EPTPolicy Lynching
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
I am all for policy lynching VE just for the fun of it. I always thought that policy lynching was just an excuse not to participate in analysis. It is easy to contribute when all you have to do is pick a lurker and lynch them. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
I must say its very refreshing to talk about mafia in 2nd person, rather than in continuous 1st person.  | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
Imagine that a certain game starts, and everybody decides to policy lynch lurkers. So you lynch your 1st lurker on D1. He would be most likely town, but no worries, you think everybody else will stop lurking by now and we solve the problem right? Wrong, players that lurked until then will keep lurking (or being inactive for stuff from real life), and you'll keep policy lynching them throughout the game, most likely earning scum a win and making the game boring as hell. Yes, if many games enforced a "lurkers" policy lynch, then the more time goes on the larger the probability of there being fewer and fewer lurkers in games. However that comes with the cost of maybe making each game it's implemented a total chaos, and those (specially town) that play those games want to win them, and they know that by just policy lynching lurkers that isn't achieved so there's less incentive to enforce them. That was the "Lynch lurkers" policy, if you do the "Lynch blue claims" policy you'll do the same thing since blue claims will still start showing up (hi VE!) and you'll still end up lynching them and them flipping blue, again making the games more boring and shittier for town (or for scum if they wanted to make an epic play or something). It's like being fat and starting to diet and exercise. You know it's good in the long run, but as soon as you start it you hate it because it ruins everything to you in the present and makes things uncomfortable. So, is TL Mafia willing to drop weight or not? Maybe someone can spare a liposuction so we avoid this altogether >_>. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
I guess the question becomes, how often are games determined by people who would have been lynched if a policy was in place? If it doesn't happen often, it isn't a problem. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
A lynch bad claim policy is great though. IMO when you claim for any reason other than to save town from a mislynch then you're not claiming correctly. That means if you're blue and you claim in order to get your agenda passed (like VE's blue claim from MTG) I would kill you instantly if I had a gun. Why? Because that type of claim is completely indistinguishable regardless of alignment, which makes it excellent for scumplay. That's why I employed my jailkeeper claim in Mini X. It's completely indistinguishable as scum or town play but it fools the jubjubs because they're afraid of the repercussions of being wrong. That's fulfillment of individual agenda, which ultimately benefits scum far more than town. This leads into the next point: whenever anyone takes some sort of play that is literally indistinguishable from either alignment perspective (i.e. breadcrumbing your role) and then tries to say it only works from a town perspective, I want to kill them. Why? Because they're lying (or at the very least being misleading). The sad part is that townies have been doing this for the past several months (again, VE comes to mind, though he's not the only one and I don't mean to single him out here) so the policy becomes ineffective. Which leads us into another policy lynch of its own  Now into a small rant of why policy lynching isn't very useful in larger games: Part of the reason I don't play larger games very often anymore (I replaced into LV because I felt the inactivity would ruin the game, but it did anyway) is because they're total derpfests where half the town goes afk because they don't want to play vanilla town. It's pathetic, really: people sign up either when they don't have time to play or when they aren't arsed to put in effort when they get a role they don't like. This leads to half the mafia team lurking their asses off and the game being more about picking apart the lurkers and killing them, usually going 50/50 scum/town, which ultimately sees even a modicum of scum effort resulting in a washover win as 5-6 townies get modkilled. This has happened in almost every single larger normal game for the past 9 months. Look at any numbered TL game between XLIV and LV and this pattern persists throughout. The only exceptions I can think of are L and LI and those aren't very good exceptions at all. What's the problem with policy lynching lurkers in these games? Well, when 10 people are inactive in a 30 player game, you can't policy lynch lurkers. It results in the actual scum actively lurking; they end up looking better or the same as 1/3 of the playerbase. There's a couple scum in the total inactives, a couple scum in the 2-3 post a day pool, and a couple of active scum. How can you policy lynch a lurker when there's an 80% chance they flip town? too lazy, but as an example XLIV had 4 vanilla townies replaced (1 replacement modkilled) 1 mafia framer replaced. 4 vanilla townies modkilled 9/30 | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
lynch the red team everything else is fucking useless | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
