Modkilling

[Mr. Squirrel]

The debate in the meme mafia has gotten me thinking about modkills. To me, it seems like they are actually beneficial to town. Even if the player turns up town, the town still knows his role without wasting a lynch or vig ability. This leaves town open to use their abilities on the scum and to use the information that is gathered from the modkill, to give them a better chance to catch them.

The easiest way to fix this (besides just never have anyone deadbeat) would be to not reveal the role of the modkilled player. However this also comes with its own bias. Now, the mafia are getting free kills and are getting the bonus of keeping the town in the dark.

Maybe I'm wrong in my thinking though. Anyway, how should modkills (assuming you have to make one) be handled so that neither side gets a large advantage?

[pancakemix]

Modkilling for major rule violations is ok in my book. In Christopher Nolan safari inadvertently stated his WC verbatim. I had to think awhile on that one, but eventually decided I needed to modkill him. The logic behind it was either way the pro-town players knew he was telling the truth, and since they could confirm that the anti-town players could also fake being town based on confirming that WC. In that way, the only difference between situations was whether or not there was a single confirmed townie or a dead confirmed townie (even so, I still run through whether or not it was the right choice in my head...)

Otherwise, modkilling either is a last resort or just plain lazy. I've done it arbitrarily in the past but wouldn't do it now (at least not as lightly). Between people we drag into live chat RTs and anyone else I can find, hopefully the game's integrity can be kept intact.

[safariguy5]

A move of last resort in my book. Inactivity is usually not a reason for a modkill. Especially if it's Day 1, town may not find a consensus good case to lynch an active player anyways. Unless there's a severe scum slip-up, it probably is going to go to a pressure of a submariner, a claim, and then either a lynch or people unvoting. Natural progression of most games, I see no reason to interfere.

[Mr. Squirrel]

Well, I know that in my Briarsburg game I had to modkill a couple people because they deadbeated and no one would replace (I basically had the entire mafia community in the game already). I wasn't going to leave two completely inactive roles in the game. In a way, by leaving them in, you are unbalancing it too (because it screws up the votes necessary for a lynch).

The question I'm really asking is, if you absolutely had to make a modkill, what would be the best way to make sure it had as little effect on the game's balance as possible? Should you reveal the role or not? Just alignment? That sort of thing.

[strike wolf]

Town may benefit more from knowing the role/alignment but mafia can benefit some as well assuming it isn't a mafia that is modkilled (let's not forget it lowers non mafia numbers bringing the one step closer to endgame). If the role is left in the dark than only mafia benefits. So unless it is a game where the role is not revealed upon death anyways thge role in my opinion should. Be revealed.

[/]

Thankfully I can't recall any rule violations major enough to mod-kill an active player in one of my games. Generally I will bring it up if it is unlikely the player in question will ever be active, and a replacement is unavailable.

To keep it fair I will poll the players about their support on the matter, in doing so it allows some strategy/evidence on who would or wouldn't want a certain player alive for their future benefit, as well as a chance to decide for themselves if it's worth it to keep said player as a inactive nonvoting place-marker until a replacement may eventually be found.

[shieldgenerator7]

I think modkills should be used as a last resort and is not a tool to help town that the town should consider using. it's a mod tool to keep players playing fairly and it's not a scum-hunting tool.