Quickhammers based on Incorrect VCs

[Alisae]

This actually happened to me while I was modding my micro that just finished. I don’t exactly know if I’m stupid for asking this, but what is the correct thing to do if you post an incorrect VC and then a hammer results from that incorrect VC?
A. (What most mods are probably going to answer) Flip the slot anyway. (Also, this is what I did because its the “safe” thing to do. I don’t feel like risking my game on the other option when I don’t exactly have a 2nd opinion on it, and I don’t really want to inconvenience my players by having them wait 24 hours just to ask this stupid question if its stupid)
B. Fix your votecount and reset the current votecount to match that votecount.

See, I honestly feel like B is the correct thing to do. A player shouldn’t have to be keeping track of the votes, its simply not their job. Flipping the slot because you fucked up a VC is kinda a dick move to the player because they made the play that they did because your VC was incorrect, and they thought it was correct.

So why does A happen?
Is it because they don’t want to spew any slot any alignments? My issue with that is that if your VC was correct, that hammer wouldn’t have happened on the first place. If your VC was incorrect, then good job, you as a mod impacted your game by creating a gamestate that would not have existed if your VC was correct if you decide to flip that slot.
Is it because it could potentially ruin a scum quick hammer? My issue with that is scum shouldn’t be exploiting a mod’s mistake to get an advantage.

Idunno, am I stupid?
Lets talk about this.

[Wooper]

Sorry, Fred the Duck.

Still think A is the right call. I can't really justify it at a deeper moral level tbh. I get that it's part of the moderator role to post vote counts and stuff. I just also think it's not unreasonable for someone voting in such an advanced wagon to check that they aren't accidentally lolhammering (or maybe they are~~?)

In an ideal world minor mod errors shouldn't happen but like. Even with automated votecounts errors still happen. Similar (but more nuanced) issue to "should votes for misspelled players count?" - like, the intention was for that vote to be there. so yeah.

just my two cents anyway. I was also the lolhammerer in question and got a bit of flak for it ingame, but I think Ali made the better call. interested for more onions.

edit:

Idunno, am I stupid?

Wooper.

[Pine]

It’s a crappy situation either way. I feel like I WANT to say post the new VC with a 12-hour “are you sure”? window, but that’s outright not fair to someone making a move. That said, having an “Is that your final answer” period might be an

interesting

awful idea for a game

[Alisae]

Pine this is about accidental quick hammers that happen

as a result

of a mod error, not quick hammers in general.

[Cheery Dog]

Never trust a given vote count. It is the players responsibility to know where the votes are, yes vote counts should be accurate, but unless you've double checked yourself, don't go near the potential hammer if you don't want that person lynched there and then.

[Alisae]

Never trust a given vote count. It is the players responsibility to know where the votes are.

A. Its a mod's responsibility to provide vote counts. Saying that its a player's responsibility to track votes doesn't make sense to me. Its a job that the mod has to do. It should be something that you can trust. Saying "Hey, its a mod's duty to provide vote counts, but also you should never ever ever trust said vote count" doesn't make sense. Like, actually think about that for like, 5 minutes. Maybe you'll realize within those 5 minutes that that sounds stupid.
B. I'm not exactly sure why you read MD when you don't play mafia, or only post in MD to tell people not to play mafia :/

[Alisae]

everything after a vc?
that is the player's responsibility to keep that stuff in mind until a mod posts another VC.
everything before a vc?
A player shouldn't have to worry about.

[Something_Smart]

I think the best solution here is to add a rule to your ruleset in effect specifying B. If you don't have such a rule, doing B is changing the rules during the game which is mod interference, but I agree that A is a situation that should be avoided.

[Ramcius]

Always B

People usually know how close they are to lynch and they play accordingly, so they shouldn't be punished for playing right and someone being cheeky to try quickhammer. Long term correct play > cheeky gambit

[Oversoul]

I really don't understand the overall point of this question. If a voting threshold has not been reached, it has not been reached. If it has, it has. Whether or not there is a VC does not impact that fact.

[Jingle]

Always A.

Now, if the issue is that you fucked up the VC, thought there was a hammer and flipped someone prematurely, then, yeah, you kinda have to kill the slot that is now revealed.

As an aside, I take a less strict stance of Cheery's opinion, in that a player is partially responsible for checking their own vote in a votecount. I am fallible. I make mistakes copying and pasting votes. Votecounters do the same thing, (although to a lesser extent). If you ever play a game of mine, I encourage you to point out mistakes I make with votecounts because if I made the mistake in the first place odds are I won't catch it, and the easiest way to do this is to make sure your own personal vote is reflected accurately in the votecount.

