Confirm votes: Good or Bad?

[Dragon Phoenix]

I don't agree, Antrax. The mod is reponsible to create the game, make it interesting and fair, and run it smoothly. He is not there to make sure that all players play the game well. I fully agree with MikeAmoks comments. If players (including the side you are on) choose to vote rashly, it is all part of the game. That's what I meant by my earlier remark as well.

[Antrax]

...make it interesting and

fair

...

I still fail to see the fairness factor in ending a day before several players can't concievably access the game's thread. Maybe I'm slow.
Antrax

[CrystyB]

I too fail to see the fairness of it. Perhaps DP & jeep want to add a 24h period after day begins for posting relevant info before any vote may be casted! =P

Stats:
best 0% [ 0 ]
good 30% [ 7 ]
Whatever... 13% [ 3 ]
bad 34% [ 8 ]
evil 17% [ 4 ]
IS : ) 4% [ 1 ]

[Pegasus]

IF a moderator finds it necessary to protect players from themselves, there are a number of ways to do it without requiring confirmation votes. The biggest problem AFAIAC with most games is that a "day" can take weeks as it is without confirmation votes.

Mods could put in an added requirement that no one can be lynched until 24 hours after voting opens (people can vote, and those votes will count, but those can be retratcted until the 24 hour mark.

Or players could use Fingers of Suspicions to state their reasoning but wait to actually vote if they thought anything the accused said might change their minds.

[Antrax]

The biggest problem AFAIAC with most games is that a "day" can take weeks as it is without confirmation votes.

I've yet to see a slow game when it comes down to 5 players left. I'm talking about when the game is about to end, etc.
Antrax

[Dragon Phoenix]

What I mean by fair is the set-up. Don't include a 7 man mafia in a 20 pp game, or a 12pp mason lodge in a 30pp game (the latter was actually planned by a would-be mod).

IF the town wants to do the headless chicken act and quickly dispose of someone, even before he/she gets a chance to post, then that's their decision. I am not stepping in as a mod.

Certainly in the end game, it should be obvious that you need to be cautious, no matter what side you are on. Players responsibility, not mod responsibility. IMHO.

[Samadhi]

Why? That's exactly the moderator's job.
Antrax

I agree with DP. The moderator's job is not to prevent townies from making hasty decisions. The moderator's job is to set up a game that is fair.

I still fail to see the fairness factor in ending a day before several players can't concievably access the game's thread. Maybe I'm slow.

No, you're using Crap Logic
The moderator's job regarding

fairness

is making sure the roles are balanced and no one cheats.
What I

might

do is put a disclaimer in the first post similar to:
"When voting please be aware that people play this game from around the world and may not respond to your posts immediately."
But I will never regulate voting to the degree you ask.

[radwulf]

If I understand correctly, in the exmaple that you gave, Antrax, the problem was made worse by the fact that 2 out of 4 (not the usual 3 out of 4) votes were needed for lynching. So I'd say that was the problem in that scenario, not the fact that you didn't get to post.

Let's assume it was the "normal" 3/4 situation, and something like that happened... then it would be all fair, and you'd have nothing to complain about IMO.

[Internet Stranger]

IS, surely even you won't mind if a game stalls for a mere 12 hours when there's only one mafioso left to lynch.

mere 12?!? bah thats way too many as it is. Everyone needs to be online 20hrs a day and sleep on their keyboards.

I still say that if people are afraid to pull the trigger, the day will never end. Its like first day syndrome. People are afraid to lynch someone so the first day always stalls.

On the last day, if we give a reason for everyone to hold back (ie lynch correct or lose) they will just sit there with their thumb up their ass and wait for someone else.

Confirm votes allow you to actually cast a vote that has weight (as opposed to the light as a feather fos) It shows that you have intentions of lynching that person. With a fos you just affirm your suspicion.

But the point that was brought up that I agree with was that confirm voting could be a disservice to the mafia. So you smart people need to come up with a balance for last day stalling and fairness for the mafia.

[Antrax]

Okay, apparently people don't understand why I think it's unfair for players in other time zones.

The moderator's job is to make the game fair. That means, everybody has an equal chance of winning. Now, a player may be handicapped by various factors. For example, he may not be able to post a lot. That's something the moderator can't do a thing about. Another problem is the language barrier -- I am handicapped in any game I'm in because I'm not a native English speaker. Again, the moderator should balance it out, but there's no logical way to do so. Another handicap is if you're forced to post at different times than all the others. In the beginning of the game, it's not so bad, because nothing happens too quickly. However, as the game progresses, it becomes increasingly harder to follow the game. But! There's a great way to even that out, called "confirm votes". And I fail to see why the moderator wouldn't make a game fair, when he can, at no cost to gameplay.
Antrax

[Mike Amok]

Confirm votes allow you to actually cast a vote that has weight (as opposed to the light as a feather fos) It shows that you have intentions of lynching that person.

So what the hell's wrong with saying "I intend to lynch

Antrax

," then?

