[Galain]

Well I didn't explicitly say, "Reveal," so much as I implied it, so I'll go ahead and agree it probably is suspicious, but I still think the other evidence I have is pretty proof positive that I am in the reveal camp.

[Hood's Path]

Sorry Liosan, you're didn't say that at all.

Actually re reading the rules is, gives two possibilities on why infected won't reveal. They may be hoping to become DG v2, which is unlikely or they hope they can survive till DG v2 is killed upon which they are cured.

The second possibility is most likely but during that time, you are practically the slave to the DG, ok if they don't obey, they can die and automatically lose, but if they rebel against the DG to the point that they don't follow compulsion or force DG to SO, that would hinder the DG quite a lot. And they can do it, they are of no faction, doing such a thing which would be detrimental to the DG is not a modkillable offence cause they are not going against their team.

They can see it as a moral victory if their resistance actually leads to the downfall of DG, especially if all infected are compulsed to vote for someone and they don't go with it, the DG automatically loses his carefully built vote block in one night.

[Serc]

Morning. More CF is good, waiting on night is typical.

[Galain]

Hood's Path, on Jun 23 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

Sorry Liosan, you're didn't say that at all.

Actually re reading the rules is, gives two possibilities on why infected won't reveal. They may be hoping to become DG v2, which is unlikely or they hope they can survive till DG v2 is killed upon which they are cured.

The second possibility is most likely but during that time, you are practically the slave to the DG, ok if they don't obey, they can die and automatically lose, but if they rebel against the DG to the point that they don't follow compulsion or force DG to SO, that would hinder the DG quite a lot. And they can do it, they are of no faction, doing such a thing which would be detrimental to the DG is not a modkillable offence cause they are not going against their team.

They can see it as a moral victory if their resistance actually leads to the downfall of DG, especially if all infected are compulsed to vote for someone and they don't go with it, the DG automatically loses his carefully built vote block in one night.

A moral victory? Yes, congratulations infected, you all lose the game but you managed to show solidarity against your unknown master.

What the hell are you on?

[Hood's Path]

Sorry but I'm Scottish!

Ok it just a game, but the DG is not even on the infected side, the infected if they don't rebel are practically his slaves with compulsion.

Also if they started off as inno, and are now unaligned nothing states they can't do their best to help the innos is there.

[Liosan]

Quote

If all players are infected, or it's obvious that the DG faction will win, the infected stil alive win as part of the DG faction.

If it looks like the DG is going to win, why on earth would the infected revolt? You really need to go back and read the OPs, like, many times. I dunno how many times people have had to set you straight on this stuff.

edit: fail at italics

This post has been edited by Liosan: 23 June 2009 - 05:46 PM

[Hood's Path]

Forgot about that little bit, but may I point out as normal infected they don't know who the DG also the DG only could really win when he has amassed half the votes.

[Hood's Path]

Also further down it does say they can try their best as infected to play any way they want.

[Hood's Path]

Also further down it does say they can try their best as infected to play any way they want.

[Hood's Path]

"There are no rules as to which side you wish to play as an infected. You belong to no faction and can thus play to make the Doppelganger's faction win, your original faction, or both, all depending on what you find most advantageous to you."

That the last thing mentioned about infected, if they want to screw around with the DG even if it means they lose they can, especially if they class it advantageous to them to see DG lose.

Look if you're inno shouldn't you be wishing that maybe one or two will go for it?

[Rashan]

Galain, on Jun 23 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Rashan, on Jun 23 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

Barghast, on Jun 23 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

Rashan - I've read your rationale for voting night, and the bottem line is...I don't get it. Can you enlighten me and the masses calling for your lynch?

edit: cross post with enormous threats from PS

The call for night was a mistake (obviously). I am an impatient individual. I like for things to happen yesterday. I picked up on the discussion that an infected should be strongly encouraged to revel that they are infected so we can test if the heal on them would in fact work before the SO. I would reveal the fact that I was infected but not if I was the random person infected on day 1 as you are automatically the DG replacement should he get lynched. (Yes I know that the DG could elect to pick someone else as his successor later but, really?, why would he if everone else that he infects tries to get healed each night.) To be able to test that theory you need for a second person to become infected. To get a second person we had to go to night. As I haven't been party to or witness to the extensive (or so I've been told) discussions on the fact that you always lynch on day one I thought it an acceptable suggestion to go to night. As I said before it wasn't a serious suggestion. It was more I throw it out there and see what people have to say about it. I don't want guesses. I want facts. I should have been patient (but as stated above I am not) and just let the day progress naturally but I voted impulsively for the conclusion of the day to test that theory.

After the fact I realized that there are just too many variable for an accurate test of this theory. First you have to have the DG infect a second person. (This seems very likely.) Second that infected person has to announce that they are in fact infected. (This seems 50-50 at best. We have a few people that think this is a good idea and a whole lot of people that just haven't said much of anything about this). Third you have to have Duncan try to heal this individual. Which I think would be a likely senario. Fourth you then have to have the DG decide to use the Synapse overload on this individual.

As I said there are way too many variables for a reliable test of my theory. Hence why I removed my vote for night. That and the fact I was getting so much crap for it.

Does this help clear up my thought process for you all?

All this did was solidify the reason why I voted for you. This looks a lot like you're scrambling to avoid getting lynched tomorrow. You already stated your 'case' for voting Night and you have been summarily lectured on why it was a terrible idea. The scum get to kill someone. The DG gets to recruit someone.

There are untold number of things that can and probably would have gone wrong in your scenario. I can't think of any good reason to have voted Night if you are town. It looked like one huge scum/DG slip up to me.

