Mafiascum.net

In post 74, Zachrulez wrote:Sure, but my philosophy has been not to depend on power roles to win games. It's really easy to allow scum to get away with fakeclaims when you take that approach.

Scum being able to fakeclaim is not an excuse for not giving players a chance to claim

There are times where a townie quickhammering another player is pro-town. As long as that is true, it shouldn't be against the rules to do.
It's not unreasonable to want, like, a setup where "L-1" causes a 24-hour period where no one can hammer (as long as there is time left before the EOD deadline), or something along those lines. But not a mod-enforced sitewide rule

In post 76, Irrelephant11 wrote:There are times where a townie quickhammering another player is pro-town.

Give some examples because I'm not convinced they exist

In post 75, BNL wrote:

In post 74, Zachrulez wrote:Sure, but my philosophy has been not to depend on power roles to win games. It's really easy to allow scum to get away with fakeclaims when you take that approach.

Scum being able to fakeclaim is not an excuse for not giving players a chance to claim

I'd rather lynch the scum on day 1 rather than day 5 after they're allowed to claim doctor to extend their miserable life... but that's just me. You know what leads to crap like that happening? The site meta of expecting claims to happen pretty much automatically at lynch -1. I already accept that it's ingrained in site culture. Required by ruleset though? That's ridiculous.

In post 67, Psyche wrote:what could possibly be the downside of hammering someone before they or other players are given a final opportunity to speak w/ the knowledge that a lynch is likely
is that a serious question??

think the most prominent answer is that it's usually impossible for the quickhammerer to be sure that decision-relevant but costly-to-reveal game information isn't held by some other townie to be revealed only when absolutely necessary; the guy at L-1 or someone off his wagon might wanna claim cop or mason or some other informative PR, for example?

these players with decision-relevant information might not know it's necessary to reveal it in at L-2 when a lynch is far from certain

ending a day without making sure your faction's ducks are in a row is reckless and often game-throwing in really

concrete

,

inarguable

ways and it just boggles my mind that there's any controversy in saying this

Nah. If you're pretty sure the person is scum, then a quicklynch is playing to wincon. Allowing more time gives the person opportunity to get out of the lynch.

Also, you're basically saying that BAD play is playing against wincon. Technically you're correct, but that's not what the wincon rule is there for.

I have just remembered an accidental hammer I did in my third game. It was very poor play, and what happened was I was temporarily blacklisted until I showed improvement. I agree with Zach though. I don't think it should be banned, it's poor play and other players should punish it, or try to at least. Funnily enough, I hammered the final scum. Ha.

In post 78, Irrelephant11 wrote:viewtopic.php?p=10530755#p10530755

Just because the Townie randomly quickhammered scum there, mean that the quick hammer was pro-town

Also what’s up with the terrible arguments that “If I let him defend himself, he may escape the lynch”?

Like that is hugely egoistic play that only comes from a player who is deathtunnelled on someone and I seriously cannot accept that as a valid argument.

Isn’t the reason that you let players defend themselves because you might be wrong on them? And if you are not convinced by their defence, just lynch them anyway?

In post 81, Ranmaru wrote:I have just remembered an accidental hammer I did in my third game. It was very poor play, and what happened was I was temporarily blacklisted until I showed improvement. I agree with Zach though. I don't think it should be banned, it's poor play and other players should punish it, or try to at least. Funnily enough, I hammered the final scum. Ha.

The fuck
Why were you punished if it won you the game

In post 82, BNL wrote:

In post 78, Irrelephant11 wrote:viewtopic.php?p=10530755#p10530755

Just because the Townie randomly quickhammered scum there, mean that the quick hammer was pro-town

well then we will never agree on the definition of "pro-town"

I think the distinction BnL might be trying to get at there is that saying that it was pro-town just because the person ended up being scum is results-oriented thinking

If you make a (probabilistically speaking) poor choice but it turns out to have been correct, you still may not be justified in saying "oh, i made the right decision". For example, switching doors in the monty hall problem is the correct choice, but if you were to stay and win it anyways, that doesn't mean you made the correct decision.

