No, after a player dies, they can’t post anything but fluff (non-strategy talk) in this thread.
Two things: why would it be bad if we could figure out the testeriser code by Day 4? Seems to me that would be a good thing!
Your second comment betrays an strong interest in power roles (which you have demonstrated elsewhere). Why on earth would it be good for town to have power roles revealed in the testeriser. Also, the Illustrious Mod has said several times that there are few, if any power roles. Continuing to focus on them looks anti-town to me.
Yo. Is it just me, or does DaphneBlack seem to be trying pretty hard to hide in plain sight? I nominate her for testing.
Volunteering for the testeriser is one way to get around the usual Day One problem of who to lynch: voluntary martyrdom! However, I’m going to stick to advocating that use the testeriser for a real lynch candidate toDay, not a sacrifice (unless we have a suicidal scum among us, in which case, come on down!).
Of course, we can still win if we’re dead and our team wins, but on Day One we will be wasting opportunities to go scum hunting if we don’t try to use the testeriser for that purpose straight off.
I do agree that it seems pretty townie to volunteer to be testerised, but I don’t believe by any means ‘scum would never do that’.
How so?
I wondered the same thing.
Yo, Justin, if I’m trying to hide I’m not doing a very good job, eh? I’m trying to get my thoughts on board here. Day One should be about controversies, people shouldn’t be afraid to be ‘out there’. I’m trying to get people to post, and to respond to some of the issues that have come up. I’m not surprise that once again, a talkative person gets heat.
However, I appreciate your nomination of me for testing, since you seem to be doing so because you are finding me scummy.
I will try to have fewer multiple posts-in-a-row in the future, I have a tendency to respond to what I see (i.e. in bits) rather than putting together big long posts.
It would be “bad” because then it would be too easy for the town to win. We could make a game with one werewolf, and the gamemaster could reveal who it is on the first day, and we could then lynch the werewolf and win the game right away. But that would be a silly game.
Given that we’ll eventually figure out the color codes it would be a bad idea for a werewolf to volunteer to be tested even if we don’t kill the tested (we’d certainly kill them later).
Since it’s going to be at least a little hard to unpack the color coding scheme, i’m not sure if we want to kill the tested out of hand, whoever we pick.
Those comments come from a strong fascination with the logic/logistics/psychology behind these Mafia games in general. This is my first time, so part of me is already having fun trying to think about the why’s and how’s behind each post, and just thinking that long term, role-neutral, it would kind of suck if every time the testerizer were run you’d immediately know what to do, very early in the game. Also, it’s an interesting puzzle in its own right, and who likes easy puzzles?
Same with power roles - I’m a newbie and have no idea how power roles even influence the game. I’m thinking purely from the “figure out the testerizer puzzle” aspect.
I guess I need to think bigger picture though.
Chill out, I’m not giving you heat. 
It just seems like a good plan for a werewolf to pretend to be an outspoken town member. Maybe I’m wrong.
And maybe we can reverse that and point it right back at you, huh?
I do see what you’re saying. My concern is that I’m not sure how long it would take until the number of dead intersected appropriately with the number tested, such that we’d be able to say, OK, we tested X, and she gave us chartreuse/vermillion… HOLY SHIT SHE’S A DINOSAUR! We’d have to have previously tested and killed a different chartreuse/vermillion, wouldn’t we? But at what phase of the game would we be in by the time that happened?
I think given enough time it really doesn’t matter how we test, because in due time everybody gets tested. But this is basically an information machine, and we need to make sensible use of information as efficiently as possible. Thus neither taking volunteers nor randomly testing, to my way of thinking, is likely to produce actionable intelligence, so to speak, as quickly as the test/lynch combination, in my opinion.
I’m not sure I’m following this - **Telcontar **volunteered to be tested/lynched, unless I misread his post.
No biggie, I figured you were probably thinking along those lines. Just wanted to hear more about where you were coming from.
Well, you are wrong about me, but in terms of it being a good ‘scum cover’ to be outspoken town, you’re not wrong, exactly. It’s been attempted, with mixed success. But it’s pretty hard to pretend to be outspoken town long-term, if you’re not really town. The more you talk, the more opportunity for mistakes.
He volunteered to be tested, not necessarily to be lynched - at least that’s how I read it.
We’ll never test everyone, because each day we get one test, yet there is one lynch and one scum-kill. So people are dying twice as fast as we can test them. This assumes no secret special abilities to block or double kill.
As Daphne says. My post concerned the question of whether or not we ought to kill everyone we test “out of hand,” as Telcontar put it. There was a movement underway early in the game in support of just that strategy, but Telcontar said that might not be wise. I think it would be wise.
And to be very clear, I wasn’t attempting to imply or assert that I have any misgivings about Telcontar’s veracity/motivation.
can previously killed people be put into the testerizer?
I assume no, as we will be informed what kind of person/wolf each killed person was once they die.