[center:74zj0fdp]< The following file is a transcript of a discussion of the seekers. They have been color coded and tagged.>[/center:74zj0fdp]
FILE NAME: Project PANOPTICON
[center:74zj0fdp][BEGIN TRANSCRIPT][/center:74zj0fdp]
Pairings?
-we have discretion in this matter but not total control: it would be a misallocation of our resources to micromanage pairs. Which pairs do we think are important, or would give us good information on Pilot movements? Not to mention work as effective teams. (Alesku)
Eftwyrd and Mauburin are assigned already on another mission- to pick up a potential psychic in Midhaven. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to test out the system, provided that the Imperial approves of the Project. (Darsche)
Eftwyrd and Mauburin are both on the hotlist. I don't see why Xhi would fail to approve the Project, it seems to be quite useful. Without a military engagement Pilots are getting idle. (Alesku)
We can see potentially spot suspicious activity if we can compare the movements of these two with a pair of loyal Pilots. Or those we assume to be loyal. Since they are already deployed, it wouldn't hurt to see how this odd pair would work out. (Darsche)
Rosales and Tierney have gone on a number of missions together, too. I think we also need to consider efficiency. Weak Pilots sorted by allegiance. Strong Pilots sorted by allegiance. But--sorry, minutia again. The real question is, whom do we think we could really test using this system? Take Eftwyrd as the wild card. Pair him up with several suspects and non-suspects. Which do we rotate out to other pairs?
-If we rotate out the nonsuspects the suspects might begin to feel complacent and make some mistake.
-If we rotate out the suspects we can track erratic behavior. Why not try both patterns over several weeks? (Alesku)
I would prefer to try to rotate around the nonsuspects, first. From complacency to a sudden rash of rotations on missions- some of the suspects bound to make a small mistake here or there, simply from a change in expectations. I agree with using both patterns- rotating only the nonsuspects makes no sense, while rotating only the suspects will make them more aware that we're watching them- they'll keep a closer eye on their behavior. We don't need them even more defensive than they probably already are. (Darsche)
So now we're suspecting the nonsuspects? This is what my charming former Candidate would call a 'circlejerk,' but I'll acquiesce. I still think we ought to switch up the pattern as we go. I'll work up a dynamical systems model. (Alesku)
We'd be fools to only look at the suspects. You wouldn't want /us/ getting complacent, would you? (Darsche)
That's hardly my point. My point is simply that we need to draw the line somewhere. One begins with a simple proposition and follows it outward. If we begin with the proposition of general uncertainty, we will get nowhere. Now, the computer can model general systems trends, but we are better served by logic. (Alesku)
I'm aware that we have to start out slowly, lest we get nowhere. However, move /too/ slowly, and there could be consequences down the line. A leak, for instance. Though I know the security here is immense, they've proven once before that they've Pilots on their side capable of cracking security. And really, it's only a matter of time before they get suspicious. Though there's no way around a slow and steady method... I wish there was a faster alternative. (Darsche)
We're all frustrated. (Alesku)
It can't be helped. (Darsche)
[center:74zj0fdp][END TRANSCRIPT][/center:74zj0fdp]
