Representative Democracy [Concluded]

[Jabbz]

We need to be cohesive so
Thoughts on how to best do this are appreciated.

Currently I'm thinking
Every player votes in their own district as if it is a direct lynch. Call it a preliminary lynch if you will.
District reps vote for the main lynch according to the majority in their district.
Chancellor votes according to the majority of votes for players if there is a tie.


Can everyone agree to this?

I think that would work fairly well. Town should have a rather substantial majority at this point, so it's unlikely scum end up with a majority of the rep's.

[Jabbz]

We specifically need to get ordered about what happens with District Reps.

Imo, if we don't make them follow the majority, we're compounding the limitations of the game (restricting Town decisions to limited number of players).

But they deserve to have considerable input in the case that they're Town/Town read.

If we could reach a consensus on who those towny folks were, we could give them an artificial double vote.

[Cass_]

"Every player votes in their own district as if it is a direct lynch."
FTR I think this managing this properly is really important to Town.

Making individual votes count by being truly representative of democracy vs. dissent has the twofold benefit of playing to collective rather than individual Town power (more heads are better than three, or one) and making scum votes more accountable to trace.


I propose District Reps lead this by

Voting Twice.

First to kick off the preliminary lynch.

Second to represent the view of their District/Mini-Town.


I further propose that those who elect the winning representative vote with them as a consolidated core, leaving those outside the core to vote where they like and justify their dissent.

[Cass_]

If we could reach a consensus on who those towny folks were, we could give them an artificial double vote.

Kind of my line of thinking.

How do you propose that work?
What do you think of below?

[Montmorency]

We need to be cohesive so
Thoughts on how to best do this are appreciated.

Currently I'm thinking
Every player votes in their own district as if it is a direct lynch. Call it a preliminary lynch if you will.
District reps vote for the main lynch according to the majority in their district.
Chancellor votes according to the majority of votes for players if there is a tie.


Can everyone agree to this?

Chancellor should make final calls, especially if owner of one of the districts. Just keep in mind that the position of Chancellor requires a political touch, not just lynching by their own or someone else's stated scum-lean.

@Montmorency, please explain the reasons why you have people in each tier when districts are set into 5 lots. I don't get what you mean about distributing nobles/commoners etc. I think I like the theory?/it sounds good anyway until I dissect it. I want reasons/explanations based on your own leans too pls.

I don't want to think to much about most of the non-rep allocations as I didn't put much thought into that when I made up the drafts; I just wanted a good mix of "social class" for each district. The main thought went into who to appoint as rep (and I guess into avoiding districts that would contest their appointment), and how highest-level contenders should be grouped relative to each other.

On social classes, Chancellor is the position, the Senators are the strongest players, Equites are those behind them who are present, towny, and or well-liked. Those are the upper classes. The lower classes have the plebeian group, the commoners of the player population, and then the final group of 'flunkies' (:sweat:) who as-of-yet don't have much presence or clout in the political arena. The highest nobility (i.e. Visor, Zack, Renata) are the top candidates for district Rep in a 3-er scenario, and in a 5-scenario leadership positions are opened to the lower nobility (i.e. Winston, atheotes, Monstrbro). Generally you don't want to concentrate a district with members of a single class. If you have questions about specific allotments ask, though as I said in many cases which (non-Rep) player I put where is semi-random and isn't meant to translate verbatim into your plan of action.

[Montmorency]

I further propose that those who elect the winning representative vote with them as a consolidated core, leaving those outside the core to vote where they like and justify their dissent.

You may be getting too involved with thread activity here. I'm not sure I want to keep track of this. Especially as we come to see days where both district consensus vote, district dissent vote, individual votes, and private Rep votes all fluctuate by the hour.

[Cass_]

Chancellor should make final calls, especially if owner of one of the districts. Just keep in mind that the position of Chancellor requires a political touch, not just lynching by their own or someone else's stated scum-lean.

What's the fluff of the bold mean in practical terms? Stuff like I should have lynched El Barto regardless of the fact I was more confident GH was directly scum? How do you propose that be managed fairly? As long as I'm alive it's always coming down to my understanding of the game, I have to work with what I have.

Why should a Chancellor be automatically elected to District Rep simply because they were Town read early in the game? Game States change, people in the Chancellor's District should be able to challenge the Chancellor directly if they wish.

[Cass_]

I don't want to think to much about most of the non-rep allocations as I didn't put much thought into that when I made up the drafts; I just wanted a good mix of "social class" for each district.

Non-rep allocations essentially relates to the votes from the majority of players in the game.

Not counting it is ... unrepresentative.

Discounting lends itself to scummy bias (or direct scum influence), considering that the majority of players in the game are Town.

[Montmorency]

What's the fluff of the bold mean in practical terms?

Apply scum-mindset disingenuity. Consider how lynches will affect or divert future day discussions and cases. Ask the hooded guy always standing at attention next to you.

