JD's Theory Week Days 3/4: Voting

[JDodge]

Day 1
Day 2

All those ground rules from Day 1 are still in effect, go read them there.

(Note: There's not much to say here; most of the content this thread will provide will come from discussion)

Not voting is stupid.

No, seriously, stupid.

The town's main tool is their lynch, and the scum's main goal during the day is to influence that. Why are you no voting?

Let's say you're a vanilla townie. Your only tool is your vote. Why are you not using it?

1. Voting allows other people to know

exactly

where you stand, which prevents misunderstandings down the line

By voting every time, you're continually telegraphing your top suspicion to every other person in the town. This allows the town to know where all its members stand, and helps patterns show up better.

2. Voting increases pressure on your target

The more you pressure someone, the more you learn about them. Always a good thing - maybe you'll decide their reactions under pressure are legit, and if not, then you've already saved yourself the time of voting.

3. It gives the rest of the town something to talk about

Let's face it - "why is your vote on x?" is always going to be a more informative line of questioning than "why do you suspect x? wait, you don't expect x? i thought you meant that when you said y. shit, sorry". Direct questioning leads to more information.

Let's discuss the case where not voting is acceptable (and the one that seems like it should be but isn't).

1. Lylo

if i have to spell this out for you please leave

2. Your main suspect is at l-1 and you're waiting for a claim

Vote for your second suspect. No, don't say "but i'm not as suuure!!!!". See 2. See 3.

START WITH THE QUESTIONS SO I CAN GET BACK TO SC2

[JDodge]

oh, and thanks to buttons for helping me come up with this topic

[Mr. Flay]

I have nothing to add. *golfclap*

[Albert B. Rampage]

Unsurprisingly, JDodge was the one who first taught me forum mafia. I agree with Day 1 through 3 of his ramblings.

[Vi]

Note: When voting someone, make sure you actually pressure them with it. A vote without accompanying pressure is worse than meaningless.

[SensFan]

Disagree with Vi.

Vote with pressure > Vote without pressure >>>> Lack of vote

[Mr. Flay]

No, Vi is correct. "VOTE: SensFan for pressure" is Doing It Wrong.

[Vi]

Me:

Vote: SensFan

SensFan: Why?
Me: I dunno, I just had no place better to put it right now.

^ is also Doing It Wrong.

[SensFan]

I'd much rather see either of those two than see people saying "Not voting yet because I personally only like to vote when I'm certain who I want lynched." And yes, I do see that a fair bit.

[Super Smash Bros. Fan]

JDodge creates another great thread. Nothing really to disagree about.

@SensFan: Voting without pressure is pretty dangerous and does not benefit the town. As scum, it gives you the opportunity to hide and if you're lucky, not be scrutinized. As town, you're just wasting your time.

[SensFan]

Disagree on both counts. Town placing a vote are doing anything but wasting their time, and if Scum think they can place votes without being scrutinized, they're doing it wrong.

[MichelSableheart]

In general, I agree that voting is better. However, I can't agree with everything in the first post.

First of all, a vote may cause misunderstandings. If you have little idea of whom you suspect, a vote may cause the impression that your suspicion is far stronger then it is. "If you weren't really suspicious of A, then why were you voting him?" is a valid question. "Because I suspected everybody else even less" is also a valid answer, but not one that will easily get accepted.

Also, not all votes are better then all no votes. 1 day before deadline, I much rather have a player who isn't voting anyone because he is still deliberating which of the two largest bandwagons to join, over someone who is placing the only vote on a player and shows no indication of switching because he's voting his top suspect. Someone who isn't voting is more likely to be aware that he has to change his vote.

[The Fonz]

No, Vi is correct. "VOTE: SensFan for pressure" is Doing It Wrong.

That's because you're saying it's for pressure.

A vote alone creates pressure, providing you don't undermine it.

I'd much rather see either of those two than see people saying "Not voting yet because I personally only like to vote when I'm certain who I want lynched." And yes, I do see that a fair bit.

Yeah, I HATE that.

Michel, saying 'he was my top suspect, albeit not that strong' is fine.

To elaborate on this, consider these following posts:

Mr. Flay: Lurked a bit early on, I didn't like his attack on Vi, though meta suggests he does that quite often.
JDodge: Very active and seems sure of himself. I can't help but wonder why people are giving him a free pass on the business with SSBF, though.
SensFan: There's nothing I can put my finger on, but I just get a really bad feeling about this guy.

Who here is the scummiest?

Mr. Flay: Lurked a bit early on, I didn't like his attack on Vi, though meta suggests he does that quite often.
JDodge: Very active and seems sure of himself. I can't help but wonder why people are giving him a free pass on the business with SSBF, though.
SensFan: There's nothing I can put my finger on, but I just get a really bad feeling about this guy.

Vote: Sensfan

This post is a lot more useful. Hell, this post:

Vote:Sensfan

is still actually more useful than the first one. I'd much rather have a player who votes but doesn't explain than one who explains but doesn't vote.

[AGar]

Jdodge is 3-for-3 so far.

Good stuff.

[Yosarian2]

I agree with most of Jdodge's points. I wouldn't say you should always be voting someone, mafia's too complicated a game to make absolute statements and sometimes there are psychological reasons to do otherwise, but most of the time, following his advice here will generally lead to good play.

2. Your main suspect is at l-1 and you're waiting for a claim

Vote for your second suspect. No, don't say "but i'm not as suuure!!!!". See 2. See 3.

This is the only point he made that I disagree with.

