Policy Lynching

[MonkeyMan576]

Is policy lynching a good idea? IMHO policy lynching is generally an excuse for lazy town to get through day 1 without having to scum hunt or take positions. It makes it incredibly easy for scum to blend into the town and generally hurts the town in the long run. IMHO policy lynching should only be done in very severe cases, not as a rule of thumb.

Of course, I have been a policy lynch target before, but I have also have had people defend me, so I am a little biased.

[Human Destroyer]

I really, REALLY despise policy lynches.

They usually don't hit scum, and it gives scum an excuse to look like their contributing.

I say a policy lynch is almost always a waste of a lynch.

[quadz08]

Policy lynches are the best and most reliable way to get rid of that player who you know will be useless come endgame, but is never going to get NK'ed, and if you don't lynch him now, he'll never get lynched later. I am an unapologetic proponent of policy lynches. (This is also why I try to play in games that have more selective mods / use Wisdom of the Crowds during signups.) It's also a good way to get information out of Day 1, as long as it's not a speedlynch.

[MonkeyMan576]

Policy lynches are the best and most reliable way to get rid of that player who you know will be useless come endgame, but is never going to get NK'ed, and if you don't lynch him now, he'll never get lynched later. I am an unapologetic proponent of policy lynches. (This is also why I try to play in games that have more selective mods / use Wisdom of the Crowds during signups.) It's also a good way to get information out of Day 1, as long as it's not a speedlynch.

If you policy lynch you are basically saying you have a 66% chance you are lynching town. Also useless is a rather strong term, there's a difference between "lynching the weakest link" and "declaring someone useless". Both instances are rather strong positions and should not be used as a generalization to justify all policy lynches.

[quadz08]

There are some players that are legitimately useless. Not a lot, and if you're pushing a policy lynch on someone who isn't useless, then you're not doing it right.

[MonkeyMan576]

That's my position, I think there are a lot of people that overuse policy lynching as a way to avoid heat on themselves, which is anti town in general.

[borkjerfkin]

I mean what if a useless player rolls scum and are just lurk lurkity lurking and you have no pro-town killing role? I'm not averse to policy lynching when town is ahead.

[zoraster]

The value of policy lynching is directly related to what policy you're using.

[Untrod Tripod]

is this related to an ongoing game?

[MonkeyMan576]

No, it's a general question.

[gorckat]

is this related to an ongoing game?

There should be a click-through window for all topics submitted to MD asking that and blocking the post if it is.
_ _ _

What are good policies to lynch for Day 1?

Useless players (measured how)?
Chronic self-hammerers?
People who are needlessly antagonistic?

[DrippingGoofball]

I remember zwetchenwasser that contributed zero except quickhammering anyone at L-1.

[zoraster]

zwet was slightly more useful than killa7

[mastin2]

Whatever happened to mods allowing WOTC?

If the majority of players don't want a player in the game, then just replace the player. It's better for the game's atmosphere.

I pretty much disagree with policy lynches for this reason. The mod should recognize that the player who would-be policy-lynched is damaging the game's atmosphere. It's not something subjective, either, when the majority of the players are telling you not to allow that player in. Said player coming in will cause either people to replace out or cause the direction of the game to be altered in a way that makes the game less fun for all.

Force-replacing is a

much

more elegant solution than policy lynching.

Granted...yes, a player can get better and legitimately clean up their act, but only a small fraction of them (hint: they have to actually

want

to improve; most just assume they're good enough as they are and that they just entered a game where haters gonna hate) actually do, and even then, there's always a risk of a relapse.

[borkjerfkin]

Whatever happened to mods allowing WOTC?

If the majority of players don't want a player in the game, then just replace the player. It's better for the game's atmosphere.

I pretty much disagree with policy lynches for this reason. The mod should recognize that the player who would-be policy-lynched is damaging the game's atmosphere. It's not something subjective, either, when the majority of the players are telling you not to allow that player in. Said player coming in will cause either people to replace out or cause the direction of the game to be altered in a way that makes the game less fun for all.

Force-replacing is a

much

more elegant solution than policy lynching.

Granted...yes, a player can get better and legitimately clean up their act, but only a small fraction of them (hint: they have to actually

want

to improve; most just assume they're good enough as they are and that they just entered a game where haters gonna hate) actually do, and even then, there's always a risk of a relapse.

I think I agree with this in theory. I'm not sure if I would have the stones to enforce it.

[mastin2]

I think I agree with this in theory. I'm not sure if I would have the stones to enforce it.

There are ways.

