players of friends, players of enemies, I invite you to this plurk to freely discuss and plot reactions to this thing happening now that port is over. I am still catching up. I have port things I do really wanna do. But for now have this link to Walter approaching Malcolm. Please play along at home. I think I am very funny.
I am going to try to put any new major occurrences in here as I become aware of them, such as new confrontations with candidates for the election of a monitor of unpaired inmates
[source] That's Walter's friend Sweeney you're talking about!!! (they are friends in Walter's excessively hopeful American head) his friend who is helping with the SECURE AND FREE voting for the monitor election!!11
the bathroom rule is in there because some inmates come in without bathrooms in their cabins! Vincent in particular has no bathroom in his cabin because he refuses to ask Lark for much of anything.
it wasn't 'taken away' as a punishment but the fact that it's not standard in cabins necessarily by the Admiral means it's something that wardens can and possibly should fix
If he finds out Vincent actually wrote it maybe he'll just talk directly to Vincent about it. Just. To make sure he hasn't been punished in any of these ways XD
the wellness check would crack me up just because like. Lark absolutely hasn't punished Vincent with anything and spends 90% of his time adamantly fighting the idea he deserves any punishment at all.
fascinated by walter's point of like I don't know how you could more explicitly say "nothing should change" short of the exact words "everything should be exactly the same".
bc arthur is saying things should change, by actually verbalising assumptions rather than just. y'know. assuming. so everyone's working on the same framework
well, it would be more precise to say that Walter thinks Arthur thinks (and what he thinks is relevant regardless of the fact that allegedly an inmate wrote this and others vetted it) NOTHING should change besides curtailing warden abuse, which [he thinks] Arthur admits is either nonexistent or something he's cavalier about
and by calling them rights (because even though he didn't originally write it, he cosigned it) he implicitly firmly expresses that NONE of this other stuff should change
admittedly arthur is working from an assumption of optimism, which is that wardens are here to help, but that bc everyone is so different they don't all necessarily agree on how, and this is a method of organising that
I'm pretty sure Walter would have the same idea about this if Arthur was denouncing wardens left and right because then he'd be high and mighty as a hypocrite
Walter certainly does have a certain degree of active bias and manipulation involved but the stuff he's saying to Malcolm "what about showers? what about jobs? What about files?" is 100% legit?
wardens not requiring inmates to work at the jobs they are assigned by the admiral is 100% possible. wardens not reading inmates' files is 100% possible
PG
the problem with enforceable is that like. there needs to be something tangible to enforce, and currently that doesn't exist. so arthur's proposing it
Walter is having a reaction to the perception that the starting point is exactly the same as what the admiral currently regularly cooperates with and encourages. in the "we need a floor" metaphor it's like there's a house that has stairs instead of an elevator, has a very specific number of rat holes, etc
his thought process, when combined with his admittedly significant negative thought process, is not gonna be "oh yeah! hooray they're making a new floor! I just should tell them they should also put in an elevator" it is "why the hell did they not put in the elevator"
honestly "where are the fucking horses" is also a valid question when they are in an isolated environment where there are very few horses (i.e. they are on the barge and you can't just leave if you think the wardens suck and it is well known that for example zero stays have to mostly last seven days)
ʀᴜsʟɪᴛ ᴀɴᴛᴀɢ🧨
forcing people to adhere to a set of rules they don't necessarily agree with, with the expectation of punishment for defying it, doesn't make people willing to follow the rules, lmao
that doesnt seem like a reason not to have rules to me, or consequences for breaking rules, but i'm also running on low bandwidth and only meant to make a glib comment, which i perhaps shouldnt have. anyway, i also dont want to disrail the much more interesting discussion between yelena and arthurs disagreements
FʀɪᴇɴᴅIɴYᴇʟʟᴏᴡ
I know! But the basics of the Right doesn't mention the room filter and if there's a situation where the Admiral can't immediately provide... well there's not much anyone on the Barge not!Admiral can do about the room filter, but they can at least provide the basics of space and restroom.
like the "dictator" comment is slightly hyperbolic but arthur is in no way pretending he's willing or able to make this as a unilateral decision on behalf of like. a hundred people
Which is ALSO why Vincent was like 'okay but we do need some allowance that Wardens != Admiral and there may be delay in providing /inability TO provide every thing but even though it's perfectly reasonable to do so in the best of their abilities.
Haha. That is fair! Vincent V is just pointing out that private personal calls ARE technically a luxury that can be considered a suitable 'these are the consequences of your actions' punishment for some.
public can only be taken away in case of barge emergency. and at no point otherwise should public be taken away. never says anything about private calls
But yeah 'There may come a time when it is an effective punishment to limit it to private calls to their warden or the monitors, emergency calls to wardens or the infirmary staff and public responses to posts such as this only.' is what VV said. Basically they're on the same page, I personally just read the words in a different context. My bad!
Thanks for bringing it up tho. Sometimes what I the player confuse/read sometimes needs the proofreadin' and I appreciate when people bring it up so I can fact check and edit if necessary. c.c
a lot of what was written was from Vincent's point of view of growing up in an ACTUAL cult orphanage and some of the shit people did "for the good of the children" and he has little doubt other people know similar bullshit.
like yes he formatted it for the Barge but most of it was responding to abusive shit he lived through or witnessed, figuring that if the wardens couldn't agree to this as an absolute baseline there is absolutely no point to anything
which is why he would be all for addressing work and files and etc. but it wasn't his priority because it's more likely to be contentious, especially the work and the files.