[Rashan]

Galain, on Jun 23 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Rashan, on Jun 23 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

Barghast, on Jun 23 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

Rashan - I've read your rationale for voting night, and the bottem line is...I don't get it. Can you enlighten me and the masses calling for your lynch?

edit: cross post with enormous threats from PS

The call for night was a mistake (obviously). I am an impatient individual. I like for things to happen yesterday. I picked up on the discussion that an infected should be strongly encouraged to revel that they are infected so we can test if the heal on them would in fact work before the SO. I would reveal the fact that I was infected but not if I was the random person infected on day 1 as you are automatically the DG replacement should he get lynched. (Yes I know that the DG could elect to pick someone else as his successor later but, really?, why would he if everone else that he infects tries to get healed each night.) To be able to test that theory you need for a second person to become infected. To get a second person we had to go to night. As I haven't been party to or witness to the extensive (or so I've been told) discussions on the fact that you always lynch on day one I thought it an acceptable suggestion to go to night. As I said before it wasn't a serious suggestion. It was more I throw it out there and see what people have to say about it. I don't want guesses. I want facts. I should have been patient (but as stated above I am not) and just let the day progress naturally but I voted impulsively for the conclusion of the day to test that theory.

After the fact I realized that there are just too many variable for an accurate test of this theory. First you have to have the DG infect a second person. (This seems very likely.) Second that infected person has to announce that they are in fact infected. (This seems 50-50 at best. We have a few people that think this is a good idea and a whole lot of people that just haven't said much of anything about this). Third you have to have Duncan try to heal this individual. Which I think would be a likely senario. Fourth you then have to have the DG decide to use the Synapse overload on this individual.

As I said there are way too many variables for a reliable test of my theory. Hence why I removed my vote for night. That and the fact I was getting so much crap for it.

Does this help clear up my thought process for you all?

All this did was solidify the reason why I voted for you. This looks a lot like you're scrambling to avoid getting lynched tomorrow. You already stated your 'case' for voting Night and you have been summarily lectured on why it was a terrible idea. The scum get to kill someone. The DG gets to recruit someone.

There are untold number of things that can and probably would have gone wrong in your scenario. I can't think of any good reason to have voted Night if you are town. It looked like one huge scum/DG slip up to me.

Okay jackass. Nobody lectured me as to why my voting to night is a bad idea. Everyone just told me that it was a bad idea. No reasons no explainations. Just that I was an idiot and/or that I looked suspicious for voting night. You mentioned in this post that going to night that scum gets to kill someone and the DG gets to recruit someone. Well guess what!!! They get to do that anyway whether we lynch someone or not. Actually I feel a bit justified in not wanting to vote someone off the first night as the results of that action is one less townie and guess what!!! It's night now and the killer will get to off someone now and the DG gets to infect someone as well. We've already discussed strategies on how to neutralize the DG it's just now up to the infected person to follow through with it. I'm just disgusted that we helped the scum do their job for them.

[Hood's Path]

How many times have I heard this argument, aah memories!

[Galain]

So... you want to keep voting night and just hope someone reveals that they found scum? You do realize we can't win without lynching, right?

edit: @ Rashan

This post has been edited by Galain: 23 June 2009 - 06:27 PM

[Kaschan]

Hi all , sorry I missed so much of yesterday. Seriously you're on TV for less than 15 seconds, and suddenly everyone wants to throw you a party. I ended up falling asleep during my reread. So, not pleased with the result, but if I'd been around Id have been on the train too. Now, some thoughts on the day that stood out to me

Serc, on Jun 22 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

There should be a 20 question quiz on the rules before the game, if you get 70% or below, you can't play.

I agree with this, it should be mafia law.

Ampelas, on Jun 23 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

crosspost.

Saint order of ejaculation? WTF I have to read that book!

agreed, gonna hit up the library on my way home from the cottage

Liosan, on Jun 23 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

@Galain: I know you were agreeing most of the time, and maybe I misinterpreted the post I quoted, but I was looking for even the subtlest hints of nay-saying. The DG's not gonna come out and say, "don't reveal, don't reveal, don't reveal." He's more likely going to appear agreeable, but drop subtle nay-says like that.

And something relevant, I don't believe Galain is the only person to throw these subtle nay-sayings around. I remember several people mentioning the danger of an SO resulting from inf reveal, and there were at least 2 other people who subtly tried to discourage reveals by focusing on the cons, while overtly siding with the pros. Not sure who they were, but I remember more than just Galain doing it.

Now, as for Rash, I think he was no more suspicious than Tellan to me during reread, but after that post at the top of the page, I think he's gonna get my early vote for the coming day.

Finally, has anyone seen Year One? I'm trying to decide what movie to see tonight and that one intrigues me.

[Hood's Path]

Look Rashan voting night is only advantageous to innos in certain circumstances and it is barely night one. Two people dead give us more info than one person dead unfortuanately.

[Kaschan]

Rash, stop digging your hole. Voting night should never be done early in a game, cuz there's simply not enough info. Stop justifying it and start begging for mercy. Maybe you could even try and find someone else who was acting scummy. Lord knows, for a day one this one oughta yield some info.

[Hood's Path]

I haven't seen it but I think the ratings were bad for it, but so was transformers and terminator and they were ok.

[Kaschan]

Transformers isn't out yet...maybe that's just Canada...

And I can understand the ratings being low, the first one didn't even need sound to get the full enjoyment. It was eye candy. Megan Fox, + robots beating the shit out of each other

This post has been edited by Kaschan: 23 June 2009 - 06:37 PM

[Path-Shaper]

It was better with out sound. Then you could enjoy Megan Fox and not have to listen to her talk...