Powered by Jitbit .Net Forum free trial version.

HomeFallen London » Election

A place for in-game political discussion.

Election 1895: The Implacable Detective Messages in this topic - RSS

Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/26/2017
Dungerson wrote:
Everyone is talking about difficult, complicated matters, but I just want to add that because she campaigns for "a need to provide for the ailing and forgotten detectives," she might just be able to rehabilitate the Honey-Addled Detective.

Because he is probably that detective, who knows what crazy things this might lead to?

The Campaigner would help him as well and a lot of other people besides.

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
0 link
Sir Joseph Marlen
Sir Joseph Marlen
Posts: 577

6/26/2017
Anne Auclair wrote:
Dungerson wrote:
Everyone is talking about difficult, complicated matters, but I just want to add that because she campaigns for "a need to provide for the ailing and forgotten detectives," she might just be able to rehabilitate the Honey-Addled Detective.

Because he is probably that detective, who knows what crazy things this might lead to?

The Campaigner would help him as well and a lot of other people besides.

She's trying to help by willing to compromise, but she's literally (or perhaps metaphorically?) dumping wasted honey down a hole. She seems well intending, and she's honestly my 2nd choice in case the Detective loses my vote, but I don't think cutting the source off completely with that kind of disposal method will end up helping. With the Detective, I think there's more of a chance we'll see a righting of injustice (possibly even within the justice system itself?) with the underlying issues rather than the surface effects of London's plight.
edited by Sir Joseph Marlen on 6/26/2017

--
Sir Joseph Marlen - The Romantic Sophist
Alexus Harven - The Defiant Fatalist
Rose Reinhelm - The Respectful Revolutionary
Cappuccino - The Perfidious Spycraft


Available for any and all social actions.
0 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/26/2017
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
Dungerson wrote:
Everyone is talking about difficult, complicated matters, but I just want to add that because she campaigns for "a need to provide for the ailing and forgotten detectives," she might just be able to rehabilitate the Honey-Addled Detective.

Because he is probably that detective, who knows what crazy things this might lead to?

The Campaigner would help him as well and a lot of other people besides.

She's trying to help by willing to compromise, but she's literally (or perhaps metaphorically?) dumping wasted honey down a hole. She seems well intending, and she's honestly my 2nd choice in case the Detective loses my vote or someone else earns my interest, but I don't think cutting the source off completely with that kind of disposal method will end up helping. With the Detective, I think there's more of a chance we'll see a righting of injustice (possibly even within the justice system itself?) with the underlying issues rather than the surface effects of London's plight.

I think reducing the amount of honey and alcohol on the market while cracking down on predatory landowners and bankers is a clear example of treating an underlying problem. Honey addiction drives people to desperation and madness and burdens our city with the costs of treating them (or the costs of them running rampant untreated). Meanwhile, the ready availability of gin has produced a small army of street drunks who the Constables have to devote resources to protecting from thieves. Economic destitution brought on by predatory loans and slum rents spread misery, increase crime, and drive people to honey and drink. All these social evils breakup families and swell the ranks of the Urchin gangs. By addressing these problems at the source we reduce our need for the heavy hand of the state bureaucracy.

What's the alternative? More drunks, more honey-mazers, more homeless people, more police, more arrests, more prisoners in New Newgate?
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/26/2017

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
0 link
Sir Joseph Marlen
Sir Joseph Marlen
Posts: 577

6/26/2017
Anne Auclair wrote:
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
Dungerson wrote:
Everyone is talking about difficult, complicated matters, but I just want to add that because she campaigns for "a need to provide for the ailing and forgotten detectives," she might just be able to rehabilitate the Honey-Addled Detective.

Because he is probably that detective, who knows what crazy things this might lead to?

The Campaigner would help him as well and a lot of other people besides.

She's trying to help by willing to compromise, but she's literally (or perhaps metaphorically?) dumping wasted honey down a hole. She seems well intending, and she's honestly my 2nd choice in case the Detective loses my vote or someone else earns my interest, but I don't think cutting the source off completely with that kind of disposal method will end up helping. With the Detective, I think there's more of a chance we'll see a righting of injustice (possibly even within the justice system itself?) with the underlying issues rather than the surface effects of London's plight.

I think reducing the amount of honey and alcohol on the market while cracking down on predatory landowners and bankers is a clear example of treating an underlying problem. Honey addiction drives people to desperation and madness and burdens our city with the costs of treating them (or the costs of them running rampant untreated). Meanwhile, the ready availability of gin has produced a small army of street drunks who the Constables have to devote resources to protecting from thieves. Economic destitution brought on by predatory loans and slum rents spread misery, increase crime, and drive people to honey and drink. All these social evils breakup families and swell the ranks of the Urchin gangs. By addressing these problems at the source we reduce our need for the heavy hand of the state bureaucracy. What's the alternative? More drunks, more honey-mazers, more homeless people, more police, more arrests, more prisoners in New Newgate?