what is this madness? I agree though, policy lynching is fun. The arguement against it is traditionally "it kills discussion". However, when was the last time policy introduction ended discussion? It almost always causes a flurry of activity as people argue for and against it. As long as town atmosphere can be appropriately handled (difficult proposition....) an alternate topic is not such a bad idea. | ||
|
Cephiro
Finland1934 Posts
On June 07 2012 18:30 annul wrote: i have a policy lynch the red team everything else is fucking useless I approve this statement. E: Except when I'm scum. | ||
|
risk.nuke
Sweden2825 Posts
On June 07 2012 20:05 Cephiro wrote: I approve this statement. E: Except when I'm scum. Alright, well just be sure to let us know which games those are so we can take that into our consideration. | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
extra mafia points if dt is a one shot one | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On June 07 2012 20:59 Kurumi wrote: lynch the dt before lynching the checked guy extra mafia points if dt is a one shot one what's the full logic behind this exactly? I've heard this notion before, but didn't fully understand it On June 07 2012 21:10 marvellosity wrote: wbg: VT is my favourite role, I like just having "my wits and my vote" or whatever the blurb usually says ^_^ Me too! well, besides Mafia Goon :p | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On June 07 2012 21:23 EchelonTee wrote: what's the full logic behind this exactly? I've heard this notion before, but didn't fully understand it Me too! well, besides Mafia Goon :p Lynching dt's target says nothing about the dt | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
| ||
|
rastaban
United States2294 Posts
Lynch Lurkers, Lynch Bad Claims, Lynch all Liars, any useful ones that I am missing? One I have been wondering about, is should you policy lynch all reds (provided the DT is sane) in a game with a miller but no framers(its not LYLO either)? It seems to me if they incurred enough suspicion to be checked by a DT then it isn't worth the risk of saving them. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
If you lynch into lurkers, bad claimers or liars everyone will be like "yeah, he's a liar, lynch him" and there will be about 0 discussion on why or wether or not he should be lynched. The guy in question is either going to be lynched because of the policy or not but there's nothing town gets out of that lynch except for the true-random-chance to hit a mafia and the knowledge that the guy won't do the same thing the next game (including other people who will remember the poolicy lynch) so really, the only thing policy lynches are good for is making an example as town about what people want and what they don't want for games that are going to be hosted after this game. I really like the educational part of policy-lynches, but that's usually not helping in my current game or even hurting me. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
| ||
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
And imo in newbie games policy lynches are helpful. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:33 GMarshal wrote: Policy lynches are not great short term (in the actual game) (although they can help) but long term (over many games) they develop good behaviors. So generally they are bad. In each game the goal is to win that particular game. Like, the only way of doing it would be if, say, TL Mafia was training for some massive internetz mafia world cup and that was the final goal. As it is, the final goal is to win that one particular game. | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:52 marvellosity wrote: So generally they are bad. In each game the goal is to win that particular game. Like, the only way of doing it would be if, say, TL Mafia was training for some massive internetz mafia world cup and that was the final goal. As it is, the final goal is to win that one particular game. Yes and no, raising the standard of play is a "meta" goal so to speak, otherwise why play games with coaches? they make your opponents play better which hinders your chances of winning! Same with advising people after the game is over, it makes them play better in other games you may be playing, which can be risky! (its a silly example, but you get what I'm saying) I don't especially care for policy lynches one way or another (I believe vigis can fill that role equally well, with less wasted time.)) | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:56 GMarshal wrote: Yes and no, raising the standard of play is a "meta" goal so to speak, otherwise why play games with coaches? they make your opponents play better which hinders your chances of winning! Same with advising people after the game is over, it makes them play better in other games you may be playing, which can be risky! (its a silly example, but you get what I'm saying) I don't especially care for policy lynches one way or another (I believe vigis can fill that role equally well, with less wasted time.)) The examples don't match up though. Coaches improve the standard of play within that game and also afterwards. Advising people after the game is over - it improves play but has no bearing on the game just played. Whereas policy lynching within the confines of a game is likely to worsen the result. i.e. your examples either improve the standard of the game you're in or future games while not impacting the present, vs policy lynches which improve later games but probably worsen the current one | ||
