Forums / Fun! / Forum Games

dr. eggman is finally dead

rip

NIGHT 5: October 21, 1708

The werewolves are falling in numbers and those who remain are seeking to avenge their fallen brothers. With the first ringleader, Logan, out of the way, the next choice was obvious. Both werewolves approached the dwelling of Randal Manson in the dead of night while everyone else was resting after the hunt. They break down his door with little effort and what they find inside is rather surprising. It would appear that Manson had recently been recruited by the remaining Freemason and had set up a makeshift masonic shrine in his house. This of course made no difference to the Werewolves, and they made quick work of the helpless man. Randal Manson, a newly recruited Freemason, was the fifth victim of the Werewolves.

DAY PHASE: 24 HOURS REMAIN

Sorry for the short turn everyone, I wrote it in a bit of a hurry since I have a prior commitment that happened to fall right around the time the turn was to be posted.

Voting Roarshack

It would appear that Manson had recently been recruited by the remaining Freemason and had set up a makeshift masonic shrine in his house. This of course made no difference to the Werewolves, and they made quick work of the helpless man. Randal Manson, a newly recruited Freemason, was the fifth victim of the Werewolves.

This town doesn't appreciate true art.

Would just like to say that Sergeant Arch Dornan is the Villager turned Vampire. That being said, I vote Roarshack. We should probably hang Sergeant Arch Dornan tomorrow. gg guys I will probably die tonight.

do you have any proof that im a werewolf other then "b-but randomman said so!!"

It would appear that before he died, Manson had completely embraced his role as a Freemason and had written a short philosophical novella on the subject of death. Although it seems he was very passionate in his work, it is very apparent that he had no idea what he was talking about.

At what point does a person actually die? That depends on who you ask. To one person, it’s the moment the heart stops beating. To another, it’s when the brain enters a “vegetative” state. But a heart can be forced to keep beating; and how dead is a person, really, if she can continue to grow, develop, and even give birth after experiencing “brain death”?

In search of answers, we turned to Dick Teresi. A seasoned science writer and the former editor of Science Digest and Omni, Teresi has spent the last ten years researching and writing about the science behind the line that separates life and death. He has recounted his findings and experiences in his new book, The Undead: Organ Harvesting, the Ice-Water Test, Beating Heart Cadavers -- How Medicine Is Blurring the Line Between Life and Death.

In your experience, do most doctors and scientists relate to death in similar terms? In other words, does “death” mean the same thing to a cardiologist as it does to a cell biologist, a neurologist, or a neonatologist?

I’ve been a science writer since 1973, covering a lot of particle physics, and I’ve discovered that compared to, say, physics, “medical science” is an oxymoron. Doctors are not well schooled in scientific principles. They are healers, not scientists, and they don’t understand basic concepts such as falsification in science. For example, doctors believe that if drug A heals 9 out of 10 people with disease X, then drug A heals disease X because it usually does. A scientist, on the other hand, believes that one exception destroys the whole theory.

The Meaning of Death: How do we know someone is no longer alive?

More to the point, take brain death. Some patients are declared brain dead and then begin spontaneously breathing hours later. Medical scientists say it doesn’t matter because most brain-dead patients do not come back to life, but a rigorous scientist would say that these cases speak loudly about the flaws in our criteria for death. And yes -- death to a cardiologist means that your heart has stopped, and he can’t get it to restart. But to a neurologist, it might mean something else. In 1968, a committee at Harvard Medical School put forth an article stating that there is a second kind of death: brain death. Even though your heart is still pumping, and you’re still able to breathe on a ventilator, if your brain stem is down, you’re dead. This theory was made law in all 50 states in 1981, so now in the U.S. we have two kinds of death: real death (cardiopulmonary death) and what some doctors call “pretty dead,” or brain death. A cell biologist, on the other hand, may have a standard more rigorous than cardiologists or neurologists. They might want to see all one’s cells dead, which we call putrefaction.

So clearly death is not as straightforward as some people make it out to be. Tell us a little about why that is.