Perhaps it's a preference in method, but I prefer the prevention of addiction by offering aid to those harmed by substance abuse (addiction centers, donations to poverty and recovery programs, advocating the humanization of victims where it is otherwise lacking, ect.) as well as reduction of potential harm via cracking down on the worst suppliers of these trades and holding the law accountable for mistreatment of those involved in this life. I agree with her morals of wanting a better life of London with the removal of her worst characteristics, but I don't agree with her heavy parental hand or her blunt approach to substances. Not only do those stances tend to push more moderate people away, but it can also push the criminal world further down into more dangerous means of commercialization. To be fair, governments tend to have issue dealing with these topics anyway, so it's not exactly an easy problem to fix anyway.

--
Sir Joseph Marlen - The Romantic Sophist
Alexus Harven - The Defiant Fatalist
Rose Reinhelm - The Respectful Revolutionary
Cappuccino - The Perfidious Spycraft


Available for any and all social actions.
+4 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/26/2017
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
Perhaps it's a preference in method, but I prefer the prevention of addiction by offering aid to those harmed by substance abuse (addiction centers, donations to poverty and recovery programs, advocating the humanization of victims where it is otherwise lacking, ect.) as well as reduction of potential harm via cracking down on the worst suppliers of these trades and holding the law accountable for mistreatment of those involved in this life.

Um, that is exactly what the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner is promising to do. The Campaigner is talking about social reform, addition treatment, and humanization of victims and reformed criminals. It's the Detective talking about police persecutions and crackdowns, with a helping hand only for members of her own profession.
.
A Kinder London wrote:
She champions a great many causes, large and small, for nothing is beneath her notice and she will let no vice go unchecked. Yet, she cares for animals, the poor, the reformed criminals and honey addicts with as much fervour as she crusades against wicked landlords and spirifiers, liquor merchants and honey peddlers.

The Campaigner's Campaign wrote:
"I have dedicated my life to fighting exploitation. Yes, I've fought the honey-pushers, who addict dreamers, and the drink-dealers who poison mothers and fathers. But I'm here to fight the factory-owners, the landlords, the bankers who drive our citizens into such harmful escapes. We must help the addled and afflicted, provide houses of respite and healing. And tea. I am in favour of tea."

edited by Anne Auclair on 6/26/2017

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+1 link
Sir Joseph Marlen
Sir Joseph Marlen
Posts: 577

6/26/2017
Anne Auclair wrote:
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
Perhaps it's a preference in method, but I prefer the prevention of addiction by offering aid to those harmed by substance abuse (addiction centers, donations to poverty and recovery programs, advocating the humanization of victims where it is otherwise lacking, ect.) as well as reduction of potential harm via cracking down on the worst suppliers of these trades and holding the law accountable for mistreatment of those involved in this life.

Um, that is exactly what the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner is promising to do. The Campaigner is talking about social reform, addition treatment, and humanization of victims and reformed criminals. It's the Detective talking about police persecutions and crackdowns, with a helping hand only for members of her own profession.
.
A Kinder London wrote:
She champions a great many causes, large and small, for nothing is beneath her notice and she will let no vice go unchecked. Yet, she cares for animals, the poor, the reformed criminals and honey addicts with as much fervour as she crusades against wicked landlords and spirifiers, liquor merchants and honey peddlers.

The Campaigner's Campaign wrote:
"I have dedicated my life to fighting exploitation. Yes, I've fought the honey-pushers, who addict dreamers, and the drink-dealers who poison mothers and fathers. But I'm here to fight the factory-owners, the landlords, the bankers who drive our citizens into such harmful escapes. We must help the addled and afflicted, provide houses of respite and healing. And tea. I am in favour of tea."

edited by Anne Auclair on 6/26/2017

What I mean is that I prefer solely of those methods without the generalized vilifying of the sources when resources could be better spent on assembling a more acceptable variant of temperance that takes on the worst of these areas rather than the general market for them. No one is free from indulgence, but treating it all as the same level of issue sometimes holds more negative consequences than intended. Also, while I enjoy these talks, perhaps they would be better suited for private messages rather than public discussion? At least, when it's just the two of us talking back and forth.

--
Sir Joseph Marlen - The Romantic Sophist
Alexus Harven - The Defiant Fatalist
Rose Reinhelm - The Respectful Revolutionary
Cappuccino - The Perfidious Spycraft


Available for any and all social actions.
+1 link
Teaspoon
Teaspoon
Posts: 866

6/26/2017
But other people enjoy reading the talks! Words are good! Let debate flourish!

