You’re right, rex. I agree that we shouldn’t ‘worry’ about the test results. I don’t really think that it’s good for the town to have to decide the lynch right now, when the lynch isn’t til Friday, but we should certainly be looking in that direction. I don’t think it’s a big deal if we wind up lynching someone other than whom we test, is all I was saying. Although it looks like I’m not getting any traction on this, I encourage people to look at the list of candidates we seem to have at this point, and vote for the one that is scummiest, and most anti-town.
For what it’s worth, I think now that it’s very unlikely that we’ll be able to determine the test pattern easily. If you think about it, if there are 3-4 wolves in play (five is too many, and two is not enough), and they must outnumber town to win, it’s very likely that at least two wolves will be tested by endgame. If it only takes testing two wolves to determine the pattern without doubt, then all you need to do is toss in a subject each day, lynch if a wolf, and test if not: it comes down to largely a numbers game. What if town got lucky and did this by Day 4 or 5? It’d be practically impossible for the wolves to overcome. This seems very powerful to me.
I don’t know if Pedescribe could have predicted how the testerizer has led to huge voting blocs, so I don’t think this was the planned ‘balancer’. As such, I can only see two potential outcomes: either the testerizer does work this way and there’s a counterbalancing power we don’t know about, or the testerizer’s results aren’t so simple. The thought of a hidden wolf power is disquieting, but we don’t have any evidence of this that I know of.
Do I think we should lynch someone if they come up the same colors as a wolf? Absolutely, and without doubt. I just have doubt that the pattern is going to be that easy to work out. Maybe it’ll just be the first color, or just the second color, or maybe there will be some other possibility I haven’t thought of, like the testerizer failing after identifying one or more wolves. Either way, probably not something we need to worry about a great deal until we test at least one confirmed wolf, but nonetheless something to keep in mind for endgame.
I completely disagree with posting one (or worse, a list) of suspects without any justification. Votes need to be defended; undefended votes are useless information for Town and make it too easy for scum to manipulate the vote. At least make it so they have to find an argument to swing the vote, so we can hope to catch a slip!
It has been brought to my attention that my case against Oredigger was, well, lacking, so here goes…
Oredigger falls into the catagory of high poster/low suspicion. But so do others, and there are plenty with less suspicion, so this reason is only part of it.
There is quite a lot of fluff and testeriser talk from Oredigger - talking about the testeriser is a good way for wolves to look like they are contributing, but really it is just pointless speculation at this point.
But then there is the strategy posts. For both Seeker and FS Oredigger argued against voting for these people - once their vote counts were so high that lynching was almost guaranteed. It certainly looks good, defending people who turn out to be innocent - but the wolves knew that they were innocent, and that trying to save them was likely a lost cause.
The case against EH is simple, but no less valid. Low vote count, fluff posts, no justification for votes and a highly defensive and aggressive attitude.
Telcontar used to top my suspicions list, but lately I have found his posts perfectly reasonable. Could be a wolf’s reaction to a near-lynch experience, but it could also be a townie’s reaction to NLE, or just a natural change in post style. Worth keeping an eye on, just like everybody else.
Ah, I think you misread me. I just meant that, since testing seems to lead to lynching, we should take the test as seriously as a lynch. This would require us to not cast protest votes for people who, coming to the last hour or so, are clearly not going to be tested. Doing so keeps the vote total of the “winner” down, which means that the wolves could easy crown the champion.
I don’t see any particular reason to cast a lynch vote before wednesday, though I also don’t see any reason not to. shrug. This week, presume that I’m testing the person who, if lynchings were tomorrow, I would lynch. Given that lynches are on friday things might change.
Under the circumstances I think it would be helpful if DaphneBlack, Zeriel, MHaye & Elendil’s Heir redistributed their votes. There are probably four wolves left so we really don’t want the tested person to only have three votes against them. even more important for lynching, but we might as well start here.
I’m up for changing my vote to avoid a tie and to avoid allowing the wolves to dominate the voting. Neither of the two who are currently tied are amongst my major suspects, although I’ve had mild suspicions of both at times. I’ll leave my lynch vote alone for now, though I of course may change it later too.
Of the two cases currently on the table, I think Oredigger has been slightly more anti-town than Telcontar over all. So
untest Justin Credible
test Oredigger
If Oredigger matches any townie result we’ve had, I will not vote to lynch him. Otherwise I think we should carry on the discussion without regarding the test as indicating anything in particular.
Sorry, I’ll clarify. You voted for Justin Credible without a reason in your post; that’s why I quoted you, but the discussion regarding posting a list of suspects occurred upthread. I was citing your post as an example of a vote that isn’t constructive because it doesn’t give a reason. That wasn’t clear; I apologize.
Likewise, I do tend to agree that one-off votes are not helpful. They can be important if you truly believe that the vote leaders are both bad candidates. However, I don’t like people shifting their votes around with no explanation as to why they picked who they did! Folks, we already have precious little information from past votes. We need to pick up our game here, and it’s necessary for everyone to provide their reasoning. Bad reasoning covering play that is beneficial to one or more wolves or detrimental to Town is how we find scum – we’re not going to be able to unless people chime in more. We’ve had a really tough time so far with communication this game.
Looks like Pede counted it any way but it doesn’t matter because since it has come down to me or Tel and I know I’m town, not that that means anything. I’m going to
Unvote EH
Vote Telcontar
Thanks for do this you are actually the first to bring any case against me. I’ll get back to this but I want my vote to count before the testerizer and that may not happen if I’m looking for quotes to debate you. I’ll be right back with this.
Wow, thanks for that reasoning there. This is why you’re number 1 on my list.
Yeah, I’d only shift your one vote to another person if you have a popular suspect on your suspect list already. I’m willing to move away from Telcontar, for example, if I am alone in suspecting him. I have other suspects on my list and would be almost as happy testing them.
Of course, Telcontar has other votes, so it’s not necessary, but you get the idea.
My suspicions of Telcontar are centered around his *to my way of thinking) plan to no-lynch earlier rather than later (which seems to me to be a very subtly pro-scum play) and his general play style.