[Meanas]

Just checking in a quickie - can't stay, will be back later.

[Galain]

Back from meeting. Interesting CF. I thought we were going to get inno, scum, or infected, so I'm guessing that he counts as inno.

Best role name is gone now, lol.

[Rashan]

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?

[Galain]

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.

[Omtose]

Galain, on Jun 23 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

Back from meeting. Interesting CF. I thought we were going to get inno, scum, or infected, so I'm guessing that he counts as inno.

Best role name is gone now, lol.

That's certainly what it said on page 1.

I did a speed read on everything that happened since I signed off last (RL) night, so better go back over things a bit more carefully. That said, it's night now, so must remember to whisper in case any bad guys are listening.

Edit: Cross post

This post has been edited by Omtose: 23 June 2009 - 04:33 PM

[Omtose]

Bugger, bugger ...you will have to wait a bit longer for my pearls of wisdom...I have to go out. With any sort of luck night will be over by the time I get back.

[Liosan]

So I tried to keep the conversation about infected revealing going for a while there to do two things - one: get the infected to reveal; whether it is actually a good play for them, it is definitely a good play for the town. Two: see who would nay-say it and try to convince the infected not to reveal; clear anti-town behavior.

Tellan was the most blatant, but I am also suspicious of the following people:

Eloth, offers reasons why the infected should not reveal themselves:

Eloth, on Jun 22 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

Galain, on Jun 23 2009, 12:10 AM, said:

Silanah, on Jun 22 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

Galain, on Jun 22 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

Tellan, on Jun 22 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

why the hell would he?

he also has to work on WCS--DG may get killed night 1, and if he's also guarded, then the infectee's the only choice for a DG.

there's absolutely no reason for him to do a day 1 reveal. your suggestion may become useful later on, but not day 1

You have a valid point, but as I just stated, if the infected person does NOT reveal, he is guaranteeing his own death the moment someone else reveals infected.

Pay a little attention people, DG can not die night 1, he has a 1 hit BP, or did you miss that in your rush to make each other sound intelligent.

Morgoth, on Jun 17 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

Roles special for the game that will be present


The Doppelganger

1 hit BP

Actually why don't you guys go look through the above snipped post and read carefully....

I actually was agreeing under the idea that the DG gets LYNCHED day 1, not killed, but I didn't clarify that at the time. If the DG were to get lynched, then revealing today as the infected is sure-fire lose when Duncan cures you tonight and says, "Hey you're the new DG." Besdies, I'm more in the "he should reveal" camp, not just head-wagging with Tellan, whom I have firmly in my "mentally challenged" camp.

Since the infected doesn't know the DG, he can't exactly make a determination to reveal based on the DG's possible lynch.

If an infected revealed today and the DG was lynched, then Duncan wouldnt have to heal the infected to know he was the new DG - there wouldn't be anyone else it possibly could be.

Hood's Path, on Jun 23 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

The infected can't be on a winning team unless they fulfill certain obligations.

What I could see is five people claiming infected hoping that they are the one who gets healed.

By that point the infected would have a pretty good chance of surviving till then end of game along with the DG, why would they want to reveal and ask to be healed.



As interesting an idea as the infected constantly revealing is, there are several reasons they likely wont, which have been brought up before:

We dont know for a fact that we have a healer. The DG can kill whichever infected he feels isnt worth keeping around and a revealed infected would definitely classify in that category.
Even if we do have a healer, we are then forcing them to devote all their time to only ever healing infected, meaning the killers have almost nothing to fear.
If the healer dies it would become obvious that this is the case - information both scum teams are better off not having.
We wont know whether the DG or Shriek has been hit if some unrevealed comes up as infected.

There's just too many ways the plan could possibly fall to pieces. Maybe the first one or two infectees might be willing to chance it, but it's really there choice. I dont see any strategy that will immediately nullify the DG, Morgy wouldnt build a game so easily broken.

Galain, says that if there is any chance the DG is going to get lynched, the infected shouldn't reveal, offers advice to the first infected on how they should play instead of revealing:

Galain, on Jun 22 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

Eloth, on Jun 22 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

Galain, on Jun 23 2009, 12:10 AM, said:

*SNIP*

I actually was agreeing under the idea that the DG gets LYNCHED day 1, not killed, but I didn't clarify that at the time. If the DG were to get lynched, then revealing today as the infected is sure-fire lose when Duncan cures you tonight and says, "Hey you're the new DG." Besdies, I'm more in the "he should reveal" camp, not just head-wagging with Tellan, whom I have firmly in my "mentally challenged" camp.