Discounting lends itself to scummy bias (or direct scum influence), considering that the majority of players in the game are Town.

What I'm saying is that I'm not going to carefully sift through all the players and their relationships to create individualized optimum districts. I just made some crude outlines. You can do with that as your conscience demands - good luck.

[Cass_]

I think I started on the right strategic track yesterday, asking everyone for the consensus on where to go/how to decide the tie, but the plan didn't feel solid, and I got paranoid about other players, and I backtracked on it, and it's bad. All this needs to change.

We need to maximise the power of Town forming the majority of the player base right now.


Essentially, I think things need to get more ordered, and I think the order of things should be:

1. District Representative Elections before everything else.
- Everybody in the District votes BLUE for their Representative preference;
(This can be based on read or specific agreement with who that player wants to lynch)
- Most consensus BLUE vote is officially elected to power.

2. District Scum Candidate Preliminary Lynch Votes - Led by District leader Vote.
- District leader votes RED for their number one lynch
- Those that voted for that District leader vote RED with them/for the same player
- Those that voted against the District leader vote RED for their own preferred lynch

- The representative vote is finalised by the District leader keeping or changing their vote according to the majority rule

3. End of Day Lynching occurs as close to a normal game as possible - with the majority of votes reflecting the majority of common opinions.


IMO, this:

- Represents majority of opinions as much as possible

- Gives individual/majority interests more direct weight and makes it more fun by electing the consensus read to Rep with more consequence.

It also

- Tests the rep; and

- Challenges scum to be active at all levels if their interests don't align with majority Town - Which I don't think the current system does.

[Cass_]

What I'm saying is that I'm not going to carefully sift through all the players and their relationships to create individualized optimum districts. I just made some crude outlines. You can do with that as your conscience demands - good luck.

Yeah that part is fine. I'll nut that out as best I can/appreciate/consider input where people have it.

You haven't commented on the option of voting reps to power and then following that through with those who voted them into power consolidating with them on their vote. I see this creating more meaningful competition for District rep and final vote count then we currently have.

[Cass_]

Anyway all.

If you're Town, let's pull together and find a way to make the vote more accurately representative.

I'll get to District redistribution tonight.

Merry Xmas \o/

[Montmorency]

You haven't commented on the option of voting reps to power and then following that through with those who voted them into power consolidating with them on their vote.

Those that voted for that District leader vote RED with them/for the same player

You may be getting too involved with thread activity here. I'm not sure I want to keep track of this. Especially as we come to see days where both district consensus vote, district dissent vote, individual votes, and private Rep votes all fluctuate by the hour.

What's the benefit over your original design of voting reps to power and keeping individual votes? The new design just creates more work for everyone and doesn't give any new information or security.

- Everybody in the District votes BLUE for their Representative preference;

Well, we shouldn't speak of player "preferences" - they should be districted such that they have a one or two options per district - or else you lose control of the Reps.

[Cass_]

That's a lot of talk to say basically

WOULD YOU CONSOLIDATE YOUR VOTE WITH THE PERSON YOU CHOSE TO REPRESENT YOUR DISTRICT?

Theoretically, you shouldn't want anyone in Power who's lynching outside your top scum reads so I think this makes sense.

[Cass_]

(As a mandatory thing, fight to put your Top Town read in Power and consolidate with them to have more actual votes on the players you both want lynched, if they are actually put in Power).

Bah. Wordsarehard.

[Montmorency]

That's a lot of talk to say basically

WOULD YOU CONSOLIDATE YOUR VOTE WITH THE PERSON YOU CHOSE TO REPRESENT YOUR DISTRICT?

Theoretically, you shouldn't want anyone in Power who's lynching outside your top scum reads so I think this makes sense.

Practically-speaking, this requires people to come in later on and change their vote. This is effort for what? If they don't change the vote, then - so what? What do we learn from their violating a meaningless formality? What do we learn from their complying with it?

[Montmorency]

It also negates the representative process in the first place, since, if everyone for a candidate changes their vote to the majority vote, it obscures what people's actual, original, votes were and how the consensus was generated.

[Fenn]

Can you explain why, on Cuth?

A new set of eyes on this, when I'm ITT might make it easier to see the case if I'm wrong.

And hi!

His switch from wolf-reading to town-reading Jabbz on EoD1, plus apparently trying to avoid having Choxorn on the lynch block which looked bad in light of the mafia flip, and his response to D2 pressure sounded wolfy to me. I need to ISO him tomorrow and see if that impression is accurate.

[Fenn]

But for now, good night and merry christmas all.

[atheotes]

can we just focus on redrawing the districts.
Definitely need 5 districts. is there anyone who doesnt want this?

[atheotes]

i am thinking something like this.

