Self-Voting: Why, barring setup, you should never do it

[Thor665]

I'd like to discuss self-voting. I've been having this thought brewing in me for a while now, and a while back I even put it up on my wiki, and now I really think I'd like to try to sell it to the community at large. My thesis is as follows;

Barring *very specific setup or role interactions* there is literally NEVER a time when a town player should self vote.

A self vote as a joke is a dumb joke.
A self vote as a rage quit shows poor play and whiny inability to deal with the situation you're in or to simply request replacement.
A self vote as a strategy...well, that requires very specific role/setup interactions, but doing it as a "test" of how people react to it is only likely to "test" who finds it a dumb move. Whoop-dee-doo.

As scum there are plenty of reasons to self vote.
Denies town planning time in a self hammer situation.
Hurts VCA.
Induces wifom due to AtE gak. (how many times have you seen someone town read someone else for a self vote? I know I see it a fair shake)

Oh, wow, look at that, it's almost like self-voting aids scum and hurts town. Shock.
So why the hell do any town players EVER allow themselves to self-vote? You're voting a confirmed town at that stage - that is playing against your wincon, quite frankly. Honestly, if I think i could get away with it I'd petition the board to make that a universally accepted rule that, as town, a self vote is playing against wincon and is thus bannable. That's about how much I'm offended by it when any town player does it.

And the benefits for scum? Literally half of them are only there because derp town chooses to self vote as a rage quit type option or as their only answer to a wagon/case.

I used self-voting as scum early in my career to get town read or to dismantle wagons on me. Recently, as an alt account, I used it again, and it worked beautifully. Everyone was all like 'oh dear, look at that poor frustrated town, unvote!' and I skunked a win for my scum team. Why should I be allowed to get away with that? Why should town need to try to sort out whether someone is a derp town or a vile scum just due to a single vote?

I am really making this as a rallying cry.
I want self-votes to become the purview of only scum - and thus crush them as a scum tool barring self-hammers.
All it takes is for people to stop self-voting and also to stop treating a self vote as anything but null, and eventually as a scum tell as we weed it out.
The only reason I can personally think of for people to keep self voting as town is to defend the tool for their scum game - and I don't need you bolstering your weak scum play by tanking your town games. Just leave the crutch behind, you'll become a stronger player as both alignments.

I'd love to hear praise for my brilliance
Or, reasoning for why a self-vote is a valid town tool *outside* of specific setup/role interactions.

Example posts of good/bad uses of self-voting might also be useful, to show how you have experienced/practiced them.
All of mine would be me as scum using them to avoid a lynch...which supports my thesis as far as I can tell.

[Thor665]

Almost like a thesis statement...oh, wait

[Thor665]

I do not disagree that it is possible to attempt to read a self vote.
I disagree that I should be obligated to because there is no valid reason for town to ever ask me to have to scumhunt the emotional state of the act.

[Thor665]

I'm not saying you in particular have to get your reads from self-votes, but you are asking other people to stop townreading townish self-votes because of your principles, which is dumb

Honestly, I don't care if people want to get reads off it anyway - but I think we should be able to relegate it to a point where the only read is a scum one. As said, there is no town benefit for it. At that point, town should just not do it - and that should then clear the way to only see it as a scumtell (which means scum would stop doing it too). It should be able to be seen as only a scumtell, i understand that it's not, and I don't see it that way myself right now - but it boggles me that you need to bother 'reading' something that is blatantly a pro-scum move.

As a serious response to this, I consider self-voting a trait of bad players. They do a Smurfton of dumb stuff and stopping to self-vote wouldn't elevate their play to bearable levels.

I personally think there is a difference between a player who chooses to be bad, and a player who doesn't realize he is being bad.
I see a lot of Newbies bandying about the idea of self-voting to "help" the town. I always explain to them why it doesn't.
If players were at least aware that what they were doing was a bad play I do think it would clean up a substantial percentage of the self-votes. Also, i have had conversations with players who have multiple years of experience on site who argue that a self-vote has purpose. I do think a greater site awareness of how bad the move is might help them re-examine the stance. Or at least come up with a valid justification.

Vengeful self-hammering to take shot?

