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

RE: "First, I would like to say that changing the scenario of the story does abosolutely nothing. Every single argument i have made still applies to the scenario you have provided. I was using that as evidence to further show you how no-lynching could be the best option. " I beg to differ and I suspect that even my opponent is aware of the fact that this is false. Ladies and gentleman, please feast your eyes on the following statement made by my opponent is his previous round: 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. " 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. " QUOTE 3: "For example: There is a total of 23 players, let's say" Also, I address the differences entirely later on in the debate, so keep reading. :) RE: "This is true that there is a time limit. However, the time limit that 'solves this problem, really doesn't solve this problem at all. The time limit is to keep the game from going on forever. " 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. RE: "If there is all this un-decisiveness, then the chances of killing a townie over a mafia are probably going to be rather huge. " 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. RE: "However, more than 60% (calculated from the last two mafia games) of lynches that reach the maximum, actually hit a mafia perfectly. If we cannot reach this probable succesful limit, the best idea would be to pass the day phase, so as not to kill a townie. Mafia have the advantage of being undercover. We cannot just kill a player who we can't decide on, and chance killing a townie, thus raising mafia advantage. " What my opponent fails to consider is the situations where a strong majority of the players vote for the same person. If you'll take notice of the previous games, these situations have arised due to successful investigation of mafia, stupd mafia slip ups, etc. 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. RE: "If you were not aware, i had posted my argument well before this happened. And still, getting wjm lynched was just a hunch. Nobody was sure whether or not he was guilty or not at that point. The argument against him was that he was a bulletproof townie. WonderWoman also claimed this role. We had no sure way of knowing that either of them was the actual threat, (or even if the whole bulletproof dilema actually meant a threat). People at that point were just anxious to get the day phase over, and voting for the majority vote. " 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. RE: "Finding allegiances hasn't worked out so far. So far all we have found were a few mis-lead leads. No-lynching in a game our size is perfectly okay due the fact that we are saving someone who could possibly have a beneficial role to the town. We hardly consider that when we lynch, which also leads to a most likely townie loss. What matter is it if we find the town's alliances? If we've killed another townie, just to later find out the player who was allied to the other player, is innocent, or just stupid, the whole point was just flushed down the toilet. Instant town dis-adantage! " Sure it has. It was successfully deduced that wjmelements had no allegiances on the first day of the smash bros game. 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. And yes, it is possible that players may end up dealing with someone who is just a dumb townie, but it's most fortunate that such players are in the minority and that reading up on such players' backgrounds can indicicate as to whether or not they are just vastly inexperiened when it comes to mafia games. RE: "Thats absurd. The chances of hitting a mafia are alot lower than hitting a townie. Its never safe to play the "IF" factor. " 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. RE: "Keep a close eye on who's making the discussion go no where? " 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. :) RE: "If people are in a clash of dis-agreement and post-poning the game through long persecution, that is not reason enough to suspect them as mafia. Anyone is going to get desperate to protect themselves, whether they are innocent or mafia/cult. " 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. RE: "Again, the perimeter on which i have based my case on, in no way changes what would happen in my opponents scenario. It works the same either way, so saying my point are invalid, doesn't hold anything. " On the contrary, it does. For the setup mentioned in my parameters, there are less players (hence less inactivity), is vastly different from the Super Smash Bros Brawl game (which my opponent bases most of his argument on) and has far less important roles (hence making the odds of hitting someone with an important town role to be 2/19 ---even LOWER than hitting a mafia member). Using this setup rather than the setups my opponent is talking about hurts his argument considerably. Thanks for the debate.