Deadline Lynching?

[Mr Stoofer]

Some mods have a rule that no majority at a deadline = no lynch.

Other mods have a rule that at deadline half a regular majority will be enough for a lynch.

I'm about to start modding my first game. Which rule should I adopt and why?

[Seol]

Full majority. If the town can't come to a conclusion in a sensible amount of time, then the deadline should serve to punish them for their laziness. Why should different rules apply just because you're

not

getting anywhere?

OR:

Half majority. If the game's taking this long already, the last thing you want to do is slow it down and risk turning the players off the game even more. Requiring a full majority also makes it easier for the scum to stall to a no-lynch.

Which argument do you personally sympathise with better?

[Dragon Phoenix]

[06] Lynching will be carried out once a regular majority is reached - and cannot be undone by unvoting. If I impose a day deadline, lynching will require at least half of the regular majority. In case of a tie, first come first served. In the endgame (six players or less) only lynches with a regular majority will occur. Votes for no lynch will be accepted.

That's my approach. I do not like the no-lynch approach, cerrtainly in large games.

[Chief O'Hara]

Half a majority should be enough. At least you reward the people who commit to a vote and when someone suddenly comes under threat of a deadline lynch, games often spike with activity.

[jeep]

I've been in too many games with no lynch if no majority... I didn't like it when I was scum and I didn't like it when I was townie... so I adopted the DP deadline rule.

-JEEP

[jeep]

err... not that I've every been scum...

-JEEP

[Mr. Flay]

I'm liking Dragon Slayer's (or is it Polotet's?) half-the-cast-votes plurality voting for deadlines. Avoids punishing active players for people who have completely flaked out of the game, but maintains a little bit of the initial requirement for consensus.

I think the best way to explain it is this: Say there's 19 players alive. 10 would be required for a normal lynch. If a deadline is put in place, then at deadline someone will be lynched if they have half the normal required votes (5, in this case) *AND* at least half of the votes that have been cast, total. So if 15 of your players vote, but the leading candidate only gets 7 of them and the other 8 are spread out amongst the crowd, No Lynch. 7 or more on one person? Lynched. 8 votes total, and only 4 are for one person? No Lynch. Make sense?

Of course, with my scum-are-the-town games (like Res. Dogs), I'm using no-majority=no-lynch for thematic reasons.

[MeMe]

A deadline placed usually means there's been a lack of activity, so demanding a full majority at deadline means that non-actives can, essentially, dictate a no-lynch or force those who are actually posting to be nearly unanimous in their decision, which is almost impossible.

Basically, I agree with the half-majority at deadline being plenty fair.

[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.

[mith]

I'd forgotten about DS's version. I think it's my favorite.

I agree with what's been said about requiring majority is often unfair on those participating. However, getting lynched with a handful of votes because of a deadline is the most annoying thing I have to deal with in Mafia. I don't know how often it happens in general, but a majority of my lynches in the past three years have been at deadline. That's an anomaly though, and I recognize the need for reducing the number at deadline.

When I get back to modding (soon... I'll probably run some sort of game before the invitational) I am probably going to do a bit of experimenting with deadlines and voting. But more on that some other time.

[Thesp]

I prefer the half-majority view, the one Dragon Phoenix has mentioned. It gives the mafia much more influence, and punishes the town in a much subtler way.

And I agree, if someone isn't participating, they shouldn't be playing.

[the silent speaker]

I don't like cheap deadline lynches either, but having no provisions for deadlines is just asking for trouble, too. What I did for Simpsons Maf was require strong consensus among the active voters, so lurkers couldn't hamstring the town but small groups couldn't impose their wills on the majority either. (I used 80% of all votes cast, minimum three, but 75% might be better.)

If players aren't participating, they should be replaced.

Easy enough to say when you aren't the one who has to replace twenty of them.

[PeaceBringer]

Full majority. If the town can't come to a conclusion in a sensible amount of time, then the deadline should serve to punish them for their laziness. Why should different rules apply just because you're

not

getting anywhere?

OR:

Half majority. If the game's taking this long already, the last thing you want to do is slow it down and risk turning the players off the game even more. Requiring a full majority also makes it easier for the scum to stall to a no-lynch.

