- Location
- Denmark
- Pronouns
- She/Her
But I sure the fuck am.
Panopticon: A Game of Posthumans, Perniciousness, Paranoia, Politics, and Plasmaguns
The evidence is important, but I think it's most important to use after we point out that he's going to do what Segador did to him. Roth can be logical and controlled, but fundamentally his crusade against Reality Deviants is something that comes out of how he had his family taken from him, that he justifies ex post facto. So we point this out. We remind him that the people he's going to kill in this war are people. He's going to kill not just "Reality Deviant" families-why does a ten year old kid whose mom and dad live in a village with some mystics deserve to die from a Technocratic cluster bomb any more than Roth deserved to have his parents taken from him, in the name of this war-a war which, by the way, will require the deaths of other Technocrats, many of them loyal people who he's planning to kill as pawns-and then we show him the journal to reinforce the fact that he's turning into a mirror of the very person who caused him so much misery.
After that, an argument from logic might work, to give him something to work from. Throw his words back into his face-he prides himself on seeing what his colleagues in business don't, that sometimes, moderation is necessary because it's better to moderate now rather than to wait for the public and emotion to force them to heel. And even if he doesn't accept Consensus Reality (he doesn't), it hardly helps the Technocracy if the comfortable, prosperous First World is on fire while its sons and daughters are dying en masse in the forests of North Korea. It hardly helps the Technocracy if people react the way they do to crisis, and become obsessed with a world that never was. It hardly helps the Technocracy if the world returns to the days after 9/11 where jingoistic nationalism was not just normal, but expected.
He's Warren Roth. He's a businessman. He should know that sometimes arrangements exist where both sides benefit. This is one of those times.
That's why ethos is not a great opening argument. It reminds Warren Roth that Janice is the enemy. The best way to get him to back down is to appeal to his moral code, which we can do if he thinks of us as a rival. As a hated enemy, though? No chance.
After that, an argument from logic might work, to give him something to work from. Throw his words back into his face-he prides himself on seeing what his colleagues in business don't, that sometimes, moderation is necessary because it's better to moderate now rather than to wait for the public and emotion to force them to heel. And even if he doesn't accept Consensus Reality (he doesn't), it hardly helps the Technocracy if the comfortable, prosperous First World is on fire while its sons and daughters are dying en masse in the forests of North Korea. It hardly helps the Technocracy if people react the way they do to crisis, and become obsessed with a world that never was. It hardly helps the Technocracy if the world returns to the days after 9/11 where jingoistic nationalism was not just normal, but expected.
He's Warren Roth. He's a businessman. He should know that sometimes arrangements exist where both sides benefit. This is one of those times.
That's why ethos is not a great opening argument. It reminds Warren Roth that Janice is the enemy. The best way to get him to back down is to appeal to his moral code, which we can do if he thinks of us as a rival. As a hated enemy, though? No chance.
Last edited:
- Location
- in the trash
Okay, something like this?
Pathos: Say we are here because we want to broker a peace deal between our two sides. We don't want restart of the Ascension War--yes, we know what he's planning--because the human cost will be immense. How many innocents are going to be caught up in this conflict, how many orphans are there going to be at the end of his crusade? Hatred begets hatred, etc.
Then hit him with the diary. Let him read through the whole thing, Segador's cold logic that he should kill these people because he stared into some tea leaves and saw that this would do the most damage to the Technocracy.
It's also important not to be too forceful, but just lay out the pieces and let him come to the conclusion that he's becoming like Segador. If we press too hard he'll just become defensive and just shut us out. Janice should try to be a sympathetic ear rather than rubbing his principles in his face.
Once he's off balance and questioning his convictions, we can follow up with Logos/Ethos/whatever. We're a moderate who is mostly okay with the Technocratic paradigm and just wants a few changes here and there. We're not out on a crusade to kill all the Technocrats, and we don't want any more bloodshed.
I'd like to bring up Liam's unborn child at some point, how someone who isn't even born yet is going to grow up without a father because of this conflict, but he'll probably try to throw that back in our face (you rendered him brain dead), so we have to be careful not to shoot our argument in the foot.
Pathos: Say we are here because we want to broker a peace deal between our two sides. We don't want restart of the Ascension War--yes, we know what he's planning--because the human cost will be immense. How many innocents are going to be caught up in this conflict, how many orphans are there going to be at the end of his crusade? Hatred begets hatred, etc.
Then hit him with the diary. Let him read through the whole thing, Segador's cold logic that he should kill these people because he stared into some tea leaves and saw that this would do the most damage to the Technocracy.
It's also important not to be too forceful, but just lay out the pieces and let him come to the conclusion that he's becoming like Segador. If we press too hard he'll just become defensive and just shut us out. Janice should try to be a sympathetic ear rather than rubbing his principles in his face.
