yeah i understand. but there's collateral damage if we outlaw it, which is what i have an issue with
deletedabout 10 years
If town has continued to force NL in the game I linked, I would have had to choose from guaranteed loss vs guaranteed loss the way it is. So I think it's safe to say that point is moot.
I think Must Lynch is intended to act as a form of mafia where the mafia can choose not to kill, but the town can't choose to NL. That's what the feature is there for, and that's what differentiates it from must act and a lack of "must" feature altogether. As it stands, the must lynch feature is worthless in my opinion and that stinks because I think stfu and lynch is a GREAT setup if it works as intended (IE no forcing NL)
deletedabout 10 years
I think you should read the game I posted though Connor because town intended to NL until I was forced to kill into autoloss, in which case I would have been allowed to force the meteor. And I would have too, out of spite.
on meteor, if your options are to force NL or lynch someone you don't want to lynch, you lynch or lose, and thus you can't force nl, because it's guaranteed loss vs probable loss. (choosing guaranteed loss therefore being gamethrowing, which is the only way a site violation comes into play)
that's the only way this could be compared. except, there's no guaranteed loss this time. you have to weigh probable loss vs site violation, and i think forcing people to make that decision is wrong
Fair enough points. Ideally it becomes something like how the copy reports rule. Alternatively, it starts being "masked". I'm willing to try it. Mod team's probably discussing it already, but I'll ask them what they think about it when I can get on skype.
If you don't agree with a lynch on meteor you have to pick one anyway. Why should this be different?
deletedabout 10 years
If someone doesn't agree with a lynch they should have to pick one anyway, because it's must lynch. That's like the whole point.
deletedabout 10 years
@Rondar I think it being against the rules would be enough of a deterrent that it would stop happening. I also think that setup concepts I really enjoy (like stfu and lynch) are ruined by people insisting on forcing NL as evidenced by the game I linked.
I really think a very minor violation being given for forcing NL would solve this problem. That way I could just say "Hey, we can't force NL it's against the rules" and play the game as intended.
It sucks, but there are three problems with making it against the rules:
A) Giving a violation to 6 different people in a game is lame (but this is this point)
B) You can't count on someone reporting it every game, since if everyone agrees to do it, no one will report it (can't count on scum to do it every time either, since they can force nk's themselves). You'll wind up with unreported games that should have been refunded, but were never reported.
C) Deciding who to give a violation to and discerning intent would be even more difficult here than with GT (basically what gira said: what if someone doesn't agree with a lynch?)
times like this i want to go back in time and tell lucid to make must lynch the default option. i imagine the quality of games would increase maybe ok prob not
