No Lynching at Evens

[Not_Mafia]

Should a No Lynch at even numbers happen at 50% or 50% + 1? (E.G In 8p Mylo shoyld a no lynch occur at 4 or 5 votes?)

[Ether]

In any game where a lynch requires a hammer, even at deadline, 50% of the players can deadlock everything and force a no lynch anyway. If you require 50%+1, you're just slowing the game down. Sure, they might change their mind, but that's true with a 50%+1 majority too.

So yeah, 50% is the way to go.

[quadz08]

^
ether nailin' it

[zMuffinMan]

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.

[quadz08]

I wasn't aware it had stopped

[zMuffinMan]

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

[Brian Skies]

I wasn't aware it was a thing. But it makes sense to me.

[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.

[zMuffinMan]

No, it's just basic logic.

You literally cannot achieve a lynch (barring multi-voter possibilities) if 50% of the votes are not in play (voting no lynch). There is no reason to make it 50%+1 when 50% means any (other) lynch is impossible.

[Not_Mafia]

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

[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.

[SleepyKrew]

Is this actually happening

[zMuffinMan]

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.

No, a lynch just literally cannot happen if 50% of the people in the game have decided they don't want a lynch.

That is the entire point of a "threshold". That is the entire definition of a "threshold".

50% is the threshold because 50% is all that's required to ensure no lynch can take place.

You need a majority to form a lynch (which is why it's 50%+1 for a lynch). If you cannot get a majority (50%+1) then the day is over (no lynch). You cannot get a majority when 50% of the players want no lynch. Requiring more than that is just silly.

[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...

[Not_Mafia]

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

It's apathy inducing at best and competely pointless

[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.

[Not_Mafia]

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.

It's not a mod's job to have a rule encouraging it. If half of the players don't want a lynch, a lynch cannot happen, this is the default, not 50%+1.

[Ether]

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.)

[zMuffinMan]

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!

[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.

[Ether]

I mean, I can see an argument for giving every lynch a 24 hour waiting period, or requiring confirm votes once a lynch is achieved, or something like that. If you think people shouldn't be punished for throwing out early votes in LyLo and otherwise playing it the way they would on any other day, this would do that.

I think it'd be kind of slow in practice, but at least it'd be consistent about giving people a chance to change their mind.

[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.)

[Ether]

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