Policy Lynching

[Cheery Dog]

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.

The last two games I;ve seen you play, you were prod dodging the whole time and never actually contributing anything, one you were lynched as an unclaimed PR due to deadline and the other you fakeclaimed PR as VT (and were lucky I was a paranoid scum about how I was treating you differently due to my alignment between these two games and also that the doc wasn't active when we lynched my partner)

[Oversoul]

Did town win any of those Llama?

[LlamaFluff]

Did town win any of those Llama?

Yes.

Policy lynching is better in nightless/large games due to the swing, but really there are a handfull of players who are really that dangerous to have around.

[ArcAngel9]

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.

The last two games I;ve seen you play, you were prod dodging the whole time and never actually contributing anything, one you were lynched as an unclaimed PR due to deadline and the other you fakeclaimed PR as VT (and were lucky I was a paranoid scum about how I was treating you differently due to my alignment between these two games and also that the doc wasn't active when we lynched my partner)

Is this part that you supporting policy lynch or just complaining about PMysterious last game you are with?
If so, please don't mix things up.

this is not about one or two people, people are being bullyed as part of policy lynch, so its bigger issue than one person is being unable to keep up the game.

[ArcAngel9]

Did town win any of those Llama?

Yes.

Policy lynching is better in nightless/large games due to the swing, but really there are a handfull of players who are really that dangerous to have around.

I can't believe you're seriously supporting policy lynch...
policy lynch term itself defining that polices on how an individual must play the game. How far it is fair to except similar game context out of all the players?

As i said before, if that is what that some players want.. maybe they should play with similar minded people and let others play on their own terms, they limit mod signing people who they think fall under policy lynch category.

[LlamaFluff]

this is not about one or two people, people are being bullyed as part of policy lynch, so its bigger issue than one person is being unable to keep up the game.

Well... its not a super plesant thing. You basically are telling the person "you are such a poor player/so toxic to the game that we are killing you". Its usually more of a reality check for the player more than anything else though, lets them know they need to change.

Policy lynches are lynches of players who are actively bad for the game, so bad that they either make the game not fun for players involved, or are such bad players that leaving them alive can actually create massive problems for the town.

Take Nat who I mentioned earlier, who openly said "I play intentionally scummy as town because it helps me win as scum". Thats the type of player you policy lynch.

[TehBrawlGuy]

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.

The last two games I;ve seen you play, you were prod dodging the whole time and never actually contributing anything, one you were lynched as an unclaimed PR due to deadline and the other you fakeclaimed PR as VT (and were lucky I was a paranoid scum about how I was treating you differently due to my alignment between these two games and also that the doc wasn't active when we lynched my partner)

Is this part that you supporting policy lynch or just complaining about PMysterious last game you are with?
If so, please don't mix things up.

this is not about one or two people,

people are being bullyed as part of policy lynch

, so its bigger issue than one person is being unable to keep up the game.

That's half the point of policy lynches, imo. Half of it is to give Town the best shot in that specific game, but the other half is to forcefully try and push that player towards better play so it doesn't need to happen again.

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

This is the best quote that will come out of this thread.

[ArcAngel9]

this is not about one or two people, people are being bullyed as part of policy lynch, so its bigger issue than one person is being unable to keep up the game.

Well... its not a super plesant thing. You basically are telling the person "you are such a poor player/so toxic to the game that we are killing you". Its usually more of a reality check for the player more than anything else though, lets them know they need to change.

Policy lynches are lynches of players who are actively bad for the game, so bad that they either make the game not fun for players involved, or are such bad players that leaving them alive can actually create massive problems for the town.

Take Nat who I mentioned earlier, who openly said "I play intentionally scummy as town because it helps me win as scum". Thats the type of player you policy lynch.

Policy lynch concept is unfriendly and very unwelcoming, nobody get to decide who plays and who don't,
if the one has issues with playing with someone, they can always choose not to play on that game or replace themselves out. that is the right way than forcing some to go out or just lynching for that reason. Like i said in my post above, if that is the game that one expecting play, they must collate similar style players and play on invitation than asking for public sign-up's. If one doing public sign up means that they are allowing players welcoming into the game.

and i disagree on the point that this whole concept is to filter the bad players, there is no one called bad player, they are just different players, unless they violate any game rules, as long as one satisfy a game moderator, i think they hold equal opportunists.

