No Lynching at Evens

[Zachrulez]

The only argument I've ever seen for 50% no lynch is that requiring 50% + 1 slows the game down, but you could use the same argument to argue for a 50% threshold for lynches.

I think there's some fascination with having the threshold be different for a no lynch. I've always had the same threshold for both a lynch and a no lynch.

[Zachrulez]

The only argument I've ever seen for 50% no lynch is that requiring 50% + 1 slows the game down, but you could use the same argument to argue for a 50% threshold for lynches.

I think there's some fascination with having the threshold be different for a no lynch. I've always had the same threshold for both a lynch and a no lynch.

It slows the game down purely because those same half of players can just sit out the deadline and not lynch anyone, so the argument doesn't apply to lynches

I've literally never seen players ever do this to secure a no lynch, so I don't buy the argument even though I don't think it holds any water anyway.

The 50% + 1 also creates a threshold that the day ends when enough people agree that the day should end. Making it 50% for a no lynch changes the threshold required to end a day unnaturally and is akin to moving the goalposts.

Convince the +1 to end the day in a no lynch, don't argue that a no lynch is so obvious we should make it easier to happen.

I remember when I started playing on MS it was 50% to no lynch, 50%+1 to lynch and I don't know how this stopped being a thing.

I in fact was blindsided by the 50% threshold in a marathon dethy game when I realized a player was scum and had my argument cut off by the 50% no lynch threshold being reached while I was arguing.

Anyway, I've already argued this to death and it hasn't changed the general mod preference for 50% no lynch threshold, and I also know my own position is never changing. As long as the site doesn't standardize this... meh.

[Zachrulez]

Some games do permit a plurality lynch at deadline.

Regardless the whole 50% thing is predicated on 50% being in favor of no lynch just stalling out the game to get what they want. This is something I have NEVER seen come to fruition and I don't think it's a practical problem. I think it's an excuse to justify the no lynch threshold being different when there's really no good reason for it to be.

[Zachrulez]

I'll even go further. All my games require 50% + 1 for both and I've never seen a no lynch forced through 50% of the players just holding out to get one.

I've never seen it happen in any game where it could have been an issue either.

It's an argument based completely on a theoretical situation. It's also a situation that should be allowed to happen anyway. If 50% of the players think a no lynch should happen, then argue for it and convince one other player.

[Zachrulez]

The reason I'm so annoyed about this was that I had solved a dethy game on day 2 and was arguing why a player was scum in a marathon game. This game had the 50% no lynch threshold and it was obvious I was still arguing my points. one of the town voted no lynch and turned their brain off because apparently in dethy you don't think and just no lynch until lylo. The scum voted no lynch while I was arguing why they were scum and so a no lynch happened.

I just think it's really stupid when something like that can happen.

I could have convinced the townie that got killed that the game was solved and we could have pressured the holdout. Instead I got stuck into lylo with the holdout whose brain was turned off...

[Zachrulez]

What usually happens is one player eventually gets fed up. Or one tunneling player refuses to switch ablnd a no lynch wagon collapses when it was likely the optimal play

It's apathy inducing at best and competely pointless

Just because it's optimal at evens doesn't mean it should be made easier to happen.

It's up to the players to make it happen, and that's a stance I doubt I'm ever going to change.

It's also not the mod's job to prevent 'pointless apathy' from occurring.

Some mods do, some don't, some mods don't specify at all in my experience

This is the way it's always been. (I actually think 50% is newer but I only started paying attention after the marathon game I point out above.) It's down to mod preference. It's also an issue that's been argued so much a mod should have some kind of rule spelled out for it being that the no lynch threshold being different can be an issue if you're not aware of it ahead of time.

[Zachrulez]

I think it's an excuse to justify the no lynch threshold being different when there's really no good reason for it to be

pretty much the first paragraph of ether's 19 explains how silly your stance is

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

it's like, if you're in a group of 6 people and you choose to hold a majority vote to decide whether you go to the beach, the movies, some other place, or whether you don't go anywhere and 3 people say they don't want to go anywhere, you don't go "well, that's not majority so too bad!" - there are three people shutting down your ideas, you cannot form a majority consensus

unless you're just throwing out the rules of mafia and saying "well maybe they should be able to change their mind after a decision is made"

in which case, yay for you!

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

The no lynch 50% argument is silly. It makes an ASSUMPTION that the players voting no lynch will always vote no lynch and won't change their mind. That is a terrible assumption.

Also with 2 week deadlines being more common, the whole holding up the day argument seems to get quite a bit weaker. It would be one thing if a day phase lasted months, but that literally doesn't happen anymore.

[Zachrulez]

Sometimes town players plant a vote on scum, and then the scum quickhammer before they can change their mind. That happens too! Saying that the threshold to get a result should be lifted higher than people actually need to force it, but only in this one case, seems kind of arbitrary to me. You're right that it doesn't come up much, but that's not really much of an argument either way.

Preventing pointless apathy doesn't HAVE to be the mod's job, but games where the mod takes no responsibility for that usually suck.

Also, I think people first realized that no lynches are easier to achieve by the rules in...I don't know, 2007, 2008? It hasn't been around forever, just a long time. I didn't see it at all when I first signed up, probably because plurality lynches were much more common. (Thank god that's not a thing anymore.)

Well I mean you're arguing that the threshold should be LOWER in this one case right? (No lynching.)

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.