IHNIWTR wrote:

I don't really think there's going to be much of a "race" this year, with all those progressive votes going again to the candidate promising investment in those lower in the social hierarchy.

I honestly wasn't sure which candidate was the progressive one until I reread your post more carefully. From the little we've seen of their policies, they seem to be an individualist free marketeer, a paternalist reformer, and a strict law-and-order type. All quite different to Jenny's platform.

So, in this case, I can't see her campaign to be much about women's rights, but more about, well, Temperance (whether for moderation or for abstinence).

Or maybe because Jenny, like Feducci, is referred to by name rather than [Adjective] [Noun].

Edward Warren wrote:

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.

Feducci is strongly implied to have no plans or strategies whatsoever for mayorship beyond simply winning the position.
--
edited by Sara Hysaro on 7/7/2017

It also doesn't seem that Feducci would allow some to elevate themselves, considering he chose as his rewared from Hell to transport and guard Devils' slaves. Are the slaves just not counted as "all" or are they the links of the chain we are supposed to climb?

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?

dov wrote:

True historically, but in Fallen London gender issues are not what they were in 19th century Britain.

They're better than they could be, but, well, just look at the widely-accepted theories of the Saturnine Physician, and the resistance to the Benthic lady's interest in entering government service. Things still have a long way to go.

Feducci has too many skeletons in his closet.

The progressive choice is obviously the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner (the temperance movement was an important strain of early feminism with explicit objectives for improving the welfare of women and children)

The mayoral elections were only introduced last year (1894) and it has never been implied that voting in them isn't open to all citizens of Fallen London.

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.

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.

So...do we still have a chance?

With Feducci having that huge starting lead and Dauntless getting all this surprise support, it's starting to feel like last year with the Bishop.

Mind you, I'm not going to defect for a chance at glory. Paranoid or not, the Detective's at least showing she's serious about scrubbing out corruption, and that's what got her my vote in the first place. I just hope that there's still a slight chance that my devotion will actually matter this time around.

• Feducci "gallops ahead"
• The Detective "trails behind"
• The DTC's "chances seem slim"

Dear friends! Let us use this election to build a lasting legacy! Don't vote for a candidate that will foster complacency among the poor, vote for the one that gives every man an honest chance to advance, should he have the spine to work for it! For a Fair London, I beseech you!

VOTE FEDUCCI!

Isaac Zienfried wrote:

Oh no, Anne would kill me if I switched sides. I'M IN TOO DEEP, GUYS.

You know, no one follows you inside the voting booth. You need not switch sides officially.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's a lot of words arguing that two very straightforward sentences shouldn't be read in a straightforward manner.

Are there any statements that women in Fallen London do have the vote? If Fallen London women can vote it seems very strange that there are at least two statements that women do not have the vote, but no statements that they do.

Also, in the United States women could run for office before they had the right to vote, so crazy things like that can happen.

Frederick Metzengerstein wrote:

The progressive choice is obviously the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner (the temperance movement was an important strain of early feminism with explicit objectives for improving the welfare of women and children)

True historically, but in Fallen London gender issues are not what they were in 19th century Britain.

So, in this case, I can't see her campaign to be much about women's rights, but more about, well, Temperance (whether for moderation or for abstinence).

In any case, not the Progressive choice (unless she'll show us multiple causes she supports).

zorgan won't be voting for the detective he hates the masters and the constables are their enforcers.

More like three different philosophies: the Unconfined (Feducci), the Legacy of the Anchoress (DTC), and the Implacable Method (the Detective).

Aaaand I believe I have found my candidate.

Not ideal, but infinitely better than the other two choices.

You don't know if that's because of her approach to social issues. It might just be that most players (which we on the forums do not represent) simply thought that Jenny was a cooler character (kick ass nun, etc.) and thus more appealing.

dov wrote:

There's always room for improvement.

But consider that in Fallen London, no one blinks at the fact that women can be scholars (some of them the best in their fields), ship captains, politicians, adventurers, police, military, etc.

People do blink, that's why the Bentic Lady has such trouble entering government service and why women still don't have the vote.

In the case of her victory, her card will obviously have one option which gives a Favour: Constables - but what about the other...?

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.

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?

While the police are more of a neutral organization than anything depending on the individual copper,

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?

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.

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

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

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!

I assumed they were there to help their friend Chuffy. He's a likeable fellow, and doesn't find it hard to convince his chums to join in his schemes. See also: the business with the Duchess.

We have the momentum and our three point plan is working as envisioned.

so I have to ask but....who or what exactly are the finger kings? I keep hearing people talking about them as if their a big deal but I've never ever encountered them even once in the game it self?.

is it a persifick fate story or ambition related? if so ill resign my self to be content in ignorance.

There are usually 4 main recognized groups of substance abusers.
...
4. Abstainers, people who've never used the substance or haven't been using for a considerably long amount of time.

I'll just first go over the economic arguments regarding how this will collapse a good portion of londons economy.
London has no real mining operations, and imports from the surface are far too costly.
As much as I hate it, the soul trade is nessasery if London is to bring in goods and recourses at a reasonable price.

Most of the metal London uses, it's coal, and it's coal subsatutes (such as coke); these are mostly imported from hell.
It's the only real place we can import it from in vast amounts without risking hundreds of echoes in boats.
So long as London keeps the soul trade going, Hell will offer discounts to Mr Fires, and to the official Zailers of London who visit any devil owned areas.
Cutting off the soul trade means hell has no reason to keep the price down for the majority of London, anyone following along with the anti-spirifier

Think of all the price reworkings The Masters would have to make (if they even cared) to make the city's 'less hell' plan work.

This will upset the trades of Mr Iron, Mr Fires, and possibly Mr Stone.
Then it will upset other trades as the city's factory's and boats lack enough fuel to go around, bringing much of the trade to a screeching halt.
This will upset Mr wines as his area of exports becomes almost completely jammed.

Protests brake out as not enough zailors are getting work to get the pay they need.

For that matter, coal is not especially expensive on the Surface. If we had to import it all through the Canal, it could be done.

This is probably the backup plan in case London does ever get into another war with the Iron Republic.

dov wrote:

Passionario wrote:

Or maybe because Jenny, like Feducci, is referred to by name rather than [Adjective] [Noun].

Possibly.

Feducci is also significantly more familiar to players than the other two candidates. Regardless of platform, he has a huge advantage already just based on name-recognition and past interactions in the game.

A lot of that familiarity is very negative though :P As in, he's that jerk who you have to do an insane grind in order to fight, kills you if you fail the check, and won't stay dead.

Oh no, Anne would kill me if I switched sides. I'M IN TOO DEEP, GUYS.