Plurality VS Majority lim

[Gypyx]

In mafiascum, the default option is for majority to be the only way to get a lim

but i've noticed that in other communities, plurality often is the prefered form of voting, with votes often going to plurality with majority active (you can also pin that on the shorter deadlines obviously)

what are the benefits of those different systems and should we change or is it just not needed?

[Radical Rat]

With the caveat that I haven't really played plurality games (maybe once or twice? It FEELS like I did at some point, but I couldn't point to an example unless you count Among Us), so don't have a lot of relevant practical experience...

I think majority is just better. It makes the deadline matter more, and forces scum to actually have to convince town to vote incorrectly, and also requires a town to develop some sort of unity to get anywhere.

Plurality does prevent accidental no lims, and no limming sucks, but to me it's a fair punishment for indecision, provided a grace period is granted for near-deadline replacements and such. If it isn't actually necessary to sway a majority to a cause, I think that incentivizes people to squat on vanity wagons more, and could lead to more individualistic playstyles becoming prevalent. My instinct would be that this also makes things more scumsided, because if Town is divided and doesn't have a strong motivation to unite, it's far easier for the scales to be tipped by a scum faction.

So, on paper at least, majority lims encourage better play and better balance, and I don't really want to see plurality become the norm.

Something that may be interesting in experimental games though would be a hybrid system akin to Town of Salem, where it takes a majority to decide on an elimination target, but it's followed by a plurality Yes/No vote with a shorter deadline to determine whether the elimination actually happens. I feel like this could either mitigate some of the issues with majority lims, could give people stuck on deadline compromise wagons a stronger chance at defending themselves, and offers a safety net to quickhammers. It could also just make everything worse. Either way, it'd be a fun experiment, but I don't think it should be adopted at a large scale.

[Gypyx]

i don't think the ToS system would be great to execute on a forum scale, due to the wagons going through most of the time, probably, no quickhammers is something quite interesting though,

plurality allows people more freedom to pursue their personal wagon preferences, which idk if we really need that when it's already hard for townies to agree with each other, but at least it's more immediate personal satisfaction, which could cause some of the troubles over people being tunneled and such (aka : you don't really need their vote anyways)

[Ranmaru]

Off site I usually play with more plurality rules. I've noticed that without it, there isn't really competing wagons forming when there is less of an incentive to vote. I would normally prefer majority elim, especially on this site.

[Umlaut]

Plurality is a useful tool to have for setups that need it in order to force progress. For games that don't, I agree with what seems to be the consensus that majority just works better.

[Manoly01]

while a plurality means having the largest share of the votes without necessarily having a majority, a majority means having more than half of the total votes cast.