Topic: The Thing Returns (PT) (Read 14947 times)

Friday · « **Reply #40 on:** September 14, 2010, 01:49:54 AM »

Nauls tests human.

Please note that this does not reset votes.

The Day continues.

Pa1mer · « **Reply #41 on:** September 14, 2010, 01:52:11 AM »

Hey, thanks for thinkin' about it anyway.

Childs_Armitage · « **Reply #42 on:** September 14, 2010, 02:26:45 AM »

My vote is sticking on Palmer.

Hangin' With Dr Copper · « **Reply #43 on:** September 14, 2010, 05:35:54 AM »

Well, that sassy, uzi-toting gent irks my well-mannered demeanor almost as much as that abominable THE THING, but I have to agree with him!

Fuchs is onto something. While he might have been Too Stupid To Live in the movie, much as my own good self, this one seems to be some sort of mathematician, and I can tell you now, no Thing would ever put so much effort into doing maths, if only because the humiliation associated with being tested anyway would spell doom for such a beast's self-esteem.

Speaking of the super-intelligent being exempt from testing, we just witnessed Palmer not only staunchly refusing a self-test, but doing the exact opposite of Fuchs's advice of doing the testing on people who hadn't posted yet, hence why I was holding off on posting. Palmer, my boy, you're a Thing.

I was born MacReady · « **Reply #44 on:** September 14, 2010, 06:21:43 AM »

Jesus christ you're all a bunch of chatter monkeys. Look, we can sit around discussing odds and ends all day long, or we can actually get something done today. Palmer gets that. But since he did use his test on someone else, I'd sleep easier tonight if we tested Palmer, just to be on the safe side. If you all want to test me, I'm not going to raise too much of a fuss, but I guarantee that it will be wasting our time.

W Brimlair · « **Reply #45 on:** September 14, 2010, 06:38:29 AM »

Damn it, I already destroyed the helicopters, the snowtrack and the radio AND killed all the dogs. What's everyone worried about, we just need to destroy the whole station and ourselves now and the Thing loses.

Now just untie me so I can get started.... no? Well fine, none of you know what's going on here anyway.

Fuchs and Window's math seems legit and doesn't seem to be goading us into any foolish choices, so I'm gonna go ahead and trust them a little for now until I catch one of them trying to lead us astray in a at all sloppy manner.

I don't like how Garry got off with seeming relatively quiet for so long and then posting something very reassuring that anyone could have posted. However, Palmer's acting real weird and his random foolish test and then pointless voting for MacReady has me a little worried. That said, he almost seems too suspicious, like he's an innocent who doesn't know what to do but has nothing to hide and so is saying a lot of stuff that would reveal a Thing. I mean Nauls voted for MacReady and he's human enough. But then maybe Palmer's just a sloppy Thing and Nauls a gullible Human.

Childs seems suspicious to me for making a dumb plan and then going pretty quiet but at least he's talking.

Bennings is being real quiet, but maybe he's just not around, we have honestly pretty much just been playing last night and only after 9pm or so. I don't know if we want to claim inactivity makes you a Thing. Bennings, Clark, Norris, and Copper Have all been pretty quiet. The first three almost completely, the latter more strategically.

~~My vote is for Dr. Copper but I think we should test Palmer as soon as possible with the next rando-test.~~

Actually on second thought, fine. Just test Palmer, he's weird.

But if he's Human it's gonna increase my suspicion of Childs and Copper.

Bennings · « **Reply #46 on:** September 14, 2010, 07:54:14 AM »

It was pretty strange of Palmer to test Nauls, since the quiet people should (rightfully) be the most suspicious ones, but maybe we should find out why his reasoning behind testing Nauls before determining if we should test him or not?

Hangin' With Dr Copper · « **Reply #47 on:** September 14, 2010, 08:39:41 AM »

Well all I see is a bunch of men behaving badly. You might as well just shoot me if you're not going acknowledge that we're a family, and family matters. Now we've got a full house here, so I'll be the nanny if need be, because I'm mad about you, all of you. I'm feeling good enough that these wings of mine roseanne the news on the news radio is that we're fresh princes. Still, we're gonna need some good old-fashioned home improvement if we're gonna survive. I know some of you are married with children, even if you have some simpsons, but we're all friends here.