Kanye kind of stole my thunder on this - but, yes, if you're vengeful you should probably still allow your lynch to go through normally to allow better VCA. If you're going to be lynched you will be without a self-hammer, and will still get your shot.

I might buy it for a Supersaint who is convinced a town is about to hammer him - that might be a valid call as a time to self-hammer.
But, frankly, the best option at that point is to claim and try to convince town to at least force a scummy player to place the hammer. Or, to prevent your lynch altogether, since you're town.

Self hammer for town cred.

I've seen this often enough that the joke pains my soul

The problem with it is I think most townies self-voting are reacting emotionally to things that pissed them off/upset them and it's hard to eradicate that by telling them self-voting is bad or ignoring a meltdown when it's happening.

I can somewhat agree with this - my counter is this;

'Grow up and use replace out'

Because if you're emotional to the point you can't deal with the game anymore - you should probably stop playing the game.
And the only reason to choose a self-vote over a replace out is if;
1. You have ulterior motives (are scum).
2. You're intentionally trying to ruin other people's fun as 'punishment' for ruining yours (are a jerk)

I don't find either option too wonderful, but I have seen emotional replace outs, so I know people are capable of that. When they self vote they're basically trying to ruin other people's fun, and while, yeah, that might be a thing, I don't see it as a roadblock to be aware that it is still bad play and bad sportsmanship at that point - at least that's how I take it. I would like to think we can train people to have rage replace outs as opposed to rage self-votes. It should be healthier for people's sanity *and* for the quality of the game.

[Thor665]

Symbolic self-votes should still be shunned unless the intended symbolism is 'I think i am the scummiest player in the game' in which case I hope that player is playing scum, or they are really bad at the game.

Ragequitting is more fair to others than rage self-hammering though, I would think. Rage self-hammering is a rage-quit paired with denying town time and info.

[Thor665]

There are only two legitimate self votes...

During RVS and self hammer/rage quit.

I oppose it in RVS.
What are you doing? Trying to provoke a reaction from yourself? Or are you testing who dislikes self-votes...because that's somehow alignment indicative?
I also oppose the self-hammer/rage thing, though I suppose at least there the argument is 'I was blinded by rage and didn't care how bad and pro-scum my vote was'.
In RVS I don't think you have that excuse.

[Thor665]

I think you guys are missing the most important thing to take away from this thread, which is that Thor plays as secret alts and has recently self-voted as scum.

[Thor665]

it is the equivalent of a tantrum

I'm really agreeing with this. AGar gave the best breakdown for why it might happen - and really his explanation boiled down to this as well.
It doesn't justify the RVS gak though, or the people who leave it there for more than a day. But at least a heat of the moment rage thing slightly mollifies how terrible they're being, because at least you can argue that they aren't thinking anymore - which certainly is what is required for a town to self vote in my opinion

[Thor665]

So you would advocate it as long as;

It is at evens, you are an obv. mislynch, yet town also can't manage to lynch you, and there's also at least two lynches available to town.

That's a pretty specific scenario, and it sounds like the solution should have been put into play days before a self-hammer or no lynch situation was arrived at methinks.

[Thor665]

[Thor665]

Personally I think they should be read as null, but as long as you never self vote and agree that self-voting is pro-scum I am fine with you choosing to read them however you wish.
I choose to read them as a sign of bad play, which is a null tell.

[Thor665]

Town should fight their lynch.
But town also shouldn't attempt to occlude the truth to do so.

If I am town, and am about to be lynched, it is not exactly 'to my wincon' to fakeclaim a PR and risk another PR counterclaiming me.
There is more to winning as town than living.

[Thor665]

I believe you are wrong. Would you like to present an argument that survival = the core aspect of winning as town?
I still say there is more to winning as town than that.

[Thor665]

I only ever get that from DGB

[Thor665]

Actually, I think from now on I will just link this article to any one welf voting in a game I play in (when, or if, I play one again ), coupled with a little friendly reminder that any failure to instantly do something useful with that vote in the very next post will be treated as a scum claim and rewarded with immidiate support of that waggon on my part, without fail.

I support this methodology.

[Thor665]

occasionally a Smurfed up gamestate means that you end up lynching people you think are town for the health of the town as a whole.

[Thor665]

Player X's defenders should be the ones to compromise with their votes, not player X themselves.