(I CRAVE WORDS and I have no actions to play with after finishing a short story.)
edited by Teaspoon on 6/26/2017

--
Truth lies at the bottom of a well.

https://www.fallenlondon.com/profile/Alt%20Ern
+5 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/26/2017
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:

What I mean is that I prefer solely of those methods without the generalized vilifying of the sources when resources could be better spent on assembling a more acceptable variant of temperance that takes on the worst of these areas rather than the general market for them.

So your argument boils down to "Her positions are completely right, but she's too intense about it"? Lukewarm people don't spend their life campaigning for things and the general market is where the action is.

Also, the ultimate sources of prisoners honey and intoxicating liquors are Mr Spices and Mr Wines, not mom and pop dealers.

Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
No one is free from indulgence, but treating it all as the same level of issue sometimes holds more negative consequences than intended.

To be effective morals have to be universal. Otherwise you're arguing one set of morality for one group, another set of morality for another... Everything becomes muddled or falls apart amid relativism and hypocrisy. It's best to put forward a strong message and let people fit it into their own lives as best they can, as they see fit.
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
Also, while I enjoy these talks, perhaps they would be better suited for private messages rather than public discussion? At least, when it's just the two of us talking back and forth.

I prefer public debates. They have a chance of influencing bystanders.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/26/2017

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
0 link
Diptych
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3911

6/27/2017
Remember to keep it friendly, folks. Fictional elections are jolly interesting to talk about, but they also bring the rare benefit of not having to get too impassioned about them, 'cause they're fictional.

--
Diptych, the Emancipationist Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
+4 link
Sir Joseph Marlen
Sir Joseph Marlen
Posts: 577

6/27/2017
Teaspoon wrote:
But other people enjoy reading the talks! Words are good! Let debate flourish!

(I CRAVE WORDS and I have no actions to play with after finishing a short story.)
edited by Teaspoon on 6/26/2017

Ah, then by all means, let us carry on! I'm glad to see these discussions being fun rather than seen as an annoyance.
Anne Auclair wrote:
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:

What I mean is that I prefer solely of those methods without the generalized vilifying of the sources when resources could be better spent on assembling a more acceptable variant of temperance that takes on the worst of these areas rather than the general market for them.

So your argument boils down to "Her positions are completely right, but she's too intense about it"? Lukewarm people don't spend their life campaigning for things and the general market is where the action is.

Also, the ultimate sources of prisoners honey and intoxicating liquors are Mr Spices and Mr Wines, not mom and pop dealers.

My argument is "she has some interesting ideas but they're mixed with and has shown a history of holding extreme ideas so I'm not sure if I'm comfortable trusting her." While I'm all for going outside the center of a middleground, I am unsure of supporting goals that inevitably feel misguided or short-sighted in some form or fashion without the knowledge to properly deal with them. In other words, she provides an extreme that may do more harm than good solely for the sake of moral argument. And, even if Mr Spices and Mr Wines are the source of these vices, are we to forget the masses who fall under their occupation? That isn't to say that they have the moral justification to callusly abuse human urges and addictions, but rather that the trade will continue with or without the various people whose livelihoods center on this business. The industry is far from perfect, but pressing down the trade further behind closed doors will only hand pay from the average citizen to less reputable and more criminal sources. I'm sure the Blind Bruiser or the Cheery Man would love to have a grip on the market.
Anne Auclair wrote:
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
No one is free from indulgence, but treating it all as the same level of issue sometimes holds more negative consequences than intended.

To be effective morals have to be universal. Otherwise you're arguing one set of morality for one group, another set of morality for another... Everything becomes muddled or falls apart amid relativism and hypocrisy. It's best to put forward a strong message and let people fit it into their own lives as best they can, as they see fit.

Why must the solution to an issue be a straightforward approach that lacks nuance or room for ambiguity? Morality is a muddled confusing mess, that's why things are so hotly debated and don't always provide a clear right or wrong answer. Worse people than the Campaigner (who, mind you, I don't believe is inherently a bad person) have done lesser things in the name of good intentions and caused unforeseen harm or wrongs that they do not perceive as wrong. I would support her if she were an open-minded individual who took a nurturing approach to the harms facing the impoverished and downtrodden; if nothing else, we may at least alleviate the damage done by the issues of addiction. It's her stances that go beyond this threshold and into the territory of prohibition and extreme prevention that make her less reasonable when approached by the undecided individual.
Anne Auclair wrote:
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
Also, while I enjoy these talks, perhaps they would be better suited for private messages rather than public discussion? At least, when it's just the two of us talking back and forth.

