thecomputer: (Default)
The Computer ([personal profile] thecomputer) wrote in [community profile] alphacomplex2014-11-09 04:32 pm
Entry tags:

TRIAL 02

Attention, Citizens! You have ten minutes to proceed to the Loyalty Chamber. Anyone who is late to the Loyalty Chamber, or who brings any weapons into the Loyalty Chamber, will be immediately executed.

[Once you arrive, you will find a large chamber, with twenty podiums spaced around the room in a circle. On the ceiling, a massive screen showing the digital eye of The Computer, turning to look at whoever is talking.]

You have one hour to come to a consensus about who to eliminate. Ties will be broken randomly.

[The floor of the chamber begins to split apart, eventually only leaving the twenty podiums as safe places to stand, above a seemingly bottomless abyss. Each podium lights up with a touch screen showing twenty user IDs (the dead are grayed out), plus the word “ABSTAIN”. However, ABSTAIN has now been grayed out as well. The trial begins now!]

[[Vote here.]]
thefaceofjustice: (Do you like my sunglasses?)

[personal profile] thefaceofjustice 2014-11-10 03:23 am (UTC)(link)
[Nods.] Mr. Newman was part of a trial I was investigating before I got here.

I think the message that turned up is too important to ignore. I couldn't get any fingerprints off of it... but I'm pretty sure it was left by a communist to falsely accuse Ms. Phi. The loyalty officer called it fake, and I can't see a reason for another citizen to have written it.

I spoke to Ms. Phi, and she said she hadn't had any private conversations before the message appeared, or any reason to suspect anyone else of having a reason to write it... except for Mr. Kimbley, whom she voted against on the first trial.

This isn't decisive evidence, but it's not based on personality or relationships, and the message is the only move we can see that they've made outside of their night actions. They probably thought the loyalty officer would either stay quiet or reveal themselves. But that didn't happen; what happened is that now Ms. Phi looks more like a safe ally. If they slipped-up, we shouldn't ignore it.

...I'm really sorry Mr. Kimbley... but unless something changes, you're my top suspect.
alchemicals: ...periodically (006.)

[personal profile] alchemicals 2014-11-10 03:31 am (UTC)(link)
...So tell me something, Fulbright. Why would I do something that obvious?

[Kimbley, to his credit, does not seem bothered by the accusation.]

I was the only one with a weird vote against me during the last trial. Why the hell would I go after the person who did it, unless I'm really just that petty? I'm no tactician, but I don't go around painting targets on my head and standing in front of a sniper nest.

If we're going to be using logic like that, you could just as easily say Phi is trying to set me up - first by placing the weird vote, then making it look like I'm after her for some sort of fuckheaded revenge.
thefaceofjustice: (41)

[personal profile] thefaceofjustice 2014-11-10 03:46 am (UTC)(link)
It's not solid proof... you're a suspect, not a convict. But I think it'd be even less fair to vote on feelings, and I don't have any stronger leads to go on.

Are you saying you think Ms. Phi is one of them? What if the loyalty officer didn't respond, and she was voted out?
alchemicals: (007.)

[personal profile] alchemicals 2014-11-10 04:01 am (UTC)(link)
I'm not going to say that I think Phi's one of them, because I don't know if she is or not and all of you tend to foam at the mouth at the slightest suggestion.

If you don't want to vote on feelings, that's fair. But you're still not answering the question of why I would practically incriminate myself just to try to drag Phi.
thefaceofjustice: (Do you like my sunglasses?)

[personal profile] thefaceofjustice 2014-11-10 04:10 am (UTC)(link)
I don't know if you were foolish enough to put yourself under suspicion like this. ...Or if you were smart enough to use the simplicity of it as an excuse to say you didn't.

...Or if I'm wrong, but the fact is that I still have no higher suspects on my list, and no option to abstain on voting anymore...
alchemicals: (005.)

[personal profile] alchemicals 2014-11-10 04:12 am (UTC)(link)
Why are you so adamant about ignoring any of the other theories?

[He still sounds completely unbothered by any of this.]

I've given you an alternate scenario for why Phi's name could have been written down. What's wrong with it?
Edited 2014-11-10 04:13 (UTC)
thefaceofjustice: (05)

[personal profile] thefaceofjustice 2014-11-10 04:23 am (UTC)(link)
Because evidence is stronger than speculation, and because if today had gone any different, that message would have meant Ms. Phi's death.

Your idea is possible, but you're still more of a suspect than she is right now...
alchemicals: ...periodically (006.)

[personal profile] alchemicals 2014-11-10 04:24 am (UTC)(link)
Am I?

Did you bother asking her why she thought I needed to die?
thefaceofjustice: (57)

[personal profile] thefaceofjustice 2014-11-10 04:26 am (UTC)(link)
I heard her tell you that she thought you were pushing too hard.
alchemicals: (005.)

[personal profile] alchemicals 2014-11-10 04:28 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, but there's a problem with that - we need a majority vote to kill people.

Why did she vote for me, by herself, when it was obvious everyone else was gunning to kill Moge-ko? If I was that big a threat, I'd think she'd at least try to draw attention to it.
alchemicals: (008.)

[personal profile] alchemicals 2014-11-10 04:34 am (UTC)(link)
[...Wow.]

...Or that'll just clear everything up.
thefaceofjustice: (Do you like my sunglasses?)

[personal profile] thefaceofjustice 2014-11-10 04:37 am (UTC)(link)
[........Awkward pushing up of sunglasses.]

I... I'm really sorry for the trouble, Mr. Kimbley. I don't think I consider you the top suspect anymore...
alchemicals: all icons by <user name="dalicious"> (SMIRK ‡ i never feel pain; hit me again)

[personal profile] alchemicals 2014-11-10 04:40 am (UTC)(link)
No hard feelings.

I'd suggest that you and Phi watch it if I die tonight, though.
schrodingers_man: (Hope you guess my name)

[personal profile] schrodingers_man 2014-11-10 03:43 am (UTC)(link)
Let me ask you a question, Detective. If the Communists left that message, and it looks like they did, then why? To get us to vote for one of our own, right? But why would they bother to do that? We didn't have any leads yesterday, and we don't have any leads today. It's still likely, no matter who we choose, that we'll end up picking one of our own again.

The purpose of a trap like this is to mislead us, and they wouldn't need to mislead us unless we were actually close. Only one person voted for Kimbley yesterday, but I think most of found the idea that the Communists would recruit someone they know pretty believable.
thefaceofjustice: (40)

[personal profile] thefaceofjustice 2014-11-10 03:59 am (UTC)(link)
You could be right. I don't know for sure if this is the path of justice! Without strong evidence, I would abstain again if I could. But if I have to, I'm going to vote for the top suspect... even if I can't be sure, and might be making an awful mistake......
schrodingers_man: (I've been around for a long long year)

[personal profile] schrodingers_man 2014-11-10 04:13 am (UTC)(link)
...No matter who we pick, we could be wrong. That's a risk we have to take. Reasoning like this is the best I can do.