I think people who make the argument that "it can be pro-town to quickhammer scum before they can fakeclaim and get out of a lynch" should really just get more comfortable with lynching people through PR claims. After all, if you were going to quickhammer someone, that would be without any regard to what they claimed anyways, so lynching them after a PR claim should be no different. Anecdotally, I've seen town lose games through the mentality of "we can't lynch this PR claim day one no matter how weak the PR is or how scummy the person is" and I've seen town win a game they otherwise might have lost by lynching through a fakeclaim. (This is all talking about normal games of course, things are obviously different in open games)

It's kind of weird, I can see the argument of how quickhammering could be playing to your wincon in certain scenarios, but I don't think I'd ever call it "pro-town".

In post 83, BNL wrote:Also what’s up with the terrible arguments that “If I let him defend himself, he may escape the lynch”?

Like that is hugely egoistic play that only comes from a player who is deathtunnelled on someone and I seriously cannot accept that as a valid argument.

Isn’t the reason that you let players defend themselves because you might be wrong on them? And if you are not convinced by their defence, just lynch them anyway?

I agree with this btw
What’s interesting is I’ve never seen RC pull this no matter how he feels
Probably because he votes before it can get there but w/e

And I think banning people for taking the probablistically advantageous approach is in a very roundabout way advocating the breaking of setups

Your example makes sense. But to continue the metaphor, I just think it's silly to say "any choice in the monty hall problem other than switching doors should be punishable by the mod". Not switching doors is the "wrong decision" only in 2/3 of scenarios.
Obviously it's not exactly the same (the probabilities here are probably more extreme than 1/3 v 2/3), but in the example I linked to, I doubt tw gets killed D1 if he's not quickhammered there. He's pretty charismatic and does well earlygame as both alignments; the first wagon of a game day is usually not a target for the lynch by EOD; and therefore quickhammering, though risky and probabilistically poor play, was pro-town there, and also fun for the players involved.

As long as this is the way it plays out more often than *not at all*, I think it's silly to make a rule that you're not allowed to play suboptimally, because suboptimally is still the winning way to play on rare occasions. I too get annoyed at quickhammers more often than not, and have never quickhammered onsite. But this whole conversation is still just wacky to me. Quickhammering can help town win more often than never, and as long as that's true, it should not be banned.

pedit: lol that "playing to town wincon" and "pro-town" aren't synonyms.

Alright, let's do it this way: A Town Rolecop in a Mini Theme claims they got a result of "Mafia Dayvig" on another player. Is it pro-town to quickhammer?

I have to admit that I was on a rage when I made the topic, and I have changed the topic title to something more in the direction of what I want to discuss.

But yeah I still really hate quickhammers

Btw I don't think town should never quickhammer, like in Irrelephants example yeah town should get that Mafia Dayvig out of play ASAP. I just don't want to make the title "Town should almost never quickhammer" or the like, because people will think that their excuses for quickhammering are legit when they aren't.

I think the problems with quickhammering are really similar to the ones with fakeclaiming as town: sometimes it works out and wins the game for town, but most of the time it doesn't, and when it doesn't everyone gets mad at you. But now I agree that such trash play doesn't need to get a site ban, it's just a bad and selfish play but is a way of playing the game.

The only quickhammers that need to be banned are the ones that are trolling, like the one I linked in the OP. The problem isn't that it was a quickhammer but that quickhammer was a form of trolling.

In post 7, BBmolla wrote:What if a dude saw a 100% scumtell for that player and used it to hammer the player before he argued his way out of the wagon?

Like this is another terrible argument in the thread. Claiming you have a 100% scumtell for a player is a fallacy in the first place because statistically there is no such thing as a 100% scumtell.

I quote this in particular because I know many people believe they have 100% scumtells against other players or are just hugely egoistic.

In post 90, Irrelephant11 wrote:Your example makes sense. But to continue the metaphor, I just think it's silly to say "any choice in the monty hall problem other than switching doors should be punishable by the mod". Not switching doors is the "wrong decision" only in 2/3 of scenarios.

