The Syndicate

Law wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
The prize itself doesn't matter much, but my wincon while I'm still playing the game does.

This statement is all that I need to know that I would never host a game where you had to be alive to win. It's all anyone should need, to understand why it's a terribly flawed notion.

It's not about winning and losing, it's about incentive and intent. If your townies aren't playing properly, then it's not the same game anymore. If I enroll in a game and I'm later informed that I need to be alive to win, even if I am technically a Town role-- as far as I'm concerned, I'm a survivor Indie. And like it or not, that's how the majority would think, whether they talk about it or even realize it. That's basic human psychology at work.

I've not seen one person here refute this most basic detractor from that style of hosting. I've seen some people try, and ultimately fail.

Epignosis wrote: There are several reasons, none of which are creepy (or sexist):

First, females get lynched at a significantly lower ratio than males do. It takes much, much more effort to get a female lynched than a male, especially early in the game. Matt, sig, MetalMarsh89, thellama73- all favorite Day 1-2-3 lynch targets. Can you name any females who are favorite Day 1-2-3 lynch targets? Me neither. It's much easier to get a lynch going on a dude than it is on, say, juliets or bea. I think guys are generally more reluctant to show aggression toward a female early on, and males far outnumber females here, so I see this as a natural dynamic.

Second, while I have established a mental catalog of male Mafia tells over the years (which are becoming less useful, I'm willing to admit), females generally say things that make me suspicious of them, with only a few of them having specific traits that I can point to and say "A ha!" Think about yourself- how often do I go after you when we are both good? There have been a few times when I walked into a game and said "I am not going to accuse S~V~S," and I ended up doing it because what you said was something I found so outside my thinking, I couldn't help myself (Lost Again was the most recent example of this).

Third, if I find that the target is good or telling the truth, it's much easier to support a female than a male in the thread (again, in general). A number of guys straight up want to crucify you for supporting their view, backing them up, defending them, etc. They are much swifter to condemn you of "buddying." Another thing that backs this up? I rarely see guys tear into each other for supporting a female, but will have no qualms doing so for supporting a male. It's uncanny.

In summary, info on a female player tends to be more valuable to me than another male player.

Epignosis wrote:

Law wrote:I will never host a game where Townies or Mafiosos need to be alive in order to win.

That type of win-condition belongs in 3rd party/Independent faction, not the main two. Sometimes sacrificing yourself is the smart play, and you should win with your team.

I'd rather take wins away from players who stayed alive but didn't deserve to win than those who played hard for their team, but got killed for it.

That depends on the setup. In an open setup in which information is in play (role checker, lie detector, civilian BTSC, etc.), having to be alive in order to win keeps civilians from getting Mafia lynched just because they dump info into the thread. There's an art to lynching Mafia without drawing the Night kill yourself. It's one I myself have not mastered and probably never will, but I think it keeps blabbermouth civilians from ruining the game for the Mafia.

No info or a closed setup? That's different.