you do a social action.
the other person does a social action.
you do another social action, etc. etc.
Eventually it ends and you get some Winnings From Your Debate.
edited by Teaspoon on 7/3/2017
On this I can very much agree. I supported the Detective originally, until I found out about her paranoia and this so-called "Grand Prosecution". Such a thing, if it could ever come to pass, could leave this city exposed and vulnerable. Also, her campaign and possible term is shaping up to be very rigid and unyielding. Any of us who have been here long can attest to the fact that an inflexible London is a broken London. I also must question her "logic" in inviting… those Three to London.
So I jumped ship and looked at the other two. While the Campaigner falls in line with Jenny, who I supported last year, she doesn’t know the city like Jenny does. I feel that she will be quickly overwhelmed by everything and start handing out bans left and right. That just leaves Fenducci. I will be honest and admit that my past, er, dealings with him have shown me that he is completely untrustworthy. Do not misunderstand, he’s a bloody charming old fellow and I do rather like him, but I don’t know why he’s doing this. Maybe he is bored and thinks the Mayorship will be some new thrill or maybe he is acting for another. However, I’ll throw my lot in with him. If only to be ready to intercept whatever strange secrets and happenings pass through Blythenhale.
edited by Leon McCarran on 7/4/2017
Yes, but the election isn’t the only time some info about him has come to light… not that such is really relevant.
The DTC doesn’t seem like she gets overwhelmed that easily, though. She fended off a mob of anarchists single-handedly, after all.
One thing that has impressed me. I’ve been talking with a lot of players from different campaigns via letters and coffee invites and I’ve been blown away by the wide range and skill of the election RP, regardless of the decisions or the candidates supported. If you’re not doing election RP you’re really missing out. It’s also a lovely way to overcome OOC campaign divisions - when a supporter of candidate X sends you an entertaining and well written explanation for why their character is voting the way they are, you share a fun little moment. And fun little moments make it hard to have hard feelings about, well, anything.
Yeah, my letter writing strategy was a really good call I think. It’s worked in strategic terms and it’s increased enjoyment of the game. It was totally worth the 46 debate challenges that have resulted :P
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/4/2017
I’m entirely unsure that I agree the DTC is without flaws, at least as far as running for office, maybe not as a human being; firstly, there is the whole ‘temperance’ thing itself. Prohibition infamously failed IRL, most players and I suspect more characters are drinkers and it’s obvious to everyone but her that Mr Wines will squash that.
Second, she has personally campaigned against a lot of people’s characters. I know Feducci has killed a few of us, but we did start that fight, and whilst the ID has investigated us occasionally we tend to interact with her on a more friendly and profitable basis.
Thirdly, those revolutionary connections still sting, despite her current denial of them. They are notorious for their callous disregard for the lives of bystanders and their own members, but she only severed ties after it affected someone she knew intimately got hurt. Conversly, many of those who would support her sweeping social reforms would in fact be alienated by her rejection of the revolutionaries.
Lastly, more than her ‘honey well’, the identity of it’s guards would concern most of her NPC supporters I think. The mere fact Chuffy is a supporter would put many of London’s more respectable people off, let alone being blood related. (Incidentally, I really liked that revel, as I felt it added interesting depth to both characters.)
Ultimately though, I feel like she is losing because she seems to be the ‘no fun’ candidate, who is attacking many of the aspects people enjoy about the game, i.e. hedonistic revelry and Dickensian social structure. Feducci is winning because his platform apparently rewards the way the game is played and the arc players advance along, he is the big fun candidate so people overlook the frankly horrific things that one can discover about him. (Incidentally I think ID is closer to flawless and probably who is actually best for London, but my main is a self serving hedonist, so guess where his vote is going)
edited by Amsfield on 7/4/2017
Temperance isn’t prohibition, though. That’s something we’ve had to make a slogan of our campaign. Although Wines may not care much for the difference…
You are, of course, correct; however the distinction is one that isn’t immediately apparent to most players of the game without significant research, so does certainly make her less appealing in the eyes of the electorate and could therefore be considered a flaw. Additionally, still a failed idea, hence the lack of temperance marches currently occurring. It’s also disingenuous to pretend the two movements aren’t related; i mean talk long enough about ‘the evils of’ something and people will start to think maybe it’s evil. But the main argument I was making in that post is that campaigning against something that both players and the characters enjoy is going to do her no favours, especially with hindsight on the issue.