[ArcAngel9]

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.

The last two games I;ve seen you play, you were prod dodging the whole time and never actually contributing anything, one you were lynched as an unclaimed PR due to deadline and the other you fakeclaimed PR as VT (and were lucky I was a paranoid scum about how I was treating you differently due to my alignment between these two games and also that the doc wasn't active when we lynched my partner)

Is this part that you supporting policy lynch or just complaining about PMysterious last game you are with?
If so, please don't mix things up.

this is not about one or two people,

people are being bullyed as part of policy lynch

, so its bigger issue than one person is being unable to keep up the game.

That's half the point of policy lynches, imo. Half of it is to give Town the best shot in that specific game, but the other half is to forcefully try and push that player towards better play so it doesn't need to happen again.

that's probably what you're understanding. haven't you given a thought that you might being unwelcoming and unfair with that player on that particular game? you have taken out the opportunity of being in game and expecting them to be better on next game? you're contradicting with your statement!!

[Leafsnail]

I'll generally only support a policy lynch if I believe the player is not actually engaging in the game at all (there could be multiple reasons for this - purely fluff/prod dodging posts, only incoherent rambling, just random votes, whatever). I believe that in this case it's basically impossible to discern the player's alignment, so the only way to eliminate the possibility of them being scum is to lynch them. If they are actively harmful to the town as well (random hammervotes, derailing the game by pissing everyone off, intentionally voting with scum) this makes their policy lynch a matter of greater urgency.

Most of the time I wouldn't support a policy lynch on a player who is actually trying to play the game but is bad at it, since they are at least to some degree readable and may be possible to reason with.

[Om of the Nom]

I think I remember trying to push a policy lynch on Kassadin only to have it not go through and him end up being scum (and I think winning the game for his team).
So yeah, policy lynches definitely can be good.

[Cheery Dog]

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.

The last two games I;ve seen you play, you were prod dodging the whole time and never actually contributing anything, one you were lynched as an unclaimed PR due to deadline and the other you fakeclaimed PR as VT (and were lucky I was a paranoid scum about how I was treating you differently due to my alignment between these two games and also that the doc wasn't active when we lynched my partner)

Is this part that you supporting policy lynch or just complaining about PMysterious last game you are with?
If so, please don't mix things up.

this is not about one or two people, people are being bullyed as part of policy lynch, so its bigger issue than one person is being unable to keep up the game.

I'm telling him why some people are likely to be wanting him policy lynched.

I'm happy to see some policy lynches go through, but I will in general give players a chance if I'm to play again.

[Tierce]

Using a recent example: quickvoting in LyLo is

terrible

play. If I know a player is known for doing so, I don't want that person in the game. Especially if I'm already in the game and that person replaces in. I'm not going to replace out--why does the person have the right to taint the game I'm already in? I will avoid some games if I know they have players I think are deserving of policy lynches, but that can't always be done because I can't expect the unexpected.

Blacklists are healthier methods than policy lynches, but you can't meta everyone to have that knowledge beforehand. If someone is toxic to the Town, the proTown strategy is to remove them from the game. Mafia is not a welcoming game. Mafia is not a friendly game. You will have your intelligence and skill level questioned at every step, and if people are convinced, with past evidence, that you

will

hurt the Town in the future of the present game, Town has every right to lynch you and stop that threat right away.

Policy lynches rarely actually go through. I find myself more and more an advocate of them--they should work as reality checks. It's not just the Mafia that is taking advantage of the situation, it's all the Town players involved in the policy lynch: they are not satisfied with your level of play. Shape it up and you'll stop being a bad player. And yes, they exist. It's not just being "different". If a person quickhammers in every game, they are not "different", they are

destructive

. If a person only prod-dodges in every game, they are destructive, that slot isn't doing anything useful on the daygame. If a person plays scummy on purpose on Town games to protect their scum game, they are destructive, they always benefit scum and not Town. Out, damn spot with all of those and more.