Since the beginning of recorded history, we have looked for a simple set of criteria that tell us when a person is dead. This is because we don’t like to bury or cremate people if they’re still alive, among other reasons. We have looked for a central organ that spells the difference between life and death, or a set of behaviors that indicate with certainty that our bodies have called it quits.

But every time we think we have solid criteria, we find exceptions. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought the brain was totally unimportant, and they hollowed out the skulls of mummies, tossing the brain away. They concentrated on the heart. But stopped hearts often restarted spontaneously, and embalmers who declared live persons dead were stoned.

The Romans came up with “conclamation,” which involved yelling a person’s name in his ear three times -- hardly a foolproof method. Inventions like the stethoscope helped immensely because some heartbeats and breaths are faint. Artificial respiration, smelling salts, and electric shock resuscitated people previously thought dead. Medical journals continue to fill with conditions that mimic death but which are not death at all.

Would you say that definitions of death have evolved over time?

Definitions of death have not changed a great deal, but that doesn’t mean much. Often we’ll say “death is the absence of life,” but then we have to define “life” and that’s almost impossible. All we can really do is set criteria for who’s dead, and that is tough enough, and we have no real definitive set of standards.

You suggest in your book that relating to death as something that is “irreversible” can be problematic. Talk to us about what makes that word so troublesome.

“Irreversible” is not a very scientific term. Is the solar system “irreversible?” How about the universe as a whole? No, even the proton may eventually decay. Nothing is forever.

What science looks for is stable systems. We can say the solar system or the hydrogen atom is stable. Death comes, we might say, when the stability of the human body breaks down, and the system no longer works as a whole. Does that happen when the heart goes? The lungs? The lungs and heart together? The brain? That’s the debate. We are acquiring more and more evidence that the body can go on in a somewhat stable system long after the brain has called it quits. For example, brain-dead pregnant mothers can continue to gestate and give birth to their babies long after being declared brain dead. In one case, a mother went 107 days after “death,” and then delivered a healthy newborn.

“An MRI that twenty years ago was considered a ‘photograph of death’ is now just an image of a sick but reparable brain.”
How do you think our understanding of death might continue to evolve in the years to come?

I can only hope that medical scientists become true scientists, and acknowledge some ugly truths: that life lingers on far past our criteria for death. Perhaps it is impractical for us to keep people alive-and on life support-indefinitely. Today we declare such inconvenient people to be “dead,” even if they’re not, so we can bury them and be rid of them. Perhaps we should acknowledge that they are not dead, but in, say, “condition X,” a condition at which time we can terminate them. These are ugly realities, and it is easier just to call them dead. But we should face reality, and make tough decisions.

Do you think our relationship with death is more likely to change in response to breakthroughs in medical treatments, or advances in our ability to understand the body? I recognize that these two things are not mutually exclusive; but if I might borrow an example from your book, what I’m getting at here is the distinction between something like tissue plasminogen activator (a medical advancement that “moved the line” dividing life and death, so to speak) and imaging techniques like MRI that allow us to visualize a brain and decide if someone is or is not “dead.”

Yes, [tissue plasminogen activator, aka “tPA”] is a good example. In the past, brain scans taken of people 1 to 3 hours after a stroke would be read as the scans of a dead person. Today, tPA can bring people back to normality even 3 hours after a stroke. So an MRI that twenty years ago was considered a “photograph of death” is now just an image of a sick but reparable brain.

But again, these are not definitions but criteria for death. One of the problems of brain death is that it was described as death all the way back in 1968, and there have been remarkable discoveries in neuroscience since then. In 1973, Candace Pert discovered the opiate receptor in the brain. The discovery of endorphins followed, as did dozens of other receptors and neurohormones. The brain of 1968 was envisioned as a Tinker Toy kind of machine, with electricity mixed in. Now we know biochemistry has a great deal to do with consciousness.

