A baby, if anything, is probably more dangerous to this ship than a space wiener. At least space wieners lay dormant inside you and don't cry, puke and excrete bodily fluids everywhere.

On the other hand, Sarah raises an interesting point. I wonder if the investigator has any way to distinguish, for example, between an alien infection and a really colossal case of ringworm?

(This is actually an infamous Guinea worm, but whatevs.)

Furthermore, I take full responsibility for bearing the news of our investigator. If I've been lied to I'll give up the scanner's identity. If a killer comes after me in the night for relaying the information the scanner is giving me, I have told this particular crew member whom I trust most to act as a confidante in case I am murdered...

A clever cover. If he's wrong, he''ll turn in someone else. If he's right, he'll gain our trust. Or course, it would benefiet him more to be wrong, becuase he'd get rid of Sarah and then the "investigator".

I'm still not sure if he's stupid or not, and the only way to test it is voting off Sarah, which I'm not willing to do.

If he was your boss and you needed to make way to take over the team. I think we both know how this works, so don't play naive.

I have considered this possibility, but I find offensive that you would consider me that stupid- to vote for a fellow infected just like that, early in the game. Then again, that shady character did it once, so I won't eliminate that possibility.

I know for a fact that he is uninfected, so going after him makes me suspicious. Simple as that.

Alright. I'll take your word for it and see what happens.

If I was to take the evidence I currently have and start pointing fingers, it would be square in the chest of Security Guard Barney Vance who has been markedly absent except when he needs to pop in to throw suspicion somewhere else or defend someone who shouldn't need defending. He has also behaved in traditional scum style by failing to appear at the private staff meetings that he used to attend regularly. Everyone present at them has noted this fact.

Combined with the fact that he has a night action he hasn't mentioned to anyone here, he's definitely at the top of my list. Is that transparent enough for you?

And this will be the vote that tells me, and anyone paying attention, who the infected are.

Vote: Svelte / Barney Vance

Woah there. A bit eager to vote, aren't you? Especially considering the computer lady said we can't vote for the first few hours. I see where you're going with this, but I don't think Barney is a wise choice.

Hm...

The investigator informs me that the scanner that is used to perform the investigation indicated an oddity in the findings but an infection beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I'd hate to blow a pregnant mother out of an airlock...unless of course she has a wiener.

I havent seen any change in Sarah recently and I don't trust an un-named person just accussing people. The person could be badly infected and maybe a night killer thats infected, however maybe if we voted for her on the terms that if you are wrong you are gotten rid of along with the un-named person. It is a harsh punishment but one which is well fitted to the crime.

That's not harsh, but logical and I would expect nothing else.

A clever cover. If he's wrong, he''ll turn in someone else. If he's right, he'll gain our trust. Or course, it would benefiet him more to be wrong, becuase he'd get rid of Sarah and then the "investigator".

I'm still not sure if he's stupid or not, and the only way to test it is voting off Sarah, which I'm not willing to do.

Thank you for assuming I'm that smart. I am, however, afraid I may be just a pawn at this point. But your thought process is a good one. You'd make good security! We all need to think like this if we're going to survive this ordeal...

Woah there. A bit eager to vote, aren't you? Especially considering the computer lady said we can't vote for the first few hours. I see where you're going with this, but I don't think Barney is a wise choice.

If you continued reading, you saw where that matter was resolved. Not to say I trust Barney, but I think we have a more pressing matter.

Given reports of an alternative that seems to be based on actual information, and a promise of instant death for our Security Chief if he's wrong, I have no problem taking a shot on ...

Vote: Sir Dillon / Sarah Ohce

Scars and something unknown in your belly? Is that really the best you've got?

With that black hole approaching, blowing the pregnant woman with the wiener appears to be the best option, so:

Vote: Sir Dillon/Sarah Ohce

Vote: Sir Dillon / Sarah Ohce

You seem awfully eager to vote . Two people today already. I'm definitely getting a bit skeptical of you.....

I'm not saying I trust Sarah - quite the opposite, but I'd like to see how the day plays out for a little while longer before I vote.

I certainly don't want space baby poop floating around our zero-G atmosphere, especially if it's infected.

Vote: Sarah Ohce/ Sir Dillon.

If you continued reading, you saw where that matter was resolved. Not to say I trust Barney, but I think we have a more pressing matter.

Oh, I know, but it was eager of you to do that.

And just because you're high in rank doesn't mean you can change what you say. If I were to edit my thoughts, I would come out as suspicious.

Vote: Sir Dillon / Sarah Ohce

Scars and something unknown in your belly? Is that really the best you've got?

Well, I have an idea of what this situation is, but I'd like to wait a bit... I don't trust her, but she was the first to vote for one of her own.