First and foremost, I've been an advocate for a while now that no game should have a completely and totally 100% objective moderator. The nature of mafia is at its core that of a social game (which is pretty much by definition subjective!), and you can't objectively relegate interactions entirely; no ruleset will ever be effective 100% of the time, and as such, no moderator should limit themselves to strictly their own rules 100% of the time.

There are ways to put it in objectively, though. For starters, there are plenty of phrases you can invoke in your actual ruleset. "Reserve the right to modify the rules as deemed necessary" (or something to that effect), "reserve the right to modify rules off of the gamestate" (such as shortening/extending a deadline), "rules aren't an entire list of dos/don't in the game" (not the best wording, but you get the idea; convey in the ruleset that the rules are incomplete and do not cover every situation, allowing for a mod to act outside of what's strictly written), "honor the intent of the rules" (so people understand that the literal word may not be followed because every rule has an intention), you get the idea. Most/all of those phrases give the moderator flexibility, and if someone challenges their decision, the moderator can point to the rule(s) with these phrases and explain why their action is justified.

Second of all, there are certain rules which you can add. You can explicitly put in your ruleset that you DO allow for Wisdom of the Crowds.
And furthermore, you can put rules into place about justifications for force-replaces. (For instance, my ruleset has a section that's boiled down saying, "don't be an ass". Verbal abuse is one frequent cause of WotC, and the person using said verbal abuse would be violating that rule, giving me grounds to justify their force-replacement.)

Edit:

This also covers active lurking. Someone can post "prod dodge" every three days and technically be following the rules. In doing so, however, they ignore the intent. People who do this excessively are VERY frequently WotC'd because the players want that slot to actually give something (town or scum) and the player is doing just enough not to get replaced by the book-rules, yet not enough to make that slot actually have an influence. By invoking intent of the rule (to post content), they'd be in violation of the rule and get replaced by someone who would make that slot not dead.

Edit2:

This is also relevant.

Spoiler: Excerpt from my MD thread

Often-times, the answer is not in stricter rules (they merely limit the problem), but in teaching the players and encouraging positive behavior. So please take into consideration--

No ruleset is 100% effective.

Your ruleset can be absolutely amazing, but it's never going to work 100% of the time. In general, moderators should be extremely objective, but one of the main reasons we don't have automated games is that the nature of mafia games on MS require a certain level of subjectivity.

Rules should have some flexibility to reflect upon the state of the game.

Always keep the state of the game in mind with regards to rules. Ultimately, a moderator's job is to deliver a fun game, and if your enforcement of the rules is detrimental to this, then you've failed at your goal.

[PokerFace]

Policy Vidge > Policy Lynch

[Zachrulez]

I hate when I get accused of pushing policy lynches on players who happen to be popular policy lynch targets.

[Nero Cain]

Policy lynches are the best and most reliable way to get rid of that player who you know will be useless come endgame, but is never going to get NK'ed, and if you don't lynch him now, he'll never get lynched later.

This.

I think they can really help by giving scum less mislynch bait to hide behind and gives the town a better chances by not distracting them.

[ArcAngel9]

Policy lynches are the best and most reliable way to get rid of that player who you know will be useless come endgame, but is never going to get NK'ed, and if you don't lynch him now, he'll never get lynched later. I am an unapologetic proponent of policy lynches. (This is also why I try to play in games that have more selective mods / use Wisdom of the Crowds during signups.) It's also a good way to get information out of Day 1, as long as it's not a speedlynch.

I completely disagree with you on this.

Policy lynch is an idea of a set of group who thinks high about their play style, they have expectations on how a game should run and how everybody must comply their meets.
How is on the earth that anyone can expect anyone to play under their terms? The reason to call mafia is a group game because there are different individuals who has different ways of reading and understanding to a subject, it doesn’t make them a bad player. And what frustrates me that some players end up calling them as “derps” and “Village Idiots”, If somebody’s play style doesn’t meet expectations doesn’t mean that they’re a bad player. And to be precise, there is no one called “BAD players”, I would rather define it as “Different play styles”.

Again, the point of playing multiplayer game and online(this applies globally) that you get to play various types of people, if someone is better than others doesn’t mean that they can get to discriminate the play styles of others because for the fact that they could be better under their own terms or to someone else(which is not necessarily everyone)

Policy lynches also effects on players and their confidence, the more you push them back, it will demotivate them from being part of this community. And based on today’s online gaming condition(games like Mafia) , there is no bigger future, there was time a lot of people use to be part of lot of online communities but today most of them have fallen apart because of drastic culture change and technology development which diverted people into various interests. So, being mafia hooker, this community need to be more welcomed than create differences between play styles and becoming unwelcoming.

