COTTON MAFIA (CONGRATULATIONS!)

Oh gosh can we please not have the no-lynch D1 idea floating around again? It should be fairly clear why such a strategy is actually anti-town.

Also, surprising no-one, CAVE_DOGS_ON_CRACK

analyzing the cases, defenses, voting reasons, and voting patterns of executed player are the primary means for the town to remove scum from the game. Remove these, and the job becomes much harder for the town to win. scum like it when we don't lynch because it allows a day to pass without any hard connections between them and another player to appear, and it gives them a "free" nightkill.

When I used it in my game, the rule about what happens in the case of a tie was meant to discourage nolynch votes. However, when the scum team came within an inch of convincing town to intentionally double-lynch themselves, I realized that the rule actually favored scum even more than allowing nolynching.

The most common alternative to this rule that actually benefits town would probably be "In the case of a tie, one of the people with the most votes will be chosen at random to lynch." However I really don't like something as significant as who gets lynched to be decided by a dice roll. And it ends up deciding the outcome of the last round of the game in something like 20% of games, which is stupid as fuck. So that's even worse than plural lynching.

This has nothing to do with scum hunting in this game, I'm just vaguely interested in possible solutions. Maybe the best answer really is requiring an actual majority to lynch, even though that allows the possibility of a nolynch.

LockeZ
When I used it in my game, the rule about what happens in the case of a tie was meant to discourage nolynch votes. However, when the scum team came within an inch of convincing town to intentionally double-lynch themselves, I realized that the rule actually favored scum even more than allowing nolynching.

The most common alternative to this rule that actually benefits town would probably be "In the case of a tie, one of the people with the most votes will be chosen at random to lynch." However I really don't like something as significant as who gets lynched to be decided by a dice roll. And it ends up deciding the outcome of the last round of the game in something like 20% of games, which is stupid as fuck. So that's even worse than plural lynching.

This has nothing to do with scum hunting in this game, I'm just vaguely interested in possible solutions. Maybe the best answer really is requiring an actual majority to lynch, even though that allows the possibility of a nolynch.

We very nearly pulled that off. For a minute, we almost thought we could get a triple-lynch.

I think I've got it for my games in the future: lynch by majority only, and nolynch is only valid if players actually vote to nolynch. No vote counts as a self vote. Failure to reach majority means failed lynch.

This isn't right - there've only been three posts since I went to sleep. Usually there are like ten pages!

Shinan: Why keep me alive and not CAVE_DOG?

author=Shinan
I like Cave_Dog's idea. We lynch everyone but one person. But instead of keeping cave dog alive I propose that we keep YM alive.

I know that is technically a WE-WIN scenario, but it still feels like a only YM-WINS scenario to me.

@Psy- I forgot to clarify I meant Ozzy lol I do see how that looks bad though!

author=psy_wombats
No one's seriously considering that I hope, all scum would need to do would be to redirect their vote at the last minute to the designated town and voila, auto scum win. As much as I like the idea of ritual suicide being a good solution.

Not much time left in the day and I'm busy with other stuff but should be back before deadline. Until then #lynch InfectionFiles, I'm sure he just misspoke when he said odd could possibly have rolled scum twice in a row but this just means he had "scum twice in a row" on his mind.

no they wouldn't. they would at most lynch three people, and then they would all be outted on d2.

I'm ok with YM being the one that survives