If one more person votes for Garry, I'll switch.

My dynamite proposal was ill-considered. Just trying to think of ways we can narrow the pool of potential original things. Having one of the six people I mentioned throw dynamite at me would waste dynamite, but it would exonerate one person while freeing the vote for somebody else. Then there'd only be four people who the original Things could be.

Copper votes Garry
Childs votes Garry
MacReady votes Blair
Blair votes Garry
Fuchs votes Fuchs
Garry votes Fuchs
Windows votes Fuchs

Bennings hasn't voted
Nauls hasn't voted
Palmer hasn't voted

Assuming my detonation didn't change how the votes stand:

Copper votes Garry
Childs votes Garry
MacReady votes Blair
Blair votes Garry
Fuchs votes Fuchs
Garry votes Fuchs

Windows hasn't voted
Bennings hasn't voted
Nauls hasn't voted
Palmer hasn't voted

Garry has 3 votes, I have 2, and Blair has 1. If two more people vote for Garry, I'll switch my vote as well. Windows, Bennings, Nauls, Palmer: what's going on, guys? Why so quiet?

Fuchs appears to be talking to himself. "Hey, guess what? Your obvious innocence is only obvious to yourself. Any seemingly foolproof plan that somehow 'proves' your innocence that doesn't involve testing yourself is suspect: sure, a Thing might be leery of the possibility of people voting for a self-test, but a Thing is also just as capable of arguing that that very possibility means we shouldn't waste time with voting for it as the test recipient. I may be a dick for throwing dynamite at a fellow innocent--but I'm a dick with a 1/9 chance of being a newly-turned Thing, rather than a dick with a 3/11 chance of being a Thing. Which, yes, is such a minor mathematical difference that you might as well not bother: it's something I failed to consider before committing to this plan... just as you failed to consider that your plan doesn't necessarily exonerate you in every innocent's eyes."

-----

Still voting for myself, but:

MacReady
Blair
Childs
Bennings
Garry
Windows

Two of these people are Things.

What? No. When Norris expressed a desire not to scan himself, I said the following:

No, no, that's fine. No problem. Let's look at Blair instead.

After all, I have a little test of my own that we can use on you afterward.

The test I was talking about was dynamite. I assumed any innocent player who got the self-test would have seen how day 1 went down--that, by not self-testing, Palmer just ensured that we all voted for him--and would have known better than to claim that we can't afford to waste time.

For that matter, Fuchs. Let's all test me, so that the flamethrower can burn Blair tonight instead.

Just wanted to let you guys know that, in about 8 hours, I'm going to throw my dynamite at Norris. Norris, you can avert this fate by either throwing dynamite of your own or by claiming to possess a flamethrower--in which case, you're likely to get turned tonight, so the other flamethrower had better burn you to be safe.

I should probably also point out two alternative outcomes if you claim to have a flamethower: the Things don't turn you, but you get burned anyway... or I may ignore both possibilities and throw dynamite at you anyway.

Guild really has a thing for appalling avatars, I guess. He finally gets rid of Shrek-baby in favor of fuck you teeth

Considering our time limit, Norris may need to take the initiative and either scan himself or somebody else before all the votes come in.

I would actually be more interested in testing Norris if somebody else had gotten the extra test. All the same, I'll also put my italics vote on Norris.

p.s. I'm throwing dynamite today. I'd just as soon wait until our first test has come back before we get too in-depth on potential targets.

What. No. Listen.

The self-test commitment is a terrible idea, because while it may find a Thing in the unlikely event that a Thing gets the self-test, it definitely creates a pool of Strategically Optimal Candidates for Assimilation.

I don't think the self-test commitment gives us as much info as you'd think. I mean, look at this:

I think I actually agree with your logic there:

If I have the test, I'm Human and I test myself, that proves that I am Human.

If I have the test, I'm Human, and I test someone else, then I prove that they are Human or The Thing.

If I have the test, I'm Thing and I refuse to test myself, that proves that I am Thing.

If I have the test, I'm Thing, and I test someone else, then I prove that they are Human or The Thing.

So it seems like in the majority of cases there, the random test will end up with at least a possibility of finding a Thing if not for sure identifying one if they refuse to test themselves. Only the first case results in for sure, no thing being found. This is assuming of course that we all play by the rule, test yourself unless asked otherwise.

I'm for this plan.

Trust in Childs++

I don't even know where to start with this nonsense. "The majority of cases" is bullshit because Childs' proposal that we default to self-testing means that, of your four scenarios, only the first one is actually happening the majority of the time. Most of the time, self-testing just identifies a human. Let me reiterate that we don't need to find humans, since humans can just turn into Things the next night.

What I am saying is that self-testing only makes sense if the person with the test has never been tested before--but if we excuse people who've been tested before from examining themselves in order to maximize our chances of finding the two initial Things, the third scenario no longer works.

Basically, test Palmer, but we cannot adopt any strategy that commits us to a predictable course of action.

Not that this is a reflection on this Palmer, but last game's Palmer tried to get us to test the same person three times in a row because, with each innocent result, that individual became a "more tempting" target for assimilation, all the while coordinating the Things to assimilate other individuals. Let's avoid the entire debate by remembering the best thing Childs said in this thread: "No person should ever be considered a bad test target."