Sure, I've never really agreed with the idea that it should be banned or anything. (Althogh not switching doors is the wrong decision probabalistically speaking – unless you are psychic there is literally no reason to ever not switch doors.)

Obviously it's not exactly the same (the probabilities here are probably more extreme than 1/3 v 2/3), but in the example I linked to, I doubt tw gets killed D1 if he's not quickhammered there. He's pretty charismatic and does well earlygame as both alignments; the first wagon of a game day is usually not a target for the lynch by EOD; and therefore quickhammering, though risky and probabilistically poor play, was pro-town there, and also fun for the players involved.

You can point to any example of a quickhammer that might have hit scum and I can agree with you that it helped town – the question is, in general, does it help town? I think the answer is probably not. Again, pointing to the instances where people may have gotten lucky seems to me like being results oriented rather than probability oriented.

pedit: lol that "playing to town wincon" and "pro-town" aren't synonyms.

Haha yeah, I think it's a bit strange but I think it's true. It can be anti-town in that people may have not expected the day to end and thus might be stopped from saying something they wanted / needed to say before the thread was locked, but coming from the perspective of having a very strong scumread, it could easily be argued that you were playing to your wincondition by trying to kill scum as quickly as possible.

Alright, let's do it this way: A Town Rolecop in a Mini Theme claims they got a result of "Mafia Dayvig" on another player. Is it pro-town to quickhammer?

Trick question, rolecops don't get alignment results.

In post 94, northsidegal wrote:Trick question, rolecops don't get alignment results.

ooh you got me there

Cop and Rolecop Masons checked the same player?

In post 92, BNL wrote:But yeah I still really hate quickhammers

Btw I don't think town should never quickhammer, like in Irrelephants example yeah town should get that Mafia Dayvig out of play ASAP. I just don't want to make the title "Town should almost never quickhammer" or the like, because people will think that their excuses for quickhammering are legit when they aren't.

I think the problems with quickhammering are really similar to the ones with fakeclaiming as town: sometimes it works out and wins the game for town, but most of the time it doesn't, and when it doesn't everyone gets mad at you. But now I agree that such trash play doesn't need to get a site ban, it's just a bad and selfish play but is a way of playing the game.

The only quickhammers that need to be banned are the ones that are trolling, like the one I linked in the OP. The problem isn't that it was a quickhammer but that quickhammer was a form of trolling.

If a player is obviously not playing to their wincon in a game they can be banned. I'm pretty certain of that.

If, hypothetically, quickhammering was against the rules, how would you handle situations where a player wanted to quickhammer based on role-related information? Should a cop in a open or semi-open setup with a 100% modconfirmed guilty not be allowed to hammer? What about in a closed set-up? What about pseudoguilties, like being tracked to/watched at the last NK? Where do you draw that line?

What if I, as Scum, want to quickhammer a player I believe is particularly strong at the game, and will be able to talk his way off the gallows if I wait? It's might not be to my wincon to quickhammer, given that it will implicate me, but depending on the gamestate I could be totally justified in thinking it's the strongest move.

You can't enforce any sort of ban on quickhammering without a quagmire of problems as a result. It's either fully allowed, or made mechanically impossible by some other rules. It doesn't matter how you feel about quickhammering, whether it's usually protown, whether it can ruin games, or anything else. If you can't a rule, you don't a rule.

Persivul's thoughts here are entirely correct.

In post 63, Persivul wrote:"Quickhammering should be a bannable offense." Sounds debatable.

"Voting within the rules created by mod should be a bannable offense." Doesn't sound debatable - but it's the same thing.

If mod wants to put a 24-hour waiting period for example on hammers, they can do that. If they don't, quickhammers are acceptable play.

Change the title back

In post 77, BNL wrote:

In post 76, Irrelephant11 wrote:There are times where a townie quickhammering another player is pro-town.

Give some examples because I'm not convinced they exist

White flag gambit