Which argument do you personally sympathise with better?

anything not involving threat of death rewards lurking and is not helpful.

[Dasquian]

I prefer the ideology of the "no majority, no lynch" deadline, for metagame reasons - in the long-run, you need your players to appreciate the necessity to vote all the way up to and including the actual lynching vote. Allowing half-price lynches, particularly in the early game when that can mean needing 5 votes less, means that people think that day actually went

well

. Which means the people who lurked didn't get the flak for it they deserved. Which means they'll do it again.

So I'm a firm believer that you should meta-game in some serious lurker hate by refusing to budge on the majority needed.

In practice, though, I agree with much of the above. Whenever I've tried this, it hasn't made any lurkers come back and so I just feel like the people who are there and getting frustrated are being penalised. How about this for a strategy?

At deadline: Number of votes for a lynch needed drops by 1.
24 hours after deadline: Number of votes for a lynch needed drops by a further 1.
48 hours after deadline: Number of votes for a lynch needed drops by a further 1 (so now, 3 votes less than normal).

And so on? What effect do people think that would have? Obviously there'd have to be some way of resolving sudden ties.

[halfpint]

At deadline: Number of votes for a lynch needed drops by 1.
24 hours after deadline: Number of votes for a lynch needed drops by a further 1.
48 hours after deadline: Number of votes for a lynch needed drops by a further 1 (so now, 3 votes less than normal).

Wait, are you saying that the players can still vote to lynch someone after the deadline has passed? If so, then what's the point of the deadline?

I've practiced the half-majority at deadline but I can see good reasons for having the full majority required to lynch.

[mith]

I think he just needs to call it something other than "deadline".

Dropping by 1 each 24 hours thing would become more signficant as the game goes. You can hope that won't be a problem (most deadline lynches occur in the first couple days, I think), but it's still the opposite of what you want.

[Dasquian]

Yeah, sorry... deadline was a dumb term for that suggestion.

I think it would certainly result in some weird plays but would ultimately be a variation on "half-majority at deadline" - it's just that instead of a snap check at the deadline, you're sliding towards that half-majority and past it over the course of the next week or so. I don't think it'd actually be a particularly good idea, thinking about it.

Ultimately the problem is having inactive players... I've rarely seen a game full of eager participants struggle to find someone to lynch. Even if they procrastinate, there's going to be a lot of discussion, which will hopefully eventually go somewhere.

[Mr. Flay]

I don't know if it's because of the summer or what, but I'm having a devil's own time getting good discussion going in any of the games I've been in lately, outside of Road to Rome. Are people just too busy to play, disinterested in the theme, or am I expecting too much (i.e that people will post once a week)?

[Mr Stoofer]

Thanks to everyone who provided suggestions for this. I went with the majority (in both senses) and adopted DP's rule.

[rolandofthewhite]

::rimshot::

[ibaesha]

I don't know if it's because of the summer or what, but I'm having a devil's own time getting good discussion going in any of the games I've been in lately, outside of Road to Rome. Are people just too busy to play, disinterested in the theme, or am I expecting too much (i.e that people will post once a week)?

I just asked a similar question in a game I'm in. Currently I'm in two games and both are at a standstill because of someone who is not active. It's frustrating me to the point that I nearly makes -me- ask to be replaced so I can try to get in a game that this isn't happening. It can't just be a coincidence. I'd just like to point out, if people aren't going to play, tell your mod, get replaced, don't ruin other people's fun waiting for you to participate, because that's what it's doing. Also, nearly every game I've read has a 48 hour rule. I think this needs to be enforced more heavily if this is becoming such a widespread problem. I'm just a newbie, but that's how I feel.

This doesn't apply to people who actually post that they'll be away. That is understandable and can be worked with, but not knowing what is going on and waiting is infuriating. Or maybe I'm just too impatient. *shrug*

[Mr. Flay]

Hopefully the slowness of games will be alleviated *somewhat* when we make the jump to a new hosting service (see the Global Announcement by mith), but there has to be something else going on... I've had to stop myself several times from throwing in the towel on all my games from the frustration, and I *like* this game. What does that say for the people who are new to the site?!?