triceratopzeuhl wrote:So if I understand you correctly, instead of picking somebody who reads as bad to lynch, you make a list of everybody who reads as good and choose from the others to lynch? Does that, er, ever actually work? Have you used this approach successfully before?
Nice to meet you, trice!
It's my fault the concept is looked down upon, because I first used it to describe why I didn't regret lynching somebody who turned out to be town, but looked bad. In any other world, people wouldn't have been as mad as me because the reason he looked bad was all the normal reasons - but what got people's back up is I said that it was a necessary lynch because if we didn't, we'd just be arguing about him the next day and the next day. It was sad that he was civ, but I felt the lynch was still the right move to solve the game. (Also, worth noting - civs could win dead in that game, so I didn't cost the person their shot at winning).
A big difference in the approach is what you do to the 'people in the middle'. Because often, they can sneak by without doing anything and they never take any heat, and then they turn out to be bad and win.
The idea is, instead, put pressure on those people to try to figure out that they are town or bad instead of letting them float.
In the game where I got in trouble, the mafia did include a floater or two, so it was helpful to use the approach.
It's really not very different from how we do mafia normally, though. It's essentially the same, just with more emphasis on sharing your town reads, and more willingness to listen to each other when your reads differ and try and figure out (together) who is right.
