www.ditl.org

Why?
To both comments, that is.

First off I'm not going to shoot someone without a reason. Second, you've done everything possible to get people to start shooting without reason. The two work well together.

Rochey wrote:And your protests have actualy gotten me quite suspicious towards you, Mikey. Why so eager to prevent us taking the most rational course of action? Trying to protect your Founder kin? If Nick turns out guilty, then I'm suggesting that MM&I test you next.

Nice. I actually agreed with you about the necessity of doing what you said, just disagreed about the target for a valid reason. Is some other reason for your paranoiac attitude? Why are you so eager to prevent further discussion.

Geez, I'm tired of this. IDK, I could as easily have said "I have proof that nobody else can read." I know something has to be done, I just think you're shooting from the hip, Rochey...

Well what else have we got to go on? My logic is perfect in this situation. Examine the situation:

Either Nick is a Founder, or MM&I is.

Now, MM&I has claimed to know how to detect Founders. If he's telling the truth, he's a great asset to us.
Nick, on the other hand, has claimed to be nothing more than a normal human. This means that he's less valuable then MM&I.
Nick has been accused of being a Founder by MM&I, who claims to have proof. This means that either MM&I is a Founder or Nick is. This means there are four possible scenarios:

1) If we kill Nick, and he turns out to be a Founder, then we take down one enemy and retain a valuable asset.

2) If we kill Nick and he turns out to be a human, then we kill the obvious imposter MM&I, at which point the ratio of Founders to humans remains the same.

3) If we kill MM&I and he turns out to be a Founder, then we kill one enemy and retain a standard human who's of little use.

4) If we kill MM&I and he turns out to be telling the truth, then we lose the most valuable asset we have, and then take down one enemy.

So tell me, which of those situations is the most inteligent way of going about this matter? Obviously, scenario 1. So why the opposition to a logicaly sound suggestion?

Oh, and if I seem eager to start killing the enemy, that's probably down to that little point that I don't particularly want to die.

Rochey is right: if MMI is lying, then he's exposed himself as a Founder and he's dead goo. This is our first good lead, and we need to eliminate the Founders quickly to stop their rampage.

Exactly. Regardless of what happens when we kill Nick, we know who one Founder is and can eliminate him. Problem 1/3 solved!

Or, nick is wrong and neither of them are founders and then we kill two humans and our best asset for finding out who is a founder.

If MM&I can really detect founders, why the hell would he lie? He obviously tested someone last night, so he knows one person that's either innocent or guilty. So why would lie and accuse someone he's never tested of being a Founder? It makes no sense. He'd know full well that once he was found to be wrong he'd be the next to be killed. He'd have to be utterly braindead to do that.
So either he's a Founder imposter trying to act as though he's on our side, or he's telling the truth and Nick's a Founder.

Ergo, one of them is a Founder.

Okay, looking back I can see how my actions may seem a bit hasty. But I defy anyone to tell me my logic is not sound.

Deepcrush wrote:Or, nick is wrong and neither of them are founders and then we kill two humans and our best asset for finding out who is a founder.

I appreciate the vote of confidence in my logic skills. Now I ask why would I lie about the having the ability to detect Founders. This really a lose/lose for me and a win/lose for you. If I lied and accused someone at random, and Nick is Human, I'm next to get shot. If I'm telling the truth, I've set myself up as the next target. The lose/lose for me is either you guys kill me for being wrong, or a Founder kills me for being right (unless we have a security officer somewhere?). The win/lose for you is you lose a Founder and gain someone who can detect them. OR you kill the medic and then get killed by a Founder.

The logic you present in those four options is sound, Rochey, save for this: claiming to be able to detect Founders is a good way to make people keep you around... like you're proposing. I guess I see what you're saying in that if we kill Nick first, we have a second shot at MM&I. That is, until next time someone purchases a piece of agricultural property, and MM&I claims to have made another discovery...

I guess I'm saying that I see how your logic works, but only if we commit to both parts. Just sticking to the first part means that we just killed someone based on the word of a person who might well be trying to deflect attention from himself.

And then the accuser would find himself on the chopping block. Not a great method of self-preservation, eh?

That's what I mean - we have to commit to both steps of your plan.

Mikey wrote:That's what I mean - we have to commit to both steps of your plan.

But either way, someone is going to die at one point or another...

Either way a Founder is going to die at some point.

So I call the vote. I vote yes, and Lazar has already stated his support for killing Nick. Presumably, MM&I votes yes as well.
Aye or nay, people.