Since the infected doesn't know the DG, he can't exactly make a determination to reveal based on the DG's possible lynch.

If an infected revealed today and the DG was lynched, then Duncan wouldnt have to heal the infected to know he was the new DG - there wouldn't be anyone else it possibly could be.

*SNIP*

True, only reason I can see him doing it is to confirm the veracity of the reveal, although with the guaranteed lynch the next day on the claimed infected, would probably would be better for him to try and guess who is getting infected.

I more or less agree with your logic about why the infected would or would not reveal based upon giving information out about a healer to the scum teams, but remember that the infected is not on a team and thus playing for himself. If you are the first infected, your goal is basically to try and survive the DG's death (both of them) and not get blown up, lynched, or killed in the process. You aren't hoping to become the replacement.

Rashan, claims the infected shouldn't reveal since they are in line to inherit, then actively pushes for a chance for the DG to infect someone else:

Rashan, on Jun 22 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

Liosan, on Jun 22 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

Rashan, on Jun 22 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

Omtose, on Jun 22 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

@Lio - fair enough...just wanted to be cautious.

@Sil - yes I was, but given Lio's comment about healer might NOT being able to heal an SO then I guess it makes everything I thought a bit pointless, except the bit about not PIing an infected, especially as Rashan's latest but one post mentions the inno bit again. (Did he really vote night??? killingme.gif )

yes I did vote for night. I like the idea of testing out the whole idea of an infected revealing that they are infected just to see what happens. (call me sick for asking someone to potentially lose for my sick pleasure)

So I fail to see how voting night and testing out an infected reveal are at all correlated.

right now there is only one person infected. As they are in line to replace the DG if we somehow manage to kill the DG they are not likely to reveal that they are infected. Therefore to test the theory out the DG needs to infect someone else. To do that we need to go to night. As a group I doubt that we can get a good feel of who we need to lynch during the first day so I say we get that first day over so the DG can infect someone so then that person can revel as being infected. And as I haven't heard any good case as to who to lynch at the moment I currently rest at ending the day at the moment. I also know it takes 11 votes to end the day so I doubt that very many other people would also agree to that and there will be more chatter. I just wanted to get my vote in where I currently stand if I have to step away for a while and miss some action.

Silanah, his comments against revealing are very slight (don't reveal or you might go BOOM). It's directed at scum and how they should play as infected, but could easily be meant for anyone:

Silanah, on Jun 22 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

Omtose, on Jun 22 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

No, I didn't mean false claims, I meant scum could be genuinely infected and be glad to announce it, they get a double bonus. Heal/disinfection and stop Duncan 'protecting' a genuine inno.


Edit: This was @ Sil.

Yeah, except by the same token the DG could then go and overload his synapses:

'Path-Shaper' said:

The order of night actions:
Guard -> Heal -> Synapse overload (not affected by guard) ->Infect -> Find -> Desinfect -> Kill

So I would think that should a scum become infected they will either try and take out Duncan and become the DG's Symp or try to take out the DGs to cure themselves.

D'riss, might still be a little bit of OMGUS in my suspicion of D'riss, but he basically tried to strong-arm me into not talking about revealing:

D'riss, on Jun 22 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

Liosan, on Jun 22 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

Who is this Lioan character?

And to HP, if the healing/curing of infected actually works, then the healer and Duncan should just keep doing that every night to effectively kick the DG in the balls and keep him on the mat for the entire game.

Pardon

Remove vote Vote Liosan

There we go, and you continue to discuss what the healer should or shouldn't do, you know, the only thing you are accomplishing is working under Best case scenario. We may not even have a healer, so what good does this conversation do?

The list might not be complete, but I'd say it's a good place to start looking for the DG.

Rashan is a good bet, voting for night and all to get another infection, but he's being so obvious in his fumbling, I'm convinced he's a just a complete noob. Of course, nowhere in the rules does it say the DG can't be the noob player...

[Path-Shaper]

there was originally no plan to add the names to the cf, however, as long as the names of infected players are kept out of the cf, no balance issues should arise. For the names themselves, I decided on which name to give what role and I'm quite confident vengyboy, whom have also read the book, could not have guessed a single role based the names alone

[Thyrllan]

Galain, on Jun 23 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

Back from meeting. Interesting CF. I thought we were going to get inno, scum, or infected, so I'm guessing that he counts as inno.