I prefer public debates. They have a chance of influencing bystanders.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/26/2017

I agree, I just worry about people getting annoyed with hearing two people argue over the same issue by themselves. But if people are okay with it and respect is upheld, I see no reason to stop.
Sir Frederick Tanah-Chook wrote:
Remember to keep it friendly, folks. Fictional elections are jolly interesting to talk about, but they also bring the rare benefit of not having to get too impassioned about them, 'cause they're fictional.


Thanks for the reminder! Should I say anything too far or that could be interpreted as such, please let me know.
edited by Sir Joseph Marlen on 6/27/2017

--
Sir Joseph Marlen - The Romantic Sophist
Alexus Harven - The Defiant Fatalist
Rose Reinhelm - The Respectful Revolutionary
Cappuccino - The Perfidious Spycraft


Available for any and all social actions.
0 link
LillianAranach
LillianAranach
Posts: 45

6/27/2017
One potential issue I see with the Dauntless Campaigner's practice of cutting off the source of such goods as Prisoner's Honey and alcohol is that it will also prevent those who indulge in moderation from acquiring them. I feel that if I want to spend some of my free time with any given drug, and I am able and willing to stop when enough is enough, I should be able to enjoy that luxury. Her platform seems to limit regular recreation as well as raging addiction.

--
They say, "There is a delightfully delectable corruption about Aranach, and she seeks to spread it, all the while revelling in truth and sin in equal parts."

http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Lillian%20Aranach
+2 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/27/2017
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:

My argument is "she has some interesting ideas but they're mixed with and has shown a history of holding extreme ideas so I'm not sure if I'm comfortable trusting her." While I'm all for going outside the center of a middleground, I am unsure of supporting goals that inevitably feel misguided or short-sighted in some form or fashion. In other words, she provides an extreme that may do more harm than good solely for the sake of moral argument...
The industry is far from perfect, but pressing down the trade further behind closed doors will only hand pay from the average citizen to less reputable and more criminal sources. I'm sure the Blind Bruiser or the Cheery Man would love to have a grip on the market.

I don't see any extremism in her proposals. She merely wants to reduce the supply of intoxicants and honey so people consume less, create a moral atmosphere disapproving of their consumption, while also cracking down on the economic exploitation that drives people to escapism. These are standard middle-way Temperance/reform positions, not hardline prohibition.

It's not like the DTC's is planning 'Grand Prosecutions' or pledging to empower the already heavy handed police force to achieve her vision. Someone else is doing that.
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
Why must the solution to an issue be a straightforward approach that lacks any nuance or room for ambiguity. Morality is a muddled confusing mess, that's why things are so hotly debated and don't always provide a clear right or wrong answer. Worse people than the Campaigner (who, mind you, I don't believe is inherently a bad person) have done lesser things in the name of good intentions and caused unforeseen harm or wrongs that they do not perceive as wrong.

Governments have to come to moral decisions every day. The Campaigner is arguing that London has a social crisis and its immoral not to attempt its alleviation. And campaigning on a strong moral vision is a positive in of itself, because the more people who adopt it voluntarily, or after a stern talking to leaves them feeling embarrassed, the less need there is for the heavy hand of the state. If there's anything to take away from working with the Constables, it's that they suck at dealing with anything that can't be solved by beating the hell out of it. Having an officer pretend to be a drunk in order to beat up thieves robbing drunks is a very poor response to drunkenness, poverty, and homelessness. It's better and more efficient to help those poor souls in the first place.

When the police are called in it's an admission that society has failed and the Powers That Be have no solution but containment.

Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
I would support her if she were an open-minded individual who took a nurturing approach to the harms facing the impoverished and downtrodden; if nothing else, we may at least alleviate the damage done by the issues of addiction. It's her stances that go beyond this threshold and into the territory of prohibition and extreme prevention that make her less reasonable when approached by the undecided individual.

She does take a nurturing approach and she has pledged treatment. Her whole program boils down to helping people through a combination of reducing the supply of drugs, direct assistance to addicts, better treatment for workers and tenets, and moral propaganda. All straightforward, sensible measures, exactly the sort of thing you'd want to do to combat substance abuse and poverty, which go hand in hand. There's not a hint of coercion in any of these proposals, not one suggestion that is anything remotely like prohibition.

The candidate of coercion and the police is the one you are supporting.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/27/2017

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+2 link
Sir Joseph Marlen
Sir Joseph Marlen
Posts: 577

6/27/2017
Anne Auclair wrote:
I don't see any extremism in her proposals. She merely wants to reduce the supply of intoxicants and honey so people consume less, create a moral atmosphere disapproving of their consumption, while also cracking down on the economic exploitation that drives people to escapism. These are standard middle-way Temperance/reform positions, not hardline prohibition.
It's not like the DTC's is planning 'Grand Prosecutions' or pledging to empower the already heavy handed police force to achieve her vision. Someone else is doing that.

