I support the Contrarian. He is very much like a cat, you see. You toss him up in the air and he'll spin around every which way but in the end he will always land on his feet.

That is a remarkable quality for a mayor, wouldn't you agree?
edited by The Masked Felon on 7/9/2016

damn spoiler tags never work for me the way the should

The fact that some people can say that all the candidates seem reasonable, some can say that one is clearly perfect and the others fools' choices, and some can say that all three are irredeemable and that the election will be a disaster for London... well, it makes me think the writers have done their job right.

Yeah, Jenny's more a Tyrion than a Ned Stark. She knows how to play the game.

Hark DeGaul wrote:

I haven't done the Bag a Legend Ambition that supposedly has a lot of Jenny/nun content and even I know that London's favourite woman of the night can't be trusted.

The implication being that you assume the Bag A Legend Sisterhood content would confirm your belief that they're a pack of villains and scoundrels? Because I'm not so sure of that. They're a rum lot, but they've remained dedicated to protecting people from monsters for rather a long time.

Angus Turner wrote:

The Contrarian has achieved very real goals in The Affluent Photographer story and the revolutionaries card.

"One time he talked me out of beating up a poet, and another time he took advantage of my good name to put an agent in the Ministry! Vote Contrarian!"

fortluna wrote:

Angus Turner wrote:

You keep mentioning positive change - what makes you think she will enact such change? She has, as I said, no track record to speak of, and has proven herself rather untrustworthy. Is it just a case of considering the other candidates so inept that you'll rather roll the dice?

Could you point me at the storylets where the Contrarian tries for positive change himself, beyond performance art smearing? Has he proved himself capable of deeds that aren't just moving his mouth, or getting entangled with the Calendar Council?
A single annotation about the possibility of a third option gives me no confidence in his ability to extricate himself from his backers, unlike Jenny - tt's a wonder that his campaign can expand "need not necessarily" into an active role of any sort.

I've mentioned several times now The Affluent Photographer story and the revolutionaries card. Maybe you think those are small, insignificant things, barely more than "moving his mouth," but as I've already said, stopping a disruptive and ineffective revolutionary and infiltrating one of the most corrupt and evil institutions in London's government is significant enough to draw conclusions from, in my opinion. Or are you saying that because those events entail 'getting entagled with the Calendar Council' they should be dismissed? Why?

Kaigen wrote:

Jenny can be counted on to...turn her back on the Masters and extort the rich?

That is a very, very narrow view of things. You can use the same argument to claim that we have no reason to fear a murderer. After all, if he continues behaving the manner he has so far he will...murder his victim? The victim is already dead. Nothing to worry about, surely.
You look only at the act, and not at the principle which guides it. Sinning Jenny peruses her goals - betraying those who gave her their confidence is considered acceptable in achieving her ends. Which of Jenny's past actions convince you that those goals include the welfare of the city's poor? Where has her deep concern for the destitute been before caring for the poor was a possible avenue to power?

And by the way, saying The Contrarian never does anything simply isn't true. Besides meeting him at the party, we can interact with him in two storylets, the revolutionaries card and the story of The Affluent Photographer. In both of those stories he is acting in pursuit of a very concrete goal. The counterargument to that is that he's working towards contradictory goals in those two stories, but the counterargument to that is that his ideals have nuance to them, as investigating his campaign clearly shows.

Also, yes, she lies, extorts, and corrupts, but like I said, she's essentially Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a thief. He robs people. But he does it all for good reason, and gives it all to the poor. With each update, she becomes more and more London's shining hero, while the other two candidates become more damaged and complex.

Jenny's so rebellious and independent that she's returning the money given to her for her campaign. Do you see how that rather stands out against the information on the other two?

Anne Auclair wrote:

This is a frankly ridiculous situation and the Contrarian treats it as such. If he can't debate the real issues out loud, then at least he can make an absolute mockery of London's ultimately insignificant surface politics:

Bear in mind that the "ultimately insignificant surface politics" that the Contrarian mocks include the rights of Clay Men. I'm not sure they would find that debate "ultimately insignificant."

Might one suspect that to keep the Devil's out the Bishop might build a wall?

I'm just saying that there are similarities.

St Fiacre's better known for its candle budget... though I admit, they don't -burn- them... but, there's one hole in your argument. Jenny's been running one of the Masters' major public organisations for years!

Angus Turner wrote:

Kaigen wrote:

Angus Turner wrote:

The Contrarian has achieved very real goals in The Affluent Photographer story and the revolutionaries card.

"One time he talked me out of beating up a poet, and another time he took advantage of my good name to put an agent in the Ministry! Vote Contrarian!"

Stopping a disruptive and ineffective revolutionary and infiltrating one of the most corrupt and evil institutions in London's government is significant enough to draw conclusions from, my opinion. Certainly in contrast with Sinning Jenny's political track record, which is nonexistent.

So he will hinder, and he will gather information, and he will advance nothing. I'd rather the chance for positive change than to content myself with damage control.

This is a frankly ridiculous situation and the Contrarian treats it as such. If he can't debate the real issues out loud, then at least he can make an absolute mockery of London's ultimately insignificant surface politics:

If we taken the Contrarian's past behavior as indicative of how we will behave as mayor, he will gather information, debate endlessly, and fail to notice if London begins to burn down around him.

