Deadline Policy

[armlx]

What is the prefered deadline policy:

A. No lynch unless there is a real lynch
B. Most votes gets lynched
C. The rule from Gambits (with 6+ people, the person with the most votes at deadline, if it is half a majority, it lynched. Otherwise no lynch)

I have seen option A in several games recently, and it results in quite a few no lynches or un-stoppable rush lynches. B gives more flexability but occasionally is abusable. C is sorta middle ground (and the one I personally use)

[Seol]

You should check out the previous discussion on this topic.

Personally I prefer dropping to half-majority on deadline, if there's no half-majority no-lynch.

[rajrhcpfreak]

im an A person.

when i play it that way IRL.

but i dont really care. if the rules state it clearly and the rule fits with the rule of theme of the game it it doesnt matter.

[Mgm]

I usually use C, but to avoid either side being screwed over by bad play from lurkers and the like, I think I would prefer trying B just to see what happens.

A, for me, is out of the question. Sometimes it's not the town's fault a majority can't be reached (see the lurkers above).

[Mr. Flay]

D: Plurality lynching (50% or more of the

cast

votes at deadline, minimum votes equal to the number of players alive/4, rounded up). Dutifully stolen from DS/Polotet.

That's the short version, Seol linked to the older thread where I explained it more fully. I'm also intrigued by BJ's (I think) idea of having the necessary number of votes drop slowly by 1, rather than precipitously.

I agree that A is generally too harsh, except in Lynch-or-Lose where it's required.

[Yosarian2]

A can work in some games, but the mod has to be very agressive abour replacing lurkers in that case.

C is probably the best overall, with the half-lynch at deadline. B is sometimes needed in very large games, though.

Edit: had B and C switched

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Option D is the one I use.

[Max]

I'm also intrigued by BJ's (I think) idea of having the necessary number of votes drop slowly by 1, rather than precipitously.

That's the method I use IRL I've always used that method it can never drop to the amount of mafia so if 2 mafias are remaing in a 5 player LOL the vote cannot go down

[mikeburnfire]

I think my deadline policy would work well. For every two days or so, it takes one less person to lynch. So if 7 people were alive and dealine was reached, it would only take 3 people to reach lynch. A few days later, it would only take two. This might encourage the town to hurry it up before they have a mislynch (or scumjump in cases of LYLO).

[Max]

I think my deadline policy would work well. For every two days or so, it takes one less person to lynch. So if 7 people were alive and dealine was reached, it would only take 3 people to reach lynch. A few days later, it would only take two. This might encourage the town to hurry it up before they have a mislynch (or scumjump in cases of LYLO).

Several people say that

Like Me

[Kelly Chen]

IMHO if the town can't put a full majority together to avoid No Lynch (when a full majority is required), then either
1. the mod didn't give them enough time;
2. the town isn't trying very hard; or
3. you have a majority of players preferring No Lynch to the vote leader.

I think requiring a full majority creates the most information. If you lower the vote requirement, scum can sit back while a minority of the town lynches a townie.

It doesn't seem to me to be a good trade-off, to reduce scum's need to vote for townies, in exchange for more of a guarantee that there will be a lynch.