If you want to discuss strategy after games or reminisce about past games, this is your place to do it.

Wanna brag or vent? Get to it!

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion and 2007 Captain N award winner, and I approve this siggy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
Hope the new WW game goes better than the previous Mafia one. GL all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WCFmo:
I thought it was fun

---

You would

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion and 2007 Captain N award winner, and I approve this siggy!

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

@nder- of course, that would be in direct violation with all things we hold dear.

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion and 2007 Captain N award winner, and I approve this siggy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
@Josh- It's more after game thoughts and pre-games jabs...merely fun.

@nder- of course, that would be in direct violation with all things we hold dear.

~MM

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
@WCFmo - The most important takeaway I have learned from this game is that it is played a certain way, not the most logical way. I agreed with PD and Gawain because, in the context of this website, their arguments are correct. However, I understand exactly where you are coming from, and should you ever venture to play mafia in realms other than MOTL, you will find other people who agree with you as well. At the end of the day, however, there is no overarching "best" way to play mafia - the true "best" way is directly related to the community and playstyle of a specific group of mafia players.

As a contained example, let's look at Gawain and PD's political comparison - e.g., because my posts are very aggressive and use persuasive rhetoric, they are distracting smokescreens and people tend to follow them (if that is not a correct paraphrase, I apologize, but for the purposes of this post, the text of the argument is largely irrelevant). In a vacuum or on other sites, I would argue "who's the more fool: the fool, or the fool who follows him?" I would contend that those who are suckered in to my supposedly fear-inducing oratory abilities are just as responsible as I am for the loss (which, according to PD/Gawain makes them imbeciles responsible for the loss of some sort). I would say that people should learn to take my accusations with a grain of salt, while still considering the strategic content they contain. This mindset, however, is not the best way to approach the game. As a townsperson, it is my responsibility to make sure I am working in the best interests of this specific town at all times. I should not be serving some abstract concept of "protownness" or trying to optimize the game. Those goals are excessively lofty and will never be achieved, and whether they are preferable or not is a discussion that should be held outside of the game. Thus, instead of saying "my playstyle is better, the scumteam is comprised of X, Y, Z" and garbage dumping 20 reasons as to why that is true into the thread, I should step back and ask myself "How can I help this town catch scum?" Clearly, my aggressive "George W. Bush" playstyle is NOT going to help this town. If I want to play with that more aggressive style, I should go elsewhere and play with other towns that embrace it as the norm. While I'm here playing with MOTL, I should cater to its community and norms. This is what will catch scum, and that is what being a pro-town player is ultimately all about.

---

+1.

That was one of the few things I learned going from here, to mafiascum, back to here for mafia: My play, when I first joined mafiascum, was suboptimal for how they play over there. I was timid, and because votes are done differently, my analysis had to change. I had to play an entirely different type of game, and include a little bit of conviction. Granted, I rarely speak with conviction in my mafia here, but there, sometimes it's necessary to get a point across. I picked up on tells and what not over there, but when I came back here, realize that some of the darndest tells on mafiascum can't necessarily be used here. Again, it essentially comes down to game mechanics and nuances between different sites. If anybody wants me to go into depth, I can, on request, but it will be on the Game Discussion Thread MM made.

EDIT: Some more food for thought, and some posts I figured were worth mentioning, or reposting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
First of all, MW is correct--my point was that once a player is confirmed as a cit, the proper thing to do is take another look at their suspicions--sure they could be WRONG, but if your entire reason for discounting them was that you didn't trust them that reason is gone once they are confirmed. It wasn't intended to be specifically about me, per se, it's just that I happened to be one of the first confirmed cits of this game--and I had voted a mafia and had all the mafia on my suspect list.

AFA being a blind squirrel goes--my point is not to claim any great skill--I openly admit that I am as wrong as anyone else can be. The difference is I don't act with conviction unsuited to my success rate. If you were right 1% of the time, it would be pretty foolish to say you were 100% sure so-and-so was mafia, wouldn't it? Would it not therefore, be appropriate to be circumspect? Approach your own suspicions with a healthy dose of skepticism?

Wouldn't being circumspect increase your chances of detecting "false positives" and thereby improve your success rate at finding mafia?

Your grasp of the stats seems incomplete. Sure, with a suspect list of 8 players in R1, a cit is quite likely to have a mafia in the list. In fact his chances of having some mafia in a list of 8 is about 92%--it would be hard NOT to have mafia in such a list.