And yet, that has all been ignored because brain-death criteria were developed in the stone age of neuroscience, and neurologists still are schooled in this backward fashion. Neurochemicals are found being secreted in supposedly dead brains because brain-death tests are not designed to detect them. Our tests are crude, requiring an exam shorter than my last eye exam, and using such crude instruments as a flashlight, ice water, cotton swabs, and the like. None of this can tell us about consciousness.

The Meaning of Death: How do we know someone is no longer alive?

Organ harvesting/transplantation and the science surrounding death. You suggest that the two have difficulty playing nice. Why is that?

Plain and simple: we want the organs. Organ transplantation is a $27 billion per year business. Most of the people harvested for organs today would not have been considered dead prior to 1968. But really dead people-those whose hearts have stopped and are not breathing-do not make good donors. The blood stops bringing oxygen to the organs, and, for lack of a better word, they spoil. But if the donor is just “mostly dead,” meaning that his heart is still beating and he can still breathe with the aid of a ventilator, then the organs remain fresh and juicy and bring huge prices in the transplant business.

The average cost for a heart transplant, such as the one Dick Cheney just received, is nearly $1,000,000. Kidneys will cost you about $250,000 each. The donors by law cannot be compensated, so this is a very, very profitable business, one in which the raw material-human organs-do not have to be paid for, thanks to federal law. It is one of the great federal subsidies of our time.

How close do you think science and medicine can come to truly defining death -- at least as it pertains to the notion of death on the organismal, human level?

Because “irreversible” is locked into our present definition of death, I don’t think we can ever truly define it. And what happens to consciousness? I personally believe it disappears with the entropy of the body, but many would say otherwise, and I have no evidence to dispute them.

To what extent is the definition of death a philosophical question? With your answer to that question in mind, do you think doctors are the most well-equipped people to come to decisions involving life and death, and are there any realistic alternatives?

Today, more than ever, it has become a philosophical question. When we witnessed the brain-death exam of a woman in Springfield, Massachusetts, after the perfunctory tests, a nurse proclaimed, “Whatever it was that made her her isn’t there anymore.” So that is the new standard: “personhood.” Doctors say brain death is imperfect as a rule for calling the body biologically dead, but so what? The “person” is gone.

Here’s what I’d like to know: during what year of medical school do doctors learn what a “person” is, and when the person is missing?

In your experience, how do non-scientists and non-doctors relate to the concept of death? Is there as much disagreement over (or differences in definition between) what it means for a cell, organ, animal, or human to be dead, or is that kind of thing not even on the average person’s radar?

I imagine there are grave disagreements. But I think on a personal level, we are all on the same plane. We are terrified. Death is the unknown and shall always be the unknown. We don’t know where we’re going, if anywhere. And will we be annihilated? I kind of think so, and that is hard to grasp. We all have to face the fact that at some point, the universe will exist without us. We are not special and are not ultimately needed. Neither science nor medicine is of much help here, and neither is most egocentric religion. I’ve had to deal with this reality during the ten years I worked on this book. In the end, it is of some comfort to know that whatever inequities exist in the world, we are all equal in this regard, and we all share the same fate.

Jesus fucking Christ RandomMan.

I'm still creeping and observing ya'all from the great beyond and…

How high were you when you wrote that

How high were you when you wrote that?

Six bags of cocaine

Amen.

Voting for Dornan someyhing about him doesn't add up

DAY 5: October 21, 1708

After the hunt from the night before, the villagers wake up to find Manson's home destroyed and it's owner killed. They discover two sets of tracks leading away from the scene in two different directions and quickly realize that they will lead to the remaining culprits. Unfortunately the first trail quickly runs cold after running into a stream. The second trail however, is much more obvious. The mob, now one member smaller than the previous night, follows the prints to what everyone thought was an abandoned shack. It is there that they find a sleeping Robert Shacker, his mouth and hands stained crimson with blood. Without anyone saying a word, one of the villagers raises his musket and fires. Only one Werewolf remains.

NIGHT PHASE: 24 HOURS REMAIN

>game only lasted for 4 pages
gg

Sorry Roarshack, there can only be one.