FʀɪᴇɴᴅIɴYᴇʟʟᴏᴡ
: and if you think Lark didn't notice and isn't coming for that... I just need to have the brainwidth to handle deep conversations and right now my brain is fried
most wardens agree with most of these already, especially due to the fact we have a lot of wardens from a Modern Earth Adjacent setting, and the ones they don't is mostly just a matter of articulation
FʀɪᴇɴᴅIɴYᴇʟʟᴏᴡ
: I do want to say that in the previous plotting plurk showers were explicitly brought up with the indication Vincent S thinks they're extra and not important...? I'm sorry if it's frustrating to realize "proposing shower access was meant to be through a warden cabin coordination system that would be 100% possible"
also this is somewhat separate from what Walter would know IC, like he doesn't know right now that Vincent S is involved right now so it's more about his opinion of the document as currently presented where toilets are conspicuously mentioned instead of showers, but yeah that's where I am coming from
Even as a 'organize wardens to do it', he thinks it is a secondary concern to ensuring that wardens don't abuse people they don't like according to whims without an established baseline of standard treatment.
and while that isn't something that he's experienced here, he knows other people have and he also knows that it's not something there are any active protections against other than "have bigger friends" which is just 'suck up to the right people so you don't get hurt' with more steps
Mrs Sheepie
Just to be sure it was read right before I respond to 10: Did Arthur understand that Vincent was trying more to ask consideration on better definitions on how far confidentiality extends? Being sure because Denied just seems to categorically shut down any and all discourse so he'd remark on that.
walter can deliberately misinterpret that, but arthur's primary concern is making sure that the power to disclose that information stays primarily in the inmate's hands. they can choose who to tell whatever they like (which is outside the scope of the bill), but if a warden with access to their file spreads that without permission, they're explicitly wrong
This is talking about the paired warden himself reading the file. "attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient privilege; unless and until it is for the performance of the duties entrusted in them, that information should not be shared with other parties without explicit consent" the OTHER parties heavily implies that oh the PAIRED warden can read the file
so the way we're looking at it, i think, is that the warden DOES have the like. "legal" right to read the file, because that falls under Duties As A Warden, which is an Admiral Job Requirement
Yes. I'm saying that because section 10 says "the paired warden shouldn't tell ANYONE ELSE about the paired inmate's file", it does NOT make the more radical proposition that "even the paired warden should not read the file without the paired inmate's permission"
whether the warden chooses to read it is between them and their inmate, but they also don't have the right to share that information without their inmate's permission
They have access to the file no matter what. They can still choose not to read it. But yes this is where I was coming from with repeatedly noting "fundamental to the barge"
So to summarize more clearly, I am aware that Arthur and Vincent S are proposing at least some code of conduct, which is basically meant to set a bare minimum. This would represent at least some change, such as explicitly "a warden should not tell a THIRD PARTY about a file". That is true
But it is extremely not challenging to some other decisions in exactingly specific ways, hence Walter referring to it in very negative terms like a status quo manifesto.
so in IC terms, arthur and vincent are aware enough of the power systems/dynamics of the barge that they aren't going to push for reforms that they can't actually promise. arthur especially has seen characters attempt this with extremely negative social ramifications
so at the very least they can write something that wardens, in their capacity as people in a position of power, can use to better treat inmates, regardless of the admiral's intervention
As for Walters thoughts on some other stuff that is more person I look forward to you getting to read my thread as it continues as I believe it will be easier to read that way, since it is less important than some other stuff
Given that "magic consequences from the Admiral" that affect a character's body are fairly common, even after initial threat is over, I am curious if there will be more push back about that from certain wardens? The most recent example that comes to mind is Justine losing her sense of taste as punishment for stabbing Walter.
Daniel (amnesia character) having to look monstrous every time he lied about something is a similar punishment (maybe I'm misremembering the specifics). Peter Pan having to look like a monster is another. Envy also had marks on appearing on him for lies told (I think). etc.
"o warden may utilize direct control over an inmate's mind, body, soul, or other component without consent unless there is a clear and present danger presented and only until this clear and present danger has been addressed."
I originally read section 2 to mean that V and A were thinking of some extremely specific kinds of control, things that make the inmate feel like a puppet, and 95% of other possible punishments are okay
For a similar example John said that if there was time he'd ask a violent inmate whether they preferred to be restrained or put to sleep. So those are in the extreme "like a puppet" category. But something like losing taste or looking different, just totally okay according to current Bill. Is that the intended reading?
like, if Max went on a rampage, reasonable force would be making sure he can't move or hurt anyone, but excessive would be like, dismembering, crippling or killing him if lesser options were available
So although the bill doesn't go out of its way to say "HECK YEAH! Losing your taste as punishment is okay!" it is strongly implied both by the intended meaning of the phrasing of section 2 and by the promotion of punishment in section 5. Yeah?
That's Walter's friend Sweeney you're talking about!!! (they are friends in Walter's excessively hopeful American head) his friend who is helping with the SECURE AND FREE voting for the monitor election!!11
friendbrother-in-law.I don't know how you could more explicitly say "nothing should change" short of the exact words "everything should be exactly the same".it's being able to address publically
Inmate = client
"Other parties" = someone other than the first two