Why do some games require a majority to lynch?

[Judge Sam]

I've been looking through a bunch of mafia games that have been played online and many of them require a majority to lynch. Example: There are 20 players alive, so it takes 11 to lynch.


Why do they require a majority? It is very, very difficult to get a majority with 20 options. I don't understand why this is a requirement. If they did want a majority (as a few political elections require), then they need to do run-off voting between the top two.


Anyone know why this is done or have opinions on majority / non-majority public voting?

[Kate]

Because most games have open voting. And no side dicussions (except for scum). So you post your vote in the Day thread of the game and others are able to see where you're coming from. Votes are allowed to be changed so to facilitate a lynching others band wagon a vote to see it through. The majority is the best way for a town lynch because then the town actually has a communal say.

[Lloyd]

Required majority is stupid.

10/20 on one person, then 1 or 2 on other people + no voters equaling a no lynch is retarded. The only way I see it as acceptable is, as Sam said, when there is a run-off. Or if its near the end and there are <7ish players.

[Zander]

I only did something slightly similar to this in the TWG game I'm hosting on DDRFreak because otherwise people just don't vote or become inactive. And on that site since there are fewer players than Spies and generally fewer applicants than Spies, it seems dumb to not have some consequence for people just not voting or "no voting" their way through a game.

Also my game doesn't require a majority to lynch, it just requires no votes to not have the majority (So if like 3-4 people don't vote it's not a big deal), so it's not exactly the same but I see what you're saying.

I don't like that concept though, about needing a majority on one person to lynch, it just basically forces people to bandwagon.

[Judge Sam]

Because most games have open voting. And no side dicussions (except for scum). So you post your vote in the Day thread of the game and others are able to see where you're coming from. Votes are allowed to be changed so to facilitate a lynching others band wagon a vote to see it through.

Huh? That's not an answer, that's just describing the setup of certain games as they are. (i.e. Why is does hot air rise? Because the sky is blue.) I am asking why do some games require a majority vote.

The majority is the best way for a town lynch because then the town actually has a communal say.

What is a "communal say" and why is 45% not a communal say and 51% is? In a majority-required situation people are not going to vote their true preferences because then the Day will never end. How is voting insincerely solely to achieve a majority (i.e. voting for someone even if you don't think they are the most likely mafia just to secure a lynch) a better way of doing things? Certainly people voting their feelings would be more of an honest system?

I only did something slightly similar to this in the TWG game I'm hosting on DDRFreak because otherwise people just don't vote or become inactive.

I like the system on DDRFreak where if you don't vote or post, you get a strike against you. Two strikes and you're modkilled / replaced. There are many other ways to encourage voting / activity than a majority requirement.



I was looking through the voting history for Spies 4. In a system where majority wasn't required, 9 out of 12 votes achieved a majority anyway. 2 out of the 12 votes in which there wasn't a majority an inactive got enough votes to be eliminated. (That makes me happy, if there isn't an overwhelming consensus, maybe no lynch / inactive is a better event.) The final vote was the 8-7-1-1-1 Beverly/Naomi vote.


So someone give me a convincing argument why they would require a majority vote to lynch, rather than just do what every other voting system does and that's set a deadline and the person with the most votes at that time "wins."

[Singe]

I'd say it's because it's far too easy to accomplish a nonmajority lynch. What pries information out of the players is being forced to switch from their #1 choice to their #2 choice in order to reach a lynch that's theoretically better for town than a no-lynch. Nonmajority rules give Spies more room to hide, as a spy can easily say: "oh, I didn't need to change my vote cause X vote leader guy was getting lynched anyway."

Forces more consensus-building.

[Zander]

I guess to each their own. I'd hate taking away from my own game by having to constantly modkill people for not voting - instead it forces all players to hold one another accountable to vote... I don't really think it ruins the game, and in the game I hosted (Which just ended) there was never a no-lynch scenario, and many times the votes did not have a clear majority. So it's almost identical to your system, I just don't punish anybody specifically for not voting.

[Masaki]

Good for games with long deadlines.

Not good for a game like this.

[Judge Sam]

singe said:

I'd say it's because it's far too easy to accomplish a nonmajority lynch. What pries information out of the players is being forced to switch from their #1 choice to their #2 choice in order to reach a lynch that's theoretically better for town than a no-lynch. Nonmajority rules give Spies more room to hide, as a spy can easily say: "oh, I didn't need to change my vote cause X vote leader guy was getting lynched anyway."

Forces more consensus-building.

You guys have good arguments.


What do you mean by it's too easy to accomplish a non-majority lynch? Do you mean like the default should be no lynch and people should only be lynched if there is a majority consensus?


I agree that looking at people's 2nd, 3rd, 4th choices gives more information that is good. But that also comes out in a non-majority system... voters see that their choice isn't supported, and if there are two options and they support one more than the other they should switch their vote to it.


Not sure what you mean by your quote. If someone doesn't have the majority then it's hardly assumed that "they will be lynched anyway."


I think that coming to any decision as a group, whether it be majority or not, forces consensus buliding.

zander said:

I guess to each their own. I'd hate taking away from my own game by having to constantly modkill people for not voting - instead it forces all players to hold one another accountable to vote... I don't really think it ruins the game, and in the game I hosted (Which just ended) there was never a no-lynch scenario, and many times the votes did not have a clear majority. So it's almost identical to your system, I just don't punish anybody specifically for not voting.

That "constantly modkill" thing never happens to non-inactives. I am confused as to what else you are saying haha, other than defending your own game, which is fine, but I'm looking at the bigger picture.

masaki said:

Good for games with long deadlines.

Not good for a game like this.

I don't understand, why would a majority game be good for long deadlines? Isn't the point of long deadlines with majority requirements to force a consensus via boredom (I want this game to go on so let's lynch someone)? Couldn't a long deadline non-majority game work just as well? Or do long deadlines have more to do with people only wanting to spend 10-15 minutes on it every few days? (I have no idea why people have games with week+ / no deadlines... I've seen games with like 3-4 week "days"... craziness.)

[Masaki]

admin said:

I don't understand, why would a majority game be good for long deadlines? Isn't the point of long deadlines with majority requirements to force a consensus via boredom (I want this game to go on so let's lynch someone)?

Majority requirement works for long deadline games because, under that scenario, that requirement is a more reasonable demand because the time is there to come up with a decision. I've tried games with super short deadlines that required a majority, and it just doesn't work out because, like Zander said earlier, it either results in a string of no-lynches or a bunch of shameless bandwagoning.

admin said:

Couldn't a long deadline non-majority game work just as well? Or do long deadlines have more to do with people only wanting to spend 10-15 minutes on it every few days? (I have no idea why people have games with week+ / no deadlines... I've seen games with like 3-4 week "days"... craziness.)

Long deadline games could work just as well without a non-majority requirement. The difference, I think, is that the majority requirement is there so that participation is more demanded. If we're 5 days from the deadline in a 20 player game, and Masaki has 8 votes, Sam has 7 votes, people need to actually rock the boat a little bit and make the lynch happen by choosing between the two. As a result, you get to see some people scrambling, and question why they chose who they did based on what the lynched player's alignment winds up being.

I'm not saying it necessarily makes the game better, but that it is more feasible for longer deadline games than for short deadline games.

And yeah, some games(at Mafiascum mainly) have ridiculous day lengths. One of my first had a 72-day-long day one(there was no deadline). Ouch.