I know shouldn't be posting here anymore, but it's weird that it's already been more 24 hours, but the night phrase hasn't ended yet.

NIGHT 6: October 22, 1708

With only one Werewolf remaining, and very few Villagers left to fight against it, time is running out. Everyone decides that the best course of action is to barricade themselves inside the church for the night. They all agree except for Walter Kolt, who much prefers to wander the streets alone at night. Of course, anyone can see how this is going to end, but no matter how hard they try no one can convince him to stay with them for just one night. The last thing they see is his back turned to them, as he walks away into the darkness. Very few of the Villagers get any sleep that night, as they are all kept awake by the thoughts of what may be happening to Walter. Eventually, just after midnight, a horrific scream pierces the night. The barricade may have been effective against a Werewolf, but it could do nothing to save them from the sounds of Walter Kolt the Hermit in his last moments on earth.

DAY PHASE: 24 HOURS REMAIN

Really sorry everyone, the late turn is entirely on me. I straight up just forgot about it until I was going to sleep and by then it was too late. Next turn will go up 24 hours from this post.

voting Major Bummer

Dornan, again I have no faith in him. I have a hunch that he is one to look out for.

I'm voting Hackenbacker

The next morning, a few villagers set out in search of Walter's body. Unfortunately they are unsuccessful, and all they manage to find are his last words, written on the ground in what appears to be blood:

If you are reading this, then I am dead. I cannot stress this enough. Sergeant Arch Dornan is the vampire. Please, for the love of god, hang him and end the blood shed. Friggin’ jerk.

Voting Dornan.

Voting Major Bummer
This should be interesting.

oh boy I want to see this pasta
I'm changing my vote to Major Bummer

I'm switching my vote to Major Bummer

FINAL DAY: October 22, 1708

It has grown colder, and only five people remain. Archebald Dorner, Nathaniel Oliver Newman, Hannah Baker, Kiefer Pommel, and finally, Martin Bobber. Only a single one of these remaining individuals did not sleep in the church that night, and he was the final target of the villagers suspicions. They arm themselves with silver weapons and muskets and go out in search of him for the last time. Collingwood may be a small village but the surrounding woods seem to go on forever, so it took them a considerable amount of time to find him. Eventually, they come across a cave and from the outside they can hear what sounds like someone breathing heavily. They light a torch and follow the sound into the cold dark cavern. No one can tell how long it took them to reach the end of the cave, it may have been minutes or hours, time seemed to stand still and the sound of breathing was all around them no matter how long they walked. Just as it seems their torch is about to flicker out, Kiefer Pommel shouts out "Look! Over there!". They all look over to see Martin Bobber, wearing nothing but tattered scraps of clothing and covered head to toe in blood. In the flickering orange torchlight he truly looks like a beast from the pits of Hell. Three of the four villagers raise their muskets at Bobber, and just as he is about to speak they all fire. The shots echo loud and thunderous off the stone walls, and the sounds masks the screaming of Archebald Dorner, who has just had a wooden stake plunged into his back by Hannah Baker. The cave is filled with the sounds of both men screaming and burning, until eventually all that remains is the low hum of the wind and two piles of ash. The torch finally flickers out and dies.

GAME OVER: VILLAGERS WIN

Thanks for playing everyone! I hope you had as much fun playing/reading along as I did running it! I'll post some final statistics shortly, as well as achievements and some final comments.

Some victory music for the villagers:

Congratulations for the villagers who made to the end! You all are the true survivors!

GG.

Yay we won even though I got fucked over.

Ironically, your death was one of the main reasons why the villagers won so quickly.

But it's ok, I have screwed up too many times that I essentially just revealed myself to my death.

Well, it's been fun. If there's another Mafia game, I will definitely be back in the game.