Apart of what I said above which mostly effects on who a player thinks.. “ Policy Lynch” is also not a healthy play style.
Policy lynches gives advantage to attack the week players and get them “miss-lynched” This is really a bad thing for Town because no lynch can directly be taken down without the support of town and having town as the part of “msis-lynch”, Team mafia every advantages to turn miss-lynch votes to frame an innocent. A good game must have a mix of everyone and that way it will be enjoyable.

And to the people whoever thinks “policy lynch” is a good thing, and if that is what is your preference of play style, and can’t live, think, talk, breath, dream, or fart with policy lynch. I think you should play games with your own set of people. This board allows internal communities and groups. So, It may be time you should create your own group/community and just play with your team and let the rest of players play under their own terms.


Note: What I said above is completely based on my experience here since the day I joined (which is Dec 11th 2012)
My experience here: Check my Wiki page on my profile
Cheers,
Angel

[Faraday]

Policy lynches are the best and most reliable way to get rid of that player who you know will be useless come endgame, but is never going to get NK'ed, and if you don't lynch him now, he'll never get lynched later. I am an unapologetic proponent of policy lynches. (This is also why I try to play in games that have more selective mods / use Wisdom of the Crowds during signups.) It's also a good way to get information out of Day 1, as long as it's not a speedlynch.

Another good way is to not policy lynch.

[LlamaFluff]

Policy lynches are awesome. People need to be brave enough to do them more.

That said there arent a whole lot who qualify as policy lynch material, maybe half a dozen active players I would be happy pushing one one. I think I have been in games with four overall.

That said a utility lynch (my term for lynch of somewhat scummy borderline policy lynch) is also a good thing.

WotC is nice, but has a flaw of where the cap of votes needs to be. If you are the mod of an 18 player game and four players dont want another player... is that the line? If its 50% what if seven refuse to play? WotC is probably more of a way to let the mod know there is an undesireable that the dont know of who signed up.

[PMysterious]

Policy lynches are awesome. People need to be brave enough to do them more.

That said there arent a whole lot who qualify as policy lynch material, maybe half a dozen active players I would be happy pushing one one. I think I have been in games with four overall.

That said a utility lynch (my term for lynch of somewhat scummy borderline policy lynch) is also a good thing.

WotC is nice, but has a flaw of where the cap of votes needs to be. If you are the mod of an 18 player game and four players dont want another player... is that the line? If its 50% what if seven refuse to play? WotC is probably more of a way to let the mod know there is an undesireable that the dont know of who signed up.

I disagree. Policy lynching sounds good on paper, but all it does is cause Mafia to get away easily. This happens to me quite a bit. Here's an example.

Player A- Town
Player B- Mafia Roleblocker
Player C- Cop
Player D- Town
Player E- Mafia Goon
Player F- Doctor
Player G- Town

Now, suppose Player C is a newer player or is a common policy lynch. Player A goes, "Hey, I say we Policy lynch Player C. He's stupid" Player C tries to defend himself, but Player A and Player D vote him anyway. Now, that's the opening for the Mafia to strike. However, Player B does not want to be lynched the following day, so he votes Player A while Player E votes Player C. Now, Player F goes, screw it, Player C is worthless and hammers him. Player C is lynched and now you have just lost your Cop. So, Mafia can kill someone who's a threat, AKA: Player G and they can just plow through everything else.

I know Policy lynching "sometimes" works, but overall, its a jerk move and it prevents players from becoming better outside of pressure. If anyone considers policy lynching someone, think twice and you might see some potential in every player. I never policy lynch and I suggest it never occurs.

[LlamaFluff]

Thats why you only policy lynch players who are going to be damaging to the town even if they are town. There are a few players who are active that when they are town, town win chance would probably go up if they were lynched day one. Thats the point of a policy lynch, kill the player who is so bad they will hurt your chances of winning as town.

Your logic is pretty worst case intensive. By the same logic you should never lynch a claimed role day one and probably can even be twisted into lynching is anti-town. Any lynch has inherant risks, a good policy lynch has a baseline mild good before a flip occurs and probably shifts to mild bad in a worst case scenario. A good policy lynch should flip VT and you are still happy you lyched them.

Like I said, they are very rare. I have seen one on Nat ages ago, one on ani and then two in a double-day mechanic that the players were essentially told "you are being lynched" in the queue but stayed in the game.

It isnt something to always use but there are definantly players who can and should be policy lynched.

[PMysterious]

Um, here's the thing. I forgot to mention that no one has claimed at that point. Anyway, I was Policy Lynch bait and still am.