Whatever the case, by now our investigator has to have achieved something, or are we truly supposed to fly blind, day after day, night after night, as we wonder who is next?

So, you have no leads from an investigator, yet claim to know for a fact that Michael is uninfected, how does that work again?

Thank you for assuming I'm that smart. I am, however, afraid I may be just a pawn at this point. But your thought process is a good one. You'd make good security! We all need to think like this if we're going to survive this ordeal...

I am confused as you seem to trust the investigator implicitly, yet will sell them out if they don't deliver on Sarah being infected How can you trust someone, yet not?

I am torn between you two for providing too many conflicting reports, Sarah possibly being infected, yet voting first for an infected person, and whether the investigator could in fact be a reverse investigator! yielding positive infection results when a person is clean.

Another possibility is that Sarah was infected overnight! Did anyone stop to think that the wieners could in fact occasionally infect more of us?

So, you have no leads from an investigator, yet claim to know for a fact that Michael is uninfected, how does that work again?

Quoting something I said before further revelations have been made makes me a little suspicious as to your motives in doing so.

I am confused as you seem to trust the investigator implicitly, yet will sell them out if they don't deliver on Sarah being infected How can you trust someone, yet not?

Whatever level of trust he has, if Michael ends up having trusted the investigator incorrectly, I'd certainly expect him to identify them so that we can deal with them. Wouldn't you? Call that selling out if you wish, but it makes perfect sense, why would he want to protect them if they turned out to have lied?

Further, he's taken responsibility for the information, which means that he dies tomorrow if it's wrong. How exactly can we lose here? We either get one infected or potentially two.

At this point, it's idiotic to oppose such an opportunity. Idiotic, or revealing other motives, I'll leave that to the rest of you to decide.

I might vote for Sarah at a later time but there might be more evidence for someone else.

Michael are you willing to tell us who told you the info about Sarah?

Did anyone find out something interesting last night that should be brought to our attention?

This whole situation is becoming increasingly confusing, and while I am loath to vote for someone on the word of a supposed investigator who has to use someone else to report their finds, it would appear that it is the only "real" information we have to go off. That said, I would like to hear a bit more of what everyone has to say before deciding to vote; we do have a bit of time after all. We need to consider the possible good and bad outcomes of our vote today before making a decision, that way we can hopefully avoid the consequences that often result from a hasty or rash decision.

From what our Head of Security has said, he seems very confident in this investigator who has contacted him, so far as to say that if Sarah here turns out to uninfected, he will take full responsibility for his actions. With that sort of an outlook, I am inclined to believe he is telling the truth, or at least the version of it that he believes to be truth, as making a false statement like that would be suicide for him tomorrow. With that reasoning, I do believe we may be able to trust his word, assuming he hasn't been duped.

What thoughts do the rest of you have on this? I think we should discuss our course of action together first so we don't make any mistakes, however I do believe we need to take action today and reach a majority vote, so the talk will need to be fairly brisk. We cannot afford to waste another day, as the infected are slowly but surely reducing our numbers, unfortunately.

I know for a fact that he is uninfected, so going after him makes me suspicious. Simple as that.

When you find someone you know you can trust, you tend to get suspicious when others accuse them. It isn't unusual at all.

But you haven't explained how you came to trust Michael implicitly. I can understand the difference between trusting him and his source, just curious as to how you came to the total faith you have in him.

Quoting something I said before further revelations have been made makes me a little suspicious as to your motives in doing so.

Yet again, you stated you trusted Michael before he delivered the revelation about Sarah. I am only trying to establish the reason for your faith in him, not his sources.

Whatever level of trust he has, if Michael ends up having trusted the investigator incorrectly, I'd certainly expect him to identify them so that we can deal with them. Wouldn't you? Call that selling out if you wish, but it makes perfect sense, why would he want to protect them if they turned out to have lied?

Further, he's taken responsibility for the information, which means that he dies tomorrow if it's wrong. How exactly can we lose here? We either get one infected or potentially two.

At this point, it's idiotic to oppose such an opportunity. Idiotic, or revealing other motives, I'll leave that to the rest of you to decide.

The only reasoning I can find for Sarah, is she has been infected overnight, which would be perfect, as we all saw her vote for a infected crew member, and to then be turned is a huge advantage! Or the reverse investigator/infected investigator role bearing fruit.

If my motives are in question that is fine, as nobody should trust anyone at this stage, however I know I am not infected and this will of course be proven through investigation or death, so I stand quite happy in trying to find infected crew members knowing I have a clear conscience. It appears you are also set in your trust at this stage too, be it true or misguided, only time will of course tell.