I would consider using funds to buy honey en masse and tampering with its trade to be an extreme as well as a waste. Along with her personal beliefs and actions in the past, such as labeling the consumption of gin to be a sin and thumping the soulless seeking ease in drink, she doesn't initially give off an air of trust with a more moderate ideal. Yes, practical middle-way ideas are mixed in with her more radical ones, but these harsher ideals sour the better of them as well as the Campaigner for me.
Anne Auclair wrote:
Governments have to come to moral decisions every day. The Campaigner is arguing that London has a social crisis and its immoral not to attempt its alleviation. And campaigning on a strong moral vision is a positive in of itself, because the more people who adopt it voluntarily, or after a stern talking to leaves them feeling embarrassed, the less need there is for the heavy hand of the state. If there's anything to take away from working with the Constables, it's that they suck at dealing with anything that can't be solved by beating the hell out of it. Having an officer pretend to be a drunk in order to beat up thieves robbing drunks is a very poor response to drunkenness, poverty, and homelessness. It's better and more efficient to help those poor souls in the first place.

When the police are called in it's an admission that society has failed and the Powers That Be have no solution but containment.

Justice is also considered an alleviation to an ongoing social crisis, especially when the judge is just as if not more so scrutinous of her underlings than the defendants overall, and may arguably solve many of the issues the poor face. Though, what should happen when the oncoming of temperance doesn't come willingly? Putting aside the fact that pressuring the public into a subjective moral view is in itself problematic, we have to question if and when the heavy hand is needed. Who will enforce this? The Constables and the law you take issue against? Or a gang of charged enforcers led by their various opinions on the extent of their goal? As for the Constables, I somewhat agree that a portion of their forces are unfit to do their job. And should this be held as an issue (which frankly, it should), then wouldn't a potential solution be a thorough analysis on the faction from an individual presiding over them with an encouragement of private investigators outside the police force and an even check for any issue inside or outside the system?
Anne Auclair wrote:
She does take a nurturing approach and she has pledged treatment. Her whole program boils down to helping people through a combination of reducing the supply of drugs, direct assistance to addicts, better treatment for workers and tenets, and moral propaganda. All straightforward, sensible measures, exactly the sort of thing you'd want to do to combat substance abuse and poverty, which go hand in hand. There's not a hint of coercion in any of these proposals, not one suggestion that is anything remotely like prohibition.

The candidate of coercion and the police is the one you are supporting.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/27/2017


As I've stated, it's not the topics of aiding the victimized or combating abuse that I worry about. It's the mitigation of a product mostly harmless when used responsibly and the improper disposal of said substances for the sake of moral change alone that make me question the results of her campaign. While the police are more of a neutral organization than anything depending on the individual copper, I wouldn't say that the pressure of social change and the aggression towards those associated with the substance with varying levels of guilt on London's suffering is without coercion. If there is to be someone with the ability to take charge with their position as mayor, I prefer one who will hold her workers to a reasonable judgement with the intention of finding true justice lying under the grimy cover ups and shadowy dealings on all parts involved. I want justice and truth over generalized good intentions that charge the product guilty rather than the mishandlers of it.

--
Sir Joseph Marlen - The Romantic Sophist
Alexus Harven - The Defiant Fatalist
Rose Reinhelm - The Respectful Revolutionary
Cappuccino - The Perfidious Spycraft


Available for any and all social actions.
+2 link
Lady Sapho Byron
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 809

6/27/2017
Anne Auclair wrote:

To be effective morals have to be universal. Otherwise you're arguing one set of morality for one group, another set of morality for another... Everything becomes muddled or falls apart amid relativism and hypocrisy. It's best to put forward a strong message and let people fit it into their own lives as best they can, as they see fit.



Exactly the point! By supporting the DTC I support the social mores I derive so much pleasure in flouting! Feducci would throw the whole thing over ... and then who could I shock and titillate?

The ID is more palatable ... but hardly as kind-hearted as the DTC (the Constables need more powers? I question her as a logician if this is part of her platform.) ... my personal morales are lax, but not my social ones.
edited by Lady Sapho Byron on 6/27/2017

--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
+2 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/27/2017
Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
I would consider using funds to buy honey en masse and tampering with its trade to be an extreme as well as a waste. Along with her personal beliefs and actions in the past, such as labeling the consumption of gin to be a sin and thumping the soulless seeking ease in drink, she doesn't initially give off an air of trust with a more moderate ideal.