Surviving Members:

Sergeant Arch Dornan (Technically)
Player Name: Archebald Dorner
Role: Villager/Vampire (converted on Night 4)
Voted: 4/6 times
No Original Names
Player Name: Nathaniel Oliver Newman
Role: Villager
Voted: 4/6 times
Hackenbacker
Player Name: Hannah Baker
Role: Freemason (Order of Amaranth)
Voted: 4/6 times
KYFPMM
Player Name: Kiefer Pommel
Role: Villager
Voted: 5/6 times

Our Dearly Departed:

CrowTheMagician
Player Name: Maxwell Crow
Role: Villager
Eliminated: Night 1
Voted: 0/0 times
chowzbugerz
Player Name: Charles Burgman
Role: Surgeon
Eliminated: Day 3
Voted: 3/3 times
Major Bummer
Player Name: Martin Bobber
Role: Werewolf
Eliminated: Day 6
Voted: 3/6 times
TillsterRulz
Player Name: Rupert Tiller
Role: Villager
Eliminated: Day 1
Voted: 1/1 times
*Roarshack *
Player Name: Robert Shacker
Role: Werewolf
Eliminated: Day 5
Voted: 1/5 times
ShiJo
Player Name: Simon Jones
Role: Villager
Eliminated: Night 2
Voted: 1/1 times
RandomMan
Player Name: Randal Manson
Role: Villager/Freemason
Eliminated: Night 5
Voted: 4/4 times
Lopunny
Player Name: Logan Punkleman
Role: Freemason
Eliminated: Night 4
Voted: 3/3 times
Snickerway
Player Name: Nicholas Waymer
Role: Werewolf
Eliminated: Day 3
Voted: 3/3 times
Walter Kovacs
Player Name: Walter Kolt
Role: Hermit
Eliminated: Night 6
Voted: 4/5 times
Dr. Eggman (a.k.a. Witch Doctor)
Player Name: Donovan Eggert
Role: Werewolf
Eliminated: Day 4
Voted: 3/4 times

Missing In Action:

justThisFool
Player Name: Justin Fooler
Role: Villager
Removed: Day 3
Stalemate (a.k.a. Spookmate)
Player Name: Stephen Mater
Role: Vampire
Removed: Day 3
Laika
Player Name: Laurance Kaffer
Role: Villager
Removed: Day 3

Achievements:

Surivor
Description: Survive until the end of the game
Recipients: Sergeant Arch Dornan, No Original Names, Hackenbacker, KYFPMM
Dedicated
Description: Don’t miss a single vote
Recipients: chowzburgerz, TillsterRulz, ShiJo, RandomMan, Lopunny, Snickerway
Barely Paying Attention
Description: Only vote a single time
Recipients: Roarshack
Novelist
Description: Write a last will that needs to be split into two posts
Recipients: RandomMan
Detective
Description: Determine who all the remaining Werewolves are
Recipients: Lopunny
Suicidal
Description: Vote for yourself
Recipients: Major Bummer
First In, First Out
Description: Be the first one to sign up for the game and the first one to be killed
Recipients: CrowTheMagician
Delaying The Inevitable
Description: Try to kill the Vampire when only one Werewolf remains
Recipients: Walter Kovacs, Hackenbacker

>still this salty over casual game business

gg

Fuck yeah, I got an achievement.

I survived a third werewolf! Whoo hoo!

I survived a third werewolf! Whoo hoo!

gg everyone I didn't realize we could win with a vampire still running loose

^neither did I; I assumed the vamp counted as another werewolf

Anywho, gg everyone. Can't wait until the next one

The townies not needing to kill the vamp seems odd. What motivation does the vamp need to help the mafia if he can win without them? He could sell out the maf to the town and still win the game easily.

The vampire wins if the werewolves win, he just didn't count towards their numbers. He also didn't count towards the villagers numbers. I stated that at the very beginning.

It would have been nice and thematic to have the villagers killed come back as zombies and still talk, but their votes wouldn't count, after all, the killed werewolves can do that, anyway, hoping the next game more people join, it's more fun like that. GG.

Next time don't kill me so early, geez

Holy thread necro Batman, spam bumped a thread this ancient.