New Meta-game policy

[Thestatusquo]

Lynch anyone who says "For now" at the end of their votes. I HATE IT YOU INDECISIVE BASTARDS!

[Simenon]

Vote thestatusquo

For now.

[Glork]

No. Disagree. Terrible idea.

[Thestatusquo]

You're just mad at me for the whole "Glorksicle" incident.

[Kelly Chen]

"

Vote

for now" is a lot better than an FOS...

[Yosarian2]

Eh. There's good reasons to vote someone "for now".

[Glork]

I do things "for now" all the time. Some players' suspicions (such as my own) can change an awful lot... in fact, several months ago, I called myself one of the most roundabout scumhunters I've ever known of. But if it works, it works.

[Thestatusquo]

I feel that in a game of mafia, it's sort of implied that everything is "for now."

[Primate]

I'm gonna roleclaim cop for now.

[Thestatusquo]

Lets hope there's a doctor, for now.

[Kelly Chen]

Actually, saying "I vote him for now" might fall under the potentially scummy "undermining your own vote" category of behavior.

It could mean "I'm voting him, but he's my scum partner so I'd like the chance to move my vote without being asked why the change of heart. Because I

said

I was only voting him for the moment."

It could also mean "I'm voting him because I'd like to see him lynched, but because I know he's going to come up town, I don't want to sound like I'm pushing anything. If the lynch occurs due to a deadline, I would like to claim that I just forgot to move my vote in time and I really didn't support that lynch at all."

[xyzzy]

No; it's a strategy; you shouldn't get rid of strategy; that eliminates player's ability's to argue; that's bad; I'm using lots of semicolons.

[Thestatusquo]

That's the whole point of meta lynches, is to get rid of an otherwise valid strategy.

Lurking is a strategy, but lurker hunts happen frequently.

[Yosarian2]

That's the whole point of meta lynches, is to get rid of an otherwise valid strategy.

Lurking is a strategy, but lurker hunts happen frequently.

Um, no, the idea of meta lynches is to get rid of behavior that hurts the town. Lurking as a stratagy almost inevitably hurts the town, and so does claiming townie for no good reason, or OMGUS voting, or stuff like that. It's all stuff townies sometimes do, but it's bad for the town so you vote people to discourage them from hurting the town. You don't meta lynch people just to stop them from doing a perfectly valid pro-town stratagy, that's just dumb.

[Thestatusquo]

Lying is a perfectly valid pro town strategy. The only reason that it is anti-town is BECAUSE people get lynched for doing it.

[Yosarian2]

Lying is a perfectly valid pro town strategy. The only reason that it is anti-town is BECAUSE people get lynched for doing it.

I agree that there are some rare cases where lying can be a pro-town stratagy, which is why I don't follow lynch all liars strictly. Some people think lying is never or almost never a pro-town stratagy, so they do follow lynch all liars.

[Thestatusquo]

But you see, that's my point. Meta-lynches all boil down to each individuals opinion of what is or is not a valid strategy for town to take. Lying is valid in my opinion, and in yours, not in others. Lurking is valid in my opinion, not in yours. Making cases is valid in 99.9% of mafia players minds, but not in chambers. The meta simply reflects what the majority of players view as a valid strategy, not what actually IS one.

In my opinion, town should be decisive, and not holding themselves back adding "for now." to the end of every vote you make is not only annoying, but scummy as well.

[Yosarian2]

In my opinion, town should be decisive

Eh...yes and no.

[Thestatusquo]

That's the point. We disagree on whether it's a valid strategy or not. My opinion is that an indecisive town helps scum, therefore it should be meta discouraged. This is why I HATE pies lynch idea.

[Glork]

On the other hand, committing to a decision too early can also be horribly detrimental to a town.

[Thestatusquo]

Not really. Committing to a decision and then refusing to ever change is. Being wishy washy at first is always worse than being strong at first.

[Yosarian2]

Not really. Committing to a decision and then refusing to ever change is. Being wishy washy at first is always worse than being strong at first.

Well, no. If you're not sure, there's nothing wrong with saying it, or if there's some situation reason why you're going to vote for X for now but might move your vote off in the near future. I often say, for example, "Well, we need to make sure we lynch someone at deadline, so

vote:TSQ

for now. If three other people are willing to join me in voting pooky in the 12 hours we have left, I'll move my vote back there, as he's still my 1st choice."

[Thestatusquo]

I disagree with what you say, sir, and I will fight to the death to have you removed from the site for saying it!

(I'll just call Dodgy...)

[HackerHuck]

I feel that in a game of mafia, it's sort of implied that everything is "for now."

If that's the case, then why does this bother you so much? You're simply accusing people of being a little redundant.

[Thestatusquo]

Nope, I'm accusing everyone of annoying the shit out of me.