As a worst case scenario, lets assume for a moment that there are 5 scum (ignoring whether they are on the same team), and that they ALL pile onto a single player (also ignoring the chances of that happening). Right now, you would STILL need two different town players to be on that wagon before it goes anywhere (setting aside vote shenanigans). That means two different town players would have to, independently, go "Yeah, I'm willing to kill that guy".

The more scum you remove from the wagon, the more townies you need to agree to kill the potential victim before the lynch goes through. Only 4 scum? Need 3 townies to hop on. Scum don't all hop on? Need more townies to get the lynch. And as soon as someone goes "No, no I don't think I'll be a part of this lynch", then you need yet another vote for the lynch to go through.

Once the wagon starts rolling, you can start looking at reactions to it. If it gets to 4 people, and then suddenly 3 more jump on in short order, what are you going to think? If it gets to 5-6 people, and suddenly a player or two jump off, what are you going to think? Wouldn't it be interesting to see how that player defends themself, and how other players attack, defend, or ignore the person under threat? And if enough people end up agreeing on a candidate, then there's your lynch. Regardless, it gives data points that people can ignore or analyze.

And then there is the reasoning for a lynch. Lets say someone (townie or scum) tries to pull "Well Adalia said we should just lynch a random person". Are you really going to let that just slide on through? Does that strike you as a viable excuse? If you were scum, do you honestly think you'd try to use THAT excuse not to look bad about lynching a townie? It only works as a reason if the other players allow it. If Adalia manages to get a random(-seeming) player fully lynched today, what do you think will happen if he tries it again tomorrow?

On a slightly different topic: I can understand Adalia applying vote pressure to a player for whom he has no read. Unless you are completely confident in your scum choices, then you shouldn't restrict yourself to only voting for those you think are scum. Why should he NOT try to get a read on someone he is unsure about? Maybe that person is scum and one of his scum candidates are actually town. Can't rule out that possibility unless one actually explores it in some fashion, and directly threatening a lynch seems like a better method than trying to kill your entire scum list and hoping you got it right the first time.

-----

If the target starts posting more to avoid receiving more votes, then the pressure worked. If the target decides to ignore the votes and continue not posting, then more people might hop on to the non-responsive player's wagon. And if the target ignores it all the way to lynch, then town lost someone that is refusing to talk. Not a big loss in my book. (Ha, book! I'm so funny.)

Mafia need to kill people to win, there win condition is dependant on it. But every town player the mafia kills (and unless there are third parties mafia always kills town) gives town more knowledge, brings town one more step closer to figuring out who the enemy are.
I'm really not sure how much more I can explain this point...

Nope. I never suggested we lynch a random player. Go on, reread my original post. Dedo read it as such, and I responded that I was willing to do so, as otherwise the exercise is pointless, but the original point was always to exert pressure.
And the bonus is; as I've explained to Leonard above, and a few times before, that even if we lynch town that's a GOOD thing! Because more dead players means less places for scum to hide.

As for not voting for who I think is scum, that's easy. I have a very loose read on some people, the evidence I have that they might be scum is not going to convince anyone else. So if put it out there and place a vote then (if I'm right) that's my hand played and scum know I'm on to them and why, and can change their behaviour accordingly. If I sit back I can let the evidence mount up, and swoop in when there is enough to actually secure a lynch.
Besides, how do you know I'm not bluffing and flub is one of the players I consider scummy?

And we have a vote! At last, someone puts their money where there mouth is. Not surprised at who either. Town points for you Lift.
Admittedly you're also completely misreading the situation, but at least you're willing to act on it.

@Bookwyrm
It's scary how well you get me, if I didn't know better I'd think we were alts ;)

I'm sorry, the usual win condition for scum is to control the lynch, nothing about killing in the win condition. Killing is a means to that end, but it doesn't depend on it. Hell, the win condition yog posted in the OP doesn't mention killing either: So, do you know something we don't?

Ok. So how exactly are the Mafia supposed to overpower the other faction in numbers (or votes if you want to be picky) if they don't kill anyone?
Are you telling me you think it's possible for scum to win having never made a single NK?
I count that as being pretty dependent on killing.

