[quote=Anne Auclair]Wait, aren’t fate locked stories only supposed to only be available on the second week? That’s how it was last week.
This spoiling isn’t cool.[/quote]First day bug. For some reason, it wasn’t locked at the beginning and so could be purchased. It should be fixed now.
[quote=Azothi][quote=Anne Auclair]Wait, aren’t fate locked stories only supposed to only be available on the second week? That’s how it was last week.
This spoiling isn’t cool.[/quote]First day bug. For some reason, it wasn’t locked at the beginning and so could be purchased. It should be fixed now.[/quote]
I ask that you delete the link to it then and stop arguing with it until it becomes available in the proper fashion. It’s unfair to those who don’t want spoilers and unfair as its information out of context.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/16/2019
[quote=Anne Auclair][quote=Azothi][quote=Anne Auclair]Wait, aren’t fate locked stories only supposed to only be available on the second week? That’s how it was last week.
This spoiling isn’t cool.[/quote]First day bug. For some reason, it wasn’t locked at the beginning and so could be purchased. It should be fixed now.[/quote]
I ask that you delete the link to it then and stop arguing with it until it becomes available in the proper fashion. It’s unfair to those who don’t want spoilers and unfair as its information out of context.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/16/2019[/quote]The link has been deleted in our discussion, though I will continue to exercise my discretion in terms of its use elsewhere. I’d argue that the context is exactly what’s presented and that the point still stands, since its purpose is supplementary to the argument: it’s not the only piece of evidence on which the point rests.
The context is supposed to be the second week, not the first.
The text can be the first thing you play second week after declaring a candidate, where the information available to the reader is essentially identical to the information available now.
And again, I don’t think this point is relevant to the broader discussion. I make the claim that Virginia, while still a devil at heart, is not necessarily supported by the Brass Embassy (evidence is in the Flash Lay and from questioning her motives), and that her policies are the most likely to improve the lives of Londoners.
EDIT: Essentially, what this conversation feels like to me is the in-game option for harassing Virginia’s campaign: [spoiler]
edited by Azothi on 7/16/2019
edited by Azothi on 7/16/2019
First of all, friends, may I give a salutary reminder that spoiler tags exist? There’s an awful lot on this topic that a young, innocent Londoner seeking election information might regret running into.
Now, as for Virginia, no one in London is more cynical about devils than I; however, I can’t base arguments on cynicism. I think the evidence is crystal-clear that Virginia is not working for the Embassy; that she is doing this one on her own. That is not unlike Virginia (or devils in general), and we’ve not a shred of evidence that her candidacy is the result of some sort of covert masterplot beyond our ability to penetrate. Also, let us metagame a moment: Failbetter is deeply in love with cryptic statements and half-hinted truths (hey, if any of you on St. Thomas St. cosplay as Mme Shoshana at work, share pictures after the election, okay?), but a wall of false information with no hint that there’s more to the story is absolutely not their modus operandi.
That said, a year is a moment’s time for a devil. Do Virginia’s long-term plans line up with Hell’s? Unquestionably, yes. Do I trust her as Mayor? Depends on what you mean. I’d say she’s more likely to deliver on her promise than most other candidates we’ve seen (not that the Failbetter That Be is likely to let any candidate make real change in London), but that her promises will also have unforeseen consequences–consequences more amenable to Virginia (and perhaps the Embassy) than to London in general.
In short,
Virginia’s proposals remind me strongly of Carillon. It may be helpful, in judging their likely results, to consider your (and your character’s) opinion of that little sky-port.
I don’t see it as identical because there’s a whole week between today and the unlocking of that story. There are the polls, there are possible events, there are the other fate locked stories, and so forth. It was intended for a different context.
Just clarifying what I meant.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/16/2019
Returning to the political argument (which I really didn’t want to disrupt)…
Fattening turkeys up before Christmas or Thanksgiving certainly improves their standard of living. But one would be hard pressed to say it was in their best interests.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/16/2019
I’ll just raise this point again since it didn’t seem to receive any attention:
[quote=Tsar Koschei]Incidentally, why aren’t the traitor’s carriage and gazebo on sale at the marquee? Will those only become available next week for whatever reason?[/quote]I do rather want that carriage.