If your main suspect is at lynch -1, then saying "I'm waiting for a claim,

fos:jdodge

, this could turn into a vote if you don't claim right now" is often more psychologically effective at creating pressure then "I'm waiting for a claim,

fos:jdodge

, but while we're waiting for that I'm going to

Vote:glork

because he did A, B, C, and D." There's also a risk that if you do that, other people might agree with you about Glork, and they might all leave the jdodge wagon before he even responds to it.

If you suspect both people close to equally, that's a fine play, but if you REALLY think person A is likely scum and are just waiting to give him one last chance to respond or claim or whatever before you drop the hammer, voting someone else can be counterproductive.

[Mr. Flay]

No, Vi is correct. "VOTE: SensFan for pressure" is Doing It Wrong.

That's because you're saying it's for pressure.

I thought that was perfectly clear from how I wrote it. A pressure vote provides no pressure if you say it's just for pressure, or "just to get a claim", or whatever.

[yabbaguy]

Here's what always throttled my mind- doesn't a significant part of voting involve wanting to end the Day? What always drives me up the wall is, outside of the first few pages of the game, people who suddenly unvote a suspect they felt was clearly the best, saying "Oh yikes, isn't it a bit too soon for L-1?" That's a surefire sign that someone just made a hollow vote.

Although in theory, assuming the average situation that everyone wants a claim before a lynch, that probably suggests nobody would vote. Maybe that can be altered to "want to hear a claim, then end the Day?" /:|

[JDodge]

Merry Christmas, everyone - we'll be back Sunday and Monday with our last bits of content, so stay tuned!

[Mastin]

In general, I agree that voting is better. However, I can't agree with everything in the first post.

First of all, a vote may cause misunderstandings. If you have little idea of whom you suspect, a vote may cause the impression that your suspicion is far stronger then it is. "If you weren't really suspicious of A, then why were you voting him?" is a valid question. "Because I suspected everybody else even less" is also a valid answer, but not one that will easily get accepted.

Also, not all votes are better then all no votes. 1 day before deadline, I much rather have a player who isn't voting anyone because he is still deliberating which of the two largest bandwagons to join, over someone who is placing the only vote on a player and shows no indication of switching because he's voting his top suspect. Someone who isn't voting is more likely to be aware that he has to change his vote.

This. In general, votes-->Better, but not always.

[Herodotus]

If your main suspect is at lynch -1, then saying "I'm waiting for a claim,

fos:jdodge

, this could turn into a vote if you don't claim right now" is often more psychologically effective at creating pressure then "I'm waiting for a claim,

fos:jdodge

, but while we're waiting for that I'm going to

Vote:glork

because he did A, B, C, and D." There's also a risk that if you do that, other people might agree with you about Glork, and they might all leave the jdodge wagon before he even responds to it.

If you suspect both people close to equally, that's a fine play, but if you REALLY think person A is likely scum and are just waiting to give him one last chance to respond or claim or whatever before you drop the hammer, voting someone else can be counterproductive.

On the other hand, a simpler "I'm waiting for a claim,

fos:jdodge

, but while we're waiting for that I'm going to

Vote:glork

because he's my second suspect" can help if jdodge isn't lynched, as it will direct the town's attention to glork as the next suspect, rather than Mastin.

I thought that was perfectly clear from how I wrote it. A pressure vote provides no pressure if you say it's just for pressure, or "just to get a claim", or whatever.

It could if the subject reaches L-1 or L-2 with the pressure vote or a later vote, because there is a chance that someone will hammer before the pressure vote is removed.

[The Fonz]

No, Vi is correct. "VOTE: SensFan for pressure" is Doing It Wrong.

That's because you're saying it's for pressure.

I thought that was perfectly clear from how I wrote it. A pressure vote provides no pressure if you say it's just for pressure, or "just to get a claim", or whatever.

Right, but you said that in disagreement with the assertion that 'a vote alone provides pressure,' and I don't really think it's a valid counterargument, because there's a difference between a vote alone, and a vote which you go out of your way to undermine.

[SFG]

What always drives me up the wall is, outside of the first few pages of the game, people who suddenly unvote a suspect they felt was clearly the best, saying "Oh yikes, isn't it a bit too soon for L-1?" That's a surefire sign that someone just made a hollow vote.

I don't like the town lynching too early on Day 1. As far as I can tell, scum gets lynched on D1 in a balanced game only about 20% of the time. Therefore, I treat D1 as an exercise in reaction gathering so that I can come in guns blazing on D2. This does not work without powder for my guns. Generally, by the end of D1, I want at least one page of discussion per player not counting the OP and confirmation posts. If people are being particularly unproductive I sometimes increase that. I do distinctly recall multiple games in which I have said basically "anyone who hammers before we meet x amount of activity gets my suspicions for tomorrow, regardless." If I am afraid that some idiot is going to come hammer too early in the day and my vote is on the suspect I WILL do the abovementioned technique.

Because quite frankly, even if I think they're scum they're still pretty damn likely to be town on D1 and the percentage bonus I get from limited scumhunting on D1 is decidedly outweighed by the bonus I get later from having increased scumhunting material.

[SensFan]

BAD BAD BAD, SFG.

[Battousai]

I just don't get the votes where the person doesn't add anything to it. If someone votes that way on me, I'd be upset because I can't defend against it (as town or as scum so null reaction) and if I see it voted against someone else, I think it is kind of scummy.

Vote for pressure = Bad votes that reveal skill over alignment; Vote with no reason = scummy; Vote for pressure > Vote with no reason

[Leo]

Votes with reasons generally lead to defenses that reveal skill over alignment.