Best role name is gone now, lol.

pretty sure people of Ambergis is the same as innos.

not relevant to the game, but since theres a living saint of this erm, order, does that mean there could be a dead saint of ejaculation too??

anyways, not knowing a thing about the books i cant be sure, but a living saint of an order etc etc sounds fairly powerful to me, like maybe a healer, guard, finder or some other mediumish role. someone who knows the book though could corect me and say if the saints are powerful or not

[Liosan]

In other news, I'm happy about the amount of info in the CF (even if Ment wasn't the DG). I thought we were only gonna get inno, scum or infected and that's it. We might still only get a full CF for non-infected players, otherwise what's the point of Duncan CFing infected, but at least we're getting slightly more info than expected.

edit: cross-post with P-S, as expected

This post has been edited by Liosan: 23 June 2009 - 04:53 PM

[Galain]

Lio, I dunno how you got me listed with a group of floozies that thought the infected shouldn't reveal, but I have a pretty giant body of evidence that said I was in favor of the opposite.

In chronological order...

Here I agree with you because, as I state, if the first infected didn't reveal, he had a good chance of getting blown up later. (I realized later that the DG could choose who got SO'd.)

Galain, on Jun 22 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Liosan, on Jun 22 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

Rashan, on Jun 22 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

Liosan, on Jun 22 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

Rashan, on Jun 22 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

Omtose, on Jun 22 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

@Lio - fair enough...just wanted to be cautious.

@Sil - yes I was, but given Lio's comment about healer might NOT being able to heal an SO then I guess it makes everything I thought a bit pointless, except the bit about not PIing an infected, especially as Rashan's latest but one post mentions the inno bit again. (Did he really vote night??? killingme.gif )

yes I did vote for night. I like the idea of testing out the whole idea of an infected revealing that they are infected just to see what happens. (call me sick for asking someone to potentially lose for my sick pleasure)

So I fail to see how voting night and testing out an infected reveal are at all correlated.

right now there is only one person infected. As they are in line to replace the DG if we somehow manage to kill the DG they are not likely to reveal that they are infected. Therefore to test the theory out the DG needs to infect someone else. To do that we need to go to night. As a group I doubt that we can get a good feel of who we need to lynch during the first day so I say we get that first day over so the DG can infect someone so then that person can revel as being infected. And as I haven't heard any good case as to who to lynch at the moment I currently rest at ending the day at the moment. I also know it takes 11 votes to end the day so I doubt that very many other people would also agree to that and there will be more chatter. I just wanted to get my vote in where I currently stand if I have to step away for a while and miss some action.

Except we're dealing with scum, too. So we lynch day one. ALWAYS.

I also don't think you noted that the DG can designate a new replacement every night. Don't you think the DG would rather his replacement be somebody hand-picked, rather than the random alt he gets at the beginning? If anything, the first infected has more incentive for revealing than future infected.

I'm gonna throw an "I agree" here because if the first infected doesn't reveal, then he's going to get KABOOMED the first time some new infected does reveal, because that's the guy with the only shot at getting healed. Otherwise, the first infected is just hoping to get randomly cured before he gets blown up.

Same basic reasoning:

Galain, on Jun 22 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

Tellan, on Jun 22 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

why the hell would he?

he also has to work on WCS--DG may get killed night 1, and if he's also guarded, then the infectee's the only choice for a DG.

there's absolutely no reason for him to do a day 1 reveal. your suggestion may become useful later on, but not day 1

You have a valid point, but as I just stated, if the infected person does NOT reveal, he is guaranteeing his own death the moment someone else reveals infected.

Here I basically say that the infected has to make the decision based on his own interpretation of how the game will play out, but that I thought the odds were best for town AND infected for the infected to reveal.

Galain, on Jun 22 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

Silanah, on Jun 22 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

Galain, on Jun 22 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

Tellan, on Jun 22 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

why the hell would he?

he also has to work on WCS--DG may get killed night 1, and if he's also guarded, then the infectee's the only choice for a DG.

there's absolutely no reason for him to do a day 1 reveal. your suggestion may become useful later on, but not day 1

You have a valid point, but as I just stated, if the infected person does NOT reveal, he is guaranteeing his own death the moment someone else reveals infected.

Pay a little attention people, DG can not die night 1, he has a 1 hit BP, or did you miss that in your rush to make each other sound intelligent.

Morgoth, on Jun 17 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

Roles special for the game that will be present


The Doppelganger

1 hit BP

Actually why don't you guys go look through the above snipped post and read carefully....