But what are the chances of having all three? About 12.5%--about 1 in 8. Having all 3 mafia in such a list then is a reasonably noteworthy event. I don't think it was all luck--I didn't suspect Bernek, MM, and you by rolling dice. As I recall OGB was my die roll.

Anyway, the point is, here was an instance of a confirmed cit who had some decent leads, and they were just dumped overboard with his corpse. It's always useful to take the intersection of the suspicions of the dead and see if there are commonalities--in a way, the dead are the only people you know you can trust. And when I suggested that the players align themselves with people they knew they could trust (i.e. Gawain & MW) so as to play havoc with the mafia's ability to manipulate the citizenry, MM complained. As well he should, being mafia.

MW had good leads and so did I, and they should have counted for something once they were revealed to be honest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WCFmo:
The point I was making is that (trying to look back as a cit), how can a person look back at your list to determine anything? There were too many people on it, realistically, even if you had all three mafia members in your suspect list there were five others who weren't (Gawain was on your suspect list, so I will give you credit that once he dropped off you had a 3/7 chance).

Also, I think once someone says "X suspected Y" so we need to lynch them, that's a perfect setup for the mafia. Because, more than likely you are going to be killing a cit. While I applaud your pragmatism, it would be demoralizing after examining your list and choosing a person, they turned out to be a cit. Which, if the mafia are in that group, will try to exploit.

Of course the mafia are going to try to exploit every possible move in the game, and that's no reason to totally give up on something just b/c the mafia may try to exploit it. I'm not saying that people shouldn't carefully consider their options, but the reality of the situation is that

1) You're more likely to kill a cit with that big of a suspect list,
2) If you have a small suspect list (1 to 3 at max) it's more advantageous to the mafia to choose people with non-mafia suspects in order to double bluff them.
Solution - don't play . I kid, I don't think there is a right answer, but I don't think every play needs to be super thought out...sometimes the mafia are doing exactly what you think they are. Didn't you convince people to go after the mafia leader's top suspect last round? Ha. Sometimes thinking about bluffs and double bluffs, etc. can get you into trouble especially for people with such eloquent tongues.

And your final presumption - that you had good leads and they should have been examined is only good in hindsight. If you had terrible leads and they were examined, then going through your list would have cost the town even worse.

You and AGM seem to have drastically different play styles, which may work some games and other games no. He seems like to focus one suspect at a time (even if that time frame is very short), whereas you fire all your guns at once suspecting about a dozen people. Both methods (heck all methods) are susceptible to mafia treachery (get it?).

One thing I would like to note, either people don't reread the thread when they say they are or people just have fickle memory - case in point, OGB telling me that I had switched my vote twice, me telling him that he had done the same thing (twice). He tells me that he had a suspect list, well so did I.

Finally, I wasn't trying to do a statistical analysis, but my point was yeah you had all three mafia members on your suspect list - a blind squirrel can find a nut, i.e. the chances of that happening are not that good (you provided 12% or so I'm not gonna check the figures).

Short version - sometimes brash behavior can be good, sometimes careful consideration can lead to manipulation - neither are good strategies on their own.

PS - Thanks for helping us take out the Cop :P

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon in response to AGM's post above that I quoted:
That was remarkably thoughtful AGM. And you are correct, what I summarize as good play, is strictly good play here. I've no doubt that a cautious measured approach would probably serve poorly on other sites with other variants of the game.

AFA convincing rhetoric--one thing I've learned is that logic convinces people less than conviction. There are always some analytical folks in the crowd who respond well to logic, but there are typically many who instead pick up on the emotion--this is one of the dangers of conviction, especially here. When you speak with conviction, people who might not necessarily think your argument is very strong might be convinced because YOU'RE convinced. This is where I point out that we all have a fairly typical track record, i.e. usually wrong. If we're usually wrong, we probably shouldn't be so convinced when we are making a case, or at least maintain a healthy sense of self doubt so we can be more circumspect.

Certainly we can't be indecisive if we want to win, but overconfidence kills... something I explained to my daughter once when somebody recklessly passed us on a snowy road, lost control of his car, and crashed.

---

Also, there should be no "fighting" here either. Agree to disagree, but name calling and the likes will not be tolerated.

