An Issue with Abstinence

[Fairy Dragon]

In so many hangings, the end count is usually, mostly abstains. This can and has killed many an innocent townie because the numbers of the townies are just over the mafia numbers (for example: in classic, an exe getting their target when all the mafia are a there are only five other townies excluding the townies). After being hung because of abstains, I looked up the definition to the word that I already knew caused problems.

Here is the definition that was the result of a Google search.
"1. restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something.

2.formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion."

The second definition is the one that I am going to say is the meaning of Town of Salem abstain (you know because it is for voting).

In order to get someone on the stand, at least half of the town must vote the person up. I ask you: how often does half the town actually vote and not abstain? Rarely , I'd say.

Here is where I get finicky. If you voted someone up on the stand, you have just participated in the vote. So, why are you allowed to not participate in what you helped cause? Honestly, you should not be able to abstain if you helped vote the person up. If you really weren't sure about the person, in real life, you would vote innocent to avoid a life being lost because of you.

Another way look at this is from a math perspective. If the person on the stand is an innocent, the mafia will be voting guilty. So that is three votes that must be counteracted. Since it takes more than three votes to put them up on the stand, that is just wrong.

So, my solution is that if you voted the defendant up to the stand , you are not allowed to abstain. You must vote innocent or guilty. If, for some reason, you never clicked either (like say you had to stop your cat from eating your pet bird), your vote will be counted as innocent (innocent until proven guilty). This would help stop the townies from being dumb, lazy, or just plain RHMing (Random Hanging Match).

[TurdPile]

Voting someone up on stand is more than just a measure of guilt. It is a way to get the person to speak without everyone else talking.

[Fairy Dragon]

Voting someone up on stand is more than just a measure of guilt. It is a way to get the person to speak without everyone else talking.

While, yes, that is how it is supposed to work in concept, the problem is that rarely plays out that way. For the most part (probably nine times out of ten) getting voted to the stand is a death sentence due to abstinence.

Basically, how it works out in game is, usually, all of the mafia will vote guilty on a townie. Only on a few occasions have I seen three or more people vote innocent (usually they walk when this happens). More often I see hangings due to people being unsure at new evidence, retracting the vote (or not voting if the evidence was given during the defense), and the score being something like 2-0.

For instance, in a recent game we hung a exe on Day 1. However, in order to get him up on the stand 8 people total had to vote. Te end score was 3-1; half of the people who voted him up didn't care enough to decide his fate when they put him in the position where it would occur. While this was a score for us, it happens more often with good townies early on in the game.

[Seekers]

What if atleast half of the persons are required to vote?
Like, on a 10 player game, 5 must vote or else the person is declared innocent due to lack of quorum.
EDIT: Also, how about if mayor ignores this?
Like on the same game, 2 mafias vote innocent on his teammate and mayor votes guilty, the person is hung because of mayor's vote.

[mouthyexpert]

Or just make it so abstaining defaults to an innocent vote, to make things a little clearer.

[Doobledore]

Making abstaining a default to innocent wouldn't be good. Say there's a mafia member up on trial, and he's trying to pull the "Jester" card on you, well, then people abstain because they don't want to die, and say 3/14 people vote guilty, the rest abstain. Auto-Innocence. :/

[mouthyexpert]

That's kind of the point. You need to weigh the risks before you decide to vote someone up. You might hang the jester, but you also may very well let a killer go free if you don't man up and vote guilty. Not to mention that as more people vote guilty, your odds of being the one the jester haunts go down too.

[Fairy Dragon]

What if atleast half of the persons are required to vote?
Like, on a 10 player game, 5 must vote or else the person is declared innocent due to lack of quorum.
EDIT: Also, how about if mayor ignores this?
Like on the same game, 2 mafias vote innocent on his teammate and mayor votes guilty, the person is hung because of mayor's vote.

This is very similar to what I suggested as half the town is needed to put someone on the stand, however, I think this would just make things more complicated. First of all, it would require the townies (who already appear to have problems with counting) to count how many people have voted already. Then they would have to remember, while counting, who the mayor is and what half of the town is at the moment.

Or just make it so abstaining defaults to an innocent vote, to make things a little clearer.

I don't think that would work out too well. First off, if you had to leave for a minute then your vote shouldn't be there (unless you had voted them up, in which case one would think you could wait just a tad longer to leave so you could vote innocent or guilty). Also, abstaining is not innocence; abstaining is choosing not to vote. You can abstain for a multitude of reasons: like you don't care or you feel that you have no right to vote (like your friend told you info IRL that changes the way you vote but you don't want to cheat).

My entire reasoning is that you can't choose to not partake in vote that you are already a part of by voting them up on stand. Abstaining is a valid option; just not when you have already participated.

[mouthyexpert]

All right, here's another thought: if a certain number of people abstain, let's just say six or more, maybe with a slight adjustment for the number of living players, then the game either gives an automatic innocent verdict or declares a mistrial and the town has to vote again (though this should probably only happen a limited number of times to prevent rounds from going on too long).

