No Lynch

[Argoti]

On Blackborder.com, I'm running a game that is going on its second No Lynch day (On Day 2 too..) and I raised the voting requirements to end the day in No Lynch (I did today, from 9 to 12). Should I continue this if they keep it up?

[Mr_Gnome_It_All]

I don't know! I would say if the town is so set on letting themselves get slaughtered, let them! It's their fault if they're that suicidal!

[Stewie]

show. them a link to one of this games. tell them why it's bad for them to do no lynch. on the first couple of games, don't tell them they can end the day without a lynch (or you can disallow it if you told them.

[CaptainBlicero]

As the mod, you definitely shouldn't advise the players on strategy. That is game corruption. After the game is over, feel free to explain why no-lynching all the time is suicidal, but while the game is still running, you definitely shouldn't interfere at all. Let the players decide their own strategy.

[Dragon Slayer]

Agrees with him ^

[bigbenwd]

agrees with him ^ for agreeing with him ^^

[blackhawk]

agrees with him^ because everyones doin' it

[shadyforce]

*Disagrees totally, just to be the exception.*

(But really agrees with them)

[PolarBoy]

I heard that.

[mathcam]

This is somewhat tangential, but I typically make it policy that if there are 4 consecutive half-days (i.e. day-night-day-night or night-day-night-day) without any kill attempts (i.e. lynchings or mafia night-kill attempts), then the game is a draw.

Why? Precisely because of the oft-quoted situation with 4 people alive, one of which is mafia. It's in the town's best interest to no lynch so they improve their odds of hitting mafia when one of them dies tomorrow. But if that's the case, it must be advantageous for the mafia not to kill at all that night. And we're back where we started. So if this happens twice in a row, I call it a draw.

Cam

[shadyforce]

If, in the above situation, I were mafia, I would make the kill if a draw was looming, because I had a 66% chance of winning, 33% chance of dying and a 1% chance of the apocolypse coming before the end of the game (margin for error). The town can force the mafia member to cut his odds from 75% to 66% but not to make it disadvantageous to kill.

In essence, putting in that rule means optimal play will never have to impliment it. Kinda paradoxical I suppose.

[mathcam]

I agree, at least in the case of a purely hopethetical game. In particular, the assumption that makes this true is that all 3 players are equally innocent in the eyes of everyone game. Every time one of the townies is slightly more innocent than the others, that 66% drops. (On the other hand, every time the mafia is slightly more innocent, the 66% is raised).

But yeah, I've used this rule in several games, and have never had to implement it. Plus, it's always more fun to kill, odds aside.

Cam

[Thoth]

I've now had several games that came close to an endgame with 2 scum of different groups left alive. These (sometimes theoretical) situations I find quite interesting as well (as most are basically game theory problems).
One of these was in Mafia 15 with one townie and 2 scum left. It looks like the townie should try to achieve a no lynch to let the 2 remaining scum kill each other at night. I actually wondered why MeMe did not try that. Of course she turned out to be one of the remaining scum so that explained it.
Another interesting one which I've not yet seen is with 2 townies and 2 scum left. It looks to me like the best play for the town is to lynch a townie and hope the remaining 2 scum kill each other at night.

[mathcam]

I agree with your conclusion for that last scenario. That's amusingly paradoxical. Another amusing point to this is that the two scum could force a no lynch, thus reducing their odds of both killing each other (although possibly identifying themselves as evil). I'm looking forward to the first time that comes up in a game:

Townie 1: I'm a townie. Kill me! Kill me!
Mafia: Meh. Nope.
SK: Ditto.
Townie 2: *collapes in confusion*

Cam

[Cadmium]

In all the above situations, how do you know the amount of mafia left in the end game? In most of the games played here, the complete role setup is unknown to the players. You could guess, but you wouldn't be sure. It should be obvious when there are two scum of a different group left, but should you risk going for a no lynch when you don't know for sure if there are multiple members of one killing group left?

[shadyforce]

I takes a good player to realise that it is the best play, and a better player to actually fool the scum into going through with it, by hastily voting for an innocent and letting the scum think Christmas has come early.

[Cadmium]

Shouldn't be too hard with that avatar still here, Shady .

[Dasquian]

In all the above situations, how do you know the amount of mafia left in the end game? In most of the games played here, the complete role setup is unknown to the players. You could guess, but you wouldn't be sure. It should be obvious when there are two scum of a different group left, but should you risk going for a no lynch when you don't know for sure if there are multiple members of one killing group left?

I don't think that makes a difference - if there's one more scum than you guessed, then that's one less townie as well so the end's just a day/night cycle closer than you anticipated. If you think there's 4 townies and 1 scum you should be lynching anyway.

Ditto if there's 5 and 1, or 4 and 2, going no lynch makes the same difference - it takes you to the previous situation.

[Cadmium]

If you think there's 4 townies and 1 scum you should be lynching anyway.

But what you're saying is the exact opposite of what mathcam suggested:

Precisely because of the oft-quoted situation with 4 people alive, one of which is mafia. It's in the town's best interest to no lynch so they improve their odds of hitting mafia when one of them dies tomorrow.

[Dasquian]

Not really, since if there's 4 alive and the game isn't over, you can be fairly sure that there are 3 town and 1 scum. The potential for confusion only arises when you've got 5+ players, at which point no-lynch probably isn't such a great idea.

Even if you did have 5 players and want to vote purely to increase the odds of hitting randomly, no-lynch wouldn't be a good plan. It'd be better to lynch someone and let the mafia kill someone, and get to the optimal "2 versus 1" situation the next day. Unless there are 2 scum, in which case you must lynch or you lose. So for 5 players you should always lynch.

[Cadmium]

Oh, I just noticed I misread your previous post. You said four townies and one mafia member, mathcam meant three townies and one mafia member.

So for 5 players you should always lynch.

I agree, but then I think you should always lynch simply because it's one of the basics of the game .

if there's 4 alive and the game isn't over, you can be fairly sure that there are 3 town and 1 scum.

That's what I was asking. So you think you should risk going for the no lynch, even if the amount of mafia left is not known for sure?

[shadyforce]

You might as well 'risk' no lynch because if there is 2 townies and 2 scum then scum automatically win. You have nothing to lose.

[Dasquian]

I can't see many situations with 4 players where there isn't 1 mafia. Unless there's a double-voter or vote-blocker or something, the game would be over if there were 2 allied mafia.

If there

is

a vote-stealer or similar then I agree that you shouldn't assume there's just one guy left unless you have a particularly good reason to - but the town will probably know that by then, and should at least check to make sure of the possibility before going the no lynch route.

[Cadmium]

You're right, guys. The only way this is possible, is when there are two different killing groups (which you will know because of the two night kills) or some sort of vote manipulator role. If the latter is the case, it'll change the whole situation anyway. I get it now.

But I still think the no lynch shouldn't be allowed at all .

[mathcam]

In all the above situations, how do you know the amount of mafia left in the end game? In most of the games played here, the complete role setup is unknown to the players. You could guess, but you wouldn't be sure.

Yeah, this is definitely a valid point. In non-hypothetical, there's also a degree of uncertainty as to the setup, but as you've already discussed, there are often ways of being pretty sure. I guess you could try to factor in the probability of how sure you were....

Yeah, the vote manipulator would totally jack everything up. But then again, so would almost every role. A cop or a doc (or even something as inane as a mason) could throw things off kilter.

Cam