Oh, I don’t disagree. We just have to point it out for the sake of clarity.
Same here.
I got someone to debate with but they’re making no progress in it.
I have yet to receive my turn at seating.
Is anyone else is willing to start a debate?
I’ll end this one right away.
And where did you hear that?
I’d like to drop a reminder that Feducci’s Bad. The result of investigating him made me remember being caught up in my good friend, the Regretful Soldier’s, Heartbreaking Tale, which culminated in [Spoiler]me entering his body and going back in time via the use of a magical set of handcuffs. In this experience, Feducci was seen as a slave driver, aboard one of Hell(the bad part of hell, not the suave warm-eyed parts)'s horrific slave-powered Triremes. As someone not only complicit in slavery, but actively commanding slaves, he cannot be trusted to rule over our fair, just city! Vote Detective! Vote Temperance! Just Don’t Vote Feducci!
edited by hellaGumshoe on 7/5/2017
Oh dear, that’s quite the sordid past. Perhaps he’ll surprise us all by extending the ‘same rights to Clay men as free men’… and then further surprise us by revealing what he meant: we can all be debt-slaves under the yoke of new masters-by-chance.
My Feducci-supporting character doesn’t know the slaver connection, but his support for the bandaged man is only skin deep anyway. He probably won’t reach max influence whilst the others care a bit more about their candidates. Especially the Temperance supporter.
.
edited by Shalinoth on 7/5/2017
Apropos of a longer argument, I’m going to just say that it’s 2017, and I was hoping we could have finally seen the end of the term “mary-sue” being applied to any female character that shows kindness or competence.
Is it possible to know what decisions your Debating rival made once it’s all resolved? I only see text relating to draws and wins so far (lucky me), so I guess I can extrapolate some of their decisions from that, as it’s only Rock Paper Scissors. It’s hard to keep track, what with 2 or 3 Message tab updates per action.
I’ve been culling my interaction history with ruthless abandon lately.
.
edited by Shalinoth on 7/6/2017
Yes and no. It’s confusing, and unfortunately asymmetrical.
You can see my detailed explanation of the debate mechanics here.
Basically, there’s a difference between the one who initiated the debate, and the one who accepted it.
After all the preparations, the debate initiator has an action called "Debate!" (the image and text vary slightly based on the hosting location). Once choosing that option, the debate results are applied to both players at once. But since the initiator is the active party to this action, they see the results like any other action result:
- How many Winnings of Your Debates earned.[/li][li]Any menace increases[/li][li]etc.
Then the other party (the debate recipient) gets a social action to respond to (the available option’s name will tell them who won or if there was a dtraw). The debate material results are already applied, so unless they kept track of how many Winnings of Your Debates they already had before, they have no way to know how many were added. There’s also no way for them to see any menaces applied (if the other party used the candidate-specific tactic).
The only exception is when both parties cheat. In this case, when the initiator chooses "Debate!" they’ll see a message of no Winnings of Your Debate increase (also no menaces). Then, when the recipient gets the social action, the option will be "Hell breaks lose", which only then applies the menaces (+3 CP to all) for both players (the initiator can later see this in their message tab).
edited by dov on 7/6/2017
Anyone doing debates?
I’m a detective supporter.
edited by Agent ‘Trilby’ on 7/6/2017
I’ve been receiving a lot of debate requests as well as offers from fixers, so I’d just like to remind everyone that my main is unable to accept any of these requests. They’re glitched out and I’ve yet to receive an answer from support, so for now, they are out of commission on that front. My Detective-supporting alt, however, is free for fixer offers and can debate as soon as he’s done with his current bout.
Speaking of glitches, I am curious as to how I should go about the Influence quality when talking to support. I can’t reach 15 without their help, and seeing that this glitch has effected other options for a few weeks now, I’m pretty sure I’ll unfortunately be ending the election with a solid 10. Is anyone else having similar issues in the election? It’s of no one’s fault, but it also feels unfairly stunting to our progress as well.
