As a moderator, I'd really like to be able to eliminate accidental quickhammers in a way that doesn't lead to worse problems (such as continuous stupid fakehammer gambits).In post 13, mastina wrote:Uncaring, unthoughtful quickhammering I would argue is against the spirit of the game, regardless of alignment.
Accidental quickhammering, though unintended, unfortunately does happen and while regardless of alignment it puts the game in an awkward position, it can't be easily prevented and the presence of genuinely accidental quickhammers makes it a little harder to prove the presence of deliberate, uncaring, unthoughtful quickhammers.
Quickhammers with direct thought put into them, carefully weighed and decided, are within the spirit of the game, because the player making the quickhammer was, in their view, playing towards their wincon. However, the presence of this as a legitimate play callalsomakes it harder to prove the presence of deliberate, uncaring, unthoughtful quickhammers.
I'm not sure whether eliminating intentional quickhammers would be a gain or loss; I think it depends on your playerlist. (It's probably a gain to allow scum to quickhammer in lylo, at least, but that's a special case as they don't care about being caught as long as the hammer goes through.) In smaller games (definitely Micro, probably even Mini), it'd likely be a net gain as one townie who decides to take a gamble can ruin the game for everyone else if it fails (arguably even if it succeeds, in a different way); a day 1 quickhammer is effectively adding a large amount of swing to the game.
For what it's worth, I was surprised by the "hammer rule" when I joined this site. All the places I'd played previously had a countdown to allow players to change their votes before a hammer was "locked in".
(Now this thread's got me brainstorming what Mafia without lynches would look like. Town would use night actions in an attempt to eliminate the scum, and days would end when the players voted to end the day or when deadline ran out.)