Even big names have had terrible moments. Look at Glork's first few games. Look at how Andrius started out (he won last year's "Most Improved Player" Scummie). If you are policy lynched, something is wrong, and it won't just be the fault of the people who lynched you. Learn from it when it's over, don't just throw a tantrum and act the victim. Make yourself a better player, whose actions will hold value. Policy lynch targets are very frequently informed of what they are doing wrong. Look past the fury of the Town into the facts and learn them and apply them to future games.

No one has the obligation to teach you how to play Mafia outside the Newbie queue, and no one has the obligation to be

nice

. Play to win doesn't involve kindness. Mafia is not a game where people are treated with kid gloves, and a record of behavior that hurts Town should be nipped as soon as possible to guarantee it won't happen again. Anyone with a track record of doing Town-hurting actions should be brought to task on it, and policy lynches are part of the consequences.

[TehBrawlGuy]

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.

The last two games I;ve seen you play, you were prod dodging the whole time and never actually contributing anything, one you were lynched as an unclaimed PR due to deadline and the other you fakeclaimed PR as VT (and were lucky I was a paranoid scum about how I was treating you differently due to my alignment between these two games and also that the doc wasn't active when we lynched my partner)

Is this part that you supporting policy lynch or just complaining about PMysterious last game you are with?
If so, please don't mix things up.

this is not about one or two people,

people are being bullyed as part of policy lynch

, so its bigger issue than one person is being unable to keep up the game.

That's half the point of policy lynches, imo. Half of it is to give Town the best shot in that specific game, but the other half is to forcefully try and push that player towards better play so it doesn't need to happen again.

that's probably what you're understanding. haven't you given a thought that you might being unwelcoming and unfair with that player on that particular game? you have taken out the opportunity of being in game and expecting them to be better on next game? you're contradicting with your statement!!

Have you thought that the way that player plays might not be fair to the playerlist, or else they wouldn't be using such drastic measures to evict that player from the game?

You're right that the player does need a chance to prove themselves, and that's why I don't chain policy lynch any specific players. (barring situations where they've clearly not changed)

[BBmolla]

I think the worst part is people nowadays are so against policy lynches that the VI's won't get lynched at all and either make it to endgame and lose as town or win as scum.

Policy lynchers try to lynch someone and then a bunch of Non-Policy lynchers immediately assume the person is town and should be defended. It's garbage.

[LlamaFluff]

I think the worst part is people nowadays are so against policy lynches that the VI's won't get lynched at all and either make it to endgame and lose as town or win as scum.

Exactly.

This is the reason behind "scum win" curve. The highest win percent as scum comes from the best and the worst players with the lowest win percent being the "average" strength scum. Good players play good and win. Bad players play so bad they get ignored and win (and in some of their cases ironically think this makes them a good player).

[The Fonz]

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

Which depends on your definition of policy lynching. Yours, or mine, might revolve around individual policies like 'Lynch all liars.' It seems that when most people talk about policy lynching, they're more talking about taking out known VIs because of who they are before they've even done anything. The Bush Doctrine of lynches, if you will. My version goes more along the lines of 'That thing that player just did, or the way that player is playing, is of so much greater utility to a scum player than a town player (either because it's really good for scum and meh for town, or because it's really harmful to town and meh for scum) that I want to lynch him right now on the basis of that alone.'

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

Interesting choice of example, because it cuts to the heart of the debate. Zwet was actually one of the easiest players to read in the history of the site, if you put any effort into it. There was a massive difference between his scum and town play. Yet it's arguable that even when he was town, his quickhammering (never allowing time for claim) was so very detrimental to town he was effectively a tumor that had to be cut out ASAP regardless.

What happened with WOTC is the size of the site is so great, it was pretty damn rare enough people had experience with a particular VI for a quarter of the playerlist to actively WOTC them, so WOTC almost never got applied. You got a handful of games where one or two people asked for WOTC, but I think I only ever actually saw a player being kept out of a game because of it once.

It's somewhat unsurprising that those vehemently opposing policy lynching here are often people who've been targeted by them. Maybe the better solution is to be less terrible?

