Re: words and D20's 3: The Demon and the Magus
The only pressure a mafioso would feel on round one is false pressure. There is no detective result, and if you get randomly lynched you get randomly lynched. There is no counter-argument to stop it. No one is really obligated to protest, because there's no case being made and nothing to say except "you're wrong". So other than putting on a pouty face (on my side of the monitor) there is no reaction to see. There is no "twitch". What exactly are you looking for?Originally Posted by Renata
You will either randomly lynch a mafia (kudos on that when you do) or you will pressure a pro-town role to reveal, which renders them useless and an early target. You're banking on the odds of actually hitting a scum as opposed to hitting a random townie who may not protest, or a pro-town role who might panic and early reveal. The scum on the other hand won't do that, because they have nothing to reveal and if they were to claim something that someone else knows is false, they'd still get lynched only with greater enthusiasm. The pressure you speak of only makes sense when there's a remote possibility of there being investigative results, roleblocker deductions, or defender's positive results, or at least a voting history to compare. You could accuse a mafia and bandwagon them all day on round one and get no reaction.
Well, I suppose that's assuming they are decent players. That might work against newbies.
You're speaking of a different kind of pressure. We're arguing past each other.And this is just false. Mafia face no pressure whatsoever with an off-the-bat no-lynch promotion.
The pressure I refer to is not psychological; it is real. It is the fact that all the pro-town roles are intact going into the night phase of round one, plus 100% of the innocent basic roles.
Sure you could put false psychological pressure on someone, by all means. However, the odds are that after you do that, people would rather choose a candidate than actually revert back to voting No Lynch. And so the No Lynch option, which you regard as a viable strategy, and in my opinion is the best one here, is tossed out the window in lieu of betting that you'll guess correctly or the mafia will flinch. In my experience even when you vote the right person, they just accept it and die, and the odds are greatest against that scenario right now.
They still don't have to do anything. At this point everyone has the exact same credibility. You can accuse them based on nothing, and they can accuse someone else based on nothing. There is no justification for it except the position that lynch is better than no lynch, which is very debateable. I simply disagree with you that the psychological pressure of a random bandwagon has any merit in a situation where no one could legitimately be asked to defend their reasons for voting someone.They're not forced to defend their opinions, they don't have to decide whether to defend or back up or ignore accusations against their teammates, they don't have to do anything.
Fair enough. I never said your viewpoint was illegitimate. This isn't an exact science. In my calculation, the odds of victory increase when we have pro-town roles and we don't lynch round one. This would be an illogical position if they did not exist, because there is no chance of moving in the correct direction in the night phase after not moving at all in the day phase. The only real option in a basic game on day one is to lynch, but in CDF's games it doesn't work that way.They chuck in a no-lynch vote of their own at some point and spend the rest of the time plotting in their Quicktopic. It's the opposite of pressure. I don't think a marginally reduced likelihood of the mafia making a good kill outweighs that -- that's my bias in favor of public discussion and argument showing, right there.
I understand your argument fully. I don't take it personally that you've made such an assessment. But I don't agree with your assessment and I'm confident that my choice is the correct one. That said I don't mind the debate about policy, because it rightly generates discussion, which is the only downside to the No Lynch option. You're only helping make the strategy work more effectively here, so kudos.And really that's the heart of my objection to your post, ATPG. Not so much the voting no-lynch on day one, because despite my preferences I think the advantages and disadvantages are probably too close to call. It's not that big a deal. But doing so right at the start of a 3-day phase, backing up and giving credence to someone who had already done so previously, and hence greatly increasing the probability that the rest of the players would follow right along -- that I don't like.
Reply With Quote
(I told him of what vital importance it was) I just got a hotel room with Internet access, so I should be able to get to all your questions 
Micheal D'Anjou
(It's customary to get at least one vote, when you start) 
)
Bookmarks