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
Lynch anyone that opposes this Lynch contradictions not liars Lynch lurkers especially noob ones Never lynch anyone blazinghand vows to eat his hat on | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
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 this | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:33 GMarshal wrote: Policy lynches are not great short term (in the actual game) (although they can help) but long term (over many games) they develop good behaviors. exactly. I don't mind losing a single cycle to teach someone a lessen for the greater good of improving TL towns :p Yeah it's probably not helping your current game and most likely going to hurt you but if you don't policy shoot or policy lynch from time to time people will end up thinking they did good. Just look at my games as town. I'm still having those hypno-Toad games every now and then because that's funny to play but people probably should insta-lynch me in games like that to teach me that lessen :p | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
| ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Policy lynching works in a similar way in that if we agree to it we should never have to carry out any lynches because players will know that certain plays will get them lynched and consequently will not do them. How many times have you been in a game and realised that a third of the players in the game weren't playing and another third were doing dumb shit that made them painful to interact with? We need more policy lynching!!! + Show Spoiler + ps snape kills dumbledore | ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
e: barring of course the sensible ones; however the only one I've seen is in a newbie game where DT came out with 3 town checks which lead to scum surrender | ||
|
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On June 07 2012 22:13 rastaban wrote: What are the policy lynches Lynch Lurkers, Lynch Bad Claims, Lynch all Liars, any useful ones that I am missing? One I have been wondering about, is should you policy lynch all reds (provided the DT is sane) in a game with a miller but no framers(its not LYLO either)? It seems to me if they incurred enough suspicion to be checked by a DT then it isn't worth the risk of saving them. I think people get mixed up in what constitutes a valid policy. Lynch Lurkers isn't always a valid policy: In a large game unless the Town has lots of KP you can't do this every time. In a 10 player, 12 player game though? Lynch Lurkers is a massive advantage the Town should almost always follow. Lynch "Bad Claims" isn't an actual policy, and never should be - bad claims are a subjective idea in most cases. One thing I can say with absolute confidence that is a bad claim is someone claiming and appearing to not understand how their role works because they didn't read the role PM correctly - that sounds like Scum screwing up a fake claim. The other is a DT that gives results that don't make sense even taking sanity into account, or a Medic that claims to protect people they were trying to lynch. That kind of stuff is concrete "bad claims" territory that everyone SHOULD policy lynch for. Lynch All Liars is the best policy lynch of all and should always be followed. There are very few circumstances where Townies should lie. Lately people have been far more willing to kill lying players so at least this is starting to take hold. Other policies are game to game depending on mechanics. Examples: 1.) In any open setup if someone is hesitant to claim during a mass claim and most roles are already accounted for chances are they are Scum. 2.) In a setup with self-aware Millers, anyone that is caught by a Detective and claims Miller should be policy lynched. A self-aware Miller is Town, and on Day 1 should claim Miller immediately. They might still be lynched but this gives the Town a much easier path days ahead. 3.) Any Miller claim should be lynched anyway. 4.) This is in the same vein as Millers: Any Town role that will fuck the Town over without doing anything bad to the Mafia (Traitor, Beloved Princess if it's an open setup and there aren't a lot of Blue Roles) should claim immediately. People caught with these roles should policy lynched. The point of policy lynching isn't just a meta thing: It's to put the Town on a plan to win. If everyone is aware that "Doing X tends to be something only Scum would do, and we will lynch you for doing X" then any Townie/Scum worth their salt better discuss this BEFORE everyone goes a long with it. Once the atmosphere has been set you have no one to blame but yourself if you get caught doing X. Not every policy lynch applies to every game (even LALiars) but when the game starts at least be aware of what makes a good one to throw out there. And stop the myth about policy lynching kills discussion: It doesn't. Policy lynches usually cause people to take sides which is ultimately a good thing for the Town. | ||
|
MrZentor
United States1648 Posts
