Good point about the Agitators being in their own little bubble here. I’m playing one of each role on my 3 characters and I can attest to the feeling of frustration and isolation on that account.
I’d say this turn of events is fairly good news for the Temperance Campaigner. We knew she was third, if only because quite a few of her supporters joined in the last two to three days and didn’t have much election career (there was break in late deciders towards us). But she’s not that far behind, she’s picked up Jenny’s endorsement, and she’s campaigning for the Clay Men and the Rubberies. Also, Chuffy’s her grandson, so how puritanical can the Campaigner really be?
I think we’re going to get more votes and support. I think we have momentum.
I would say it is safe to play. You won’t lose progress but, depending on the choices your opponent makes, you might get menaces (and I think there is one option that will protect you from that). There is also an opportunity to back out of the debate.
It’s basically rock-paper-scissors, with a few extra elements thrown in. Feel free to try it out - there’s pretty much no risk and you’ll gain a little progress even if you lose.
[quote=Robin Alexander]Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Can someone explain to me how ‘Debates’ work? I have one in my inbox and I’m VERY sceptical about clicking "respond", because I don’t know anything about them . . . if I lose, will I lose progress or gain menaces or anything else? In which case, as there’s no ‘decline’, can I just leave it until the election finishes? Or is there nothing to lose, in which case it’s safe to play?[/quote]
Also: you can decline the offer if you want (click respond, and from the storylet which opens you can decline).
Or, you can withdraw from the debate at any point until both side’s preparation are done.
There are about a million people who want to debate me. That’s the downside of sending letters to everyone. Also, I can’t put my finger on it, but I suspect more than a few Agitator’s have me marked down for their day of rage.
WHERE does the storylet open? I have accepted a debate, and now I cannot move it forward anywhere. I have another invitation in my messages (from the same person) and I cannot open it because supposedly, I am already in a debate.
There is no storylet - you have to wait for the person you are debating to respond so keep checking your message tab.
They did, and I cannot accept because supposedly, I am debating another. This is strange.
[quote=Robin Alexander]Ah, thanks guys :)
That’s a huge relief to know :)
Edit: Moot point anyway, as it won’t let me respond XD
edited by Robin Alexander on 7/3/2017[/quote]
As far as I can tell people can send out more than one invitation to a debate so probably someone else accepted (or they are somewhere outside London). The only thing you can do is keep checking
After first round of debates I can say that it’s really interesting idea - I will surely make use of it in coming days.
Nevertheless the “chess by mail” aspect of it (one person sends invite other responds x 3 for one debate) could prove problematic – especially if one accepts first invite before e.g. going to bed. Then the other debater must wait for god knows how long to progress and cannot start new arguments! I understand that it is a feature devised so we cannot spam everyone with debate invitations, but still I think that it could be less harsh.
I think that by lowering the amount of steps (responses) required by each debate or allowing for e.g. three concurrent debates we could still have good system without too much spam and one that allows for more fun.
edited by Mallachi on 7/3/2017
It does make the Election events a little silly, since as soon as you have all three choices anyone with any awareness can say who the winner’s going to be.
Still, it means that the accomplishments of those of us who didn’t take the easy bet are that much more impressive. Feducci supporters are much like their candidate: feigning valor while taking a bet rigged in their favor.
[quote=Mallachi]After first round of debates I can say that it’s really interesting idea - I will surely make use of it in coming days.
Nevertheless the “chess by mail” aspect of it (one person sends invite other responds x 3 for one debate) could prove problematic – especially if one accepts first invite before e.g. going to bed. Then the other debater must wait for god knows how long to progress and cannot start new arguments! I understand that it is a feature devised so we cannot spam everyone with debate invitations, but still I think that it could be less harsh.
I think that by lowering the amount of steps (responses) required by each debate or allowing for e.g. three concurrent debates we could still have good system without too much spam and one that allows for more fun.
edited by Mallachi on 7/3/2017[/quote]
The old moon league used similar mechanics and ran into similar problems with timing and non-concurrent combat. That wasn’t such a big issue as there was no pressing time limit and no penalty for withdrawing if it was taking too long. That’s a bit trickier here as we only have a week to complete everything and, while I haven’t tried it, I suspect you get a benefit if your opponent withdraws.
