I don't think so. I remember it being the same reward across the board. Some people really hated that.

Garbled nonsense

Jenny’s candidacy is "one of Mr Wines' little pranks"
Jenny “doesn't seem to have any greater cause than her own ambition”
Sinning Jenny’s administration is “corrupt, scandal plagued, and incompetent”
“One doesn't have to bend to attribute malevolence to Sinning Jenny. One has to bend to not do so.”
“Society didn't like Jenny, it's why she had to blackmail them.”
“Her whole campaign is thus proven false.”
Jenny is “a fundamentally selfish and dishonest person.”

Anne Auclair wrote:

Okay, with Equality in Death, equality waits until death, with no equality in life. Inherent is equality being either bad or impossible.

Akernis wrote:

Feducci never claimed that one has to be dead to be equal...

I think he does. He writes: All Could Rise, Most Shan't. Equality in Death, Liberty in License.

Let's take that statement apart.

1. All Could Rise - Feducci's vague plans to get rid of all restrictions on upward mobility.

2. Most Shan't - Self explanatory.

3. Equality in Death - no equality, equality is bad, equality should wait until death.

4. Liberty in License - being able to do whatever you want.

These are all fairly absolute principles.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/4/2017

I must disagree with at least some of your reasoning. Feducci, based on the writings available, isn't saying equality in life is bad, only that equality in death is inevitable. There is no better version of dead. Death is, as they say, the great equalizer.

As for the "All Could Rise" statement, there is less of a policy proposal and more of a basic statement of fact in this line: It is at least theoretically possible for ANYONE to succeed and advance in Feducci's worldview (and, one would assume, the player worldview, since time and effort spent in the Neath are rewarded with prominence, skill, wealth, and influence).

"Most Shan't" deals less with an outside force holding back one from a risen state. Rather, I believe the line implies that a lack of motivation, boldness, and clever preparation keep the low in their current place. Even the Campaigner must see her efforts wasted on the occasional backslider. Even the Detective knows recidivism runs high amongst Criminals. But the only bounds on one's opportunities should be of their own making. We cannot hold you back. But you may.

I believe I've already addressed the third portion on this statement with a radically different viewpoint, so finally on to the forth, "Liberty in License." Here, at last, we find common ground. "Being able to do whatever you want" states the case a bit...provocatively, but it gets the point across. To refine that point with some other Feducci sentiments, a citizen should be able to do what they wish. And then accept the consequences of those actions. One has the authority (or "License", if you will) to do as they please, but also have authority over the results. Make a large wager on dubious trade deals? Reap the monetary benefits of their success. Gamble your title on a horserace? Hand it over when you lose. Graciously.

Feducci wants the citizenry to take whatever action they can personally justify in order to advance. And to accept the results of those actions, come what may. He also realizes that many won't take this opportunity, or will do so and fail. He isn't promising a honey-dream utopia of Society women clasped arm-in-arm with reformed Bohemians, nor a crushing law-and-order totalitarian regime ruled by coldly logical Constables. He's giving everyone the CHANCE to rise, not the guarantee. And making no secret of the fact that not everyone can win. But everyone should have the equal opportunity to do so.

Anarchy's just a new government waiting to happen. Human nature abhors a vacuum.

Last year, you were not so much a Bishop supporter as an anti-Jenny campaigner, writing many strongly-worded and lengthy polemics against her and her principles over the course of not just the election, but her entire term.