Wyrm is similar to Adalia. Wyrm is similar to Yogsloth. Therefore Adalia is similar to Yogsloth. How does that make you feel? :D

-----

I think I'm missing something. Since by definition town starts the game outnumbering mafia, how does mafia reach vote parity WITHOUT killing anyone (in some fashion)?

Also, as I understand it, the win condition for mafia is to control the lynch because at that point town are completely unable to stop mafia from (eventually) killing all town. The conclusion is foregone once mafia are able to force a No Lynch every game day, so the game is ended when the outcome is no longer in question.

Yeah, I'm ok with this, yogs is clearly the more extreme side of our shared personality :)

As much as I appreciate you explaining how a vote wagon works, it really was not necessary. I have stated in games past and will state again I often use my vote to apply pressure to people, it is a tool to be used and one I think is often not used enough. But, my whole objection to adalibooks has nothing to do with that.

Someone saying "killing is good for town" and then coming up with a plan to start placing votes on random people under the guise of "applying pressure" sounds to me like someone fishing for an easy lynch target.

If you have a plan to catch scum why would you announce it? "Hey scum I want you to make a slip up so I'm going to start voting for random people so they'll feel the pressure. If you are one them get ready!!".

If adalabooks finds someone scummy then by all means say so so we can discuss it., and yes he should definitely vote for them too. The only way town is going to win is by sharing thoughts and information. But if you want to tell me that it's ok to vote for someone you are unsure about instead of someone you think is possible scum and says it's a townie move then I think you need to reassess some things.

I guess I'm not callous and cold hearted enough in this game. I don't like treating it as a "numbers" game. I will vote and lynch someone because I think they are scum, I will not vote or lynch someone because "according to the numbers if we do this town wins".

Since I've started this post I see adalibooks has finally replied and I still don't like his reasoning.

Vote adaliabooks

Short term maybe, but is that a viable move? What's it to say someone doesn't resort to lurking again, or simply slows down after a short burst of posts? Given the fact one is announcing his "pressure" tactics, the pressured one knows the vote is there only enough to make him sing. Once that's off such an individual can simply blend in with the others. Which leads me back to my original point: Is it a smart move to announce the fact you are "pressuring" someone?

Kind of a meta game discussion, but one wants to appear as his vote is solidified in order for this "pressure" to work. When one is lying one does not simply announce the fact that he is lying. What would be the point then?

In any case, I don't really see the point of this subject. It's all semantics. All I'm saying is that I think this whole thing "Yo, time to apply some pressure folks!" is a very efficient thing to say.

Warning: Freaking forum ate my post, so hopefully it won't double post now.

Edit for post 248: "All I'm saying is that I don't think this whole thing..."

That's what all nighters will do to you.

And you're also bringing them one step closer to victory. So much for this whole thing being an innately "GOOD" thing, eh?

I'm not sure whether we're still talking about the random vote situation (which has long since sailed anyway) or my vote on flub, but in the case of flub my vote isn't any pressure at all. What I did was point out that he has not contributed, and placed my vote on him in the hopes that others might agree and place their vote on him too, and that would be the pressure.

I don't vote to apply pressure, it is (as you have rightfully pointed out) pretty pointless. I vote to lynch. If I don't think someone is worth lynching, I don't vote for them. I think flub is worth lynching, if nothing else than for the fact his contribution to the game was (and still is) diddly squat. There's an added bonus that he might be scum or anti town.

I'm not saying "according to the numbers". Random probability will not win the game, but you have to start somewhere.
It's nothing to do with being cold hearted or callous, I prefer to think of it as being pragmatic. Town has one real super power, and that is dying. Town can afford to die, scum can not. It's pretty tricky for scum to come back from losing a player, quite frankly yogs winning the last game was nothing short of miraculous.
With each of our deaths we get one step closer to winning.
We can all sit around on our hands day 1 waiting for scum to come out with a slip so we can vote them, or we can do something to get things started.
Scum are never going to do that, they have no reason to. If you're really lucky they might respond to someone else with a slip, but there is no need for them to even do that if town aren't talking.
This is extreme WIFOM and this could all be some scum plot on my behalf to make myself seem townie (no scum would risk exposing themselves that much) but really think through what it means if I'm scum.
What do I stand to gain? What do I stand to lose?
And look at it again if I'm town, ask the same questions.