Renata	Cass	atheotes	Winston	Visor
Montrbro	Schema	Jabbz	Zack	dice
Riedquat	Al sips
Cuth	El barto	Monty	Bsmith	Fenn

thoughts?

[Jabbz]

Kind of my line of thinking.

How do you propose that work?
What do you think of below?

Didn't I mention math is hard? Jack is trustworthy, we credit him with two votes. Jim is trustworthy, we give him two votes. Jameson, Jose, and Johnnie are not, so we give them 1 vote each. Jack votes bob, Jim votes Alex, Jameson votes bob, Jose votes will, and Johnnie votes Jane. Because of the extra points we credit Bob with 3 votes, Alex with 2, Will with one vote, and Jane with one vote. Jim, trusting the (modified) majority vote switches to Bob, leaving 3 (real) votes for Bob and 1 each for Jane and Will. Even if that only garners us a tie, you break it. If someone breaks from this agreement, they single themselves out and we have a solid place to look on the morrow.

[Jabbz]

If this comes across a double post, my bad. It posted then disappeared. Or maybe I've had too much Tullamore. Whatever. I'm cool being grouped with Atheotes. I haven't gotten a scum vibe from him and others seem to trust him, so I'd be down to support him for rep. I'd offer to do it myself with Dp gone, but I doubt I'm inspiring much in the realm of town confidence after being absent most of the last day.

[Visor]

Double posting is quite okay

[Monstrdude]

So many words

So much Christmas

It is 1:27 am Christmas morning and I have elected to play mafia

I have a problem

Voting setup sounds good to me, I still haven't gotten my full read through yet but don't hold your breath on it or anything still

The district setup atheotes put is fine but I'm not really sure I have the ability to weigh in properly on that without my reread

Anyway I should get to bed. Merry holidays happy Xmas people enjoy being with your families and stuff yay stuff

[Cuthillius]

Cuth, again -- There's something in me that doesn't want to let this go because yuck. So many votes headed here. But I've got this nagging suspicion that we've got a deep wolf or two and if Cuth is scummy regardless of alignment, he could be an easy player to push toward lynch. I'm trying to look at actual actions that could mean something, which is why I voted Cuth and not GH.

If anyone with some meta background on Cuth could tell me what we're seeing this game that are CONSTANTS for him, regardless of alignment, that would help greatly. Is he quick to change his mind? Does he give reads without lengthy explanation?

everyone voting for =/= deep wolf, even if i was scum

also everything i'm posting is stuff i'd post as town

you can tell because i'm town

that's how you can tell and i need sleep

[Cuthillius]

I want to talk about how we can coordinate a lynch to make it more cohesive/representative for Town.

I'm sorry that I was wrong, but that's the way it went.


If I take my guilt feels out of it and look at it root cause-analysis-wise I think there were a couple of things in particular that contributed to a bad result and have the potential to keep doing so in the future.

1. Lolmyreads. I'm glad I caught Chox with my method n1, but my personal gut and methods aren't infallible or perfect as an approach to reading someone, and as much as I'd like to be awesome and read everyone correctly, statistically it's not going to happen every time.

2. Allowing ties with the mandate that the lynch be decided by one player. Regardless of who's Chancellor, making the lynch decision theirs subjects it to the problems in point 1 and makes potentially makes it more difficult to draw conclusions about everyone else.

3. Allowing the deciding player to deviate from strategy discussed. See points above.


Allowing ties at lynch and the mandated practice of the Chancellor deciding limits the strategic/collective power of the Town to one person. At a gut level, I don’t think this is a good thing for Town, or the game as a whole.

Regardless of who's Chancellor, making the lynch decision theirs subjects it to the problems in point 1 and makes potentially makes it more difficult to draw conclusions about everyone else.

All mafia have to do is push votes towards townies and hope one person gets it wrong.

So I think this needs to change. Have been thinking about/putting more thoughts together about this overnight but #lolstrategyishard


What do people think about making things more truly representative/following majority vote?

i don't think that's a good idea

because i think you know why

[Cuthillius]

i don't think that's a good idea

because i think you know why

also can't trust majority, but i am p confident in trusting you're town

and usually easier for wolves to mislead sheep than one person per se

when the person is intelligent

i say keep power

abut meh

[Cuthillius]

One problem in this game is that we have talked so much that we've run out of meaningful things to say for the actual activity. This will reflect in the slump of all but the most indefatigable 'content-creators'.

i disagree

i don't think we've talked everything over

perhaps, and i don't think so, but PERHAPS mechanically

but definitely not as far as interaction

[Cuthillius]

We need to be cohesive so
Thoughts on how to best do this are appreciated.

Currently I'm thinking
Every player votes in their own district as if it is a direct lynch. Call it a preliminary lynch if you will.
District reps vote for the main lynch according to the majority in their district.
Chancellor votes according to the majority of votes for players if there is a tie.


Can everyone agree to this?

no, because town gets lynched aorn