Mafiascum.net

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ PMysterious wrote: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)

↑ mastin2 wrote:
-It forces other players to react, both to you for having suggested it, and gives you a ton of info on how they interact with the would-be-policy-lynched player. When you have a few flips, this will be INCREDIBLY useful.

↑ Faraday wrote:

↑ mastin2 wrote:
-It forces other players to react, both to you for having suggested it, and gives you a ton of info on how they interact with the would-be-policy-lynched player. When you have a few flips, this will be INCREDIBLY useful.

Not really. It's not alignment relevant, it's not a promoter of useful discussion.

↑ mastin2 wrote:

↑ The Fonz wrote:Disagree with the link between policy and quicklynching - policy lynching is usually hugely controversial, and a great way to kick off a massive argument.

Building off of this, suggesting a policy lynch is a great way to kick off an RVS. It's very rarely going to actually go through (see also: site meta of being EXTREMELY reluctant to do so), but it'll give a bundle-load of information. It accomplishes quite a few things.

-It forces the player who would-be-policy-lynched to step up their game. They comply? Great, they're no longer policy-lynch-worthy. They refuse? The policy lynch might actually go through.
-It forces the player who would-be-policy-lynched onto the defensive, pressuring them. They may not get lynched (in fact, probably won't), but they'll have plenty of pressure on them. Enough to gain a good solid read on them and determine if they're scum or town.
-It forces other players to react, both to you for having suggested it, and gives you a ton of info on how they interact with the would-be-policy-lynched player. When you have a few flips, this will be INCREDIBLY useful.

Soyeah, I can actually see value in suggesting a policy-lynch early-on.

Butyeah. I still prefer WotC. If a single player would be the cause of a significant portion of your playerlist to out, request replacement, and other similar things...well, then, that player is best off not in the game. Players don't have to like each other, but they should never absolutely be at each other's throats off of their respective playstyles and actively despite one another--at that point, they're not playing as players; they're playing as people.

When a game has people playing as people, they're not playing with roles. They're playing purely from their emotions and viewpoints, not from their alignment and their game knowledge. So as a mod, it should be your duty to do everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen.

↑ pirate mollie wrote:

↑ mastin2 wrote:

↑ The Fonz wrote:Disagree with the link between policy and quicklynching - policy lynching is usually hugely controversial, and a great way to kick off a massive argument.

Building off of this, suggesting a policy lynch is a great way to kick off an RVS. It's very rarely going to actually go through (see also: site meta of being EXTREMELY reluctant to do so), but it'll give a bundle-load of information. It accomplishes quite a few things.

-It forces the player who would-be-policy-lynched to step up their game. They comply? Great, they're no longer policy-lynch-worthy. They refuse? The policy lynch might actually go through.
-It forces the player who would-be-policy-lynched onto the defensive, pressuring them. They may not get lynched (in fact, probably won't), but they'll have plenty of pressure on them. Enough to gain a good solid read on them and determine if they're scum or town.
-It forces other players to react, both to you for having suggested it, and gives you a ton of info on how they interact with the would-be-policy-lynched player. When you have a few flips, this will be INCREDIBLY useful.

Soyeah, I can actually see value in suggesting a policy-lynch early-on.

Butyeah. I still prefer WotC. If a single player would be the cause of a significant portion of your playerlist to out, request replacement, and other similar things...well, then, that player is best off not in the game. Players don't have to like each other, but they should never absolutely be at each other's throats off of their respective playstyles and actively despite one another--at that point, they're not playing as players; they're playing as people.

When a game has people playing as people, they're not playing with roles. They're playing purely from their emotions and viewpoints, not from their alignment and their game knowledge. So as a mod, it should be your duty to do everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen.

okay, so what you are saying here is that it is okay to policy lynch in order to elicit an emotional response (reaction) from people (I am assuming also the person you are policy lynching since you are basically telling that person they are a shit player and are not wanted in the game for reasons that have nothing to do with their role) but are later saying that when people's emotional buttons are pushed and they are playing as people, this should not be acceptable?