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion and 2007 Captain N award winner, and I approve this siggy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan:
That was one of the few things I learned going from here, to mafiascum, back to here for mafia: My play, when I first joined mafiascum, was suboptimal for how they play over there. I was timid, and because votes are done differently, my analysis had to change. I had to play an entirely different type of game, and include a little bit of conviction. Granted, I rarely speak with conviction in my mafia here, but there, sometimes it's necessary to get a point across. I picked up on tells and what not over there, but when I came back here, realize that some of the darndest tells on mafiascum can't necessarily be used here. Again, it essentially comes down to game mechanics and nuances between different sites. If anybody wants me to go into depth, I can, on request, but it will be on the Game Discussion Thread MM made.

---

This is almost exactly what happened to me. In the past few months, I've played in 6-7 games over there, so I was still in the mafiascum mindset. You simply cannot play the same way here as you can there.

One theory issue I would be interesting in discussing with you (if you're interested) is the rules regarding Cop/Doctor reveal. Personally, I think the way it is done on mafiascum is vastly superior. For those who have never played there, the rules are basically that anyone can claim any role at any time and it is up to the players to determine who is telling the truth. I think this is preferable because it minimizes mod intervention, allows for the town doctor to protect himself before a lynch, adds more strategy to the game, and gives the town a better chance of victory (which, given the towns losing record, it could use). Moreover, I don't really see any reason as to WHY people shouldn't be able to claim what they want - if there is going to be a restriction on what you can say in-game, I think their ought to be a good reason for it, otherwise, it is just an arbitrary restriction on game freedom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ryan:
That was one of the few things I learned going from here, to mafiascum, back to here for mafia: My play, when I first joined mafiascum, was suboptimal for how they play over there. I was timid, and because votes are done differently, my analysis had to change. I had to play an entirely different type of game, and include a little bit of conviction. Granted, I rarely speak with conviction in my mafia here, but there, sometimes it's necessary to get a point across. I picked up on tells and what not over there, but when I came back here, realize that some of the darndest tells on mafiascum can't necessarily be used here. Again, it essentially comes down to game mechanics and nuances between different sites. If anybody wants me to go into depth, I can, on request, but it will be on the Game Discussion Thread MM made.

---

This is almost exactly what happened to me. In the past few months, I've played in 6-7 games over there, so I was still in the mafiascum mindset. You simply cannot play the same way here as you can there.

One theory issue I would be interesting in discussing with you (if you're interested) is the rules regarding Cop/Doctor reveal. Personally, I think the way it is done on mafiascum is vastly superior. For those who have never played there, the rules are basically that anyone can claim any role at any time and it is up to the players to determine who is telling the truth. I think this is preferable because it minimizes mod intervention, allows for the town doctor to protect himself before a lynch, adds more strategy to the game, and gives the town a better chance of victory (which, given the towns losing record, it could use). Moreover, I don't really see any reason as to WHY people shouldn't be able to claim what they want - if there is going to be a restriction on what you can say in-game, I think their ought to be a good reason for it, otherwise, it is just an arbitrary restriction on game freedom.

This suggestion for discussion is not intending to convert MOTL to mafiascum or anything like that. I just want to talk about the pros and cons about the current rules setup. I think this topic is pretty important, too, given the number of in-game tiffs that have resulted surrounding it in the past. Thoughts? [/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
One theory issue I would be interesting in discussing with you (if you're interested) is the rules regarding Cop/Doctor reveal. Personally, I think the way it is done on mafiascum is vastly superior. For those who have never played there, the rules are basically that anyone can claim any role at any time and it is up to the players to determine who is telling the truth. I think this is preferable because it minimizes mod intervention, allows for the town doctor to protect himself before a lynch, adds more strategy to the game, and gives the town a better chance of victory (which, given the towns losing record, it could use). Moreover, I don't really see any reason as to WHY people shouldn't be able to claim what they want - if there is going to be a restriction on what you can say in-game, I think their ought to be a good reason for it, otherwise, it is just an arbitrary restriction on game freedom.

This suggestion for discussion is not intending to convert MOTL to mafiascum or anything like that. I just want to talk about the pros and cons about the current rules setup. I think this topic is pretty important, too, given the number of in-game tiffs that have resulted surrounding it in the past. Thoughts?

---

Given that the Mafia already wins most of the games, I think this would really crush the Cits. Not being able to take anyone at their word if they claim to be a role would make it even harder for them to succeed. The doctor buying half a round doesn't seem like a noticeable advantage if people do believe them, and if everyone can lie, I can't see it buying even that in most scenarios, as there would just be several people claiming to be the doctor when they aren't. I honestly don't see any possible way this would help anyone but the Mafia, as they thrive on misinformation and lying, where the Cits have to put all of their stock in truth.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

Doubtless the "claim anything" position will have dynamics that will mess up a few games until we figure it out, but allowing for it clarifies our rules, opens new possibilities, and reduces the need for arbitrary GM decisions.