My reasoning for not voting for Sarah stands, I truly believe that she is not infected due only to the fact that she voted first for an infected person when there was no pressure placed on her or Jad Suur at that stage of the day, seems good enough for me! The rest of you may make up your own minds however, I will not try to sway anyone with the two conflicting stories. If Michael offers himself up as a sacrifice, then that is his prerogative, it will not sway my vote.

I'm not quite sure what to make of all this. While michael seems to have an investigator he has a strong case, yet it's entirely possible he was duped. So I'm not sure there and I'll hold off on that vote.

However you seem awfully eager to vote for someone who voted against an infected who you are now accusing of being infected herself... I'm not quite sure what to do at this point.

You all make compelling cases, it's starting to confuse me...

This is a really long shot, but if a vigilante or investigator would be willing to contact me privately, I would greatly appreciate it!

Whatever level of trust he has, if Michael ends up having trusted the investigator incorrectly, I'd certainly expect him to identify them so that we can deal with them. Wouldn't you? Call that selling out if you wish, but it makes perfect sense, why would he want to protect them if they turned out to have lied?

Further, he's taken responsibility for the information, which means that he dies tomorrow if it's wrong. How exactly can we lose here? We either get one infected or potentially two.

At this point, it's idiotic to oppose such an opportunity. Idiotic, or revealing other motives, I'll leave that to the rest of you to decide.

You see, this is just the kind of behavior I would expect from someone who is infected. You're not thinking straight. Obviously, the investigator relayed their findings to someone they trusted, which is apparently not you. Michael has shared this information with everyone very willingly, and now you're saying that the investigator is lying? What if they were simply wrong- they might be insane or paranoid. Michael is the one that gave away information- so shouldn't it be his fault if Sarah is clean? His choice to point the finger, his choice to take the blame.

However, I do believe something unique is happening here. I've discussed this matter with another passenger, and I've come to the conclusion that our investigator is sane, for now. I believe Sarah to be uninfected, but there might be another variable that could be as dangerous as an infected person. We'll see in the morning. So for now, I will cautiously vote.

Vote: Sarah Ohce/ Sir Dillon

This is tentative, so I may take this back, but in the meantime...

I don't know how any of you lily-livered milksops ever made it through Starship Academy You're the most ineffectual and indecisive bunch I've seen in all my days as a member of the SSS. It really isn't that complex. Head of Security Michael says he has been contacted by someone he says he trusts who believes that Sarah Ohce is infected.

There are a few scenarios:

1) Sarah is voted out and is found to be infected, as Michael says. Yay! We have purged ourselves of a menace, Michael is vindicated, and the investigator can be trusted. A win for the non-infected.

2) Sarah is voted out and her alleged baby is found to be infected, although she herself is uninfected. Yay! We have purged ourselves of a menace, Michael is vindicated, and the investigator can be trusted. Plus, an evil baby got tossed out the airlock. Another win for the non-infected.

3) Sarah is voted out and found to be uninfected. Michael looks bad, but as he says he is prepared to face this on the chin. Either we believe him or it may be, as Florentzia says, the investigator is paranoid or insane. Michael can then tell us who the investigator is and they can face the music. If they are loyal, I am sure they will corroborate his story. At least then we know who the investigator is and what use they are for further encounters. Another win for the uninfected!

4) Sarah is voted out and found to be uninfected. Michael blames the investigator and claims innocence. If Michael is infected, this is a great way to get rid of both Sarah and the investigator. However, if the investigator is unreliable, this is no great shakes anyway. Indeed if this scenario played out it would be very telling and Michael would face very close further scrutiny in any of his further actions. So, not a huge win for the uninfected but at least it would give us more information to go on.

I don't really see what the moral dilemma is here, people, except that Susan 'Big Suze' Antares is confusing everyone by claiming to have dark, dark suspicions and secret knowledge which she doesn't seem too forthcoming with. Plus, as Florentzia says, Suze's hovering finger over the 'edit' button is kind of distracting, since I've found that I've replied to posts that have had stuff added to them by the time I've composed my own reply.

In conclusion... unless Sarah has some amazing and confounding special skills we don't know about, I recommend she be voted out for what her status will reveal according to all of the above scenarios. After all, if the infected are going all this way to pin a conspiracy against Sarah, it would seem they already know what her amazing special night action is and will pursue her - by other means - once night falls once more*.

*Well, of course, except we're in space and there is no real night - the AI just dims the lights every sleep cycle

I am torn between you two for providing too many conflicting reports, Sarah possibly being infected, yet voting first for an infected person, and whether the investigator could in fact be a reverse investigator! yielding positive infection results when a person is clean.

Another possibility is that Sarah was infected overnight! Did anyone stop to think that the wieners could in fact occasionally infect more of us?