[quote=Anne Auclair]Fattening turkeys up before Christmas or Thanksgiving certainly improves their standard of living. But one would be hard pressed to say it was in their best interests.[/quote]This is wordplay, a rhetorical tactic. Being killed is not in their best interests. Being fed and kept healthy, as you said, improves their standard of living. A turkey can be fattened without being killed; consider how pets can be fattened out of pampering. Likewise, a turkey can be killed without being fattened. The analogy misdirects our attention to imply that the fattening is not in the best interest of the turkey when it’s the killing that is not.
And, in the context of Christmas or Thanksgiving, as horrible as it is, the turkey is condemned to die by society. That’s what’s not in their best interest. It’s no different for Hell and London. Souls will be taken from Londoners; some consensually, though I suspect most are stolen. Virginia’s public works and her introduction of modern medicine are fattening the harvest - but it’s the harvest that’s not in London’s interest, not Virginia’s platform. Her policies are aimed at the creation of public spaces - available to all instead of being restricted to those who can afford it. Public health is the root of many societal woes, and by treating that, London can be genuinely improved.
–
Consider the economics of it. Those with wealth and influence in London - like our player characters - have access to sufficient resources that they can seek medical treatment and stock medicine cabinets. But what about those who don’t have the resources? It’s only a small step - and a mayor’s step is necessarily small - but improving public health means that people can spend more time living well; they can invest their time and resources elsewhere, towards their own self-betterment. In the absence of a social safety net (which no candidate is offering), that’s about as good as we can make it.
Compared to the plans proposed by the other candidates, Virginia’s plan seems to have the best chance of actually making London a better place; and that’s been my characters’ standard for choosing a candidate in every election.
"Surreptitious enquiries at the Embassy confirm Virginia’s own words: Hell is not funding her. Indeed, in the opinion of the infernal diplomats, the whole affair is entirely embarrassing. They’d rather she cease her involvement immediately."
[/quote]
she may not actively and openly working for the brass embassy as a candidate, but she has done so in the past and has shown that she puts hell’s intrest over the laws of london, if not her personal ambition.[li]
[quote=Azothi]
(2) She does not seek power for power’s sake; she has the truly admirable trait of being willing to step down and give up office. This is the kind of trait that Americans praise George Washington for. This is the kind of trait that allows the gears of democratic government to turn. [/quote]
it’s not as if willing to step down is a attribute unique to her alone; ALL previous mayors have been willing to step down at the end of their term, and there is no reason to think that any of the candidates they have run against, or any she is running against, would be any different. The fact that she is at least willing to obey basic democratic norms is in no way proof that she would be a good mayor.[li][/li][li]
edited by thefantodayhtml on 7/16/2019
[quote=Azothi][quote=Anne Auclair]Fattening turkeys up before Christmas or Thanksgiving certainly improves their standard of living. But one would be hard pressed to say it was in their best interests.[/quote]This is wordplay, a rhetorical tactic. Being killed is not in their best interests. Being fed and kept healthy, as you said, improves their standard of living. A turkey can be fattened without being killed; consider how pets can be fattened out of pampering. Likewise, a turkey can be killed without being fattened. The analogy misdirects our attention to imply that the fattening is not in the best interest of the turkey when it’s the killing that is not.
And, in the context of Christmas or Thanksgiving, as horrible as it is, the turkey is condemned to die by society. That’s what’s not in their best interest. It’s no different for Hell and London. Souls will be taken from Londoners; some consensually, though I suspect most are stolen. Virginia’s public works and her introduction of modern medicine are fattening the harvest - but it’s the harvest that’s not in London’s interest, not Virginia’s platform. Her policies are aimed at the creation of public spaces - available to all instead of being restricted to those who can afford it. Public health is the root of many societal woes, and by treating that, London can be genuinely improved.
–
Consider the economics of it. Those with wealth and influence in London - like our player characters - have access to sufficient resources that they can seek medical treatment and stock medicine cabinets. But what about those who don’t have the resources? It’s only a small step - and a mayor’s step is necessarily small - but improving public health means that people can spend more time living well; they can invest their time and resources elsewhere, towards their own self-betterment. In the absence of a social safety net (which no candidate is offering), that’s about as good as we can make it.
