Exactly this. In some cases it would even be 4 and 6 against 6, or close enough to it. It’s a violently anti-town idea. It’s so staggeringly anti-town that it goes all the way beyond suspicious and ends up not even being that suspicious. It’s just not a good idea.
1.) I think Daphne is trying to dominate the discussion. She seemed eager to cast suspicion and was very defensive early on, even though attacks are to be expected. She also seems to be very quick to judge, which is unhelpful. All tells are fairly weak at this point. There is also the point rexnervous made about gamesmanship. I get the sense that Daphne is getting more attention, positive and negative, than she deserves on face. Something feels really odd there.
2.) Err, it’s only been a day? It’s not like I’ve been hammering on her for 3 rounds with nary a reason. I have more cause to be suspicious of her than anyone else, that’s enough.
3.) Because we’d agreed to lynch who we tested, and that was november. I’d rather have tested Daphne once it became clear november would be replaced (I think my final vote was to that effect) but once november was tested I went with the plan.
I’m a little worried that the town is splitting into factions (and i don’t mean farmer/rancher). None of us should be very trusting at this point. I’d also like to agree with the people who say we should not be claiming roles without cause. Right before being tested, yes. When people are talking about testing you, no.
OK, remember back when I signed up and since I was unemployed? Yeah, turns out that I was just offered a job and will start tomorrow. I know, but don’t get all mushy and feeling sorry for me, I’m brave enough to face this.
So I need to request a substitute since I just can’t put any effort into this game for the next couple of months. If a cousin of mine happens to wander into town, trust them exactly as you would have trusted me.
Substitute Lemur866
I agree with you on one thing: I have been getting more attention than is warranted, from both positive and negative perspective. I’ve tried to post a bit less, but that didn’t seem to change anything really. I think I’ve been pretty consistent in my play, and in what I’ve advocated: find scummy behaviour and look at motivation. And I think you have pretty consistently mis-characterised me.
Re: ‘gamesmanship’. I’m actually really confused by this. I went and looked up ‘gamesmanship’, because I wasn’t sure what was being meant by this, and from Wikipedia I got this quote:
“Pushing the rules to the limit without getting caught, using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end.”
How on earth have I been doing that? I am totally flummoxed at this claim regarding my play.
I agree with this, actually. We have no reason to trust anyone, no matter how reasonable they sound.
Check the wikipedia, especially techniques Gamesmanship - Wikipedia
I feel that there is a nexus of…oddness around you. It includes some spectacularly bad arguments (not all made by you) and some really random suspicions. It’s hard to tell whether I’m picking up on a strategy to protect you or simply really bad logic, but some of the points floating around are highly questionable.
**
Freudian Slit’**s attack on Seeker is also very weird but, given that you so quickly joined that post, I’m reluctant to do the same.
How about if the person who we tests comes up as a rancher we give a lot of extra weight to who they want to lynch? There are several cases of “if i could trust X then I’d do Y” on the table and I think it’s important to explicitly acknowledge that.
Freudian Slit (3): Daphne Black, Fluiddruid, rexnervous
Daphne Black (1): Telcontar
Seeker of Truth and Beauty (1): Freudian Slit
Telcontar (3): Jimmy Chitwood, Allwalker, Mahaloth
Freudian Slit (1): Fluiddruid
Telcontar (1): Jimmy Chitwood
Congrats! I’ll find a sub.
I read the article. I still don’t get it. Unless you can point to something specific, I think that’s a BS reason to accuse someone in this game.
I don’t really disagree that the discussion about me has been weird. Since I know no one is trying to protect me, I detect scum in the arguments – probably on both sides. I’ve made my feelings known about how I see it right now (that’s where my vote is). I do disagree that my suspicions have been ‘random’. I have backed up all of my suspicions. You’re welcome to disagree with my reasons, but it’s not like I’ve been accusing people without explaining why.
We’ll be able to trust them more, but they can still be wrong.
Well, for now, then you are leaning towards testing a rancher. I’m okay with being tested, although it’s not going to really get you any new info if you test and then lynch me since I have the exact same description as the late november.
This, I agree with. Just one thing. According to my notes, it was Seeker of Truth & Beauty who first began to cast suspicions on Daphne Black, although, I believe, without coming out and outright calling for an immediate test. As I mentioned earlier, both Seeker and rexnervous pinged my scumdar. Telcontar as well, pretty much for the reasons laid out by Zeriel.
