Yes.
Okay. Because it wasn’t specified in the opening rules, and because it wasn’t game-breaking, I’m not going to enact any punishments.
Vote Count!
november (6): Lemur866, Freudian Slit, Mahaloth, Jimmy Chitwood , rexnervous, Allwalker
Seeker of Truth and Beauty (2): Justin Credible, Oredigger77
Telcontar (2): Zeriel, Elendil’s Heir
Daphne Black (2): Telecontar, Seeker of Truth and Beauty
Lemur866 (1): fluiddruid
fluiddruid (1): [Undecided] Adrian
Freudian Slit (1): Scuba_Ben
november (6): Lemur866, Jimmy Chitwood, rexnervous, Elendil’s Heir, AllWalker, Ichini Sanshigo
Seeker of Truth and Beauty (1): Justin Credible
Lemur866 (1): fluiddruid
Telcontar (1): Zeriel
Thank you!
I think I said I was an innocent villager way back at the beginning, but I’m pretty sure I never said what kind of villager 
Yes, post 168, two posts AFTER I called you on it. That being my point in its entirety.
Look. No-lynches cost us information. We as a town want more information, and the primary tool at our disposal to get it is a lynch with an active set of well-reasoned votes. Most serious scum-catching is done either via scum slips or, more importantly, by voting pattern analysis–the thing is, scum are NEVER voting truly randomly, because they know who each and every scum is. Day one lynch voting can be and has been decisive in showing scummy voting patterns.
So how, if we have LESS info from a no-lynch, are our votes more intelligent on day two? Answer–they are not. ANY lynch will gain us more information than a no-lynch, and therefore, a no-lynch is the least intelligent play if we wish to have better voting information on Day Two.
Contrast with later in the game, when a no-lynch to buy time can be acceptable–in your scenario, with four surviving players, one scum, the scum has no options but to make it easier to find scum by killing a townie. Therefore, a no-lynch is still an information generating choice.
I am also going to hammer home the point of “We have NO idea of the ultimate utility or ease-of-use of the testerizer. It could be complicated in any number of deliciously evil ways, and it should not be trusted until we have several sample results.” Which, by the by, is also why your rationale of “if we have two same results they’re almost certainly town, so our no-lynch doesn’t matter”–we don’t know if “town” is a single color pattern, it’s likely more.
Basically, Telcontar, I think you’re trying hard to make things entirely too simple and pat. Mafia games are not simple and pat.
That’s funny. Because I’m almost entirely certain that you are scum. You’re actually third on my list after november and rexnervous.
Reasons? Our friend november has been awfully quiet, though that now seems to be because he/she has been away from the SD all together. Both Seeker and rexnervous seem to be awfully gung-ho about Daphne because… she talks too much. Also she’s “sowing dissent”, something I don’t really see at all. Her ideas have been pretty rational to me.
I’m not certain about any rex or Seeker, because like both of them, I’m a first time player. They could be townies employing non-optimal reasoning, and Daphne could be a clever and experienced werewolf pulling the wool over our eyes. If november doesn’t crawl out of the woodwork soon, I think I’m going to vote my second choice, rexnervous.
Good point. I’m trying to figure out a motive for a wolf to claim F/R at this point in the game, and I’m failing. Maybe confusing the issue with the testerizer, but what wolf wants to get tested, especially since at this point in the game we’re pairing testing with lynching? What gives, Elendil’s Heir?
Well, if it’s Elendil’s Heir’s first game, then maybe it’s just not knowing any better. I remember role claiming in a game I played off board and it was something as simple as saying, “I town! me not scum!11!” (uh…it was an lolcat mafia game, hope that doesn’t reduce my credibility) and people getting all up in my grill for claiming so early on.
Anyway, I don’t think role claiming will be an issue here since there aren’t any roles, really, other than rancher or farmer. There aren’t specific titles that give anyone any special powers (like mason or magician or whatnot).
I really don’t get your hostility. We have a difference of opinion about whether to do no-lynch now or later. So what?
Well, pedescribe explicitly didn’t rule that out completely, he only said that they’re not that important:
I guess that means that you don’t have a power role…
Or, um, I do have a power role and I’m playing really, really dumb? 
Are you saying that you do?
No, I’m not. This was strictly based on information in her post.
Not that hard to figure out, as well, or I would have thought longer about spelling it out.
Not that hard to figure out, however, on the flip side, I have NO IDEA how it helps me to know that she has no power role.
At the moment? It doesn’t help at all, especially since she could be either wolf or town. Later in the game, perhaps…
That’s assuming she ain’t frontin’. Power roles? What are these “power roles” you speak of? Heh.
Well, you’re right. I don’t think so, but could be.
It got us talking at least, didn’t it?
By the way, being kept in the dark about the power roles as well as the need to figure out the testerizer first might be meant to even the playing fields for the newbies, but leaves me as (online) newb even further at a loss concerning strategy…
I want to address this specifically because I think it’s a very dangerous notion. If we treat anyone different because of their experience level then we are handicapping ourselves. This is no different then thinking scum would never do that, because it gives an obvious place for the scum to hide. If we think newbies can’t be devious then we are in trouble because I guarantee there are newbies in the scum pond. By the same logic if we think that can’t be a slip they’re too experienced for that then we are over estimating the old hands.
I don’t think the case against Telcontar is really that strong. It basically revolves around his bad idea of no lynching. I defiantly think that no lynching is a bad idea but from his point of view which is really spelled out in post # 269, I can see where a townie could make the logical leap. I don’t see a huge benefit for scum in making the play though, bad ideas get called down and normally lead to that townie drawing heat if not a rope. I know I propose bad ideas in almost every game and get strung up. Even if he was able to convince us all the scum would gain is essentially a free kill in the middle of an extended day one. I think the risks out weight the rewards.
Since everyone has move passed lynch the lurker I want to point out that only 15 out of the 18 players have voted for the Testerizer with 5 hrs to go. This is a bad thing because it allows scum to jump on a late bandwagon and not carry any responsibility for their actions. I think that Seeker’s actions were scummy but it doesn’t appear that we will pry enough people away from lynch the lurker to make a difference. Since that is the case why don’t we test Daphne since she is the only one else who doesn’t have a vote on the table?
Vote Daphne Black
Unvote Seeker of Truth and Beauty
At the moment, november is still “comfortably” in the lead. Do you think that enough people will change their votes? Should they? (I didn’t vote for him, but I don’t see a problem with it.)
It was already mentioned that last-minute votes and vote changes are not that desirable, but are they common? Just asking because I will be sleeping around vote closing time, I’m in Germany…
Vote Count!
november (6): Lemur866, Freudian Slit, Mahaloth, Jimmy Chitwood , rexnervous, Allwalker
Daphne Black (3): Telecontar, Seeker of Truth and Beauty, Oredigger77
Telcontar (2): Zeriel, Elendil’s Heir
Seeker of Truth and Beauty (1): Justin Credible
Lemur866 (1): fluiddruid
fluiddruid (1): [Undecided] Adrian
Freudian Slit (1): Scuba_Ben
november (6): Lemur866, Jimmy Chitwood, rexnervous, Elendil’s Heir, AllWalker, Ichini Sanshigo
Seeker of Truth and Beauty (1): Justin Credible
Lemur866 (1): fluiddruid
Telcontar (1): Zeriel