Do you think their defenders are making a protown move by compromising?
If so, why?

It is more pro-town to hammer a town read than a confirmed town, and also more beneficial to future VCA.
So, I would call it more pro-town of the two options, yes.

occasionally a Smurfed up gamestate means that you end up lynching people you think are town for the health of the town as a whole.

Do you disagree?

I am willing to believe it happens, but I feel like we're discussing something like >1% of any given lynch day in an aggregate of games.

[Thor665]

So do both of you do it as both alignments?

[Thor665]

If someone is a toxic read to you and is town and you think either they or you need to go - then aren't *you* sort of the toxic issue at that point?

[Thor665]

I will take your stated support of self-voting while town then as an endorsement of my stance

[Thor665]

Why do you need to self vote to get the town reads and survive?

[Thor665]

Do you not feel that self-voting hurts town by advancing a lynch on a town player when otherwise you could force scum to do so or allow a town player to be part of a wagon for later potential analysis?

[Thor665]

On the flip side, maybe the town is playing fine and the player in question is playing poorly.
And whether or not a town is playing badly doesn't excuse further poor play.

[Thor665]

I feel like you're ignoring the common problem of excess amounts of pages dragging on and players growing more apathetic as what looks like a guaranteed lynch is dragging along
I want to move the game forward
If the game, specifically my townreads, are going to be hung up on the topic of me being scum for long enough and intensely enough that it both detracts from all other conversation and reaches the point that my lynch is inevitable/people are starting to not listen at all to my defense and confbiasing, self voting as a sign of giving in and to help achieve my lynch more quickly is something I am fine with doing

I have never been in a situation where I was being lynched and this was the case.
I can also say that I, more often than chance dictates, have multiple scum voting me when I am mislynched as town.
I tend to kick and fight the whole way.

Isn't that a better plan?
Even if there is lethargy, then you ought to be able to expedite it without self-voting.
I'll agree people town read self-votes, but I find that pretty poisonous on multiple fronts.

[Thor665]

To be a bit blunt, Thor, have fun with that, but you're not everyone.

I don't mind blunt, but usually I translate "to be blunt" as a "to be slightly rude" - now, let me first off say I got no rudeness from your comment here, but I'm unsure where the presumed fire came from. Did something I say come across as rude or ridiculous? I wasn't trying to be so, i was just offering my thoughts. If you disagree with them I am fine discussing it.

I've been in situations where town would have benefited much more had a guaranteed lynchee just given up and accepted the lynch.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58466

Are we talking about Titus on Day 1?
COuld you expand on why a self-vote would have been a good move here? It's not like a no lynch happened.

You can say allowing others to jump on the wagon provides opportunities for wider analysis.
I say that's a pretty idealistic view of typical town post-Day 1 analysis.

I agree that my game theories tend to expect people to play well, yes But, I think you're being a bit harsh. I know a lot of players who analyze wagons. It's hardly an unheard of move.

And on the topic of selfvoting again, I can't think of a scenario where selfvoting made it harder to read someone.
Sure, I've become frustrated when a scumread selfvoted.
But when that happens I try to reevaluate the selfvote and situation, since so much of how I read people depends on apparent genuineness.
I agree that selfvoting is often bad, but I think your viewpoint on it is much too absolute.

Well, so you agree it's often bad - which means my view is often right - so we're really just disagreeing on a very specific set of instances then, yes? Is it mostly the "Day will bog down so self vote to speed it up" thing? Because I think you could speed up your own lynch without a self vote, personally. If it's something else then could you clarify?

I don't think scum getting townread off of a selfvote is as common as you're making it seem.

Well, I do know for a fact that 100% of the time I self voted that was the goal, and my success ratio...well, I actually can never remember it failing, so I think I'm 100% on that as well.
That said, certainly just my play is a pretty small sample size regardless as I think I only have an odd five or so self votes to my name or an alt's name combined.

However - I do think that I could state that about 50% of self-votes are done by scum with the intention of being town read (whether or not it works) and I don't think that is an unreasonable statement and would be certainly willing to participate in a contest of finding examples of self-voting to compare as far as that guess goes.

And, really, if the statistics are <33% or so - then it's clearly an issue.

