RVS v RQS

[vollkan]

I have seen (and have instigated myself) many more games starting with an RQS as apposed to the site norm of an RVS. I personally like RQS's better as they provide a basis for semi serious cases from the beginning of the game which I deem to be a good thing. I know others disaprove and argue that RQS just leads to time wasting and ends up back where it started, but I am interested to see where others stand on the debate or even if people think that having both is beneficial.

Both are rarely that useful in terms of leading directly to scumhunting. However, I think RQS has advantages in that it can be used to get useful information that you might not otherwise remember to ask for (time zones, how often people tend to post, etc.). Either way, the level of disapproval that RQS gets from a lot of people doesn't seem justified.

[vollkan]

I very much prefer

ADS (Alliance Discussion Stage)

to either RVS or RQS.

It polarizes people on whether an Alliance is good for the town or not, and reveals scum much more efficiently.

And if an Alliance is in fact adopted, it's extremely effective at revealing scum.

Do you have a link to a game where the ADS system worked really well? I'm intrigued by it..

I haven't seen ADS before, but I imagine it has the same problems as bad RQS.

RQS can be useful if it addresses game-relevant stuff that you wouldn't normally ask for later on (eg. how often people post, what people's favourite roles are, meta, who has played with whom before,etc.) RQS is unhelpful when it is used for the purpose at starting theory/policy debates. ADS, by its very nature, creates a theory/policy debate - on a deeply polarising topic no less. I don't see how it can be useful, other than increasing suspicion on anybody who made a bad argument on the topic.

(I should probably mention that I think questions like "Do you support lurker lynches?" have their place in RQS since they force people to pre-commit to a particular position and, thus, may help to catch any scum who are tempted to shift position opportunistically. However, town needs to ensure that those questions aren't allowed to lead to game-destroying theory debates)

[vollkan]

I don't see Vollkan's problem with theory debates. Pretty much every Day one will at some point feature one or more players pushing another saying X is scummy behaviour, whereas the player targeted will argue that it's the right protown thing to do. I mean, that's theory, but if mafia isn't arguing about what is and isn't scummy behaviour, what is it?

There is a difference (in fact, this is a distinction I've had to make quite a few times myself in game, when I dispute the validity of a scumtell).

My objection is only to "pure" theory debates - those which are not about the scumminess of a particular player/s actions. The reason that these debates are useless is that scum has no stake either way in the debate and so, given that scumtells are behaviors reflecting scum motivation, I can't see how there is any realistic way that scum will be caught.

[vollkan]

You mean like setup speculation or something? Can you give an example?

I'm for RVS/RQS. Most likely RVS. Never done RQS but it sounds good to me.

Setup speculation isn't theory, but it's daft for a heap of other reasons.

What I am talking about would be things like:
- "What are your reasons for or against using meta in the game?" (as opposed to "Do you support using meta?")
- "Is lurking a scumtell?" (as opposed to "Do you support lurker lynches?")

A debate about whether lurking is a scumtell will often arise later on in the game once people begin to lurk, but artificially starting a debate about it beforehand is just a waste of time.

Good RQS would be asking things like:

1. What is your time-zone
2. Have you played with anyone in this game before, if so what was their play-style like?
3. Do you prefer being town or mafia?
4. How often do you tend to post?
5. Do you use meta?

You'd expect, and for the purpose of later holding them to their arguments probably also hope, that many people would give some reasoning in response to a question like 5. of the above, so there is still a risk of it spiralling into a policy debate. But the question is at least principally directed at obtaining people's positions, rather than concocting a controversy

Thanks, Vollkan. That makes a ton more sense. Without the incentive of protecting partners/getting townies lynched, scum will just state their theory positions as if they were town.

I've already said that I think it is good for people to be made to state their positions, precisely so that scum who try to change tact later on can be caught. What I don't want is a 2-page debate between you and me over whether or not lurking is scummy.