No Lynching at Evens

[Zachrulez]

The 'because nobody else can form a majority' is where I take issue. No one else can form a majority when a lynch suspect reaches 50% of the vote by that logic. The whole premise pre supposes that a no lynch is inevitable at 50% when that's generally not true in practice.

[Zachrulez]

a lynch is final when 50%+1 players agree on lynching someone because that is when they can form a majority

a no lynch should also be final when 50% of the players agree on it because that is when nobody else can form a majority

this is what it means to have a threshold

I mean where does the argument that no one else can form a majority at 50% come from? It's possible to convince someone voting no lynch to change their mind and join a majority wagon. I don't understand the point where 50% of people voting no lynch makes a lynch impossible to happen. It's an assumptive argument predicated on people voting no lynch never agreeing to lynch.

[Not_Mafia]

No one else can form a majority when a lynch suspect reaches 50% of the vote by that logic.

And that's when a no lynch occurs. When 50% of people want to lynch Zachrulez, there is an alternative that can happen, when 50% of people don't want to lynch at all, there is no alternative. They're entirely different.

[Ether]

The exact same thing can be argued at 50%+1. Tons of games end in mafia speedhammers instead of a true consensus, and nobody ever questions this. If you want to account for people changing their minds, then you'd want a different rule entirely, something with no concept of a sudden hammer at all.

If 50% of the town votes for one player, then lynching any other player is impossible (barring people changing their minds, which obviously can happen no matter what and isn't limited to no lynches). But if the other 50% of the playerlist votes someone else, then there's nothing to say one of those wagons is more valid than the other. If the game makes it to deadline, then most rulesets these days would say that neither player is lynched.

Are you arguing that that's a bad thing? I'm not a fan of plurality lynches, but this probably isn't the thread.

[Not_Mafia]

The hammer at 50%+1 argument is silly. It makes an ASSUMPTION that the players voting for Zachrulez will always vote for Zachrulez and won't change their mind. That is a terrible assumption.

Your argument just doesn't mean anything

[Zachrulez]

I'm arguing that the 50% no lynch threshold gives no lynch special treatment in forcing it's outcome BEFORE the deadline.

That's where I take issue. It prevents a lynch consensus from happening where it might otherwise be possible.

Why is 50% on a no lynch vs a lynch suspect different from 50% on one suspect vs the other?

[SleepyKrew]

Is this still happening

[Not_Mafia]

They are different and so are treated differently, it's not one being treated specially.

When 50% of people want to lynch Zachrulez, there is an alternative that can happen, when 50% of people don't want to lynch at all, there is no alternative. They're entirely different.

[Zachrulez]

The exact same thing can be argued at 50%+1. Tons of games end in mafia speedhammers instead of a true consensus, and nobody ever questions this. If you want to account for people changing their minds, then you'd want a different rule entirely, something with no concept of a sudden hammer at all.

If 50% of the town votes for one player, then lynching any other player is impossible (barring people changing their minds, which obviously can happen no matter what and isn't limited to no lynches). But if the other 50% of the playerlist votes someone else, then there's nothing to say one of those wagons is more valid than the other. If the game makes it to deadline, then most rulesets these days would say that neither player is lynched.

Are you arguing that that's a bad thing? I'm not a fan of plurality lynches, but this probably isn't the thread.

My issue is that at 50% rather than 50% + 1 you've giving the no lynch side of the argument an avenue for automatically winning the argument. You can force it at deadline, but I don't think this justifies taking the ability to argue for a lynch away from a player during a game day.

What's so wrong with the threshold for hammering a no lynch during the day being the same as hammering a lynch candidate? I don't see it.

[Magua]

I wouldn't put this rule into my ruleset, and I really enjoy having long and detailed rulesets, because it's just so cornercase as to not be worth it.

If it came down to half of the players voting no lynch and the other half voting someone, I see no reason not to give both sides a chance to try to persuade the other side of their case.

If it came down to half of the players voting no lynch and swearing up and down that they would never move their vote in private PMs to me, then I'd just end the Day early with a no lynch.

