In the interests of a more open Election, Sinning Jenny has persuaded Mr Huffam to print a special Election edition of the Gazette. Free copies are being distributed from Hastings Square, where Jenny herself can be seen making conversation with voters at all hours of the day, often with a saucer and cup of tea in her hand. A copy is pressed into your hands by an Adonis of a mayoral aide.

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:

It is worth mentioning that if I wanted above all to humiliate Jenny and pull her legacy up by the roots, I'd be supporting Feducci. And if I wanted above all to investigate Jenny's administration for corruption, I'd be supporting the Detective.

That may be so, but the point Barselaar is making is that you appear to have forsaken your previous principles and stances, all in an attempt to win votes. You could have shown the rest of the forums that you're a woman of your word, and admitted that perhaps it's wrong of you to praise Jenny's endorsement of the DTC; however, you compromised everything you had previously stood for (or, I suppose, against) and shown us all you're just a hypocrite with no true guiding compass. For shame.
edited by Drake Dynamo on 7/4/2017

Christ on a bike, people. It's not even dawn yet and I awake to personal attacks and "hilarious" racism. I suggest you get your posts back in order before I finish my next cuppa.

I thought the ritual suicide was for people who had been discovered to have insufficient honour?

And correspondingly, to be equal is to be dead. If one is only equal when one is dead, then equality is death.

I'm not a fan of conflict, however mild

I am also a tad nervous of the Young Stags being involved having played Seven Day Reign, but I think we should remember that this very much appears to be Chuffy and Company helping his relatives and not the Stags as a whole signing on.

The early flavour text of that story seems to suggest that Chuffy is not a member of the inner circle of the Young Stags and I very much doubt his Dauntless Grandmum would allow him to guard honey if he was (considering what they get up to in the story). The majority of Stags are louts and probably far from the most effective guard the Campaigner could arrange, but they're largely harmless and guarding a pit full of opiatic dreamjuice keeps them out of trouble anyway.

although I must admit I am concerned at her turning a blind eye to the actions of her grandson, who threatens to undermine her whole campaign

And correspondingly, to be equal is to be dead. If one is only equal when one is dead, then equality is death.

... equality is death and liberty is license"

-snip-

*Ahem* I would like to address those among us who, like myself, hold our current mayor in the high regard she deserves. In fact, I would go so far as to claim actual affection for her, and have been ever a supporter of her efforts. I understand that many of you, in light of this respect for the mayor, may be having second thought after her disagreement with Feducci. Please Ladies, Gentlemen and assorted other personages, allow me to implore you to not allow this personal disagreement between two of our fair city's most worthy names to jeopardise our shared future! These two luminaries are, we must remember, both immensely strong personalities, ill suited to compromise or surrender; it is for this reason we admire them.Of course they would come into conflict when they come to share space!

therefore 'government=tyranny' which is my point

Blaine Davidson wrote:

My character initially backed Feducci due to recognition and due to the Campaigner accusing her of some scandal.

But in light of everything she is on the edge of jumping ship. If someone could convince her in game how the Anarchists are not a concern, and why wasting so much honey and wine is acceptable, the appropriate amounts of Fate could be spent.

I sent you some RP about the anarchists via a two part letter. I rather liked it, so I'm posting it here as well. Though on this thread it should be read for the argument, not the RP.

Anne pays you a visit, though unusually she has a teapot in lieu of her ubiquitous pamphlets.

“I understand you have some concerns about the anarchists seen lurking around the Campaigner’s campaign. I can assure you that all those who are loyal to the Council are doing nothing, nothing but lurking, impotently and fearfully. The Campaigner has the Calendar Council badly frightened you see, because she is a student of March, whose real name was John Cassell. Cassell believed in temperance and gradual reform to better the life of the working class. The Council assassinated March because the prospect of his popular success was an obstacle and threat to their nihilistic plans – you know what those are, of course. But March’s ideas did not die with him and the Campaigner has been putting them into practice her entire life.

“Some of the Council sent agents to intimidate her (sounds like February’s work), but the Campaigner shut them up right quick: “You think I'd ever forget John? I campaign against all injustice, great and small. Now go!&quot And they went, and now the Council is quacking in their committee rooms and bolt-holes at the prospect of her success. We can fight the Masters and the Powers That Be without blowing it all up! Imagine that! Nothing fuels the extremist like the hopelessness of reforming the world as is and nothing deflates them like real and successful reform. That’s why they strangled the Contrarian’s campaign last year. If Feducci were to win, all his promises would sour…and then what would happen? The Council’s power would grow.

“You will find no stronger opponent of the Liberation than me. Would you like to have some tea?”
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/4/2017

I sent you some RP about the anarchists via a two part letter. I rather liked it, so I'm posting it here as well. Though on this thread it should be read for the argument, not the RP.
*snip*

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.

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

So you are mainly making it up then, and presenting it as fact.

As far as I know, the main thing Jenny did was to educate urchins and dockers, thereby allowing them to improve their lives.

The Mayor has hired out-of-work Wolfstack dockers to renovate the east wing. Once finished, it'll become the Office for Public Works; Jenny's former employees stand ready to move in.

Jenny's work on London proceeds at similar pace. Soup kitchens are already attached to several theatres. Gin houses will be forced to provide beds – within weeks! She's even organised voluntary glaive training with the sisters.

OOC, I think this was an outstanding choice by FBG. Jenny was/is an incredibly popular candidate who got a vast majority of the vote. So, at the halfway point of this election, having her come out against the candidate who is winning and come out in favour of the candidate pulling up the rear is a great way to upend things and have people switch their choice.

The trouble is that, after a week, most people have already gotten quite a few levels in their chosen career. The only way to switch candidates and not throw all that away is to spend Fate. Enough Fate to buy a unique story.
I don't think there is much they can reveal which can get anyone to either give up all the actions they've spent or to give up real money.

Gillsing wrote:

No, I'm now pretty sure that it's supposed to be interpreted as 'anyone, high or low, can be killed'.

What? Why? ... He's clearly talking about rising the social ladder/climbing the chain.

If someone could convince her in game how the Anarchists are not a concern, and why wasting so much honey and wine is acceptable, the appropriate amounts of Fate could be spent.