My reports have conflicted with nobody else's. Please be specific about which one has. You seem to be running a circular argument against your own theory to make it look like I've contradicted myself which I haven't. What the hell is a reverse investigator? It seems you are going out of your way to try to confuse others.

Michael are you willing to tell us who told you the info about Sarah?

Uh, no...duh. That's the whole point. Protecting the investigator. Remind me to never hire you for my security team.

My reasoning for not voting for Sarah stands, I truly believe that she is not infected due only to the fact that she voted first for an infected person when there was no pressure placed on her or Jad Suur at that stage of the day, seems good enough for me! The rest of you may make up your own minds however, I will not try to sway anyone with the two conflicting stories. If Michael offers himself up as a sacrifice, then that is his prerogative, it will not sway my vote.

OK, so you honestly need more than the fact that my investigator tells me she has a wiener as Sarah herself admits to having scars on her belly and something growing inside of her????

I'm not quite sure what to make of all this. While michael seems to have an investigator he has a strong case, yet it's entirely possible he was duped. So I'm not sure there and I'll hold off on that vote.

However you seem awfully eager to vote for someone who voted against an infected who you are now accusing of being infected herself... I'm not quite sure what to do at this point.

You all make compelling cases, it's starting to confuse me...

Buck up little camper. There are lives at stake, including yours. It's not the time to be wishy-washy. Pick who you believe and stick to it. The black hole isn't getting any farther away. Or it might be by some physics property that I have no knowledge of. Any nerd care to jump in and explain, that'd be cool.

From what our Head of Security has said, he seems very confident in this investigator who has contacted him, so far as to say that if Sarah here turns out to uninfected, he will take full responsibility for his actions. With that sort of an outlook, I am inclined to believe he is telling the truth, or at least the version of it that he believes to be truth, as making a false statement like that would be suicide for him tomorrow. With that reasoning, I do believe we may be able to trust his word, assuming he hasn't been duped.

4) Sarah is voted out and found to be uninfected. Michael blames the investigator and claims innocence. If Michael is infected, this is a great way to get rid of both Sarah and the investigator. However, if the investigator is unreliable, this is no great shakes anyway. Indeed if this scenario played out it would be very telling and Michael would face very close further scrutiny in any of his further actions. So, not a huge win for the uninfected but at least it would give us more information to go on.

Thank you, you two, for wording out the two scenarios I feel are so likely. I'm conflicted. If he is infected, this is a gutsy move. He is hoping to get rid of Ohce and the investigator, and then once the investigator is turned out to be innocnet, he can simply claim they must have been paranoid.

That's extremely gutsy however, and now has been exposed as a potential path, so if that happens, his cover is blown.

It comes down, not to a probablity, which is what I'd be good at, but to a judge of human character. Do we think that Sheridan is gutsy enough to pull this trick? Me, personally, I belive he is only gutsy enough if he's uninfected. If he's infected, he should be laying low. If he's uninfected, it's possible he could die at any point anyway. He may as well be useful.

For that reason alone, I vote: Sarah Ohce/Sir Dillon

Well, it seems I'm stuck in quite the situation. To be honest, if it were someone else in my place, I would probably vote for them, so I don't blame most of you. I don't have enough information to satisfy you, and am not quick enough on my feet to make up something plausible. Here's what I do know:

I am not infected. This "condition" has been around since before I even became part of the security team on Gagarin, and I am not dangerous as long as I'm alive.

As far as the various scenarios, at this point I believe that both Sheridan and the investigator are innocent. My guess is that the on first night the investigator scanned Sheridan and found him the be loyal. The next night I was scanned and found to be abnormal, so the investigator contacted Sheridan who in turn spoke publicly.

Or maybe they're both infected and deserve to be exterminated.

I am not infected. This "condition" has been around since before I even became part of the security team on Gagarin, and I am not dangerous as long as I'm alive.

Um...what? So, you're not in danger as long as you're alive? Sounds like you're infected and you're probably spreading it as well. How does it become dangerous if you die? I'm confused by this and more convinced that we should get rid of you.

Um...what? So, you're not in danger as long as you're alive? Sounds like you're infected and you're probably spreading it as well. How does it become dangerous if you die? I'm confused by this and more convinced that we should get rid of you.

Before I vote, I'd like to hear Sarah's answer to this question.

Great, she's some kind of Typhoid Mary?

Yes, let's take her back to Earth Not!

I don't know why she has been so needlessly vague and not just explained everything simply.

If we do get rid of her, maybe we should just shoot her out into space still breathing - she can't do us any harm then, surely?

Since I have become aware of new information + information and facts already stated in this discussion

I have decided.

Vote: Sarah Ohce/Sir Dillion