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."