And on that note, we should be clear as to what constitutes a reveal.

"I strongly suggest you don't vote for me. I strongly suggest that you DO vote for ryan."

Those statements spawned much disagreement as to whether I should be treated as if I had revealed, forcing the GM to make an arbitrary decision that another GM might not have made the same way. I fail to see why--wolves are going to try to eat me after that anyway unless they are afraid of the angel save--and if the angel doesn't believe me because I've lied about being the seer in the past, well then that's me reaping the consequences of previous behavior.

At best, they'll tend to stick around as long as normal, as a good Cop will reveal if they're about to be lynched so either way the Mafia will kill them that night, assuming in a Cop-May-Lie scenario that they're actually believed and not get immediately lynched anyway.

Yes, there's a possibility that the Mafia either don't believe the claimer assuming they're taking a bullet for the Cop or playing some other strategy, but while the Cop is alive, the information they have isn't very valuable as it can't be trusted, and lying about being the Cop is going to get a lot of people killed, be they Cits or Mafia, as deceit is more often than not a tool of the bad guys. We've seen how this stuff works out when people have tried the "claim without claiming" strategy where after a time or two, it's usually not believed.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

Allowing revealing might also cause more players to be active. Because it is obvious that most of the involvement in the mafia games is led by a handful of players, which is not good for the game and benefits the mafia.

Nder, sorry if this is oversimplification, but I'm reading your argument as this, "The cits are, generally speaking, too lacking in mental faculties to figure out if someone is lying or not about their role." If that is your argument (again, sorry if it's not), I think we should give them a chance to prove their stupidity. Granted, it is much harder to determine the level of truth in statements online than irl.

If that isn't your argument, then can you further elaborate on what your argument is since I clearly don't get it, haha.

__________________
"He knew suddenly that he was not going to escape. He was only mildly surprised to discover that he no longer cared.
An instant later, he was dead."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cab:
Nder, sorry if this is oversimplification, but I'm reading your argument as this, "The cits are, generally speaking, too lacking in mental faculties to figure out if someone is lying or not about their role." If that is your argument (again, sorry if it's not), I think we should give them a chance to prove their stupidity. Granted, it is much harder to determine the level of truth in statements online than irl.

If that isn't your argument, then can you further elaborate on what your argument is since I clearly don't get it, haha.

---

Since I agree with nder on this note, I'll take a shot at it.

There has been much discussion about how these mafia games are different compared to the mafiascum.net games and how conviction and unnecessary aggression doesn't help so much here. To be honest, I don't know how ANYTHING is more convicting than a cit or mafia member saying this:

"I'm the cop. Player #9 is a cit. Player #3 is mafia."

Any discussion that takes away from the ability of the citizens to make sound decisions or discussion about who the mafia could be doesn't help either. To be honest, I don't know how anybody should be able to determine the difference between the cop revealing himself and a non-cop player from revealing himself.

Personally, and I've said this many a time on the Zombie club, I think that the best way to improve the chances the citizens, if you believe that the cits need the help, have are to either:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cab:
Nder, sorry if this is oversimplification, but I'm reading your argument as this, "The cits are, generally speaking, too lacking in mental faculties to figure out if someone is lying or not about their role." If that is your argument (again, sorry if it's not), I think we should give them a chance to prove their stupidity. Granted, it is much harder to determine the level of truth in statements online than irl.

If that isn't your argument, then can you further elaborate on what your argument is since I clearly don't get it, haha.

---

That's almost exactly the opposite of my point. It has nothing to do with them not being smart enough, it's that the entire game is predicated on the Mafia lying and anyone trusting anyone else is pretty stupid. I would say that only the "mentally deficient" would trust anyone coming out claiming to be the Cop if lying about the role were allowed.

The problem with doing this on a trial basis is that it changes like this take a few games for people to work out the new wrinkles and get used to. Really, it's either jump in feet first and make the change or don't do it at all. If you're set on giving it a try, you're going to need to commit at least 10 or 12 games to it before you can really get a feel for if it's helpful or harmful. It may work better to have WW run one way and Mafia the other and let people choose which they prefer as time goes on.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

Again, give me about an hour and I will have a greta big post for the pros and cons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Given that the Mafia already wins most of the games, I think this would really crush the Cits. Not being able to take anyone at their word if they claim to be a role would make it even harder for them to succeed.

