Who should kill lurkers?

[Max]

Town or Mafia?

Each has their merits, while having disadvantages also.

Town advantages:
- Can be a scum tell
- Bad for discussion
Disadvantages:
- Lurker hunting can ruin games
- Loses a lynch

Mafia Advantages:
- Maintains fun of game, lurkers are bad for all sides, it makes the game dreary and dull. Killing off actives reduces activity.
- Almost a null tell for the mafia, the information from an NK is reduced when the kill is a policy kill
Disadvantages:
- Killing lurkers over good town players means you are more likely to lose

I don't believe any of these arguments if truth be told, it is both mafia and town's responsibility. So where do you fall, are you in favour of mafia killing to ensure the game remains fun, or is it the town's responsibility to rid the town of useless players.

For the sake of arguments, I would rather people didn't say both. As I think most players can agree it's better if both townies and mafia do the same, but ultimately for the enjoyment of the game who is responsible?

[Yosarian2]

Town and mafia should both play to win.

For town, that means you usually should kill lurkers whenever you get a chance. Letting lurkers live is very bad for the town.

For scum, that means you usually shouldn't. There are situations you should consider it, though; if you think the lurker might be a power role, or if you think you can predict what the rest of the town will do but don't want some random replacement coming in and just breaking the whole game open, it might be a good idea.

For the most part, though, if a person is lurking and he's not going to be replaced (say, he posts just enough to stay around), then it's the town's job to get rid of him, and they should do so ASAP.

[Vi]

- Maintains fun of game, lurkers are bad for all sides, it makes the game dreary and dull. Killing off actives reduces activity.

Which is an a

great

thing for the Mafia, so the Mafia

shouldn't

kill lurkers.

The Mafia is playing toward its Win Condition, not specifically to make the game enjoyable.

[Xylthixlm]

I agree with Yosarian2.

[xRECKONERx]

I agree with Xyl.

[ortolan]

the downside to letting lurkers live as scum is when someone pulls an unexpected town-tell on a lurker. More people should do this, it'd make the game way better. I think the lurkers are probably potentially

more

easily readable than other players, if the people attempting to read them were actually competent. Sadly, usually they're not, and then often blame the lurker because they suck at reading them and failed to force them to contribute.

[Ectomancer]

- Maintains fun of game, lurkers are bad for all sides, it makes the game dreary and dull. Killing off actives reduces activity.

Which is an a

great

thing for the Mafia, so the Mafia

shouldn't

kill lurkers.

The Mafia is playing toward its Win Condition, not specifically to make the game enjoyable.

I disagree with this conclusion you drew. Town lurkers become somewhat of an unknown factor in game because it becomes more difficult for scum to gauge just where they might come into play in a crucial vote or crisis in thread. With active town, you can more easily tell which way a vote will go down before you make the case. To manipulate, you need proper engagement. When you have momentum going in a thread, you don't need a lurker to drag things down and allow people to actually think. Kill them off before they can pop in and do something unexpected and plan disrupting.

[Yosarian2]

the downside to letting lurkers live as scum is when someone pulls an unexpected town-tell on a lurker. More people should do this, it'd make the game way better. I think the lurkers are probably potentially

more

easily readable than other players, if the people attempting to read them were actually competent. Sadly, usually they're not, and then often blame the lurker because they suck at reading them and failed to force them to contribute.

Meh. Just trusting that a lurker is town because they said something that you thought sounded town-ish back on day 2 is just asking for trouble. Even if you're right and they are town, if you let them live, they're likely to either do something dumb in endgame, or do nothing in endgame which is even worse.

[Vi]

I disagree with this conclusion you drew. Town lurkers become somewhat of an unknown factor in game because it becomes more difficult for scum to gauge just where they might come into play in a crucial vote or crisis in thread. With active town, you can more easily tell which way a vote will go down before you make the case. To manipulate, you need proper engagement. When you have momentum going in a thread, you don't need a lurker to drag things down and allow people to actually think. Kill them off before they can pop in and do something unexpected and plan disrupting.

I... don't think I've ever seen a Town slow down because there were people lurking. Usually people will come to an agreement and then harass the mod to prod the lurker so they can come back and vote on the wagon that has already been decided.

You did remind me of one potential upshot of scum killing lurkers - while the Mafia loves lurkers, they

hate

replacements.

[Yosarian2]

I disagree with this conclusion you drew. Town lurkers become somewhat of an unknown factor in game because it becomes more difficult for scum to gauge just where they might come into play in a crucial vote or crisis in thread. With active town, you can more easily tell which way a vote will go down before you make the case. To manipulate, you need proper engagement. When you have momentum going in a thread, you don't need a lurker to drag things down and allow people to actually think. Kill them off before they can pop in and do something unexpected and plan disrupting.

I... don't think I've ever seen a Town slow down because there were people lurking. Usually people will come to an agreement and then harass the mod to prod the lurker so they can come back and vote on the wagon that has already been decided.

Eh. Depends. When the active town/lurker ratio starts to drop, the game starts to drag. Also, I've noticed the more lurkers there are, the less often "active" town people end up posting as well.

You did remind me of one potential upshot of scum killing lurkers - while the Mafia loves lurkers, they

hate

replacements.

Oh, yeah. That can be very true. Not always; depends who the replacement is of course.

[Vi]

I disagree with this conclusion you drew. Town lurkers become somewhat of an unknown factor in game because it becomes more difficult for scum to gauge just where they might come into play in a crucial vote or crisis in thread. With active town, you can more easily tell which way a vote will go down before you make the case. To manipulate, you need proper engagement. When you have momentum going in a thread, you don't need a lurker to drag things down and allow people to actually think. Kill them off before they can pop in and do something unexpected and plan disrupting.

