I presume there are (considerably?) fewer werewolves, or this would be a pretty short game.
There’s obviously not a majority of wolves, or it would trigger their win condition; and there’s not no wolves, or the Ranchers or Farmers or Ranchers and Farmers would win. Beyond that, it’s all speculation.
You mean you should be PMed when people put their clothes back on.
What?
OK, so we need to get people lynched in order to gain information about the testerizer and people’s voting pattern.
The latter means that it might be a good idea not to use a random number generator, even if it is guesswork for everybody but the wolves.
OK, I’m an idiot. I signed up for this, completely forgetting I have houseguests Wed-Sun and as such, will not be at the computer enough to actively track this thread. I guess I need to bow out.
Sorry!
See, here’s the thing, Telcontar: We can skip a lynch on ANY Day, up to and including Day Eight, and still get the result you want (that extra day and easier last-day lynch).
Skipping it early just front-loads the “cost”, in information, to the town.
vote Telcontar
test Telcontar
…Hi, I’m Zeriel. I play aggressively. 
Should we consider voting Athena(for both), who just quit? Or is he/she being replaced by a sub?
That is true, which is why i wasn’t going to keep pressing the point. Advantage to doing it now is just that, if both today’s and tomorrow’s test results are the same, it would pretty much ensure that two villagers had been IDed (odds are 4x higher for that than two werewolves), meaning we’d be saved killing them.
Okay. Hope you have fun, and no hard feelings.
Vote Count!
rexnervous (1): Oredigger77
Freudian Slit (1): Scuba_Ben
Telcontar (1): Zeriel
Telcontar (1): Zeriel
We don’t have a single shred of information regarding what the output of the testerizer might actually be, though:
There could be multiple color combos for each “species” (i.e, red-blue and red-pink both are “werewolf”)
It could, or could not, differentiate between farmers and ranchers.
It could, or could not, differentiate between known traits of players (like gender).
It could, or could not, differentiate between publicly unknown traits of players.
Until we start getting hard data out of the testerizer in terms of color combos matched with dead players, it is useless to us. I am not going to assume it will ever be useful to us until I see proof of that, and I am not going to waste a lynch opportunity on any assumptions regarding it.
I agree, Zeriel, obviously. Telcontar’s been pinging me a little with the no-lynch (though I see now he’s backing off a bit). I’m holding off on a vote in an attempt to follow my own advice about ‘bad ideas’ not necessarily being scummy. Even suggesting no-lynch on Day One…
We do have four subs lined up, so I’d assume she’ll get a replacement.
Here are my thoughts so far.
I think the Testerizer is something of a red herring for the early game. Yes, it will provide an enormous advantage later in the game, but likely only after three or four days (at the inside). As such we need to have a strong strategy for the early game that will put us in a position to use the Testerizer effectively in the late game, but without sacrificing days of work.
I’ve always been a strong opponent to either no-lynching or random lynching on Day One in previous games and I don’t see why this game should be an exception. We shouldn’t just choose to evaluate the Testerizer; we need to take advantage of all of the information that we can from Day One (and Two). That’s not going to happen if we focus on the Testerizer and don’t put people on the spot to defend their thoughts, strategies, and opinions.
However I do think there is value to synching the Testerizer and the lynchings in order to get the most data. That puts us in a difficult position for today in particular, but ideally I think it would be best to fall into a pattern where we have decided on the testerizer and the lynch by the half-day point and spend the rest of the day discussing the testerizer/lynch for the next day instead. This means we sacrifice half a day now, which is a disadvantage, but it’s half of the least valuable day for Town, and we put ourselves in an excellent position for the remainder of the game to maximize the use of the Testerizer. Of course, we could only do this if we get strong agreement from a majority that we follow this pattern, as it would be extremely disruptive if we start changing our mind later and don’t lynch the person we tested.
Well, the lynching and the testing do need to be coupled, but they don’t have to occur on the same day. Until we figure out the tester it is a waste to lynch somebody who hasn’t been tested. But since we only get one test a week, that means it is a waste to test someone unless we’re going to lynch them. We don’t have to lynch the first testee today, but if we don’t lynch them today then we’ll have to lynch them tomorrow…or else why did we test them?
However, not testing the first lynchee puts us permanently one day behind. Suppose on day 1 we test player A and lynch player B. Then on day 2 we can test player C and lynch player A. We therefore haven’t wasted a test. But even though we haven’t wasted a test we’ve wasted a day, because to get another test result we have to lynch C on day three. If we couple tests and lynches by the end of day three we’ll have three tests and three role confirmations. If we decouple then by the end of day three we have three tests but only two of the testees have had their roles confirmed. So we’re a day behind.
Therefore it makes no sense to test someone we’re not going to lynch until we understand the tester.
Not edited to add:
Actually I realize we won’t be permanently one day behind…we’ll just be one day behind until we figure out the testerizer, and we’ll be one day behind in figuring out the testerizer.
Are we deciding the testerizer candidate today(Tuesday Feb 17)?
A no lynch on day 1 is not a bad idea, given an even number of players. Run the math, it costs us nothing. Only reason to kill on day 1 is to preserve the ability to not kill on a subsequent day.
I still think we should test someone. I think just going by what people say and their “…tells” is a bad idea. In the past, on the first day, I feel like we rarely ever just got a wolf based on how suspicious someone seemed. And I’m saying this even as someone who’s gotten a vote to be testerized. Then again, I’m okay with being tested–just not with being lynched. (Who is?)
Of course a no-lynch is a bad idea, because the only way we can figure out the tester is when tested people end up killed. The wolves will refrain from killing tested people, so the only way to confirm roles is through lynch.
One more thing. What’s the way to get a list for this thread of posters with number of posts? That’s a good tool to smoke out the lurkers, but I’ve been poking around the buttons and menus for a while and can’t find it. I could try to tabulate by hand but that’s too much like work…
I thought we were doing that Wednesday?
Oh, you mean when do we have to make our final decision by? Hm, not sure. And are we definitely killing whoever we test? I don’t want to die!