Maybe next year the obvious landslide candidate will be the one I like.
As usual, the most openly murderous, treasonous and amoral villain won. Never mind that he’s a confirmed top agent of one enemy faction and a brutal ex-slaver for an even worse one.
I sincerely hope there will be some way to throw a wrench into his plans, because otherwise we Londoners are thoroughly screwed as an independent people.
And did you notice - his posture when winning is already one of preparing for a fight. And that comes after a bout of diabolic laughter.
Interesting year indeed, and here I thought London had few downright villains…
I find it highly confusing that everyone seems to be taking this result so nonchalant. From what I have seen, Feducci was the objectively worst choice, with Failbetter going as far as including many of his flaws and faults as information in the election itself. It makes me question how he could not only win, but win with ~50% of the votes.
Everyone else had a plan, hardly any skeletons in their closets, and actually good intentions. Why in blazes did 50% vote for the flashy big-mouth with no plan but "We’re going to do things differently!" and a dedicated room only for all his skeletons? In this community, no less!
EDIT: I am not trying to incite anyone, these are my actual questions. Did I miss something major? Was it really just popularity?
edited by Jillius on 7/10/2017
unfortunately usually the most well-known characters already have a road paved to victory for them. Maybe introducing three completly new characters as candidates next year would help with that?
unfortunately usually the most well-known characters already have a road paved to victory for them. Maybe introducing three completly new characters as candidates next year would help with that?[/quote]
Or maybe provide less-costly ways to change candidates.
We’re being polite, and not insulting our fellow players’ choice of candidate!
I am sure that by now most people would have realized that they will really regret it if they insult someone and then happens to support the same candidates next year, sportsmanship aside. ;)
Well, changing a candidate shouldn’t come without consequences - you have, after all, influenced things in their favour.
Also on the matter of potential candidates - I think it’s important for the candidates to be roughly equally recognizable. For many players Feducci was the one they knew the most, Detective was mostly known amongst Watchful characters, and DTC… well, you could say she was the "literally who?" of the campaign.
PS.
It’s still amazing how much support she gathered, even with her relatively small exposure.
edited by Spitfire Youngster on 7/10/2017
[quote=Jillius]I find it highly confusing that everyone seems to be taking this result so nonchalant.
EDIT: I am not trying to incite anyone, these are my actual questions. Did I miss something major? Was it really just popularity?
[/quote]
Maybe because the average player treats it as fun game, rather than applying their real-world political views to a bonkers cartoon universe. I was in Feducci’s camp because as a player I want a fallen London with a murderous maniac in charge, rather than pair of well-meaning but tiresome stick-the-muds. Because it’s more fun that way!
And my character simply picked a candidate at random, as she used the entire election to get up to nefarious deeds and used all those election fixers to clear up after her.
yes, probably. I mean, for one, most of the players, even the newest ones, know him, either from his fighting rings or Black Ribbon society, and a fair number of them feels senitmental about their mutual stabbing time. Plus, he’s cool. You can’t fight coolness if you’re an old tea lady. You can fight coolness as a shadowy detective who never lost a case, but let’s be real. Feducci stabs people, rides a warhorse and if you throw a rotten tomato at him, he’s gonna shoot it out of the air. I’m afraid quite a number of players are really just as shallow as you fear they are ;) and a lot of people also roleplay as chaotic neutral or downright evil characters, so Feducci fits them well, even if the players’ personal views don’t align with his at all.
For some reason, Feducci was seen as the fun candidate. I could see why Jenny got so easily the lead last year -badass and good intentioned both. Feducci on the other hand was ugly from the beginning. Not complaining, playing is going to be fun either way, but surprised at how popular the guy turned out to be.
edited by Jolanda Swan on 7/10/2017
We’re being polite, and not insulting our fellow players’ choice of candidate![/quote]
I think there is a difference between "Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man." and questioning how things could come to be.
Sure, congratulations to all you who supported Feducci, but why did you do it? How do you think this will all play out? Like, literally, not even the man himself has a plan and with his track record, what do you think well be the bottom line?
EDIT: [quote=Plynkes]
Maybe because the average player treats it as fun game, rather than applying their real-world political views to a bonkers cartoon universe. I was in Feducci’s camp because as a player I want a fallen London with a murderous maniac in charge, rather than pair of well-meaning but tiresome stick-the-muds. Because it’s more fun that way![/quote] Valid point.
edited by Jillius on 7/10/2017
Another issue is that the order in which the candidates are revealed matters.
Namely, whichever candidate is revealed first has an easier time gathering loyalists than the other two. Simply by existing, those who would vote for that individual without even considering joining a different candidate, are given more time to sway the as of yet undecided masses.
It’s not long before other candidates are revealed, yes, but that short amount of time can make all the difference.
edited by Arcanuse on 7/10/2017
Well that was certainly an interesting election. Though the numbers say that it was mostly one-sided I was glad the at least on the forums there was a lot more doubt and debate about the chances and the candidates respective flaws and virtues.