Also, as mentioned even by yourself, there are very few reasons for town to even do it, and I argue that there are none, so there is a question of why it should *ever* work for scum. It really shouldn't. Which brings me back to my initial belief, it's a bad action, and the only reason scum get away with it is because people play pro-scum and self-vote as town.

[Thor665]

Well, so you agree it's often bad - which means my view is often right - so we're really just disagreeing on a very specific set of instances then, yes? Is it mostly the "Day will bog down so self vote to speed it up" thing? Because I think you could speed up your own lynch without a self vote, personally. If it's something else then could you clarify?

Thor, I believe no one is arguing that you should self-vote barring a very specific set of instances. People are just arguing that at very specific times, self-voting can be a good thing.

I understand this - my question was to ask what those specific instances were if they were not what I understood them to be.

[Thor665]

I'm mislynched more nowadays than I used to be - though I think a lot of that is paranoia based as usually when I'm lynched the case literally doesn't exist, it's just 'he might be scum'.
But I suppose your argument is 'people who are often mislynched find the tool of self voting useful to oppose their mislynch'?

The only town energy from it is an emotional outburst.
Other than that it's wifom.

Why not just do an emotional outburst sans a self vote if that's the pro-town aspect? I've seen emotional outburts generate town reads without a vote being involved.

[Thor665]

Define 'basically save'.

If it is 'would get me town read for multiple days' then the answer is 'yes, I would do it'.
If the answer is 'would get me to the next day phase and an uncertain future' than I would try to save myself in other ways.

[Thor665]

Though I think this does require me to have the sight into the future for it.
Since I've never even come close to self-voting as town before, and I have been mislynched as town - so clearly my attitude is to save myself in other ways.

[Thor665]

Basically its a day one wagon and people are scum reading you for Smurfy reasons

so yea the former if done prob.

I have literally been in that situation.
I fought the wagon hard.
Multiple scum voted to help push it through.
Via later wagon analysis multiple scum were caught because people realized how bad the wagon had been.

I felt okay with how my play had gone, and don't think a self vote would have really made things "better" for my wincon.

It's less "must save self, better self-vote" and more "I think my lynch will be objectively beneficial to the town." No, it's not lynching scum, but that's not the only way for a lynch to be useful.

I find this a slightly funny argument in juxtaposition with ZZZX's issue.

If your lynch is objectively beneficial for town - I see no reason why town can't manage your lynch without you self-voting.
If it takes your self-vote for said lynch, than maybe the lynch isn't as obvious and beneficial as you're telling yourself, yeah?

I've been in a situation where, via PR interactions, my lynch was basically called for. I pointed out the other player that was also suspect, made a case on him, and via talking eventually got town to lynch him first rather than me. He was the last scum.
In a general sense - if I had been mislynched that other player would have been lynched correctly next via PoE - so my lynch would have assured scum loss. But that doesn't mean I'm a good lynch. I'm simply an acceptable lynch. A scum is a good lynch.

[Thor665]

It's not actually, it's assuming that the presented comprehension of the game state is shared by a rough majority of the players (arguably less than majority of the town players, as some scum will likely toss in a vote as well)

I've seen town poorly read who is or is not lynchable a lot of times.

[Thor665]

If you're a jester than you probably want to consider blacklisting the mod.
If you're roleplaying a jester then the other players should blacklist you.

[Thor665]

Self-voting when you know it's Lylo...

y/n?

If you're scum? Sure.

[Thor665]

As a serious response to this, I consider self-voting a trait of bad players. They do a shitton of dumb stuff and stopping to self-vote wouldn't elevate their play to bearable levels.

Good players don't rage-selfvote at least and that seems to be the kind of selfvote you are rampaging against.

So, self-voting is dumb, but not much is going to improve with self-votes gone, honestly.

This.

One would suggest that the difference between "good" and "bad" players is largely about the "bad" ones doing multiple things that "good" ones know not to do.
Therefore the way to transform a "bad" player into a "good" player is to teach the "bad" player what type of play is terrible and what type is not.
So, if we get all "bad" players to stop doing the self-vote, we have moved them all one step closer to being "good".

I will admit in my own opinion that I disagree with the bad/good scale used here. But even within the scope of that stance my point appears to hold.