[Fairy Dragon]

All right, here's another thought: if a certain number of people abstain, let's just say six or more, maybe with a slight adjustment for the number of living players, then the game either gives an automatic innocent verdict or declares a mistrial and the town has to vote again (though this should probably only happen a limited number of times to prevent rounds from going on too long).

Sure, the mistrial would work, were it not for the counting aspect (I mentioned counting troubles in my post that I assume you are responding to). I've found that anything you do that adds more counting to the townies will likely not go well. No offense, but most people do appear to have issues counting; as they try to convince the remaining people (all mafia) that they are innocent.

[mouthyexpert]

I don't see why people would need to count. It's just a measure to keep 75% of the town from abstaining from votes. Nobody's going to ask themselves if there are few enough people abstaining that they can abstain too. Ideally when they see the mistrial/innocent verdict the first time they're gonna say "oh, well I guess I'm gonna have to man the hell up and vote one way or the other instead of abstaining like a wuss"

[Fairy Dragon]

I don't see why people would need to count. It's just a measure to keep 75% of the town from abstaining from votes. Nobody's going to ask themselves if there are few enough people abstaining that they can abstain too. Ideally when they see the mistrial/innocent verdict the first time they're gonna say "oh, well I guess I'm gonna have to man the hell up and vote one way or the other instead of abstaining like a wuss"

Alright, now I must ask Mr. "expert", what exactly makes your idea so much better than mine? Is there an issue with my solution that you have never mentioned in your four posts? (the other three quotes below are for proof)

Or just make it so abstaining defaults to an innocent vote, to make things a little clearer.

That's kind of the point. You need to weigh the risks before you decide to vote someone up. You might hang the jester, but you also may very well let a killer go free if you don't man up and vote guilty. Not to mention that as more people vote guilty, your odds of being the one the jester haunts go down too.

All right, here's another thought: if a certain number of people abstain, let's just say six or more, maybe with a slight adjustment for the number of living players, then the game either gives an automatic innocent verdict or declares a mistrial and the town has to vote again (though this should probably only happen a limited number of times to prevent rounds from going on too long).

Also, 75% is counting, in fact percentages are more complicated then counting.

Now then, I am going to say this again: players appear to have issues with counting. They can't figure out that there is no room left for an invest role. They can't see that there is no point in arguing because only the mafia is left. They can't see that there can be no mayor after the spy dies in classic.

Try attempting to count the number of votes being placed, keep track of the mayor, vote cancellations, and get your own vote accounted for at the last second within the time limit.

[l33tm4st3r]

Why would they need to keep track? They just need an incentive to vote. that don't even need to know the percentage or the amount of people so a mistrail doesn't occur. All that matters is they know it can happen. Your making it out like its super hard to keep track. Why would they even need to?

[Fairy Dragon]

Why would they need to keep track? They just need an incentive to vote. that don't even need to know the percentage or the amount of people so a mistrail doesn't occur. All that matters is they know it can happen. Your making it out like its super hard to keep track. Why would they even need to?

You are correct that I am making out to be really hard to keep track of and I am sorry for that.It was mainly to try and prove a point that there are issues with the idea. There could indeed be some sort of visible counter.

But first of all you have to consider the fact that the mistrail or auto innocence would be a perfect way to let trolls troll. All they would have to do is nothing and prevent a game from progressing at all. (or at least extend the game to an annoying length)

Second, I would still very much like to know why this is such an improvement over my idea. I have no idea if anyone feels there is a problem with my solution or why their solution is better.

[l33tm4st3r]

Both ideas have merit and problems. I never said one was better then the other. In fact I think the best idea is to combine the two.

[Fairy Dragon]

Both ideas have merit and problems. I never said one was better then the other. In fact I think the best idea is to combine the two.

How so? I would like to hear.

[mouthyexpert]

I think making abstaining auto-vote innocent all the time would be easier to code than making it only happen if you voted them up to begin with. Also, your suggestion would still leave half the town free to abstain as much as they like (you only need half the town to vote someone up to trial, give or take one). Although you're right that sometimes (admittedly very rarely) people have good reasons for abstaining, which is why I suggested the whole "innocent verdict/mistrial if x or more players abstain" as an alternative. And yeah, trolls could try and use the mistrial as a way to extend rounds, which is why I went with 6 abstains as the base, and would probably only make it go down five or maybe four based on the number of living players. You'd probably be hard-pressed to find that many assholes of that caliber in one round.

[Fairy Dragon]

I think making abstaining auto-vote innocent all the time would be easier to code than making it only happen if you voted them up to begin with. Also, your suggestion would still leave half the town free to abstain as much as they like (you only need half the town to vote someone up to trial, give or take one). Although you're right that sometimes (admittedly very rarely) people have good reasons for abstaining, which is why I suggested the whole "innocent verdict/mistrial if x or more players abstain" as an alternative. And yeah, trolls could try and use the mistrial as a way to extend rounds, which is why I went with 6 abstains as the base, and would probably only make it go down five or maybe four based on the number of living players. You'd probably be hard-pressed to find that many assholes of that caliber in one round.

You do make some very good points, that I agree with. Thank you for saying the problems with my solution.