You say your not willing to lynch someone for 'the numbers' but by voting me that's exactly what you're doing.

I'm of the opinion that someone who only participates when votes start being applied to them isn't particularly useful to town. Active players > lurkers, generally speaking. Someone that continually fades away once the votes go away is showing a pattern that can be reviewed, and if this cycles 3-4 times I know that my scumdar is going to be pinging based on the dedicated lurking. If someone becomes generally helpful after receiving vote pressure...

In that last sentence of yours, I assume you meant to say "inefficient". If I'm wrong, then I don't understand what you meant to say.

Your grand plan was to pick a random player and apply votes to them so they would feel the pressure and possibly make a slip if they are scum, yet now you don't vote to apply pressure but to only lynch? And your vote at the moment is on flub in hopes that others will vote for him and he feels the pressure? So you don't want to vote now for applying pressure but to lynch, yet you want others to vote to apply pressure. And your vote is on someone who you are not sure is scum or not and the people you feel might be scum you don't want to vote for because it might reveal too much of your hand.

That is a convoluted mess, so many times you are contradicting yourself. You just want to kill someone so info can be gained regardless of them being scum or not, and that is not a townie move at all to me.

This line "You say your not willing to lynch someone for 'the numbers' but by voting me that's exactly what you're doing" is laughable. I'm not voting for you because of some "numbers", I'm voting for you because of your behavior is scummy to me. Are you some exception that if I vote for you it has nothing to do with you being possible scum but only for some "numbers"?

Cult games? Anyone?

Given that I've never played one, and this game is not the case for that setup, I'm assuming cult games work on the basis of recruiting instead of lynching, as far as the master goes.

1) yog made the distinction between numbers and votes, possibly to account for double voters or vote blockers.
2) Any way they can. Killing is the easiest, but even if scum are prevented from killing, they can win.

Possible? Yes. Probable? No. Think of the Tres Leches game. There were two scum teams, and for quite a while, they were both hitting the same target. So one team was killing, the other wasn't. One team could win without ever killing anyone, though they would have to assist in the final lynch.

I don't. I count it as saying "Getting games on GOG depend on you having a credit card". While it will make it easier, it doesn't depend on the condition being true.

Again, killing is the easiest way for scum to get the win condition. It isn't the only way, nor does their win condition depend on them killing.
There are also a few cases when reaching parity doesn't mean the scum win (2v2, doctor+vigilante vs 2 grunts), in which case it does depend on the win condition. If win condition is the one yog gave us, then the game has ended, even though town could win it (protect NK target, vig scum, lynch other scum next day).
In all cases though, scum's usual win condition doesn't depend on killing, though killing does help them achieve it. Scum could have a win condition of "Make sure X is killed", in which case their win condition does depend on killing.

Oh my, not sure where to begin.
1) Town's "super power" isn't dying. Town's power is the vote. Vanillas' power is dying, but not to die. Dying to protect a town role. A vanilla that is lynched has not used its power properly, because it was a mislynch. A vanilla that was night killed has used its power properly, because they died instead of a role.
2) Scum can afford to die, if it gives them a tactical advantage. Said advantage usually is appearing town, so a scum is safe from scrutiny.

Funny, other people have said that with each death, town gets a step closer to losing. Math and all that.

Scum are not going to stir waters, ergo anyone that does cannot be scum. If I stir the waters, I can't be scum. Apply WIFOM to that, and ask yourself whether scum would stir the waters.

You stand to gain being seen as town. You stand to lose being lynched. If you are going to be lynched (and are scum), you hope your team mates will be smart enough to bus you, thus having them appear town as well.

You stand to gain some discussion, and hopefully the players do something. You stand to be lynched, costing the town either a power role, or a vanilla that could have drawn a night kill.

And before I forget, vote adaliabooks