Edited because I didn't understand the question.

[Jingle]

“Is that your final answer” period might be an interesting awful idea for a game

Monty Hall Mafia?

Hmm... This could have potential.

[Wooper]

Everyone Has One Bullet And One Governor Shot And Nobody Has Any Rope (Or Happiness)

[Jingle]

And Also the Governor Shots Don't Do Anything Because There's No Lynch.

[Ramcius]

And Also the Governor Shots Don't Do Anything Because There's No Lynch.

It does - it makes you feel better, because you're governor and not some pleb

[popsofctown]

I lean A but it seems hard


You could run games where you require hammer votes to say VOTE: popsofctown,

even if it's a hammer

, and don't honor votes that would be a hammer if they are missing the disclaimer, in combination with a policy of A. That rule is agnostic to the incorrect VC itself, but incidentally prevents the issue.

[popsofctown]

Or maybe like some kind of brand new BB code feature that summons SXTLGaiden to post a gif of a hammer alongside your vote, and the vote can't hammer people with out that.

Miss that guy.

[Ramcius]

Wait, wait, it was accidental hammer and not quickhammer? I guess I misread too, cause when I see quickhammer, I assume someone intentionally hammered without waiting other people to agree to it

In that case def B, reset votes and let people vote again and they can reach majority again, if that was their actual intention. I don't see how accidental hammer might spew anything, putting non hammer vote on someone isn't condemning or anything, it's intentional hammering that brings attention on you

[TemporalLich]

I lean A but it seems hard


You could run games where you require hammer votes to say VOTE: popsofctown,

even if it's a hammer

, and don't honor votes that would be a hammer if they are missing the disclaimer, in combination with a policy of A. That rule is agnostic to the incorrect VC itself, but incidentally prevents the issue.

what about votes where you've previously posted

Intent to hammer

?

I'd say A is correct because B is capricious modding imo. Though A with that rule isn't capricious modding and is thus fine.

[popsofctown]

I lean A but it seems hard


You could run games where you require hammer votes to say VOTE: popsofctown,

even if it's a hammer

, and don't honor votes that would be a hammer if they are missing the disclaimer, in combination with a policy of A. That rule is agnostic to the incorrect VC itself, but incidentally prevents the issue.

what about votes where you've previously posted

Intent to hammer

?

I'd say A is correct because B is capricious modding imo. Though A with that rule isn't capricious modding and is thus fine.

Sure, six of one, half a dozen of the otehr

[Ankamius]

B.

If you're in a position where you are looking to quick hammer when given an opportunity, it's very foolhardy NOT to keep track of the votes yourself. If you're going to be fooled by an incorrect VC, then it's a good lesson for you.

[popsofctown]

VOTE: Ankamius

[Alisae]

I feel like there's an overwhelming response of people saying A because that's just a thing thats been ingrained into the modding culture, but they're not really considering the mod error part. You posted a wrong vc. Someone was hammered because you made a wrong vc. To me, it only makes sense that you reset the votes since a decision was made based on your mod error. You shouldn't be penalizing the players because you aren't doing your job correctly.

If anything, Ramicus' response is the one I like the most, but maybe I'm biased?
Like I'm not really seeing anyone saying why A is the best course of action.

Either way, if I fuck up a VC in the future and it results in a hammer, I am probably just going to reset the votes to the last vc.

[Mathdino]

“Is that your final answer” period might be an interesting awful idea for a game

Monty Hall Mafia?

Hmm... This could have potential.

Wait has this been done before? Because this but unironically

[Micc]

This situation is one of my biggest fears as a moderator. If possible I want to rewind back and correct the bad vote count and disallow any votes made since that point. That's the solution where your error is going to have the smallest impact on the game overall. Unfortunately the rewind will cause some amount of information to have been created that otherwise wouldn't exist. As a moderator, you have to try and determine if that information compromises any of the players' role/alignment. If it does, then the rewind is probably a more disruptive fix than following through with the lynch as it happened.

Using Alisae's game as an example, I don't think there was any compromising information so I would have rewound the vote count. If for example a player claimed a town PM and another player immediately swept in for what they thought was a hammer vote, I'd think that the player dropping the hammer had their alignment compromised as scum sacrificing themselves to secure the lynch of a town PR. For something like that the rewind would be more disruptive than letting the lynch stand (regardless of the hammer's actual alignment).

These situations are tough. I'd recommend consulting with a listmod for any amount of uncertainty in how to proceed, especially when things come down to determining if compromising information has been released or not. That determination is generally easier to make for someone who does not know players' alignments or the context of the situation, which is a disadvantage you'll have as the game mod.