Compared to the plans proposed by the other candidates, Virginia’s plan seems to have the best chance of actually making London a better place; and that’s been my characters’ standard for choosing a candidate in every election.[/quote]
[li]
The problam is that she has a history of promoting the instrests of hell in the past, and there is no reason to think she won’t continue to do so as mayor.
Even if her interests align with Hell’s that doesn’t necessarily make her their stooge, and it certainly doesn’t mean that her policies will be bad for London. While Hell and the Devils are overtly predatory in most of their interactions, that doesn’t mean that everything they do is necessarily bad and Virginia’s policies seem to line up enough with her own interests that there is little reason to suspect dishonesty.
Heh, I feel this is the Princess all over again.
Charming candidate with a palatable platform that would be fine to support… if it came from a different candidate.
Virginia is a devil. She harvests souls. She is working for the Brass Embassy even if her current campaign is not supported by them.
She tries to kill you repeatedly, she never hides that she is not to be trusted, she never tries to be… not a Devil.
Of course she is about intellectual curiosity too - does evil have to be blunt? But just because you share an interest doesn’t make her Good for the Soul.
On the other hand, the DTC came up with an agenda to help the disenfranchised, the clay men, the rubberies, the have-nots, but everyone focused on how boring she was instead.
So why not say it how it is? Virginia, a Devil and a Killer, runs for election and she managed to come up with an inoffensive platform. Good for her.
Still a Devil and an agent of Hell though.
Man all of this talk has just gotten me more excited for Virginia.
Favorite candidate in a while.
Virginia’s portrait is so lovely! But her project sounds suspiciously like cattle improvement. And I don’t trust devils and betrayers.
Same thoughts.
[quote=Jolanda Swan]Heh, I feel this is the Princess all over again.
Charming candidate with a palatable platform that would be fine to support… if it came from a different candidate.[/quote]It really does, honestly. Virginia’s campaign is like an unholy amalgamation of the Princess and Dauntless. It feels kind of weird for me, since I was very anti-Princess, very pro-Dauntless, and now fairly partisan towards Virginia.
edited by Azothi on 7/16/2019
Now this is wordplay. A benefit which is given only to hasten one’s downfall is not truly a benefit. No calf would be jealous of the steer on full feed, if he knew that it is a sign the steer is destined for slaughter. No one is likely to wish himself to be a pochteca’s "bathed slave," even though he be pampered and feted before he is sacrificed and eaten. To divorce a minor benefit from harmful intention is disingenuous.
(That said, I’m going to pick at the base analogy, as both you and Anne have used it. Fattening a turkey is not in the turkey’s best interest, any more than fattening a man would be in his. The U.S. President "pardons" a turkey every Thanksgiving, but the overweight turkeys thus spared rarely live more than a few months. The ones that end up on the dinner platter are arguably more fortunate; they certainly go out more easily.)
That is a debatable point, but arguing it is off our current topic. I will say, however, that even if the point were granted, the comparison to Hell and London strikes me as a false parallel.
It’s worth pointing out that, in the nineteenth century, there was a social safety net; it just wasn’t run by the government. The Church was the primary mover, providing food, shelter, and medical care, but one’s relations, one’s neighbors, and one’s fellow tradesmen also played important parts. For lagniappe, wealthy individuals were expected to spend considerable sums for the relief of the poor. Social responsibility and consciousness of one’s role therein were orders of magnitude beyond what is usually displayed today. Now, by 1897 (or 1847) the pressures of industrialization and urbanization were straining that system, and it worked better in the Cotswolds than it did in London (or than in the London of, say, 1797), but it never ceased. (Indeed, many such organizations, from the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers to the Order of Knights of St. John, are more active in charity now than they ever have been, government safety nets notwithstanding.)
Frankly, the entire Virginia argument seems to me to say that the means justify the end: who cares about the endgame, the long-term consequences, so long as we have peace and comfort now? That is a dangerous line of reasoning for any body politic.
This is debatable in Feducci’s case.