I... don't think I've ever seen a Town slow down because there were people lurking. Usually people will come to an agreement and then harass the mod to prod the lurker so they can come back and vote on the wagon that has already been decided.

Eh. Depends. When the active town/lurker ratio starts to drop, the game starts to drag. Also, I've noticed the more lurkers there are, the less often "active" town people end up posting as well.

Which is still pro-scum.

[popsofctown]

I hate the idea of factoring replacements into shot decisions. It's like exploiting a glitch in a video game. It's something that's not supposed to be there at all.

[Benmage]

Didnt read whole thread. But as town or scum i go for lurkers.. They're detrimental to the game and the overall enjoyment. We play here for fun too, right?

If i'm scum and I want to win, i want it to be fair. I want a real challenge. I want to win facing the same difficult i face when I am town. I dont want to be spoon fed the game by killing off lurkers, which I've seen happen.

I want to be the superior player and win that way.

I may be a little more insulting/aggressive towards the lurkers as town, but than again i may just be a little more insulting and aggressive to everyone as town.

It isnt LaL's....its FaL's. Know what the F stands for?

[Tarhalindur]

Who is responsible for getting rid of lurkers:

1) The Mod (unless lurking is a mechanic or some other good reason exists for not prodding the hell out of lurkers).
2) The Vig and/or any scum trying to set up a Vig claim. (I'm a fan of "when in doubt, vig the lurker" as Vig; Vig has considerably more freedom here than the lynch does.)
3) The Town (when all else fails, lynch all lurkers)

Unfortunately, the latter two measures start to fall apart when you start getting lurkers cleared as town...

[Vi]

Unfortunately, the latter two measures start to fall apart when you start getting lurkers cleared as town...

If a lurker becomes cleared as Town, you prod the mod to replace them until they finally get tired of hearing you complain and do so.

[Max]

1) The Mod (unless lurking is a mechanic or some other good reason exists for not prodding the hell out of lurkers).

Lurking is not the same as flaking or going days without posting. Players who post once every 48 hours with a single line is still lurking but they haven't flaked. Mods stepping in during these two situations becomes ridiculous and foolish.

[Adel]

- Maintains fun of game, lurkers are bad for all sides, it makes the game dreary and dull. Killing off actives reduces activity.

Which is an a

great

thing for the Mafia, so the Mafia

shouldn't

kill lurkers.

The Mafia is playing toward its Win Condition, not specifically to make the game enjoyable.

I totally agree with Vi.

Town moral is essential for town success, and attacking the fun of the game is important for the scum to undermine town moral.

If the townies are interested in the game and enjoy it, they are far more likely to heavily invest in it, stay up late thinking about it, meticulously pick through all posts looking for clues, ect... If the townies hate the game, aren't invested in it, don't want to think about it, they won't put the time in to make informed decisions.

In the metas I've played under, the only time I can imagine killing a lurker as scum is if I either had an incredibly strong reason to think that player was a power role, or if the other living townies had such a negative personality conflict going that they needed to all stay alive so they could continue to lynch each other.

[Sanjay]

One of the many reasons I hate playing as mafia.

[Benmage]

One of the many reasons I hate playing as mafia.

Just grow a pair. Play to win yes, subtext and play to be a badass. Winning to nobody is bull. Win vs someone, by outsmarting them/out playing them and have all enjoy the game everyone supposedly signed up to play. Non-contributors/lurkers/Known lurkers ruin games, fun for all, and the integrity of "Mafia". Period.

[Sanjay]

I guess I should kill village idiots too?

[Benmage]

I guess I should kill village idiots too?

You can give new players some leway. I do suggest players play atleast 2 newbie games before moving on.

I dont know about following this as scum. I have a general feeling regardless of alignment to say, yeah string em up. But as scum if someone sucks..that isnt your fault...especially if they are trying and not just being bad on purpose.

Town can deal with sucky(scummy) players. You can asses if they suck cause their bad or new, or scum... Lurkers/inactive player just leave you with nothing.

[Benmage]

Noone signs up assuming everyone to be brilliant. Hell half the time i sign up thinking i'll have to carry the game. But i do sign up thinking everyone will play the game. That's the difference.

[Adel]

One of the many reasons I hate playing as mafia.

Just grow a pair. Play to win yes, subtext and play to be a badass. Winning to nobody is bull. Win vs someone, by outsmarting them/out playing them and have all enjoy the game everyone supposedly signed up to play. Non-contributors/lurkers/Known lurkers ruin games, fun for all, and the integrity of "Mafia". Period.

The goal of scum is to win. Period. If killing the activity level, encouraging lurking, and making the game unfun contribute towards that win condition then the scum are simply doing their job. Period.

Try reading http://www.sirlin.net/ptw (for free, or donation of you feel like it) -- it may change your approach.

[Benmage]

To steal a quick line:

"If you are able to win more (that is, more consistently defeat highly skilled players), then you are improving. "

I wouldn't call lurkers highly skilled players.

[Vi]

To steal a quick line:

"If you are able to win more (that is, more consistently defeat highly skilled players), then you are improving. "

I wouldn't call lurkers highly skilled players.

Use the lurkers to manipulate the highly skilled players in the game. Two-for-one deal!

Play to win yes, subtext and play to be a badass.

You can do this D1~

I guess I should kill village idiots too?

What Would Xyl Do? (WWXD)