Election! - The Game Thread

[ScottHoward]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not like this fire idea. That basically embraces all of the difficulties of a normal game and garners none of the benefits of electoral system. I believe it truly screws the village. I will go in to some specific ways, since people keep bringing this up:

1. It completely falls apart in must lynch situations.
2. It allows for fuzzy firing since they are not really binding, so wolves can easier manipulate that vote with less accountability.
3. It has potential to really screw the seers. For instance, say a seer gets elected and has to vote off someone he knows is a villager.

On the plus side, it does hurt some of the wolf electing strategies, but then again, it removes those wolf tells because elections no longer matter until they really matter, and then you really set the village up for a fall.

Here is a scenario: With say 7 villagers and 3 wolves left, we elect A, who is a wolf, and tell him to fire B, who is a villager. What if A fires C, instead, who is also a villager? Now we are at 5 to 3, we say fire A, and elect whoever. This is just an ugly spot. If we elect a wolf, we lose. We never really trust B, because this play is beutiful on A's part even if B is a wolf, and we are just screwed. Now instead of A being a wolf, he is a villager with a really solid read on B being a villager, and knows that our chances are slim if we lynch a villager today. So he is faces with very slim prospects by going with the crowd or gambling on picking a wolf. And even if he does nail a wolf, by doctrine he is next on the block the next day.

The point is, restricting those elected to one choice is not good. Of all the ideas I have heard to restrict lynching, whitelisting sounds like it has a shot of working. Everyone can whitelist players they don't want lynched, and peope who are on X whitelists are not to be lynched.

I think there is a lot of room to identify villagers and wolves by who gets elected and who they vote for. Forcing the vote just gives cover to wolves and has serious potential to really screw a villager (and in an end game the whole village).

[/ QUOTE ]
well actually, the three elected officials have to agree, so it would be simple enough to vote in the 2 people who were readily in favor of the vote and fire the one who wasn’t.
theres pros and cons to both methods. theres no magic solution to werewolf, but I think this fire method brings us back to the less complicated method we are use to.
again, people voting for elected officials tells us nothing really, and then them voting from a list of 5-6 players tells us even less.

[dmk]

support mdd

dunno if i can support someone after i voted someone else? no clue how this works, i ahven't seen a support-count anyway

[dmk]

SH,

the village is stupid. the whole point of electing 3 ppl that we trust the most is to allow them to make some sort of decision without the general village-stupidity affecting it. i'll say if i think ppl are wolfgang puck in-thread, but i'm not going to make some "fire list" that i expect the electorate to adhere to

[Thebram]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not like this fire idea. That basically embraces all of the difficulties of a normal game and garners none of the benefits of electoral system. I believe it truly screws the village. I will go in to some specific ways, since people keep bringing this up:

1. It completely falls apart in must lynch situations.
2. It allows for fuzzy firing since they are not really binding, so wolves can easier manipulate that vote with less accountability.
3. It has potential to really screw the seers. For instance, say a seer gets elected and has to vote off someone he knows is a villager.

On the plus side, it does hurt some of the wolf electing strategies, but then again, it removes those wolf tells because elections no longer matter until they really matter, and then you really set the village up for a fall.

Here is a scenario: With say 7 villagers and 3 wolves left, we elect A, who is a wolf, and tell him to fire B, who is a villager. What if A fires C, instead, who is also a villager? Now we are at 5 to 3, we say fire A, and elect whoever. This is just an ugly spot. If we elect a wolf, we lose. We never really trust B, because this play is beutiful on A's part even if B is a wolf, and we are just screwed. Now instead of A being a wolf, he is a villager with a really solid read on B being a villager, and knows that our chances are slim if we lynch a villager today. So he is faces with very slim prospects by going with the crowd or gambling on picking a wolf. And even if he does nail a wolf, by doctrine he is next on the block the next day.

The point is, restricting those elected to one choice is not good. Of all the ideas I have heard to restrict lynching, whitelisting sounds like it has a shot of working. Everyone can whitelist players they don't want lynched, and peope who are on X whitelists are not to be lynched.

I think there is a lot of room to identify villagers and wolves by who gets elected and who they vote for. Forcing the vote just gives cover to wolves and has serious potential to really screw a villager (and in an end game the whole village).

[/ QUOTE ]

this is quality
I will likely support/vote for fnord and/or IY

[Zurvan]

Fnord's post is spot on the money, as usual. Those of you who haven't voted should seriously consider electing him. He's a decent wolf-finder. But more importantly, there shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that he's a villager. He's going to make his decision with the best interests of the village in mind.

That's more than you can say for some people in this game.

[Thebram]

Zurvan,

Do you feel like boiler was trying to pick a fight with you earlier?

And if so, to what end?

[Stephen H]

I want a villager on the electorate, and I'm not sure enough about anyone else. Vote Stephen H.

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
Zurvan,

Do you feel like boiler was trying to pick a fight with you earlier?

And if so, to what end?

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like boiler was being a bitch, and I'm too [censored] busy to fight

[ScottHoward]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the fire thing again?

[/ QUOTE ]

an extremely lame way to have the village determine what the electorate is going to do, effectively eliminating any sort of purpose of having the electorate in the first place

the whole reason of choosing 3 ppl to be electorates is that you trust them to make a decision that is pro-village. why would we have to guide them? surely they can make their own decision

[/ QUOTE ]
whats lame is that if contiunue playing the way we are, the only info we will have is xxx supported yyyy and yyyy (and zzzzz and aaaa) voted off a villager from a group of 5 choices.
seems like disaster to me.

this game has added a level of variables that we aren’t use to. im trying to remove that level.

[valenzuela]

Zurvan how can you be so sure that fnord is a villager? Did it ever occur to you that he may be a wolf pretending to be a villager?

Btw this is not precisely directed at you but at everyone who cleans ppl as villagers.