[quote=Sir Joseph Marlen]I’ve been receiving a lot of debate requests as well as offers from fixers, so I’d just like to remind everyone that my main is unable to accept any of these requests. They’re glitched out and I’ve yet to receive an answer from support, so for now, they are out of commission on that front. My Detective-supporting alt, however, is free for fixer offers and can debate as soon as he’s done with his current bout.
Speaking of glitches, I am curious as to how I should go about the Influence quality when talking to support. I can’t reach 15 without their help, and seeing that this glitch has effected other options for a few weeks now, I’m pretty sure I’ll unfortunately be ending the election with a solid 10. Is anyone else having similar issues in the election? It’s of no one’s fault, but it also feels unfairly stunting to our progress as well.[/quote]
Is your alt at least available?
And if so; when do you respond to social actions the fastest?
edited by Agent ‘Trilby’ on 7/7/2017
[quote=Trilby ][quote=Sir Joseph Marlen]I’ve been receiving a lot of debate requests as well as offers from fixers, so I’d just like to remind everyone that my main is unable to accept any of these requests. They’re glitched out and I’ve yet to receive an answer from support, so for now, they are out of commission on that front. My Detective-supporting alt, however, is free for fixer offers and can debate as soon as he’s done with his current bout.
Speaking of glitches, I am curious as to how I should go about the Influence quality when talking to support. I can’t reach 15 without their help, and seeing that this glitch has effected other options for a few weeks now, I’m pretty sure I’ll unfortunately be ending the election with a solid 10. Is anyone else having similar issues in the election? It’s of no one’s fault, but it also feels unfairly stunting to our progress as well.[/quote]
Is your alt at least available?
And if so; when do you respond to social actions the fastest?
edited by Agent ‘Trilby’ on 7/7/2017[/quote]
My alt is available to any and all social actions. Typically, I answer fastest around an hour or two before noon (EST), though tomorrow I’ll be lucky if I’m able to access FL at all before the afternoon. After that, I’ll be checking my account every hour, though I could check even sooner if a debate is currently ongoing by then.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are faced a difficult dilemma in this election. All of us can agree, we must pick the candidate who can do the most good for London. But we must also pick the one who can bring about the changes that will last the LONGEST.
As sad as it is to admit, Our Fair City has fallen far from the greatness of old, and I don’t just mean figuratively. Crime, poverty, and the moral degradation of society are all crucial issues to tackle. However, consider this: for all the power the Mayor of London holds, he/she will only be in office for a year. Should we not approach this dilemma in a sensible way, reforming our city will prove a Sisyphean task, one that can never be completed.
The Campaigner and the Detective both face uphill struggles, facing a myriad of organizations and institutions who will no doubt vehemently resist their efforts to bring about their reforms. And that does not even begin to factor in the power of the Masters, who both enjoy the honey trade and the corruption of government officials. How much will they be able to actually do for London, bogged down by a constant struggle against the considerable forces arrayed against them? Even if by miraculous chance they manage to enact their reforms near the end of the year, they will soon be gone anyway. And then it will be a simple matter for the powers that be to reverse these changes, loosen restrictions, and reinstate certain corrupt parties.
We must come to terms with a rather sad fact: neither the Campaigner nor the Detective’s goals will do much of anything to improve the lives of the downtrodden in any meaningful capacity. It is sad but true. Their intentions are pure, but less honey in the dens and fewer judges on the benches will do little to impact the lives of the downtrodden everyman. If they had more time, perhaps we’d see some benefit in the long run, but time is sadly a luxury we sorely lack.
However, all is not lost. There is still a candidate with a real plan for change, who’s daring strategy can make a meaningful change during the mere year of his term.
Where his opponents stand to face a lengthy legal battle, Feducci offers the people of London the chance to elevate themselves now. A chain that can be climbed by all! Where fortunes, wealth, and a better standard of living can be won by all people willing to seek them. By the time Feducci’s term ends, who knows how many of London’s corrupt elites will be in the gutter, how many good and decent people who never had the chance to prosper will have newfound fortune?
Citizens, I implore you to choose the candidate who’s plan will touch the most lives! The plan that gives the people the fair chance they need right now! For a better London, for a Fair London, I implore you!
VOTE FEDUCCI!