I would like to extend a thanks to my fellow Feducci supporters to help him win, but more than that I would like to sincerely thank the supporters of the the Implacable Detective and the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner for being such excellent rivals and making the two weeks far more exciting and interesting than they would otherwise have been, and for being such good sports about the results.
I hope that should my chosen candidate loose next time that I will be able to have the same level of grace in defeat as they did. So I wish my heartfelt best wishes to everyone who have helped make this election so much fun, regardless of which candidate they supported.
last year I was one of those not-very-invested players who never visit forums and don’t see any propaganda or anything and I just voted for her because she was a sexy nun. pretty sure I wasn’t the only one in this. The majority of players will just go with a more eye-catching candidate, without giving it much thought. this maybe could be outweighted if the truly dedicated players were allowed to farm more than 50 points for their candidate?
edited by gronostaj on 7/10/2017
[quote=Jillius]I find it highly confusing that everyone seems to be taking this result so nonchalant. From what I have seen, Feducci was the objectively worst choice, with Failbetter going as far as including many of his flaws and faults as information in the election itself. It makes me question how he could not only win, but win with ~50% of the votes.
Everyone else had a plan, hardly any skeletons in their closets, and actually good intentions. Why in blazes did 50% vote for the flashy big-mouth with no plan but "We’re going to do things differently!" and a dedicated room only for all his skeletons? In this community, no less!
EDIT: I am not trying to incite anyone, these are my actual questions. Did I miss something major? Was it really just popularity?
edited by Jillius on 7/10/2017[/quote]
The Temperance Campaigner has explicitly called out Spirifers as one of her targets, of which I am one. So that’s out.
Frankly, the Detective’s associations with the Fingerkings worry me more than Feducci’s associations with the Presbytere (but the opposite view certainly has merit). Firstly, I think the Fingerkings are a bigger danger in general. Secondly, the Detective’s position seems to be one of indebtedness, whereas I get the impression that Feducci’s current relationship isn’t one of subservience.
I also think that Feducci’s lack of platform may have helped. I don’t see him having much interest in actually changing London, and I don’t think he’ll do much damage, whereas the Detective’s plans make me worried. She wants to assume the authority of deciding morality and corruption herself, and that centralization of power worries me. She also doesn’t deal with setbacks well (the Fingerking thing again), while Feducci doesn’t seem to mind obstacles.
It was also very much the expected result, so there’s no surprise there.
Even more once the mid-election poll results were announced.
I mean, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands players. No amount of forum activity is likely to make a difference (though we’ll know more when FBG release the election statistics).
I’m looking forward to a Can’t Discard card on which you have to gamble all your possessions and/or Notability.[li]
edited by Lady Sapho Byron on 7/10/2017
A figure cloaked in dark, flowing fabric stands near the front of the crowd–close enough to hear and see all, far enough not to be recognized. A jeering denouncer of the newly-elected Mayor raises her lantern high, the light flashing over the figure’s face, revealing a sharp, satisfied smile.
"All is as it should be," they say, scratching the Tigress by their side behind the ears and swiftly turning on their heels. The crowd parts easily for them: some casting wary looks at the enormous feline, some at the figure; most at both. "Come along now, Kitten. We have a lot of work to do, still."
Glad my candidate won, and might I congratulate our opponents for putting up such a good fight despite Feducci’s clear popularity from the start?
It was a fun election once again, though I have to agree that the debate mechanic, while entertaining, needs desperate rebalancing for next year. I got precisely two debates done during the whole election, and didn’t even get to cash in my rewards, since a minimum of a 1000 was needed–a bad choice, in my opinion–and I only had 800 (one win, one draw). All other debates (and oh, I tried plenty) took roughly 6-8 hours between every action, and were frequently canceled by my opponent near the end (which happened so often close to the end of the election that it eventually even lead to me becoming suspicious that this was done on purpose, to stall/try to keep Feducci supporters from debating at all).
This could just be my interpretation, but I also seemed to notice far more genuine, meta-level vitriol, as opposed to the in-character kind, this election, while I don’t remember that from last year. At times the Feducci thread seemed to be filled with more detractors than supporters.
All in all: looking forward to what this year will bring us, it should certainly be interesting, but I do hope that the debate mechanic will be rebalanced for next year, because honestly, aside from those two good, honest debates, the rest were decidedly Not Fun.
P.S.: I’ll miss Jenny! D:
ETA: [quote=gronostaj]a lot of people also roleplay as chaotic neutral or downright evil characters, so Feducci fits them well, even if the players’ personal views don’t align with his at all.[/quote]
Precisely my reasoning. My character’s supposed to be a criminal mastermind, so it would make no sense whatsoever for them to vote for anyone but Feducci, even if he’s somewhat of a wild card. The other two would only be guaranteed to make trouble for them.
edited by Anaïs Grant on 7/10/2017
Could someone PM me Feducci’s supporter victory text?