ArcAngel's idea that people are high and mighty about their own playstyles is just laughably wrong. In many ways, playing mafia is like moral philosophy. Different ethical systems might not agree on abortion or various trolley problems, but they pretty much all agree that chainsawing a kitten in half for the lulz is bad. There is no objectively clear right answer, but there are multiple obviously wrong ones that any reasonable person would agree on. Likewise, I might disagree with, say, LlamaFluff on the extent to which lurking is a scumtell, or how a scum is likely to have reacted to a particular wagon. But we can surely agree that a player who does nothing but post 'I like cheese' every two and a half days is not playing in such a way as to make reading him possible?

That's where policy lynching comes in. The question is "If I do not lynch this player for her playstyle, what clues might there be that present themselves as to her alignment?" Opponents of policy lynching have always argued that no player is unreadable. I just flat-out disagree. There are a handful of playstyles that sacrifice any kind of engagement with the game in return for making their play completely consistent between town and scum. If faced with this kind of dead weight, you can either lynch them, waste a night action on them, or gamble on them being town and just leave them alive until endgame. Night actions are problematic because you have the problem of the cop not knowing if the player will be vigged and vice versa, and even if that doesn't get in the way, it's just more useful usually to have an investigation on a player who has actual interactions. As for viggings, you have the problem of not allowing claims. A confirmed VI is still a player scum has to consider killing. As for the gamble, if there's one such player in a game, you've got a 30% or so chance of losing the game right off the bat just on that one decision. If there are two, your chances of both being town (again assuming 70% of a game are town) is 49%, ie, you're more likely than not to lose the game unless you're willing to kill these players, regardless of what else happens.

The thing to always remember is that the control group isn't lynching scum, it's lynching randomly. Town rarely lynches that much better than random early on anyway. What tends to happen if excuses are made for the REALLY bad player is that the slightly better player who is trying but just looks 'illogical' or 'opportunist' or 'sheepy' when trying to make arguments and can't really explain their way out of them. Think how many times you've voted for someone because their argument looked like a disingenuous attempt to get a mislynch. It's still weaker players who get targeted by these kinds of lynches, my friends. Town doesn't benefit when the truly terrible players get excuses made for them and the somewhat poor players don't.

[ArcAngel9]

I'll generally only support a policy lynch if I believe the player is not actually engaging in the game at all (there could be multiple reasons for this - purely fluff/prod dodging posts, only incoherent rambling, just random votes, whatever). I believe that in this case it's basically impossible to discern the player's alignment, so the only way to eliminate the possibility of them being scum is to lynch them. If they are actively harmful to the town as well (random hammervotes, derailing the game by pissing everyone off, intentionally voting with scum) this makes their policy lynch a matter of greater urgency.

Most of the time I wouldn't support a policy lynch on a player who is actually trying to play the game but is bad at it, since they are at least to some degree readable and may be possible to reason with.

Finally someone put this is sensible way....
Yes, if you're talking about players who don't play or been spoiler, misbehaving, rude, random votes, disrespectful such people should be handled accordingly but i would still deny that policy lynch is not a fair decision, such people should be forced replaced by game moderator and that way another player will be able to play game in sensible way without loss/gain to the game.

But what i experienced is that few players had habituated this policy lynch theory in a wrong way. According to them, anyone who don't play or meet their expectations are considered as derps and VI, and they usually group attack and lynch them for no good reason then letting being of part of the game.

[Remembrance]

Didn't want to comment until after my first game. Now that that's over, I think the idea of policy lynching is a good idea and it should be kept around. Not to get rid of players who are bad (unless they're being absolutely terrible in which case the mod should take care of them), but because in my game, a scum (Rob13) used it really well to policy lynch an I.C. in a newbie game. By getting rid of policy lynches, it takes a weapon out of the scums (or towns) arsenal. So, I think it's fair game.

[LlamaFluff]

But what i experienced is that few players had habituated this policy lynch theory in a wrong way. According to them, anyone who don't play or meet their expectations are considered as derps and VI, and they usually group attack and lynch them for no good reason then letting being of part of the game.