It's hardly extreme - she's buying the product on the open market to raise its price and lower consumption (presumably the same thing will later be done with licensing restrictions and taxes). Nor is it extreme to protest a malevolent and predatory business that is openly preying on people (the Devil openly boasts of collecting his patrons souls and displays those souls behind the bar). The DTC is personally a fairly moderate candidate all things considered. She has put forward a comprehensive platform of sensible reforms to be implemented peacefully and democratically. It's only the sum total of the vision that is radical, the scope that is impressive. Individually the proposals are rather small, but collectively they add up to something big.

Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
Though, what should happen when the oncoming of temperance doesn't come willingly? Putting aside the fact that pressuring the public into a subjective moral view is in itself problematic, we have to question if and when the heavy hand is needed. Who will enforce this? The Constables and the law you take issue against? Or a gang of charged enforcers led by their various opinions on the extent of their goal?

People who want nothing to do with temperance will no doubt carry on their lives with some mild inconvenience, but not much else. There's only so much that can be done. However, a combination of reasonable regulation, humane legislation, and moral persuasion should dramatically improve conditions for those willing to be helped. There will be fewer addicts, fewer homeless people, fewer broken families, fewer lost souls, and thus a reduced need for police. Temperance and reform don't have to be 100% effective to be effective.

Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
While the police are more of a neutral organization than anything depending on the individual copper,

The police are not neutral - they serve the rich and the Masters first and foremost. It's explicitly stated on their faction card. Which is what the primary purpose of the police has been historically - to protect property by maintaining social order. The police exist to punish people, not help them. More cops on the street with greater power to enforce their will won't reduce the number of homeless addicts on London's streets.

Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
And should this be held as an issue (which frankly, it should), then wouldn't a potential solution be a thorough analysis on the faction from an individual presiding over them with an encouragement of private investigators outside the police force and an even check for any issue inside or outside the system?

The Detective has no intention of reforming the police force to make it more humane. She just wants to make it more efficient for her coming crackdowns. She's all thumbs, no fingers. As far as she's concerned, if there's a problem the police just need to put their thumb on it and crush it down flat. But heaven help us if someone from her circle falls on hard times! Then there should be charity and a helping hand! No subtlety, its all 'violence and force for everyone outside her narrow little world. She sees things through a magnifying glass - every problem its own little atom, to be dealt with brutally and efficiently.

Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
I wouldn't say that the pressure of social change and the aggression towards those associated with the substance with varying levels of guilt on London's suffering is without coercion.

Coercion requires physical force. Buying honey on the open market in order to take it out of circulation is not coercion. Peacefully protesting a business in order to shame its owner or dissuade people from patronizing it is not coercion.

Sir Joseph Marlen wrote:
I want justice and truth over generalized good intentions that charge the product guilty rather than the mishandlers of it.

Ah, the good old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. The product is not to blame, don't regulate or demonize the product, just cleanup the problems the unregulated product creates and accept that's all that can be done.

And is there anything more coercive then saying "Let's not regulate the product, let's instead police the people"? People become less free and their well being is sacrificed so that the product can promenade without restriction.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/27/2017

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+1 link
Sir Joseph Marlen
Sir Joseph Marlen
Posts: 577

6/27/2017
Anne Auclair wrote:
It's hardly extreme - she's buying the product on the open market to raise its price and lower consumption (presumably the same thing will later be done with licensing restrictions and taxes). Nor is it extreme to protest a malevolent and predatory business that is openly preying on people (the Devil openly boasts of collecting his patrons souls and displays those souls behind the bar). The DTC is personally a fairly moderate candidate all things considered. She has put forward a comprehensive platform of sensible reforms to be implemented peacefully and democratically. It's only the sum total of the vision that is radical, the scope that is impressive. Individually the proposals are rather small, but collectively they add up to something big.

Some people do and will choose their vices over necessities. As unfortunate as it is, there are those who are so chained to their addictions that they would choose underhanded loans and the small amount of supply they can afford over the needs of themselves or others. It would make more sense to regulate the product after the election when her promises of aiding the poor have been implemented so that they are at less risk of further poverty.
Anne Auclair wrote:
People who want nothing to do with temperance will no doubt carry on their lives with some mild inconvenience, but not much else. There's only so much that can be done. However, a combination of reasonable regulation, humane legislation, and moral persuasion should dramatically improve conditions for those willing to be helped. There will be fewer addicts, fewer homeless people, fewer broken families, fewer lost souls, and thus a reduced need for police. Temperance and reform don't have to be 100% effective to be effective.