[Thor665]

It is my belief that I outlined specifics as to why this given play is bad. Do you see anything I missed or that I should explain better? Especially if there's anything I missed, I'll take all the ammo I can get

[Thor665]

People do think that.
It is also sometimes true.
It does not make it a pro-town move however.

[Thor665]

It's a legitimate tactic for SCUM to help shut down discussion, in certain rare situations. It never (or almost never, there's some argument about Self-Hammer vs No Lynch that I still don't grok) benefits Town.

I agree with this - I don't think it's fair to remove the right to do the move.

That said, I'd like to think it's possible to beat it into people's heads that it's a pure pro-scum move.

Like, literally, the best anyone has come up with as a reason to do it as town is "avoid a no lynch" and "to get townread because people town read self-voters"

Well, to the first I say 'ehhhh'
and to the second I say 'if you're able to understand that you should try not to be lynched as town, how about learning not to be doof enough to be in a situation where ruddy self-voting is the solution you have left' Like, how about you scumhunt and be reasonably active instead? Because that also works to avoid being lynched - it's not exactly a mystical and mysterious magic that takes you out of early lynch pools, and if later lynch pools are using evidence that can be bested by self-voting than there is an issue with your town mates in any case.

Also, at the end of the day, even if you spare yourself a lynch as town - you better have some darn good reads and have some way to advance them - because odds are if you are needing to self-vote you're blowing away your ability to lead a wagon, so what the feth is the point of your useless and scummy backside being in the game anymore at that stage anyway? I don't get it. You've already boned it for town, and now you want to prolong your existence to 'help' by playing wifom with them? Meh.

[Thor665]

but when you take it to the main thing core element of someone going "FUCK THIS GAME IM PISSED SCREW YOU selfvote" as town its a player being clouded by emotions and they dont think logical.

Frankly I will admit that players who let it get to that level boggle my mind and probably that person should play less Mafia games.
Those people need to be taught that 'replace out' is an options, and in my honest opinion all of them should be game banned for a few weeks after any action so against wincon.

[Thor665]

Just removing the capability to vote yourself won't stop people from going "fine go ahead lynch me idc anymore".

Yes, but without a self vote then you can go 'replace out then' and if they refuse you can engage them in a conversation about 'why not' and then you can scumhunt them and force them to play or have them state unwillingness to play and get them to replace out, both of which lack the pro-scum actions of a town self voting.

[Thor665]

If they're that far gone than replacement is the solution.
If they're not then, as I have multiple times, yes, you can talk to them.

[Thor665]

1. Cool.
2. How many times do I then lynch that player? I will agree replace outs are bad, sure. But if my option is "strain to mod and players" or "slot that doesn't play because of whine"? Replace out *every time*.
3. If that person broke site rules than, theoretically, they should have been caught by the mod and dealt with prior to that point. Playing against wincon is against site rules, so are personal attacks, both should be punished enough to make people not want to do them.

[Thor665]

The mod can, and if that's what they're doing the mod should as it has moved past player interaction to a negative state of the game.

[Thor665]

If they stop playing the game then they are playing against wincon regardless of alignment.

[Thor665]

then wouldnt logic dictate that selfvoting as scum is also against wincon? yes theres the argument of "cutting discussion from town" but in general sense. shouldnt they try to fight their lynch like you are saying town should do?

what makes it so diffrent that its anti-wincon for scums to do that?

There is a difference between playing the game poorly and refusing to play. I am okay with the idea that scum should not have as an option 'faking refusing to play' in their repertoire.

sk did also kinda adress it as well on mod intervention: mod/hosts should not intervene with players quarrels unless if its absolutely needed if every player that went against wincon was forced replaced (or even worse, modkilled) its no longer really maifa and its more of "how long till we get a new replacement" imo

Then they should take it out of site rules. Though this is starting to veer away from the purpose of this thread.

if we banned/replaced every player that went anti-wincon b/c they got emotional rilled or had some rl thing that made them play illogical/anti-wincon, i would say we would never have a player base again.

I disagree. I actually find the players with legit emotional breakdowns to be few and far between.

there are many situations that are gray when it comes to what is anti-wincon vs bad player vs irrational plays

Agreed.
But please read what SK is asking me about and then come back and explain to me how it is a gray area.

pedit: so if a scum does nothing except vote/prod dodge/says "busy do later" is that actually anti-wincon or just scum procrastination? i think theres too many gray areas on many tings like this tbh

That sounds like good scum play to me, and also doesn't sound like refusing to play the game.