Antrax, it's not that I don't

understand

you. I simply disagree.

[Samadhi]

Same here Mike Amok. Antrax apparently

you

don't understand why

I

disagree. First there are many ways

you

can overcome this problem yourself. Makes sense to me since it is

your

problem. I used to only be able to check after everyone had posted for the day. I believe I was at a disadvantage because of that. You know what I did? I dealt with it.
Second, I think you're over exagerating the problem. I've always perceived the prime hours for posting to be 9am to Noon EST and to a lesser degree Noon to 5pm. This equates to 4pm to 7pm and 7pm to midnight for you. It seems to me that these hours should be perfect for you. And if not, you have two options: Make them good for you or deal with it.

[Antrax]

Samadhi, the moderator can solve "my problem" with ease, and no expense to him. Why the hell not do so?
Antrax

[Samadhi]

Please spell out your "solution" clearly. I just read the thread and it is not clear anywhere.

[Antrax]

When the game is down to a certain number of people (mod discretion. I think 5-6 or so), either:
a) A person cannot be lynched until 24 hours have passed
or what I think is better:
b) after a majority was reached on someone, all the votes have to be confirmed in order to lynch him. Such confirmation can only take place after the accused posts. Of course, should anyone abuse the system and just never post, the mod can just kill him off.
Antrax

[groza528]

First of all, apologies to Antrax about Alien Mafia (which IMO was rather a flop anyway.) I don't think I'd have let you hang with a 2/4, but I wouldn't put it beyond me to have lynched without giving some chance for defense. I'd like to think I'm a more experienced mod now.
I see both sides of the fence on that one though. Once as a Mafioso (in the 6 minigames mith ran) I claimed cop on the last day and managed to get the real cop lynched before he could show up and say anything. I ended up being the sole survivor of that game. I'd have felt really cheap about it, except that I used my Mafia skills to deduce who was the real cop AND when he wouldn't be around. OK, I still feel a little cheap about it. Still, it made me feel pretty good at the time

[Antrax]

Uhh...yeah. I once held Hjolfret at gunpoint to get him to vote for someone and won. What a great game mafia is.
Antrax

[jeep]

The moderator's job is to make the game fair. That means, everybody has an equal chance of winning.

No. I will not make my games so that an uncharasmatic idiot will win. I hope no one else will either.

It is not "no cost to gameplay." It ELIMINATES the value of a vote. I'd rather introduce a new concept... say "psuedo-vote" that is more than a FOS but not a vote. If a vote is cast, it is cast. The person who voted is ready to take the person to the lynching block.

-JEEP

[Antrax]

I don't get you people. Now you're arguing against the concept of fair play.
Antrax

[Samadhi]

A: No. If the town rushes into anything that is their choice.
B: No. The confirm vote requirement makes the original vote worthless. Or akin to having to pass it through the house as well.

Either of these solutions would require me to limit behavior and certain strategies. I am not willing to do this. I'll tell you why. It's actually quite simple.

It is not "unfair", it is a disadvantage. They are completely different. Disadvantages are neither fair or unfair they simply are. Other people have the disadvantage of being idiots. Should I require you to dumb down your posts to remove this inequity? To "level the playing field" as it were? Your name recognition makes you a constant target by cops. Should I legislate that disadvantage as well? I could require that the cop choices for the first two rounds are randomly chosen by me. How about doctors and mafia? I could make them random as well.

You may not see these as similar. I do. My job is to make sure that

all things being equal

that the town and mafia have just as much chance of winning. Things are not equal on many, many levels but it is not my job to correct that. Why do I feel like I'm arguing politics?

[Antrax]

Apparently nobody feels about this the same way I do. I never realised being born in the correct portion of the world is a skill requirement for any game (as opposed to, say, eloquence, or intelligence).
Antrax

[Samadhi]

Anyone can play the game. Idiots, rambling madmen, people who can only post for one hour every day. Whatever.

It is the players' choice how they wish to deal with the idiots, madmen and time-challenged posters. It is the affected player's choice how they wish to combat the disadvantage. I've been "time-challenged" in the past. I handled it. Mole and DP seem to handle it. You're a big boy. I'm sure you can handle it.

[Antrax]

I'm curious to hear about other people's solutions, actually.
Antrax

[jesternl]

First of, it can also be an advantage for the mafia, if

they

happen to be in a different timezone as the town, and second, it seems to me that your proposed solution os

only

in the interest of the town, not of the mafia. I'm in the same timezone as you, and I've never so far had any adverse effects of it.
What's more, as I said before, I just lost a game, as mafia, because of Confirm votes. there were three votes against a doc, leavinf two maf and to townies and night coming. If at that moment the doc was lynched, as he should've been, we would've killed one other townie, and lynchthe last townie the next day. But since there was a confirm vote required, people had more time to persuade a wavering townie to vote the other way.
As the amous Dutch soccer player and coach Johan Cruyff said, "evvury advantage has his disavantedge" [sic]