Town should never quickhammer

[Zachrulez]

It's absurd to suggest that the rules should change to accommodate risky play. Putting a player at lynch -1 is risky if you don't want an actual lynch. Why exactly should there be rules in place to prevent a lynch when you've played a part in carrying a wagon that helps lead to it forward? People are prone to quickhammers?

Don't put a player at L-1 then.

[Zachrulez]

Think you two are missing the point. The fact is that a lot of quickhammers are indeed against game rules because they plainly operate against the voters’ win conditions.

How's that? Because you say it is?

[Zachrulez]

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??

Talking you out of the lynch if they are scum for one. (I know you're going to disagree but it's a valid counterpoint.)

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?

If they have information to share that requires claiming they should surely be doing it before a lynch is potentially imminent?

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

If for example I had a cop innocent on a player who's at lynch -2 I would just go ahead and claim the innocent there. Waiting until they are at lynch -1 is needlessly risky. If there was a quicklynch I would blame the role for not claiming more than the person who quickhammered.

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

Or those ducks you have in a row are playing perfectly into scum's hands and the person who quickhammers has a legitimate reason for thinking a player is scum and potentially turns the game around for the town. Just because such things don't fit your accepted worldview of game theory doesn't mean they aren't legitimate ways to play the game.

... and yes I've dealt with players who were prone to quickhammers and were known to be prone to quickhammering. If you're a good player you account for that. If you're not then I guess you post in mafia discussion demanding the rules be changed to accommodate your own flaws in your own play. (Because it's not just the person you're complaining about who quickhammers that's the problem. It's also you (in this I mean the town) for giving the quickhammer the opportunity to do so.

Are we really at a point where we want moderation telling people how to play and how not to play? (Other than just generally not being dickishly abusive to other players.) Kind of reminds me why I retired.

[Zachrulez]

If they have information to share that requires claiming they should surely be doing it before a lynch is potentially imminent?

you understand that town pays a steep cost when its PRs claim, right?

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.

Kind of reminds me why I retired.

and a big reason i've retired is because it's exhausting having to hedge for and play around the possibility that my own teammates will do things that plainly hurt their odds of winning and throw away games that take many hours and weeks from dozens of peoples' lives to happen

At some point, shitty justifications for shitty play need to be acknowledged for what they are. The idea that mods should micromanage how their players play is obviously wrong, but on the other hand mods do have a responsibility to make their games enjoyable and satisfying to play. This conversation about ways to achieve that is totally appropriate. Honestly my preferred solution is just to hope discussions like these make people think about how shitty plays like quickhammering are.

No matter what there is a limited amount of influence you are ever going to have over a game as town. The entire point of the game is that you don't know how someone else is going to react to a vote or a wagon reaching lynch -1. I just end up shaking my head when I read a thread that suggests we ban a certain kind of quickhammer because the town has taken the risk of putting a player at lynch -1 without the intent or imminent intent of actually lynching the player. When I started here you just didn't do that because of the risks and now people are seemingly wanting the rules changes so they can continue to play like that consequence free?

[Zachrulez]

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.

[Zachrulez]

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.