But I've never seen the second actually occur in all my years of playing mafia. I have seen the first a few times, but someone from one side or another eventually crumbles.

[Zachrulez]

I wouldn't put this rule into my ruleset, and I really enjoy having long and detailed rulesets, because it's just so cornercase as to not be worth it.

It's in my ruleset basically unaltered from the day I created it for this site way back in 2009.

I describe voting for no lynch and state that a majority vote for no lynch will end the day without a lynch.

It's actually very simply and plainly stated, and it wasn't until a year or so after that I realized mods were even using a 50% threshold for no lynch.

[callforjudgement]

Most of my offsite games use a hammer delay (i.e. within X time of a hammer, anyone on the wagon can cancel the hammer by unvoting, although adding more votes to the wagon means more have to be taken off to stop it). That isn't standard on mafiascum.

No-lynching at 50%+1 (in a game using the common no-lynch at deadline rule) is basically the same thing as adding on a hammer delay to no-lynches, but not to lynches, which is a little weird and asymmetric. That said, I can see reasonable arguments to a hammer delay for both lynches and no-lynches (it's definitely a mechanic that's been seen to work elsewhere).

[BROseidon]

Is this actually happening

[hitogoroshi]

I wouldn't put this rule into my ruleset, and I really enjoy having long and detailed rulesets, because it's just so cornercase as to not be worth it.

If it came down to half of the players voting no lynch and the other half voting someone, I see no reason not to give both sides a chance to try to persuade the other side of their case.

Yup, this is me. I understand that strictly speaking it's a degenerate case. In practice, the fact that no lynch people win a tied deadlock of no lynch vs lynch foo on evens is a rare enough impact that whatever. If you don't have compulsory kills, how often are people even no lynching anyway? I don't think it's worth the overhead of having another rule, I guess.

[PokerFace]

There are clear arguments on both sides of the equation. This poll needs the comical third option of

Vote: No lynch

________________________________________________________

Non funny post, I agree with ether and zmuffin

[SleepyKrew]

Non funny post

Got that right

[Elbirn]

Why not make a lynch 50% because once a lynch reaches 50% no other lynch can form a majority?

I mean I'm no math whiz but

this

is pretty much exactly what I was thinking reading this whole thread. I get Muffins stance, that once you have 50% of X, you can't achieve a majority on anything else. But if we accept that, then why would the case be different for lynches?

Oh, great, there was a second page that I didn't read when making this.
But yeah I still don't understand.

Oh, no. Wait. Waaaiiiiit.

Yeah I think it just clicked.

This pointless shitpost was brought to you by Elbirn(™), a subsidiary of Viacom.

[kuribo]

Anytime it doesn't completely break the setup, you should lynch


THE TOWN'S MURDERCOCK MUST BE SATED

[fdas]

a lynch is final when 50%+1 players agree on lynching someone because that is when they can form a majority

a no lynch should also be final when 50% of the players agree on it because that is when nobody else can form a majority

this is what it means to have a threshold

I mean where does the argument that no one else can form a majority at 50% come from? It's possible to convince someone voting no lynch to change their mind and join a majority wagon. I don't understand the point where 50% of people voting no lynch makes a lynch impossible to happen. It's an assumptive argument predicated on people voting no lynch never agreeing to lynch.

If you argue that people can change their minds then hammers should not end the day because the people on the wagon might decide to lynch someone else at some point. Its ridiculous.

[Taly]

It is quite frivolous for 50%+1 to secure a No Lynch. All it takes is 50% to go for an NL to secure an actual lynch impossible.

I feel like making 50%+1 would breed apathy for the other group of people who would either want to lynch, or NL. Then people would have to start making decisions incompatible to what they want to do. (IE, people who wouldn't want to lynch, would have to compromise with little good coming out of it, and people who would want to lynch, would have to deal with the fact that they may have to side with a NL when they feel a lynch is important.)

Whenever I begin modding, I guess I'll do the whole 50% to a NL.

Also, on the 50% to a lynch thing - It could work, but then - Mods would have to lynch the person who gets 50% first. There are times where there are an even number of votes to lynch a person on 2 people.