There are basically the following types of players who are okay to policy lynch (to me) after they have continually demonstrated they will do such

1) Constant self-hammers, intentionally anti-town play as town, etc
2) Lurker to the extent where mods will not replace while posting nothing of value but keep signing up for games. Note lurkers who when they do post are decent are NOT policy lynchable.
3) Overly abbrasive players who make the game not fun for the majority of players (I actually created a ruleset that essentially bans this play type from my games)
4) Players who are bad enough that they are detremental to the town as town AND show no sign/want to improve their play. Again the last part is important. There are players who are not great but get better, there are also players who are not great and make no attempt to change. You CAN change too. Look at kondi/klick as the most recent example of a player realizing they are not liked and actually DOING something to fix it.

[ArcAngel9]

Didn't want to comment until after my first game. Now that that's over, I think the idea of policy lynching is a good idea and it should be kept around. Not to get rid of players who are bad (unless they're being absolutely terrible in which case the mod should take care of them), but because in my game, a scum (Rob13) used it really well to policy lynch an I.C. in a newbie game. By getting rid of policy lynches, it takes a weapon out of the scums (or towns) arsenal. So, I think it's fair game.

Good that you have given a thought to make up your mind on this after your game
but haven ever played as victim before? if so, you would be so smooth.
And i agree to the part that no one has to bear terrible players but if someone being terrible(means literally out of line and can't be tolerated), they should be forced replaced by Mod upon request instead policy lynching that player because a role is more important for town/scum winnings than a players. If a player is bad and loss of that player shouldn't cost game winning moments.


Imagine that you policy lynch a town cop or doctor or watcher or Beloved Princess? OR even Mafia God father , how is it fair to anyone?

[Remembrance]

That was my first mafia game ever, so I can't comment on that question.

If I policy lynched a player, I would only do it because I thought it would bring me an advantage(or it went along with my town/scum reads). Other wise, I would just PM the mod asking to 1. The offender be replaced or 2. Request I replace out myself.

[ArcAngel9]

But what i experienced is that few players had habituated this policy lynch theory in a wrong way. According to them, anyone who don't play or meet their expectations are considered as derps and VI, and they usually group attack and lynch them for no good reason then letting being of part of the game.

There are basically the following types of players who are okay to policy lynch (to me) after they have continually demonstrated they will do such

Let me go over each point that you have described...

1) Constant self-hammers, intentionally anti-town play as town, etc

Self Hammers are not encouraged, i really wonder why would anyone want to self hammer in a game that they signed in to play. Wouldn't that be self contradicting? But if there are situations... I wonder what made them self hammer? because this would be different to a case to case scenario....

I have seen two kinds of self hammers so far.. and i want to know how you feel on both scenarios and tell me if anyone them sounds fair or unfair to you but promise me that you would think as VICTIM HERE!!

A) Situational Self Hammer players : This type of players are very emotional and cant hold to a debate or defend with other players for more than an extent/limit and they usually get irritated being cornered/attacked by almost every player on the game regardless of the sides.

EX: A player named Levi self voted himself becuz he was tired defending himself all day with almost all the other players (that includes mafia), he was a townie in the game. It was a great loss to the town, All he needed was a bit trust from other players which he fought to get it all day, the issue here was that people were not wrong about him but wasn't open enough to listen to him, it was pretty much policy lynch concept again. Anywayz, How do you define his self vote? I understand that he was responsible for his self vote but what makes the rest of players are not responsible for the loss in game for not giving a chance to be part of it. ??

B) Unconditional players : These are players are just insane, they just vote themselves to prove that they're not what they claim to be.. they just confuse game and players. and they are plenty on this board. and i can't take names.

2) Lurker to the extent where mods will not replace while posting nothing of value but keep signing up for games. Note lurkers who when they do post are decent are NOT policy lynchable.

This is a very debatable point, How do we get to define "post values"? the posts that i am making obviously might not appeal valuable to a player who keep high expectations on a game play but that doesn't change the fact that my posts are valuable to myself and to few others.. EX: Myself!! I had to replace out myself after day3 in a game becuz a player can't shut his mouth becuz he thinks my posts don't contain value.

My point is that we can't set value of posts to a point and expect better, but i do see your point about the potential damage and trouble it may create but it can conveniently misguide other and can lead them this about this incorrectly.

3) Overly abbrasive players who make the game not fun for the majority of players

(I actually created a ruleset that essentially bans this play type from my games)

The bolded is good, And this is what i was suggesting. if you can't fit into something, you get your size and fit in yourself there comfortably. No complaints anymore!!!