Bear in mind that the "ultimately insignificant surface politics" that the Contrarian mocks include the rights of Clay Men. I'm not sure they would find that debate "ultimately insignificant."


But I ask supporters of the Contrarian: What evidence or assurances can you offer that the Contrarian will do anything good for anyone as mayor? I have been called upon to prognosticate for Jenny multiple times now, so I think it's only fair to ask you to look into your tea mugs and show me the leaves that lead you to think he will accomplish anything positive.

Angus Turner wrote:

Isn't hindering harmful elements an example of positive change? Would you say that removing the Vake is an example of hindering, and therefore not positive change? You think The Contrarian will not take a active role because his actions were not active enough for your tastes, but think Jenny will because her non-actions are? Why?

Preventing damage and removing bad actors are two different things. The Contrarian argues against the fall of night but takes no substantive action against those who promote it. He fights a delaying action only. And as I said above, he can do that just as easily now as he could as mayor. Fighting the Vake, in contrast, is not a delaying action, it seeks the permanent removal of a threat. There is a need for both damage control and positive change, but I would rather see the latter from the new mayoral office.

The reason I so strongly dislike Jenny is the same reason (GoT spoilers go here)

You raise an excellent point about murder. The Contrarian has killed at least one person simply pursuing the joy of debate. Aren't you worried you might be next? What makes you sure that won't happen? The Contrarian has betrayed every cause and every ideal he has ever taken up for kicks and giggles, and you consider him more trustworthy? Jenny might betray us. The Contrarian will betray us as soon as he sees entertainment in doing so.

Angus Turner wrote:

What, then, makes you so sure our own backs won't one day feel the prick of her stiletto?

There are no guarantees. But if we assume that each candidate will continue to behave in the manner they have heretofore (always a fraught assumption), where does that leave us? The Bishop can be counted on to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. The Contrarian can be counted on to cheerfully do nothing, to the very real detriment of those who interact with him. Jenny can be counted on to...turn her back on the Masters and extort the rich? That doesn't seem like a difficult choice to me.

Jenny can be counted on to...turn her back on the Masters and extort the rich?

I hope Jenny keeps seeming like the perfect candidate, and when she wins, something horrible is revealed that'll make me regret every vote I got for her and curse my idiocy for thinking FBG would give us an objectively good candidate. The purer the hero, the more painful the fall, and the sweeter the taste of our tears. Vote Jenny.

Yes. She worries me because someone who will knowingly poison people for a bribe and blackmail customers who almost certainly paid for discretion, or assumed they did is not someone i trust more than a known revolutionary moderate. She will let you think you bought them- selling you a kiss and poisoning her lipstick, selling services with an implicit promise of discretion, if not an explicit one, considering this is mr. wine's business- without ever selling them, and i have no way of knowing if she's pulling the same trick here.

She has backstabbing tendencies, and expects not ot be shunned for her job, yet treats it with all the honor of the shunned prostitutes, as opposed to the substantial discretion of the rest of the parlour.

....Now that she has cut ties with Mr Wines, she is no longer on the short leash and can do things that conflict with the Masters agendas such as aiding the poor. After all, the Masters clearly aren't concerned with helping the general population at the expense of personal gain or adversity to foster love stories.
[...]
Why are we all assuming these secrets weren't given willingly?

"I'm for the people." She waves her hand, splashing droplets of blood onto a nearby canoness. "I'm tired of London's indifference - to those suffering, to those struggling in servitude, to the sinners with no hope of redemption. I have friends in high places. I've learnt a secret or seven about the great and good. I have a brain and, more importantly, a functioning heart. It bleeds, my dear." She smiles warmly, then is spirited off by the canoness to have her hand bandaged.

Anne Auclair wrote:

Jenny's plans for public reform have been revealed and they're less "For the People" and more Tammy Hall (staff the government with supporters, regardless of qualification).

It is true that she wants to staff city hall with her supporters, but look at who these supporters are: people bearing the stigma (in Victorian London) of sex work, the working class, and the poor. I expect all candidates to fill roles in town hall with their supporters if they win, and moreover, raising up some of the most marginalised people is, to my mind, a rather moral act. (The earlier criticisms about blackmail are entirely valid.)

To the first one- the rights of [a low number of individuals] are most certainly ultimately insignificant, and that is what the [unified clay] are. They will outlive the city, and our actions will only last for our city's lifetime, but many will persist far past that point. In the end, clay men are few, and everything you would do for them is going to be undone shortly. I mean, we don't debate cantigaster's rights, or traitor empress' rights, so why should we debate [out of one, many]'s rights?

No promises. I cannot promise he will do good, but I am certain he will try. I cannot be certain, or even hope, that he will manage to save london with no liberation, but he thinks, which seems to be more than can be said for either other faction at times. He will look at every side of an issue, and act as he sees best.

I've done some poking about the Contrarian's campaign. He doesn't seem to share the same opinion as his... comrades, in regards to our fair city and the Bazaar's future. This suggests a desire to preserve the city, yes?