Sabotaging the sale of the abused substance before the creation of aid to the consumers of it (both the causal and the dependent) and a balancing of it within the market do not denote reasonable regulation. I agree with your humane legislation point, but as for moral persuasion, past experiences with her have not implied the gentle touch of this skill. While effective, the social ramifications of publicly damning the use of these ailments may prove harmful to those responsibly practicing their vice. Yes, persuasion can be used to lead the people away from these products, but I don't trust the person who uses heavy phrases and demonization to preach moderation and morality.
Anne Auclair wrote:
The police are not neutral - they serve the rich and the Masters first and foremost. It's explicitly stated on their faction card. Which is what the primary purpose of the police has been historically - to protect property by maintaining social order. The police exist to punish people, not help them. More cops on the street with greater power to enforce their will won't reduce the number of homeless addicts on London's streets.

Speaking of cards, I'd like to point out the card The Implacable Detective's Campaign, the one that mentions how politicians and parliamentarians are worried of the corruption she'd unearth were she to become mayor. Here's part of the text for learning about her platform: '"We need to take a firmer hand with the law." She wrinkles her nose. "So many of our finest minds end their careers mired in poverty or honey. I intend to spend money cleaning them up and putting them back on the streets. They need help." Her eyes smoulder behind glasses. "Brilliance stymied by greed, corruption and wickedness!"'

Anyone claiming that she is out to support the rich and powerful have been mislead during this election. Her campaign has pushed for the betterment of people who have been stunted by the addictions and troubles you speak of. There is an issue with interpreting a crackdown on corruption from all levels of society with a particular interest in the elite and a thorough search on the law beneath her has a single woman hoarding the power for the rich to stay rich and the police to abuse their strength further.
Anne Auclair wrote:
The Detective has no intention of reforming the police force to make it more humane. She just wants to make it more efficient for her coming crackdowns. She's all thumbs, no fingers. As far as she's concerned, if there's a problem the police just need to put their thumb on it and crush it down flat. But heaven help us if someone from her circle falls on hard times! Then there should be charity and a helping hand! No subtlety, its all 'violence and force for everyone outside her narrow little world. She sees things through a magnifying glass - every problem its own little atom, to be dealt with brutally and efficiently.

I believe you are mistaking a single woman, one who is an investigator occasionally working in tangent with the Constables, as their sole leader in caricature form. You're understanding a reform and launching of a new and better legal system as a scam for power headed by the worst of the worst constables, when the defamation isn't even targeted at a head of the constables to begin with.
Anne Auclair wrote:
Coercion requires physical force. Buying honey on the open market in order to take it out of circulation is not coercion. Peacefully protesting a business in order to shame its owner or dissuade people from patronizing it is not coercion.

Coercion: use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
Intimidate: frighten or overawe, especially in order to make them do what one wants.
Anne Auclair wrote:
Ah, the good old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. The product is not to blame, don't regulate or demonize the product, just cleanup the problems the unregulated product creates and accept that's all that can be done.
And is there anything more coercive then saying "Let's not regulate the product, let's instead police the people"? People become less free and their well being is sacrificed so that the product can promenade without restriction.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/27/2017

Regulate? The Campaigner's plan so far is to dump magical drugs down a hole. A promise of future regulation is one thing, but to actively destroy the supply outright before winning is different. And yes, I do hold a distaste for demonization. It breeds contempt and fear rather than accuracy and logical caution. You accuse this woman of coercion and limiting freedom when she has fought against such restrictions from higher up when compared to a woman with a noble goal that uses fear and personal judgement to form said goal.
edited by Sir Joseph Marlen on 6/27/2017

--
Sir Joseph Marlen - The Romantic Sophist
Alexus Harven - The Defiant Fatalist
Rose Reinhelm - The Respectful Revolutionary
Cappuccino - The Perfidious Spycraft


Available for any and all social actions.
+3 link
LillianAranach
LillianAranach
Posts: 45

6/27/2017
Anne Auclair wrote:

Ah, the good old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. The product is not to blame, don't regulate or demonize the product, just cleanup the problems the unregulated product creates and accept that's all that can be done.

And is there anything more coercive then saying "Let's not regulate the product, let's instead police the people"? People become less free and their well being is sacrificed so that the product can promenade without restriction.


In my experience demonizing anything worsens the problems surrounding its abuse. Instead of allowing someone to learn how to use a drug properly (how much is acceptable to use, what the effects really are, etc.), an approach based in demonization tells people to simply abstain without any question. It sounds to my ears like the perfect circumstance for overdose, dangerous combinations of drugs, or the like.

