game, and the rest as fun due to the intellectual exercise. Sometimes this leads to strangeness, but I'm relatively unbothered.

well said

[twozerobux]

I don't vote until I have a reason to.

[Internet Stranger]

Jumping on a second voter is just as spurrious as the random vote was in the first place.

[Yosarian2]

Jumping on a second voter is just as spurrious as the random vote was in the first place.

Perhaps. At least it gets people talking, though, which random voting never ever does.

[CoolBot]

The goal of random voting is to start a random bandwagon. And it's pretty effective at this. In fact, after a certain number of votes have been casts, random voters should limit their choices to those with votes already.

One thing that is annoying is grudge votes. Mafia can use this to their advantage by subtley encouraging the grudge holder.

[rajrhcpfreak]

i already expressed my views aginst random voting in Animafia http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &&start=25
i used a little bit of knowledge in my vote and i was dead on!!! i'm aginst random voting and mafia taking months to finish. I think a good newbie game should take 2 weeks. but my views on quick logical games are looked down upon. so i try to conform and random bandwagon with IS or vote for the person taht

random vote: rajrhcpfreak

[Norinel]

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

Do you think the two are related?

[mathcam]

One thing that is annoying is grudge votes. Mafia can use this to their advantage by subtley encouraging the grudge holder.

While I mostly see your point, anything that brings in strategy so subtle to the game is what makes this game so freakishly awesome (for me, anyway). In fact, this phenomenon is just one more thing that makes day one's

not

pointless. We can hunt around and see who might be pressuring (ever so subtly) one player to vote for another, and call them out on it.

Cam

[Foolster41]

In newbie games, are there fewer players? Never really played one. (Wanders off to check)

[jeep]

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?

Very subjective and I'm not so keen on the idea, myself.

Without "random" votes, how do you start anything on Day 1? Seems tough.

i already expressed my views aginst random voting in Animafia

Yeah, but that was an attempt to influence something in the game. How do you REALLY feel about it? For us to know that, you have to post it outside of a game. Besides, I'm too lazy to follow the link right now.

-JEEP

[rajrhcpfreak]

exactly what i said in the game.

but im stuck... how do you start them game then? im clueless. to keep my self from random voting i just vote for the person that votes for me.

[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.

[SpeedyKQ]

If it weren't for random voting, we couldn't start every single game by having a discussion about the relative merits of random voting.

[Foolster41]

IS: But isn't this why you had me lynched in andy grifith? That is why I kind of started the tyopic, I was trying to figure out if I did something wrong there.

[Tamuz]

Unless one uses a random number generator or does a wierd numbering system like Stam did (not sure where, but those in that game should remember it), votes will not actually be random. I know I usually call my first vote random, but they really aren't.

As for a second random vote, I'm all for it. If two mafia choose to jump on that bandwagon, all the easier for everyone else (strictly including newbie games)
I support random votes because they get something moving, or else I believe a no lynch would be the most popular day one move.

[Yosarian2]

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 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.

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, especally if you don't do a random vote every game. 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.

Also, for those people who think random voting is a good stratagy, why do it only at the start of day 1? 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. Would random voting (or voting without explaining why, in a "this may or may not be a random vote" kind of move) then in an attempt to get conversation going again be a pro-town move at that point?

[Someone]

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. I find a random vote is not really indicative of who you're going to lynch, since random bandwaggons don't usually amount to anything.

Voting without reasoning is considered scummy on mafiascum...and I don't recommend doing it. Random voting in the middle of day 3 isn't recommended either.

[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.

[Yosarian2]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?