Seinfeld.

W Brimlair · « **Reply #48 on:** September 14, 2010, 08:51:47 AM »

Well I have a hunch that Palmer's early, seemingly random vote on MacReady was just an honest Human's attempt to see if he could attract bandwagoners. He found one in Nauls and then wham he tested him, suspecting anyone who sided with a random vote like that to be a Thing.

A reasonable plan, but I don't like how he didn't listen to the conversation and suggestions for how the dice granted test should be used. So I'm leaving my vote on him now, though I do suspect Dr. Copper more.

Fuchsia · « **Reply #49 on:** September 14, 2010, 09:18:44 AM »

Still no word from Norris or Clark.

The Ghost of Noris Batasha · « **Reply #50 on:** September 14, 2010, 10:15:37 AM »

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and toss in a token bandwagon vote for Palmer

Fuchsia · « **Reply #51 on:** September 14, 2010, 10:40:36 AM »

Cool. Clark.

Fuchsia · « **Reply #52 on:** September 14, 2010, 10:41:58 AM »

Quote

Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 0

...huh.

Windows 7 · « **Reply #53 on:** September 14, 2010, 11:29:28 AM »

I am curious as to Palmer's intent for scanning Nauls, but not enough to straight up push the vote on him, yet.

We still have time remaining, so I'd rather keep the discussion flowing, and then clinch the vote closer to the deadline. We should be maximizing information right now, so namely:

- Palmer, what was the deal with Nauls?
- Clark, are you just whacking it in your bunk, or do you have something to hide?
- All of you single posters, where have you been, all alone, up to now?

Childs_Armitage · « **Reply #54 on:** September 14, 2010, 11:57:20 AM »

My theory: Palmer threw his test at Nauls before anybody could outright demand that Palmer tests himself. Now we're stuck squabbling over the vote test.

I think Palmer is a Thing. I'll tell you right now: if I ever get the test, and I refuse to test myself, I'm a Thing. Not to say that I won't use it on someone else if asked, but if the pressure is on me to do it to myself, I'm not going to throw it at someone else unless I'm a Thing.

If Palmer's a human, fine. I don't see how it would make ME any more suspicious if that's the case, Dr. Blair; it's not like I'm voting to kill Palmer.

Childs_Armitage · « **Reply #55 on:** September 14, 2010, 12:02:07 PM »

Quote from: Childs_Armitage on September 14, 2010, 11:57:20 AM

I'll tell you right now: if I ever get the test, and I refuse to test myself, I'm a Thing. Not to say that I won't use it on someone else if asked, but if the pressure is on me to do it to myself, I'm not going to throw it at someone else unless I'm a Thing.

In fact, I think this is a decent thing for all of us to commit to. Default to self-testing, unless for some special reason it is specifically requested that you do otherwise. If you do this, all of us become terrible targets for the Thing to turn. It's a winning strategy.

W Brimlair · « **Reply #56 on:** September 14, 2010, 12:19:23 PM »

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++

_Clark_ · « **Reply #57 on:** September 14, 2010, 12:50:33 PM »

sup guys

Might as well vote for Palmer, then.

I suppose we can try the self-testing thing.

Fuchsia · « **Reply #58 on:** September 14, 2010, 01:08:49 PM »

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:

Quote from: W Brimlair on September 14, 2010, 12:19:23 PM

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."

Friday · « **Reply #59 on:** September 14, 2010, 01:14:24 PM »

The Majority of you decide to test the man with the wire.

Palmer is human.

Night roles.

IMPORTANT:

FLAMETHROWERS, SEND ME A PM STATING YOUR INTENTIONS, EVEN IF YOU ARE GOING TO KILL NOBODY.

News:

Author Topic: The Thing Returns (PT) (Read 14947 times)