I have yet to come across a player like that here cos I think that they would be site banned especially for the zombie play. I think some players do the whole policy lynch as a form of lazy play

so that they do not have to look at whether or not the person's motives might come from a town vs. scum POV.

that takes work and thought. when you are being policy lynched for reasons cos of "I don't like their playstyle and you do not fit in" you are not given a road map to improve your play. the message sent is, "I do not like you, therefore you do not belong". I cannot speak for arc, but that is the what I gathered from what she was saying.

↑ The Fonz wrote:

↑ ArcAngel9 wrote:

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.

↑ Leafsnail wrote:Wise Stuff.

Basically agree with all of this.

↑ ArcAngel9 wrote:
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?

↑ zoraster wrote:Policy lynches are often the best examples of the frequent conflict between winning the game at hand and winning games in general.

↑ ArcAngel9 wrote:

↑ zoraster wrote:Policy lynches are often the best examples of the frequent conflict between winning the game at hand and winning games in general.

Not really, that is what a winning team feels but it may differ to lost team if the policy lynch was one their team member.
Lets say you policy lynch someone on day 1, and they end up being a scum. Its unfair for Mafia team even if that scores to Town. You took out an oppurtunity for Mafia to fight with town. That wasn't fair becuz you think that player may play bad.

↑ zoraster wrote:

↑ ArcAngel9 wrote:

↑ zoraster wrote:Policy lynches are often the best examples of the frequent conflict between winning the game at hand and winning games in general.

Not really, that is what a winning team feels but it may differ to lost team if the policy lynch was one their team member.
Lets say you policy lynch someone on day 1, and they end up being a scum. Its unfair for Mafia team even if that scores to Town. You took out an oppurtunity for Mafia to fight with town. That wasn't fair becuz you think that player may play bad.

No. This is just so wrong. When evaluating the correctness of an action, you don't look at the result from the point of view of someone standing after. You do so at the point the decision was made.

For example, lets say I'm offered $50 if I can pick the number that will come up when rolling two balanced six-sided dice. I pick 2 (1/36 chance). It comes up 2. Even though it paid off, I was dumb for picking it.

↑ Nero wrote:Policy lynching is what elitist nubs advocate when they're too shit to scumhunt and find the mafia.

↑ Nero wrote:Just out of interest, what are your views on the One Child Policy adopted by China?

↑ zoraster wrote:Well, if you personally are being policy lynched, then you should try not to be.

If your teammate is, that's just the luck of the draw. It was even more likely that the policy lynched person would have been on town, after all (since town makes up a greater portion of the player slots). Getting put on a team with a good or bad teammate has always been part of mafia.

↑ The Fonz wrote:Seriously, read kdowns in Purified mafia. If you think he's readable, then come back to me.

↑ The Fonz wrote:No, you're conflating two things.

Mastin isn't pushing these people to 'get an emotional reaction.' He's pushing them to stop them playing like idiots.

Nope. If it's possible to do that kind of analysis AT ALL, then you don't policy lynch them.

If they play the exact same way in every game, and that's to derp around and do absolutely nothing that could be interpreted as game-relevant, THEN you policy lynch them.

↑ pirate mollie wrote:

↑ The Fonz wrote:No, you're conflating two things.

Mastin isn't pushing these people to 'get an emotional reaction.' He's pushing them to stop them playing like idiots.

I was not talking to you, I was talking to mastin.

Nope. If it's possible to do that kind of analysis AT ALL, then you don't policy lynch them.

If they play the exact same way in every game, and that's to derp around and do absolutely nothing that could be interpreted as game-relevant, THEN you policy lynch them.

why? cos very few people can determine what "doing absolutely nothing" really means. and those who do, know how to work around those people.

I maintain the only reason to policy lynch is when someone consistently breaks rules or is actively trying to sabotage the game.