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  | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On June 07 2012 22:13 rastaban wrote: What are the policy lynches Lynch Lurkers, Lynch Bad Claims, Lynch all Liars, any useful ones that I am missing? One I have been wondering about, is should you policy lynch all reds (provided the DT is sane) in a game with a miller but no framers(its not LYLO either)? It seems to me if they incurred enough suspicion to be checked by a DT then it isn't worth the risk of saving them. WHERE DID YOU NINJA OUT FROM? | ||
|
Bluelightz
Indonesia2463 Posts
| ||
|
rastaban
United States2294 Posts
Hey BC is Ninja, I'm a townie :D Got some personal things in order, so I am hoping I have the time to try and play again. | ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
l o l o l o l | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
 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 States25552 Posts
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
I usually always support any sort of policy in the start just to give the policy more power. | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
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
| ||
|
Hassybaby
United Kingdom10823 Posts
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
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
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
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
It should be more a policy mod-kill for some cases imo. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
My 2c | ||
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
| ||
|
rastaban
United States2294 Posts
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 States21170 Posts
| ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
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. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
it's ok i love you just pull a bluelightz ! :D | ||
|
Bluelightz
Indonesia2463 Posts
On June 09 2012 22:12 EchelonTee wrote: it's ok i love you just pull a bluelightz ! :D What do you mean :o? I never get lynched anyways :p(unless im scum) | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
| ||
|
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 07 2012 21:28 Kurumi wrote: Lynching dt's target says nothing about the dt converse can be true too, bad argument | ||
|
Oberyn
United Kingdom508 Posts
How about "figure out which one of them is scum and lynch that guy"? | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
See Magic (the normal mini) for details | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On June 10 2012 04:44 Blazinghand wrote: FWIW I will occasionally policy lynch a lurker. In any individual game it might not be the best move but if you can't tell their alignment either way they're a liability. Overall it should keep the amount of lurking down as a viable scum strat right? Not exactly, if you look at most games you'll only have one or two lurking scum (in a mini) or 2-3 (in a reg). In the games I have played scum usually put in as much info as the majority of town. You have three types of players in this case. 1) Lurkers - can be scum or town, but meta suggests town. Scum are more likely to put in somewhat useful info, or post when pushed or another is pushed. The scum lurker also may be not participating in the scum QT. 2) Witnesses - Funny name huh? I think its appropiate because these players seem to stay out of the spotlight, but get in enough evidence to stay off the radar. This is where most scum are going to hide, as this is where most townies are as well. The key way we are able to find scum is to probe these players. Why? Scum wont hide as lurkers because of the key reason that they cant defend themselves. Being a lurker is playing with odds, will the town come after you for lurking or not? Being a lurker by default screams scum, so why would a scum want to draw attention in that way? 3) Leader - usually not scum, becareful though! An actual leader will jump into a fight head on, arguing with the accused drawing attention to himself as well as the scum. Witnessess often seem like leaders when they post strong evidence, but they are not and should be treated as strong town reads at the most. Why not Lynch All Lurkers? Lynching lurkers is an odds game at best, let's look at those odds (for a mini). Day two begins 3 townies dead 10 people left (3 mafia), worst case you have two days left. you can buy a day or two by lynching a mafia, but you have three lurkers. Let's think about this from the mafia point of view, they can have one, two or three lurkers. 3 is an obviously bad idea as an attempt to lynch a lurker will force them to talk, with scummy attention on them. Two is basically the same idea, as the town will most likely pick a semi-active lurker (as a mafia will be more active than a hard lurker/inactive). So the mafia in the end will put in one mafia. If the town were to follow through on a LAL policy this is what would happen: Day two they agree on a lurker... then Everybody stops talking. This is what happens anytime an early consensus vote happens, by default everyone stops talking because the vote is set. Odds are they have already picked a townie but now they only have one day left, unless they lynch a mafia. You now have one day to pick out a mafia from the talkers (6 if you exclude the leader), which means: 3/6 people are mafia with evidence the odds are in town favour. 1/2 people are lurkers a blind shot means 50% without evidence. | ||
| ||