I actually was agreeing under the idea that the DG gets LYNCHED day 1, not killed, but I didn't clarify that at the time. If the DG were to get lynched, then revealing today as the infected is sure-fire lose when Duncan cures you tonight and says, "Hey you're the new DG." Besdies, I'm more in the "he should reveal" camp, not just head-wagging with Tellan, whom I have firmly in my "mentally challenged" camp.

Since the infected doesn't know the DG, he can't exactly make a determination to reveal based on the DG's possible lynch.

This is where I flat out say that trying to hope the DG picks you to replace him is lunacy.

Galain, on Jun 22 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jun 22 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

What I'm getting at is if they die as infected, it automatic loss for them, surely they will try to hit one of the requirements for becoming one side or the other.

What would you rather do accept being infected or try your best to either get yourself uninfected or get yourself on DG side to the point he may consider selecting you as a replacement and pray he bites the dust.

Yes, I'm sure everybody here is just clamoring to be the one person that everyone else is trying to get lynched. Are you volunteering for the job or something?

And here I argue that the infected has no reason to believe he will survive to the end of the game with either the current or a future DG.

Galain, on Jun 22 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

Honestly, how can you even think an infected person would want to stay infected in the early part of the game? The winning condition as infected is incredibly weak, especially with the DG's ability to SO.

Basically, being the first infected is bad for you and I was definitely siding with revealing.

[Hood's Path]

Order or ejaculation so I guess their favourite hymn is "Come all ye faithful"?

[Galain]

Also, I am borderline insulted that you grouped me with Tellan and Rashan.

[Thyrllan]

Thyrllan, on Jun 23 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

anyways, not knowing a thing about the books i cant be sure, but a living saint of an order etc etc sounds fairly powerful to me, like maybe a healer, guard, finder or some other mediumish role. someone who knows the book though could corect me and say if the saints are powerful or not

Path-Shaper, on Jun 23 2009, 06:50 PM, said:

there was originally no plan to add the names to the cf, however, as long as the names of infected players are kept out of the cf, no balance issues should arise. For the names themselves, I decided on which name to give what role and I'm quite confident vengyboy, whom have also read the book, could not have guessed a single role based the names alone

okay well nuts to that...

[Liosan]

@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.

[Hood's Path]

I think Liosan is saying that your posts on infected could go Kaboom if they reveal is suggests you as symp hinting to future infected players not to reveal or they will all be SO'd at once, so if one guys reveals all infected get SO'd. Which in my view would only work as a bluff by the DG to keep infected in line, he can't afford to SO every infected player at once cause it removes his main advantage of having them infected.

[Hood's Path]

But it could easily be as you say you raising a point on why infected might not reveal is the the threat of SO.

[Liosan]

Hood's Path, on Jun 23 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

I think Liosan is saying that your posts on infected could go Kaboom if they reveal is suggests you as symp hinting to future infected players not to reveal or they will all be SO'd at once, so if one guys reveals all infected get SO'd. Which in my view would only work as a bluff by the DG to keep infected in line, he can't afford to SO every infected player at once cause it removes his main advantage of having them infected.

Umm, I didn't say any of that, but I'll forgive you for putting words in my mouth since your "Come all ye faithful" joke was pretty good.

[Galain]

Liosan, on Jun 23 2009, 10:13 AM, 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.

I realize you're looking for the words between the lines, but read this statement from my quoted post again:

Galain said:

I more or less agree with your logic about why the infected would or would not reveal based upon giving information out about a healer to the scum teams, but remember that the infected is not on a team and thus playing for himself. If you are the first infected, your goal is basically to try and survive the DG's death (both of them) and not get blown up, lynched, or killed in the process. You aren't hoping to become the replacement.

I'm basically saying, the infected needs to try and survive because you're playing for yourself, and the best way to do that is to reveal. You do NOT want to hang around with the goal of becoming the replacement.

[Liosan]

Galain, on Jun 23 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

Liosan, on Jun 23 2009, 10:13 AM, 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.

I realize you're looking for the words between the lines, but read this statement from my quoted post again:

Galain said:

I more or less agree with your logic about why the infected would or would not reveal based upon giving information out about a healer to the scum teams, but remember that the infected is not on a team and thus playing for himself. If you are the first infected, your goal is basically to try and survive the DG's death (both of them) and not get blown up, lynched, or killed in the process. You aren't hoping to become the replacement.

I'm basically saying, the infected needs to try and survive because you're playing for yourself, and the best way to do that is to reveal. You do NOT want to hang around with the goal of becoming the replacement.

Right, but surviving the DG's death implies you are still infected when he dies, which I take to mean that they shouldn't reveal, since if they reveal they are either going to get cured or killed, not stay infected.