Please Note: Swap votes are Plurality Vote While Lynch votes are Majority Vote.

This means a no-swap is impossible while a no-lynch is possible due to not reaching a majority on a player (#Players in world/2 + 1)

randombum

United States2378 Posts

December 12 2012 04:17 GMT

#144

I actually think sandro's idea has some merit. Since it would be nice to have confirmed townies. However, instead of swapping the scummiest they swap the second scummiest since they can lynch their scummiest target sooner than we would be able to, after that we would be able to use our lynch + new information from their lynch to see if we need to lynch the potential scum target they sent over.

Unless we somehow find somebody on our world who we want to lynch ahead of their second scummiest person in which case that person survives an extra day.

Sounds likes a lot work for something that may not even be better since this would require their world to have two reads and their weaker read being stronger than our strongest.

Unless we are willing to let our strongest read go un-lynched for the purpose killing everybody in one world to confirm the rest.

I started all that when I first saw sandro's idea, and by the time I finished it looked like even sandro changed his mind, but screw it I wrote it up I'm positing it.

randombum

United States2378 Posts

December 12 2012 04:19 GMT

#145

And of course Greymist posts that after I check the thread again. In that light it might actually be a good idea to follow Sandro's idea since a confirmed list is always good + they wouldn't be forced into lynching townies.

Keirathi

United States4679 Posts

December 12 2012 04:21 GMT

#146

No lynching every other day is just as bad as it would be in any other game. Why the hell would we do that :o

randombum

United States2378 Posts

December 12 2012 04:35 GMT

#147

No lynch is bad. A confirmed town list is good. It's a matter of which we value more.

Keirathi

United States4679 Posts

December 12 2012 04:35 GMT

#148

Yes, I meant once the two mafia from your side are dead. No-lynching is almost always bad, no matter how you look at it.

Imagine this was a normal game. You have 2 scum dead by day 4. Would you ever propose no-lynching every other day just for the hell of it? No.

randombum

United States2378 Posts

December 12 2012 04:36 GMT

#149

IF we went with that plan, not convinced its the best idea yet.

Keirathi

United States4679 Posts

December 12 2012 04:37 GMT

#150

Sorry, I guess if I'm going to address people in the other world, I should specifically say @Player.

My last post was a response to Sandro.

Blazinghand

United States25562 Posts

December 12 2012 04:43 GMT

#151

Hm, actually that's a good point. If BOTH SIDES choose to swap scum, we maximize scum lynching and will never be lynching into a pool of confirmed townies. I've changed my mind, Sandro's plan is excellent if it works like this:

All sides swap scum, all sides lynch scum.

It avoids the "lynching confirmed town" scenario and will confirm townies the quickest. If we get a majority of people in both houses to sign on this will be great.

Blazinghand

United States25562 Posts

December 12 2012 04:44 GMT

#152

There won't be a no-lynch if BOTH SIDES swap the scummiest player, though, so the new plan is perfect.

randombum

United States2378 Posts

December 12 2012 04:45 GMT

#153

BH your posting in the wrong thread.

randombum

United States2378 Posts

December 12 2012 04:48 GMT

#154

Both sides swapping their scummiest player sounds like a stupid plan. That means the soonest that player can be lynched is in two days after that swap when the side swapping him could have lynched him in one. Their SECOND scummiest player however can be lynched a day earlier if the other side is willing to do it for them.

iGrok

United States5142 Posts

December 12 2012 05:08 GMT

#155

Blazinghand is posting in the wrong thread, yes.

Guys, please make sure you're posting in the proper place. Post #3 in each thread will maintain an up-to-date list of who is where.

We'll be getting more strict about this as people adjust to the double-thread thing. For now, consider this a warning.

slOosh

3291 Posts

December 12 2012 05:39 GMT

#156

PW (Parallel World): @Blazinghand
Swapping the most scummiest players on both sides works directly counter to the plan. You are trying to lynch all the scummies from one world and replace them with town. If you swap scummiest from both sides that means you forgo lynching a very scummy candidate in order to lynch a perhaps less scummy candidate from the "town" world.

BW (Both World)
I don't like the plan. As it stands whoever we stands gets 1 cycle of lynch immunity which serves as perpetual distraction to discussion. You pump the "town" world with helpful / active / useful players and the "scum" town will be full of harder to read / inactive / less helpful players. Sure you could shout at them from one world to another but if they can't read one thread they probably can't read.

I think we should just swap players of roughly equal alignment, e.g. swap kinda townie with a kinda townie, to avoid the swap.

slOosh

3291 Posts

December 12 2012 05:43 GMT

#157

PW: @yamato77

How does a town decide upon who is most null?

randombum

United States2378 Posts

December 12 2012 06:14 GMT

#158

@yamato77 If we swap the lurkiest player what prevents mafia from playing that role.

slOosh

3291 Posts

December 12 2012 06:24 GMT

#159

That's not the issue randombum. The problem is that though hypothetically swapping nulls is the best way to reduce the effects of the swap, in practice it just doesn't work. Deciding null players is oxymoronic.

I like austin's explanation (sans the mayoral aspect).

slOosh

3291 Posts

December 12 2012 06:30 GMT

#160

Also, lynching scum is first priority. Confirmed town list is useful only in that it helps lynch scum, so any plan involving no lynch is playing catch up from the getgo.