Timing problems aside, I’m still glad to see some innovation on the social front and look forward to engaging in some political rock, paper, scissors.
Actually, only now election careers became balanced and the whole system - self-sustaining. As people gather election resources, the get attacked by Agitators, and after fending off mob players ask Fixers for help. Everyone have a task and there is potential for an organized teamwork. (Previously campaigners were pretty self-sufficient, and agitators had no point in harassing agitators only).
That actually makes it harder and more pricy to promote your candidate, which I believe is good! No easy victories - earn them the hard way! :)
Why would you set me up like that? Why do you tempt me? Anne’s already on my case about being snarky at people, and you provide me with the perfect opportunity to do it! Mean!
Chivioletta is chomping at the bit to poke questionable holes in Anne’s argument, mostly because she likes to drink. Chivioletta’s player (me) is really, really impressed with your letter-writing campaign, and chuckled upon reading this. Maybe the Feducci voters of London should form a queue at Anne’s place. Or I guess we already have.
The fact that the clear forerunner in this election was clear from the start; only goes to show how humans tend to think in elections: popularity over anything else. Also, little sense of a personal moral compass.
While I was initially a supporter for Feducci I didn’t remain as such. After reading and investigating him and the others; it was obvious that this bid for election is an other scheme to arrange greater and more elaborate betting pools for Feducci to profit from (helping the disenfranchised is a cover or a side-bonus, if that).
I ended up picking the candidate that is most like the existing mayor; concerned with those most vulnerable to exploitation.
Supporting the existing power structures like the Police won’t accomplish that, b/c if the Police were any good, they would be preventing the causes of crime instead of simply chasing suspicious characters until they are “super suspicious” around the labyrinth of London.
Which left me picking a candidate that I’ve can’t recall hearing of before.
To be entirely fair, much of this is in-character. I think a lot of people have characters with decidedly fewer morals than the people playing them do. Fallen London is in many ways a cesspool of villainy, and the success of a villain shouldn’t be too shocking when he promises other villains a means to prosper.
Judging their tastes as actual people beyond the game is a dangerous proposition (not that I haven’t been plenty guilty of it), but judging their morality is even moreso. Feel free to gripe with me about how Feducci supporters have bad taste, as long as we’re careful, but judging their personal out-of-character morality is a bad idea.
At the end of the day, Charles Lamb put it well:
"I confess for myself that (with no great delinquencies to answer for) I am glad for a season to take an airing beyond the diocese of the strict conscience, not to live always in the precincts of the law-courts, but now and then, for a dream-whim or so, to imagine a world with no meddling restriction – to get into recesses, whither the hunter cannot follow me. I come back to my cage and my restraint the fresher and more healthy for it. I wear my shackles more contentedly for having respired the breath of an imaginary freedom."
That Lamb quote puts me in mind of the Carnival of Venice. Masked revelry for the masses of all classes. Perhaps this tense, adversarial election event needs followed up with such anonymous peace-keeping festivities?
To be entirely fair, much of this is in-character. I think a lot of people have characters with decidedly fewer morals than the people playing them do. Fallen London is in many ways a cesspool of villainy, and the success of a villain shouldn’t be too shocking when he promises other villains a means to prosper.
Judging their tastes as actual people beyond the game is a dangerous proposition (not that I haven’t been plenty guilty of it), but judging their morality is even moreso. Feel free to gripe with me about how Feducci supporters have bad taste, as long as we’re careful, but judging their personal out-of-character morality is a bad idea."[/quote] that’s exactly why im supporting fedduci my character zorgan is a hard-core anti master revolutionary and hedonist among other thing.
so I simply cant have him support the campaigner or the detective it would go against pretty much everything I’ve established in him as a character I am committed to his success though don’t get me wrong.
and I don’t have the time or drive to make a new character and stat him up enough to be able to contribute to the election at all
for the candidate id support if I wasn’t role play or perhaps I should say role playing someone closer to my self in this world.
a bit long winded I know but I just felt putting that out there really.
[li]