If they stop playing the game then they are playing against wincon regardless of alignment.

If a scum player refuses to cooperate with anyone, is he playing against his wincon, or making it more difficult for the town to work together?

That, again, sounds like fine scum play, though a good town should lynch that player fairly quickly if they have half a brain.

[Thor665]

Do you think it helps in any way, or is it just as a 'lulz, joke!' sort of thing?

[Thor665]

you gotta play to win, not to make a point, right?

Just out of curiosity.

When a player says 'I don't care anymore, lynch me!' and self votes.
There are two possibilities.

1. They are scum working an angle - optimal pro town move is to lynch them.
2. They are twon who already has some suspicion on them, has no way to justify or defend it, and would prefer drama to scumhunting - optimal pro town move is to lynch them.

What am I missing here?
Like, say I claim Miller and after a mass claim there are no claimed Cops. Regardless of my alignment I'm a pro-town lynch.
Just because town does something that makes killing them pro-town does not preclude it from being pro-town and it does make the goal to avoid town making pro-scum moves because *that* is playing to win.

[Thor665]

You presume discernible in those comments.
Most self voters, if discernible, should be discernible *prior* to the self vote. If you need the self-vote to discern I am suspicious you are hunting for tells wrong.

I will disagree with you about that claimed Miller, but will happily remember it if I'm ever scum in a game with you

[Thor665]

It is not - simple question, do you support town self voting?

By your own discussion of 'we shouldn't lynch town for bad play' then I presume your answer is 'no' because someone self-voting is trying to lynch town.
So you agree, you're just arguing that once they do a pro-scum act they should be assessed. Which I also agree with, though I note that I treat the self-vote as null always, because as a pro-scum wifom play I don't see value in assessing it.

[Thor665]

Like, say I claim Miller and after a mass claim there are no claimed Cops. Regardless of my alignment I'm a pro-town lynch.

Lynching a townie isn't pro town, unless you're using some weird definition. (Also this isn't super uncommon so doing it in this partic case seems kinda dumb)

In a theoretical and very broad sense - yes, every town lynch is anti-town and pro-scum.

That said, there are lynches that are pro-town in purpose and intent and with the information available to town, that end up being lynches on town.

The two are different things.

[Thor665]

Nor is it impossible to fall for it when it is faked.

Town shouldn't do it till we master that one.

[Thor665]

Still doesn't change the fact that if you think a player is likely town you shouldn't lynch them.

I wasn't aware I was advocating that, but, sure.
I am advocating that self votes are not a good scumhunting tool and should never be used and ignored when they are.

[Thor665]

you act as if only scum can FAKE suicidal frustration


town can, too

I will agree town can take a pro-scum action.
I prefer not to dwell on that though.

[Thor665]

But aren't you simply engaging them in a playstyle debate? It's not a legit attack at that stage I would think. No?

[Thor665]

Like, I'd attack you for it, but regardless of my alignment I'd just say the stuff I'm saying in this thread when I did attack you - because that's what I think. Seems like it would be exceedingly difficult to try to grok any underlying edge of attitude from me as far as alignment goes.

[Thor665]

Are you saying when other players debate game meta they change their views depending on their role alignment at the time?
I feel that is not true.

[Thor665]

I do not follow how that is a response to me, and if it's a response to someone else I'm not sure who.

[Thor665]

Yeah, but the motivation of that one is playstyle based. It's sort of like running in and shouting a slur in a room of mixed company - most will recognize it is meant to be offensive, some will take honest offense while some find it funny, and some will consider it a worse faux pas than others, but that info won't actually tell you much else beyond their reaction to said slur. Maybe *maybe* you could get some sort of 'attitude' feel but...

Do you have any examples of this method working to help the game and/or your reads?

Because it sounds to me like, really, you're just using it as an icebreaker - and there are lots of methods to icebreak in a Mafia game, even if your goal is get attacked' (which, for my money, all you'd need to do is aggressively wagon and vote hop to accomplish that and at least you'd be otherwise helping the gamestate in the meantime.