---

As far as I remember it used to be this way resulting in the first 10 games of mafia being overwhelming Mafia victories. After the "only the cop can claim to be the cop" rule was instated (after Mafia 11), the cits enjoyed a 1 in 3 victory ratio.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:

For those who have never played there, the rules are basically that anyone can claim any role at any time and it is up to the players to determine who is telling the truth. I think this is preferable because it minimizes mod intervention, allows for the town doctor to protect himself before a lynch, adds more strategy to the game, and gives the town a better chance of victory (which, given the towns losing record, it could use). Moreover, I don't really see any reason as to WHY people shouldn't be able to claim what they want - if there is going to be a restriction on what you can say in-game, I think their ought to be a good reason for it, otherwise, it is just an arbitrary restriction on game freedom.

---

As bad as the cits have been playing lately, a lot of his has to be attributed to lucky kills, to be honest, and the cits putting themselves in holes bu not playing certain roles currectly. I am not taking jabs at anybody, but the mafia have managed to nab cop and doc or both within the first 2 rounds lately, and the cop and doc are there to provide balance. The cits have been playing poorly, but the mafia have also been playing well/getting lucky with kills. It also doesn't help that the people that have had power roles [PR] (cop/doc) recently have played decently OOC, in an environment on here where OOC has been considered fairly scummy lately. Granted, it's been more telling of PRs lately than mafioso, but that discussion is for a different time. All I'm trying to say is that this game is fairly balanced, just that the cits have one way or another dicked themselves lately.
But I digress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Given that the Mafia already wins most of the games, I think this would really crush the Cits. Not being able to take anyone at their word if they claim to be a role would make it even harder for them to succeed. The doctor buying half a round doesn't seem like a noticeable advantage if people do believe them, and if everyone can lie, I can't see it buying even that in most scenarios, as there would just be several people claiming to be the doctor when they aren't. I honestly don't see any possible way this would help anyone but the Mafia, as they thrive on misinformation and lying, where the Cits have to put all of their stock in truth.

---

This is where the whole setup comes into question, because on MOTL that's not currently the case. In addition, MOTL has more players given there are only three scum - to combat this (even though the cit ratio is bad lately), I would add a mafia Roleblocker (RBer) - each night, the mafioso get a NK, and also choose another name - that person is then blocked from performing their night role. So if someone comes out and claims cop or doc, they can RB that person the next night, especially because, if cop comes out, doc can still protect him. They also can get lucky and block a cop/doc before anybody reveals themselves. This eliminates "Once cop comes out, can't be protected by Doc" clause we currently have, because the cop can just be RBed and not get information that way. It actually makes for a quite balanced game with 17ish people.

However, this is the biggest caveat: On mafiascum, votes are done on a MAJORITY basis. For example, if there are 12 people currently in game, 7 people voting for the same person are needed for a lynch to occur (So, if someone has 6 votes on them, they are one from a lynch [L-1]). This is usually when people ask for someone to claim their role, before someone drops the hammer. It plays for interesting dynamics because vote analysis WORKS much better as I have noticed, because people vote, unvote, jump on bandwagons, start them, etc. all in one round.
Votes are done by people PRONOUNCING THEM IN THREAD as Vote: X and Unvote: X. The mod keeps tallies (and obviously is makes much greater work for the Mod, and he keeps a vote count, usually reposting it every other page or so, or when someone asks, because votes change very sporadically. What I am getting at is that I DON'T THINK THE ANYBODY CAN CLAIM ANYBODY THING WOULD WORK WITHOUT CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF THE DAYS AND OF THE VOTING. Right now we play with 3-4 real lifes days as a mafia day. Usually there is only one time for a bandwagon to get going, or a few cases to be made (again, I have a beef with this already, but I digress). If someone was getting bandwagoned, it usually happens within a day of the vote deadline. They must then state their case, etc., and hope enough people jump off the bandwagon. However, given the little amount of time, there is usually not a sufficient amount of time for people to make other cases during that day. Thus, I think currently changing the claiming portion of the game would need a major haul on how long the days are, or the voting pattern, or both. And I know many people are reluctant to lengthen the days, but you WOULD BE COMPLETELY SURPRISED how much it actually helps to lengtehn the day - it gives busy people more chance to post, less chance to replace out, and more ideas to get thrown around, as people make many more posts and what not during a longer amount of time. In essence it brings more to the table, IMO.

