No lynching is the best course of action on the first day of mafia games like the one described

QUOTE 1: "I have to agree that lynching is a good idea on the first day, but I think under certain circumstances, A no-lynch can be acceptable. " Yes? Point? My goal is to advocate that lynching can be permissable. Unless i read the topic wrong, your goal is to porve that is would be wrong in all cases, and un-helpful to the town. QUOTE 2: "True, however, in association with the the situation I have provided where the game doesn't go any where, 1 townie dead, is better than having 2 dead. " Works the same in your scenario. No-lynching according to my cased should only be used when there is an over-extended day phase going absolutley no where, and there isn't enough info sustainable to get a lynch. Like i said, 1 townie dead, is strategically better than 2. QUOTE 3: "For example: There is a total of 23 players, let's say" Again x3 THIS IS THE SAME FOR LM'S SCENARIO! ! Really what's the difference? I used that as an example to prove that people will have mixed votes. RE:"Correct, and as PRO stated in his previous round: :This drags on a day phase forever, while people are constantly changing votes, and being un-decisive. The problem was that the day would go on based on presuming that people wouldn't be decisive. Quick moderator execution easily solves this problem. " And then results in another un-needed town death, placing the town one behind :) RE:"Not a problem. As I've already insisted, the purpose of the first day isn't necessarily to weed out a mafia member. It's to get a good feel of each player's behavior as well as to compare said behavior to the results of someone getting lynched. Based on probability alone, the chances of lynching a townie are greater than the chances of lynching a mafia member EVEN without PRO's concerns" Because people generally seem to be im-patient with their lynches. IF they had done a no-lynch in these scenarios, the town might have one more person on their side. RE: "When it's very obvious who is mafia, it's natural that a strong majority of the players are going to vote for the same person without situation. Essentially, what my opponent is telling you is that it would be best for the town to wait for people with investigative power roles to succeed or wait for mafia members to slip up and reveal themselves accidentally. However, as he himself has already admitted in this debate, the chances of that are low. Thus, the town would simply be sitting back on each day letting the mafia mow them down one by one while the town learns little to nothing" Actually i would never advocate that at all. The simple point, is to not lynch when there is SO many suspicions out on the table. It sends the town into confusion, which ends up leading to a succesful lynch of one their own. We shouldn't of course just 'sit there and let wait' for the mafia to slip up. We should just make sure we don't vote unless we have a consistent decision. RE: "Being "sure" that someone is mafia isn't what the game is about (assuming that by sure, 'proof" is the meaning). If the town waited for CERTAINTY on each day phase and adhered to my opponent's ideals, the it'd be at the mercy of people with investigative night actions (people whom the mafia can easily kill) and/or people who slip up (which is less likely to happen if there is no disussion on who to lynch). The fact of the matter was that there was reason to suspect WJM. This reasoning came from none other than the discussion of WHO TO LYNCH as well as wjm's behavior in this matter. " I find this totally absurd. Of course we should be SURE that we are going to lynch the correct person. Us killing Wjm would have been harmful to the town. The town was lucky in that incident. But how often do we usually get lucky? It's not worth playing chances. And the town discussing who to lynch, had their suspicion just as easily on WonderWoman. Again, this was pure luck kicking in. RE: "As for saving someone who could possibly have a beneficial role, that risk is taken every day. In fact, the mafia can very well kill the player with a beneficial role at night. We must keep in mind that the game isn't about roles as much as it is about deception as well as determining who is being deceitful. " What happens with risks too much, is that we fail them. Alot of people fail to understand that. This is why cultist and mafia can win so much. RE: "Nonsense. I said it was possible to hit a mafia player; I said nothing about the chances being high. Based on the scenario I provided in my parameters, 4/19 to be precise" Note that the chances of killing a townie in that situation, is 15/19. Playing with this strategy, a town could very easily submit itself to suicide. RE: "Of course. If such players (and I presume you're referring to lurkers) are focused on and threatened to be lynched, they have no choice but to talk, hence continue the discussion. " And what do we determine from this? I made a point on this in round one, and i will again refer to it. We investigate that player so harshly, and basically force them to show their role. Assuming their not mafia (or cult) they have just revealed their role for the mafia (or cult) to see as well as the towns. Then people play the belief factor, on whether or not that person is lying or telling the truth, and half the time end up killing a townie for no reason. Beneficial? I think not. RE: "Alright, I apparently misunderstood what was meant by making the discussion go nowhere. Fortunately, this is an issue which can easily be resolved. As I've mentioned earlier, the mod can easily execute a time limit, hence forcing players to "wrap it up" (per se) when comes to the overly long winded debates. " Again resulting in a un-needed town death, and helps promote mafia and cult, WHICH IS GREAT. .. . If your mafia or cult. .. I would like to thank my opponent for offering up such a fun and challenging debate. It was fun.