4) Players who are bad enough that they are detremental to the town as town AND show no sign/want to improve their play. Again the last part is important. There are players who are not great but get better, there are also players who are not great and make no attempt to change. You CAN change too. Look at kondi/klick as the most recent example of a player realizing they are not liked and actually DOING something to fix it.

This is going to be hard to accept and you may not like this..
No one knows for certain if anyone being whatever the way they are is intentional or unintentional, Imagine you try to fill a cup which is already full? if someone who knows all the rules and still plays as they usually plays which makes them a player with their own style of playing than a bad player.

I am not denying to fact that there are few players who does this intentionally, and i am excluding them from this discussion. And such players to be kept at the right place becuz they do more damage than any good to this community.

But again, it shouldn't encourage anyone to be judgmental and not be open minded.

[pirate mollie]

hi arc!

I personally like playing with you cos you are easy for me to read and when you are town I think you have a good head on your shoulders and can be an asset.

there has only been one player that I seriously want to policy lynch on a regular basis and will if on d1 we do not fish out scum. all I can say is one of the best things about this site is that he is not on here and the vast majority of the players here are very likeable. he is an anomaly and what he has done on other sites he would be hellbanned from here. like seriously.

I will sub out or consider other options if my emotional buttons are being pushed and I think I am being detrimental to the game. but I think that some people have hyped on to policy lynching cos it is a fad or something. like seriously, that should not be the natural place to go, freaking try to engage with the person and see if they have learned anything.

I have been put up for a few policy lynches and have hated it every time. I

do

try to evaluate as to what I do that deserves it and try to adjust. sometimes it has been for good cause and sometimes it has been cos either players did not like my playstyle or wanted to keep players that they knew in the game or they were scum.

overall, I think that players who habitually policy lynch who do not hit scum should be policy lynched themselves; it ironically reveals the same mindset of not wanting to improve as a player as much as the player they are currently policy lynching.

re: self hammer: I think it is perfectly acceptable to do as scum although if you are town and you want to see a lynch go through cos you are that close to a deadline, I can see a good argument for why that is a good idea. I am probably in the minority with this.

[The Fonz]

Policy lynch concept is unfriendly and very unwelcoming, nobody get to decide who plays and who don't,
if the one has issues with playing with someone, they can always choose not to play on that game or replace themselves out. that is the right way than forcing some to go out or just lynching for that reason.

If I'm already in the game and a VI replaces in, why is it I who should give up my right to play in the game because her behaviour is intolerable? Why should we even WANT to be welcoming to people who basically aren't playing at all, just trolling the site? You call it bullying. I put it to you VIs are the 'bullies -' the equivalent of the kid in a soccer game who just kicks the ball over the fence every time it comes near him. Of course you're going to want to stop that kid playing. And if the teacher (mod) won't stop him, of course you're going to want to beat him up.

ArcAngel, you talk about how force-replacing terrible players is better than lynching them. I totally agree, but mods just generally aren't doing this so long as the player stays within the letter of the law. Most of the players we're talking about are actively playing against their win condition if they're town, but that's a very subjective area that mods rightly don't want to step into.

Wise Stuff.

Basically agree with all of this.

This is going to be hard to accept and you may not like this..
No one knows for certain if anyone being whatever the way they are is intentional or unintentional, Imagine you try to fill a cup which is already full? if someone who knows all the rules and still plays as they usually plays which makes them a player with their own style of playing than a bad player.

I am not denying to fact that there are few players who does this intentionally, and i am excluding them from this discussion.

And such players to be kept at the right place becuz they do more damage than any good to this community.

But again, it shouldn't encourage anyone to be judgmental and not be open minded.

The whole point of the game is to be judgemental. You have to make a judgement on whose lynch will make the town more likely to win, and whose will make it more likely to lose. And btw, you can't turn around and say (as in the bolded) 'I'm going to exclude from this discussion of policy lynching anyone that people might actually want to policy lynch.' Intent only actually matters so far. If a player being alive reduces the town's chances of winning even if he is town, it is actually my DUTY as a town player to lynch him

Would you care to respond to the example of the 'I like cheese' guy?