Thus, what I am trying to say is this:
1.) Nder, you do make a good point about the current state of the game and the mafia winning, but statistically, it's currently in the cits favor, despite their poor record. Seems weird, but it is true.
2.) I see what you are saying about the claiming and how the cits can thus trust noone, but I think you are missing ALL the possibilities that claiming leads to - scum have to MANUFACTURE their cop/doc results, and explain why, giving the cits more information to delve through, correct, but more for the mafia to fail on. It is actually, again IMO, a cit advantage if everyone can claim any role. Sure, there's a lot more What If's and stuff but it is much easier to catch a mafioso in a lie (However, I have claimed cop as mafia and won because of it - it was AWESOME) - then you can look at the fake results the mafioso gave just like a suspect list or vote analysis - it's MORE information.
3.) For the whole claiming business to work as intended, something else needs to change, because if the days are 3-4 days in length still, there is no chance really for someone to reveal their role after being bandwagoned (which usually happens by day 2-3), provide their results, and allow for new ideas and theories to be accounted for before deadline.

Thus, what I propose:
1.) Continue playing with 17 players - 3 Mafia (1 RB), 1 Doc, 1 Cop, and 12 Citizens.
2.) Allow any claiming to occur.
3.) The Doc can not save himself.
4.) The Doc CAN save the Cop, since there is a RBer. This also helps with balance - the infinite Doc saving Cop can be upended by RBer.
5.) Both the Cop and Doc (and imposters) can come out with information whenever they want - this is usually necessary if about to be lynched.
6.) [IMPORTANT]: For the claiming any role to be used to its fullest intent, either A) The in game days need to be somewhat lengthened, at least to a period of 7-14 days, to allow the claim to come to fruition after a bandwagon, and NOT change the voting structure, or B) the voting structure needs to be changed to a majority with in-game votes made (like mafiascum), where people can unvote and vote on a whim/after a claim (again, this is a big change, and lengthens the days naturally [since need a majority which can take a while] but I am throwing it out there because I feel it is necessary given what people want to do with claiming). Option B can also be played with a time deadline, where if there is no majority by the time deadline, there's a No Lynch.
7.) This is slightly OT, but another discussion point would be to allow Citizens to vote to No Lynch and allow mafia to choose NOT to kill anyone at night. Granted, the scenarios where this is a GOOD idea are few and far between from experience, but can make for some interesting moves as well.

Seems like drastic changes, but I think it would make it slightly better to at least lengthen the days, and changing the voting structure will help with the recent "PM issues" (another pro I just thought of). Again, the games will be significantly longer (you'd be surprised at how hard it is sometimes to get a majority lynch, but given some of the players we have on MOTL, I don't think it would be as hard as on other sites I have played). Also, we can see when conversation starts to die off (like some people are worried about) and plan accordingly for future games with regards to a time deadline.

I know a big issue would be "Well, what's the point in having both a time deadline if you need a majority lynch?" Well, if this plan occurs, we would have to decide a time deadline, mainly because I have been in games where a majority lynch took FOREVER. It slows the game down way too far - thus, the need for a timeline. Lengthen the days, but don't make them WAY LONG. It also forces players to use their votes (if we change the voting scheme) early and often. However, this is really all minor detailing in the grand scheme of things.

Again, I am sure this wouldn't go down, especially because it is a lot to change, and mainly because people don't like longer days, but I do because then we don't have this "Oh sorry, been busy, can only post once a round." Giving people more time leads to more discussion, and less lurking/silence. Sure, someone may still be relatively silent (1 post every 2 days), but they still have more chance to get content out there per round, especially if a busy streak comes. If someone is only posting once eveyr round, and the rounds are enlongated, that WILL raise eyebrows. I know nder and a few others have their doubts, saying, "If we increase the length of days, conversation will become stagnant." Sure it happens from time to time, where things slow down, but it is indeed cancelled out by giving more people a time to re-read the thread and formulate cases after a claim comes through/is necessary. Obviously, this past game was ANYTHING BUT SLOW, as it got to three threads (been a while since that happened), so I think conversation is heading in the right direction.

However, if this ends up working, I would be able to work with PD (since he would be hosting the next game) to set it up and what not, to get the ball rolling.

Also, maybe a little change can better the cits luck.

And I'm done...