Petition to end random voting

[AndrewS]

I was thinking...Random votes only worry newbies, and most of those aren't really bothered by them because we explain them. Overall, the concept of random votes is flawed. It serves no purpose other than to make the first ~10 posts of the game nothing but votes, stifles discussions, and I say, abolish it! No more random votes for me! Who's with me?

[Thok]

Random vote AndrewS

[Iammars]

Random Vote:Thok

For random voting in a thread based on random voting.

[Thesp]

So what do you propose they do instead? Do away with the first 10 posts?

[Coron]

Random FoS: andrew

but for seriously random voting gets the game started. It is important as it gets people to talk, at least to put a random or arbitrary vote down.

[rolandofthewhite]

I don't think it hurts anything, really, so I don't mind it.

Now if you wanted to abolish random bandwagoning, I'd be all up for that.

[Thesp]

I don't think it hurts anything, really, so I don't mind it.

Now if you wanted to abolish random bandwagoning, I'd be all up for that.

I would argue that there is never such a thing as random bandwagoning (save one unique game which comes to mind). If you disagree, I'd like to see your examples from a completed game.

[rolandofthewhite]

Well, I can't think of any examples, but I know for sure that I've seen people who have said, "Ok, let's bandwagon this person. Why not?".

[Dourgrim]

Random votes are an easy way to start games... and random bandwagons are an unfortunate byproduct of that. Unfortunately, there's not much to be done to avoid either phenomenon, from what I've seen. *shrug*

[Cadmium]

Random votes are bad, m'kay! Yeah, you shouldn't vote randomly, m'kay!

Seriously, if you don't want to vote at random, then just vote for the first person that does. Same difference.

[Dourgrim]

Random votes are bad, m'kay! Yeah, you shouldn't vote randomly, m'kay!

Thanks, Mr. Garrison!

Seriously, if you don't want to vote at random, then just vote for the first person that does. Same difference.

Yup, you're voting randomly, but you're fooling yourself into thinking you're not... which accomplishes the same thing but

might

help you get to sleep better at night...

[VisMaior]

I think the random voting aspect can only be abolished if the game mechanics offer something in its stead. Like in oval office.

[Mr Stoofer]

1. Keep random voting
2. Abolish it.

Original Roll String: 1d2

1 2-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

[Mr Stoofer]

Genuinely random vote: keep random voting

[Mgm]

Exactly for what reason do you plan to vote if it can't be random?
I don't agree it stifles discussion. It gets games started. Without them there's often very little to talk about.

It's people being afraid to say something suspicious so early in the game that stiffles discussion.

[Mr. Flay]

Rather than avoid the initial random votes, I'd rather modify the rule to be "not EVERYONE has to place a (random) vote before any actual discussion will begin". That's the worst manifestation of this trend I've seen; the last few players to post carefully craft their "random" vote (whether they're town or scum) so that it falls exactly so everybody has 1 random vote... which of course negates the whole point of the exercise, to start SOME sort of discussion going.

I don't generally random vote anymore (except sometimes Newbie Games, where pacing/welcoming people is important), but wait until I see something, anything, and leap on it...

[Stewie]

I don't think it hurts anything, really, so I don't mind it.

Now if you wanted to abolish random bandwagoning, I'd be all up for that.

I would argue that there is never such a thing as random bandwagoning (save one unique game which comes to mind). If you disagree, I'd like to see your examples from a completed game.

I've been randomly bandwagon in Antrax's mixed theme ("I don't like Stewie's avatar, let's bandwagon him" = random), and could probably find more examples if I looked.

[zu_Faul]

When there are random votes at the beginning of a game and I show up, I will nearly always vote for a player already voted for. If there is only one "random" vote on everyone it does nothing.

[Commodore Amazing]

I think posts that are just "random vote: AndrewS" aren't nearly as good as funny votes. More personal early votes can help other players get a sense of who is who, kind of like a nice icebreaker.

[PolarBoy]

Random votes also provide cover for anyone who has real information to help direct the discussion towards areas that will garner more information.

Let's say your a cop, and you got a guilty result night 1. Naturally you question your sanity, but also don't want to reveal that you are a cop, but also want to see if you can sound out your investigation target so that the value of your evidence can be gauged. In the event that you actually think this person is scummy, you might actually want to lynch them. Through all of this, you probably want to avoid openly revealing your role. If you get some random votes in there, an early vote count might look like this:

Someone you got a guilty result against: 2 (someone else, you)
Someone else: 1 (what-his-face)
You: 1 (Anonymous)

And now there are two "random" votes on Someone you got a guilty result on, and that person can be discussed and scrutinized, and the mafia don't necessarily know who the cop is. Now if everybody waits until they have a good reason to vote, you get something like this:

Someone you got a guilty result on: 1 (you)

Not voting: everyone else

Take particular note of the giant neon sign you'll be holding that says "I'm a cop!"

This is one of the reasons that ultimately, random votes benefit the town. If someone can suggest another solution, I'll be glad to hear it.

[inHimshallibe]

Random bandwagoning isn't so bad, especially for a game starting in Day.

[rajrhcpfreak]

Fight the power AndrewS.

but there will always be random votes.

but when i mod my very own game there will be restrictions on voting making it stupid to random vote.

i like games like Secret Ballot Mafia that dont let you random vote.

[Yosarian2]

(shrug) There's nothing wrong with random voting in the right situation. For that matter, there's nothing wrong with random voting on day 2, in the right situation. It's an action you can choose to do or not to do, and the more of those there are, the better for the game.

[PolarBoy]

Actually too many would lead to a game with absolutely no structure. I'm not sure that, at that point, I would be able to say it wasn't fun, but I certainly wouldn't be able to tell you it was a game either.

But you weren't referring to game rules anyway. You were referring to codification of gameplay. I agree. If we allow generalizations about what does and doesn't work become strict laws of gameplay then mafia as a game will die.