I used to think that VE should only be lynched when he was the best target. Now I know the true mantra of the game: When in doubt, lynch VE.+ Show Spoiler +

jk lol, I know this isn't true. I know that VE should be killed at the earliest time possible by anyone in the game. The Aperture Testing agency told me. It's for science, I guess...

Blazinghand

United States25562 Posts

June 08 2012 08:27 GMT

#42

On June 08 2012 01:08 marvellosity wrote:

Show nested quote +

this

I actually wasn't wrong ONCE! I remember it! I think. Granted, like 5 out of the 6 hat eating times I was wrong, but ONCE I was right, so it was all worth it.

I like this discussion, I think it's good.

Dirkzor

Denmark1944 Posts

June 08 2012 08:39 GMT

#43

Problems occuring during games when someone brings up policy lynching is that not everyone is for or against it which renders the idea of a policy lynch meaningless. If you can't get everyone on board, or at least say they are willing to policy lynch, scum (and townies aswell) won't feel the pressure to follow the rules set by the policy. So it all ebs out into an empty threat.

I usually always support any sort of policy in the start just to give the policy more power.

gonzaw

Uruguay4911 Posts

June 08 2012 09:48 GMT

#44

How about policy lynching those that enforce policy lynches?

Once you enforce that....you'd need to lynch yourself...but then the ones that lynch you need to get lynched afterwards, and then the guys that lynch those needs to get lynched afterwards...

...then the guys that lynched those get lynched afterwards, then you lynch those guys, and you get lynched afterwards...

....yeah something like that

wherebugsgo

Japan10647 Posts

June 08 2012 12:49 GMT

#45

just for that post I'm killing you in bang bang

Hassybaby

United Kingdom10823 Posts

June 08 2012 14:54 GMT

#46

On June 08 2012 01:07 Mattchew wrote:
Lynch bill Murray and mrzentor every game
Lynch anyone that opposes this
Lynch contradictions not liars
Lynch lurkers especially noob ones
Never lynch anyone blazinghand vows to eat his hat on

Lynch the first guy who suggests lynching Kenpachi

Specifically if his reason includes Ken's first post

Qatol

United States3165 Posts

June 08 2012 15:09 GMT

#47

I disagree that there needs to be more policy lynches. The problem with policy lynching is it needs to actually have an effect on people for it to teach them anything. Too many players, upon being lynched, simply sign up for one of the other games currently accepting signups and they're back in a game within a couple days. They aren't mad about being lynched, and they certainly don't sit down and think about ways to avoid being lynched like that in the future. Heck, some people actually like lynch discussions which focus on them because then they get to be the center of attention. The only way I see policy lynches working is if you combine them with a policy that prevents people from signing up for another game until the game in which they were policy lynched finishes. Otherwise, you aren't punishing bad play or making an example of people, you're just making it harder for the towns to win with no real benefit.

VisceraEyes

United States21171 Posts

June 08 2012 15:20 GMT

#48

So to clarify, the consensus is that I'm to be policy-lynched every game, right?

Is that what I'm getting here? I'm all for Ace's theme of the thread which is policy lynching lurkers...but it seems like most people have taken it as some sort of cue to discuss lynching me every game for lulz.

I have to say, that's not very fun for me. I'm trying not to freak out.

Hassybaby

United Kingdom10823 Posts

June 08 2012 15:31 GMT

#49

On June 09 2012 00:20 VisceraEyes wrote:
So to clarify, the consensus is that I'm to be policy-lynched every game, right?

Is that what I'm getting here? I'm all for Ace's theme of the thread which is policy lynching lurkers...but it seems like most people have taken it as some sort of cue to discuss lynching me every game for lulz.

I have to say, that's not very fun for me. I'm trying not to freak out.

A townie should be fine with getting killed if it leads to a town victory! Scum

Hassybaby

United Kingdom10823 Posts

June 08 2012 15:33 GMT

#50

In all seriousness though, it is an option to have more policy lynches, but I don't like the fact that it leads to town using a lynch because someone is not playing in a way that's good. If it's a scum tell, sure o for it, but if it's just bad, it wastes a lynch for town.

It should be more a policy mod-kill for some cases imo.

Ace

United States16096 Posts

June 08 2012 17:22 GMT

#51

I'm not talking about lynching lurkers specifically though, read my post v_v

VisceraEyes

United States21171 Posts

June 08 2012 19:27 GMT

#52

LYNCH LURKERS ACE THEY RUIN GAMES

VisceraEyes

United States21171 Posts

June 08 2012 19:34 GMT

#53

The problem with calling anything a Policy Lynch seems to be the idea that calling something Policy removes the responsibility that comes with a lynch. Like, take the LAVE policy: Let's assume for a moment that we all adopted a policy of lynching VE every game regardless of what he says or does just because he's VE. Suddenly, every D1 in which VE is a player VE gets lynched because "well that's Policy lul"...but scum and town can do that totally free of responsibility. It's the same with anything - lurker lynches, LAL, Lynch bad claims, anything in which we as a community decide to "not tolerate it", scum just get one more open door to vote without responsibility. Even the policy "No-Lynch is bad, so as a town we should consolidate" has, as scum, given me outs in a vote SEVERAL times.

My 2c

kitaman27

United States9245 Posts

June 08 2012 19:45 GMT

#54

I'd be interested in seeing some examples in recent games where people agree that a policy lynch would have been appropriate.

rastaban

United States2294 Posts

June 08 2012 19:58 GMT

#55

On June 09 2012 04:34 VisceraEyes wrote:
The problem with calling anything a Policy Lynch seems to be the idea that calling something Policy removes the responsibility that comes with a lynch. Like, take the LAVE policy: Let's assume for a moment that we all adopted a policy of lynching VE every game regardless of what he says or does just because he's VE. Suddenly, every D1 in which VE is a player VE gets lynched because "well that's Policy lul"...but scum and town can do that totally free of responsibility. It's the same with anything - lurker lynches, LAL, Lynch bad claims, anything in which we as a community decide to "not tolerate it", scum just get one more open door to vote without responsibility. Even the policy "No-Lynch is bad, so as a town we should consolidate" has, as scum, given me outs in a vote SEVERAL times.

My 2c

Theoretically this will result in less VEs as people realize VEs get lynched. All VEs will realize that it gets them lynched so it will stop and all games will eventually be VE free with no need for the policy.

I think the point about the discussion is that as you are pointing out even with a LAVE policy some people will still say, as you yourself seem to do, LAVE shouldn't be used and so that generates discussion which can then be analyzed.

Also I feel so sorry for you being in bang bang after this thread, If I get a day medic I will protect you

VisceraEyes

United States21171 Posts

June 08 2012 20:15 GMT

#56

Don't cry for me, Argentina...I can handle these naysayers.

Mementoss

Canada2595 Posts

June 08 2012 20:24 GMT

#57

On June 09 2012 04:45 kitaman27 wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing some examples in recent games where people agree that a policy lynch would have been appropriate.

LIII Bill Murray Day 1

Lol.