One other thing pinged Seeker for me. When I posted my chart, he immediately posted this:
No hesitation or doubt at all, despite the fact that this was never explicitly laid out. It’s not a safe assumption to make. I think it was JustinCredible who said that we should be wary of those who try to oversimplify things. At this point in the game, it would be safer to err on the side of collecting more information. Discarding the possibility of werewolves posing as Framers/Ranchers greatly reduces our ability to interpret information from the Testerizer, or even to correlate information from lynches and kills.
With that in mind, I vote to
Test Seeker of Truth & Beauty
Lynch Seeker of Truth & Beauty
I really don’t follow this. Are you saying that there might be rancher werewolves and farmer werewolves and that Seeker dismissed this too easily?
Ichini, wtf are you smoking? As per the quote above, the second post in the thread, the explicit win conditions are between three groups – two subgroups of townies (Ranchers and Farmers) and Werewolves.
I think it’s quite telling that you’ve tried to garble up such a fundamental foundation of the game to put your focus on me.
Not a safe assumption to make? You’re weird. Granted, I am new at this, and granted it’s an assumption, but, damn! I do know how to read. It’s also ridiculous to assume that Werewolves are divided the same as townies. Maybe if the Werewolves were Vampires, and thus had been changed from Townies into Vampires, this I could go with. But Werewolves aren’t Vampires, and therefore your assumption (or lack thereof) is just stupid.
I’m ok with you being tested too 
but two things
-
If you came back with same color codes as november, I would not vote for your lynching
-
It’s not true that we don’t gain any new info - what we gain is that a) you are telling the truth about your role, and b) that the Testerizer does remain consistent when testing identical roles (at least we’d have to assume so, otherwise it’d be way too complex to be any use in this game). Now, neither of these data points is as valuable right now as identifying a new color scheme, but it is at least some data.
Actually, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense that there **would ** be rancher wolves and farmer wolves. Why? Because during the day everybody is a townie, and we all mix together, and I would in theory know damn well if you ranched or farmed - because if you didn’t then it’d be too easy a tell that you were a wolf. “What do you do, ranch or farm?” “Uh, well, nothing, I kind of loiter around the convenience shop.” Ding ding ding.
However, when that occurred to me I went back and read pedescribe’s post and came away with the exact meaning you did, **Seeker **- **pedescribe **has explicitly stated that wolves are not separated into farmers and ranchers. And that’s important because it helps us with the Testerizer color code assignations.
Huh? How could you tell if someone ranched or farmed? You could easily lie if you were a wolf.
I was assuming along with Seeker that the wolves were monolithic but it makes sense as far as the testerizer goes to have them be farmers and ranchers as well. One color could just be for rancher/farmer status and the second could indicate town, wolf, or power role. This would make the pattern much harder to figure out as opposed to just three outputs.
I’m still suspicious of Seeker from yesterDay so I’ll put my first vote there.
Vote Seeker of Truth and Beauty
I’m thinking from the POV of this game being a reasonable facsimile of real life (disregarding, say, the whole werewolf aspect). Just from a more logical standpoint, 4 people who didn’t actually ranch or farm over time (buying gear, wearing certain clothes, the difference at the land assessor’s between 14 plots of land and 18 plots of land, etc) would be fairly noticeable. Plus, werewolves do have a human aspect to their life, they need to be doing something during the day. It’s only at nite that they’re different.
This has nothing to do with this actual game - so forget I even mentioned it 
Okay, this whole “Werewolves are also Ranchers and Farmers” thing is just stupid.
I mean, really.
Well, now I’m confused somewhat.** How clear is it that there are not farmers and ranchers that are wolves?**
On one hand, it makes logical sense that everyone is a person in the day and a few of us become wolves at night, but on the other hand, it makes the testerizer terribly complicated to interpret.
Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, true. I hadn’t thought of it like that.
I always used to wonder how it made sense that we were all yakking it up in the pub but at the same time there were werewolves plotting to kill one of us.
On a serious note, it does make sense that there are both ranchers or farmer wolves because that would make the Testerizer even harder to interpret, as pedescribe sort of hinted it would be.
NETA:
Also, that could be why there are two colors. Maybe green = townie and red = rancher. Or green = rancher and red = townie.