--
They say, "There is a delightfully delectable corruption about Aranach, and she seeks to spread it, all the while revelling in truth and sin in equal parts."

http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Lillian%20Aranach
+3 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/27/2017
It would make more sense to regulate the product after the election when her promises of aiding the poor have been implemented so that they are at less risk of further poverty.

It makes sense to reduce the supply now. When you take Prisoners Honey you go off to Parabola and hence you aren't around to hear the Dauntless Temperance Campaigners message.

Sabotaging the sale of the abused substance before the creation of aid to the consumers of it (both the causal and the dependent) and a balancing of it within the market do not denote reasonable regulation.


It's not sabotage if you're buying it on the open market at a fair market price that others can compete with.

While effective, the social ramifications of publicly damning the use of these ailments may prove harmful to those responsibly practicing their vice. Yes, persuasion can be used to lead the people away from these products, but I don't trust the person who uses heavy phrases and demonization to preach moderation and morality.

The whole rationale for temperance is that certain products are destructive, individually and socially, and therefore people should be discouraged from using them. You seem to think it's outrageous that the DTC calls a spade a spade: says these products are harmful and the people selling them immoral. Is it demonizing to say that cigarettes are addicting, destroy your health, and cause cancer and that the companies that sell these deadly products are profiting off addiction and death? Because America's tobacco prevention policies have been using that message for decades. You're arguing against the very idea of temperance.

Here's part of the text for learning about her platform: '"We need to take a firmer hand with the law." She wrinkles her nose. "So many of our finest minds end their careers mired in poverty or honey. I intend to spend money cleaning them up and putting them back on the streets. They need help."

Anyone claiming that she is out to support the rich and powerful have been mislead during this election. Her campaign has pushed for the betterment of people who have been stunted by the addictions and troubles you speak of.

As far as the Detective is concerned, only her friends need help. That is the full extent of her benevolence. Most of the people ruined by poverty and honey are not detectives with heartfelt connections to a well-to-do would-be Mayor. All the Detective does here is admit the full breath of the social crisis afflicting London, so great that even the Detective cannot help but adopt a little temperance if the police force is to be brought up to snuff.

Coercion: use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
Intimidate: frighten or overawe, especially in order to make them do what one wants.

I don't think the Temperance Campaigner has frightened or intimidated anyone. During Hallowmas, when she really has it in for your character, all she does is annoy you with non-stop protests.

You accuse this woman of coercion and limiting freedom

The Detective wants to give the Constables more power, which will increase their ability to coerce Londoners and thus limit the citizenry's freedom. This is a police force that already has the power to beat up suspects in the street - do they really need increased authority? And it's always the poorer citizens who will suffer most at the hands of the police. Why? Because they can't hire Baseborn and Fowlingpiece to get them off. Becuase they can't get a Master to show up at the court and whisper something to the judge. Because the laws being enforced will largely be the laws of the Bazaar, designed to protect the interests of the Masters and the rich.

when compared to a woman with a noble goal that uses fear and personal judgement to form said goal.

The DTC believes alcohol and prisoner's honey are malign, exploitative commodities. There is a good basis for holding said belief - one can't walk through London without bumping into or tripping over people brought low from them. She's not using fear and her beliefs are well argued. The harm these products do is real.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/27/2017

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
0 link
LillianAranach
LillianAranach
Posts: 45

6/27/2017
Many drugs such as alcohol are not inherently malign. Certainly if you get blackout drunk on the regular, your liver will suffer the dire consequences. If, however, you occasionally drink a glass of wine with dinner, the negative long-term effects are little to none. In fact, some believe such a practice can help with some heart problems. It is, how you say, a case of: "guns don't kill people; people kill people." Alcohol can definitely kill you, but only if you use it in a particular and irresponsible way.

Now, I am sure you are more concerned with those uses of addictive substance that teeter on the borders of moderation. For example, getting blackout drunk on rare occassion. Still, in these cases where worrying over the negative social and physical consequences is legitimate, I tend towards leaving it to individual responsibility. It is perfectly plausible to enjoy yourself in this way without becoming addicted - just as it is possible to indulge in large quantities of food at a feast without becoming a binge eater. I would rather leave it up to the person to temper themselves than restrict the sale of the recreational item all together (because even if that person can't temper themselves many others can). Personal temperance, at least as described above, is, by the way, bolstered by proper education on how to use potentially dangerous substances safely, not restriction and demonization.

--
They say, "There is a delightfully delectable corruption about Aranach, and she seeks to spread it, all the while revelling in truth and sin in equal parts."

http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Lillian%20Aranach
+4 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/27/2017
Personal temperance is not working in London though. If it were working we wouldn't be where we are now, would we?

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+1 link




Powered by Jitbit Forum 8.0.2.0 © 2006-2013 Jitbit Software