Once he's off balance and questioning his convictions, we can follow up with Logos/Ethos/whatever. We're a moderate who is mostly okay with the Technocratic paradigm and just wants a few changes here and there. We're not out on a crusade to kill all the Technocrats, and we don't want any more bloodshed.
I'd like to bring up Liam's unborn child at some point, how someone who isn't even born yet is going to grow up without a father because of this conflict, but he'll probably try to throw that back in our face (you rendered him brain dead), so we have to be careful not to shoot our argument in the foot.
Last edited:
Sirrocco
Pedantic
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I note something. Right now? He's *curious*. His current position is, basically, "So... Control just told me to come and talk with this woman. I know that they must have a good reason. I want to know what it is." That's a bit of an advantage, and it won't last past the first round. I don't really know what it means in terms of approach and strategy, but it's an asset that we need to be leveraging *somehow*.
I don't think that Pathos is the way to do it, because Control is not a Pathos thing. I sort of think that Ethos would be saying "Control asked me to be here because I'm awesome", while Logos would be saying "Control asked me to be here because I'm right". Alternately, if we wanted to go for the Hail Mary, "Control asked me to be here because it's broken". That's probably also the most honest answer... though pulling it off would not be trivial. It's a hell of a setup for the evidence if we *do* pull it off, though... especially if we can somehow draw a parallel between "Control went off the rails." and "You went off the rails." I don't think we should hit him with the Evidence first thing, because that's also not a particularly Control thing.
So, yeah. Logos (Control is fragmented and half-crazy), then Evidence (You've lost your way too), then Pathos or Ethos (depending on how broken he is by it - either appealing to his passions or offering ourselves as an example) would be fantastic if we could be assured of rolling amazingly well and also had a really good argument. It's also super-extra-risky. It's shiny, but I'm not convinced we can pull it off. I'm not sure how else to use this moment of curiosity, but I feel like ignoring it would be a waste. We're trying to convince someone of something, and we know the first question on his mind. We should use that... somehow.
I don't think that Pathos is the way to do it, because Control is not a Pathos thing. I sort of think that Ethos would be saying "Control asked me to be here because I'm awesome", while Logos would be saying "Control asked me to be here because I'm right". Alternately, if we wanted to go for the Hail Mary, "Control asked me to be here because it's broken". That's probably also the most honest answer... though pulling it off would not be trivial. It's a hell of a setup for the evidence if we *do* pull it off, though... especially if we can somehow draw a parallel between "Control went off the rails." and "You went off the rails." I don't think we should hit him with the Evidence first thing, because that's also not a particularly Control thing.
So, yeah. Logos (Control is fragmented and half-crazy), then Evidence (You've lost your way too), then Pathos or Ethos (depending on how broken he is by it - either appealing to his passions or offering ourselves as an example) would be fantastic if we could be assured of rolling amazingly well and also had a really good argument. It's also super-extra-risky. It's shiny, but I'm not convinced we can pull it off. I'm not sure how else to use this moment of curiosity, but I feel like ignoring it would be a waste. We're trying to convince someone of something, and we know the first question on his mind. We should use that... somehow.
- Location
- in the trash
Janice doesn't know that. Beyond that, going "hey Control has gone crazy" is counterproductive since we're kind of relying on him to follow Control's orders to listen to the Traditionalist and not shoot her.
"FYI we're broken and off the rails" is also not something that Control would say or do, so your argument isn't even internally consistent.
Last edited:
Sirrocco
Pedantic
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I don't have enough brain to cover the "Janice doesn't know that" part. It would take a notable archive-dive to piece together exactly what she *does* know about Control, and I don't have that in me right now. The point isn't that Control would have sent her to say that it's broken and off the rails - it's that she'd imply that she was sent by one shard of Control - one that believes differently from the shard he's been listening to thus far, because there are a number of shards, and they're broken and off the rails.
...but, regardless, I'm not saying this is a good plan. I didn't even say it was at the time. I can see the vague shape of a good plan that might conceivably be formed somewhere inside those sketched lines, but it would take a hell of a write-in (which I'm not capable of providing now, and don't really expect to be in the future) and still be pretty risky - just that the payoff might be worth it. If someone comes along with a way to turn my vague sketch into an actual fully-formed plan that is awesome, that's great, but I really don't expect it to happen. My point was more that, hey, the question in his mind is why Control set this up. That's the reason he's here. That's the burning question he wants answered. That's the thing that has his interest. In order to change his mind, we need to keep him interested, engaged, paying attention, thinking, learning. If we're not somehow leveraging the focus of his attentions when we know what they are, we're doing it wrong. It's by no means the only thing, but it's absolutely *a* thing. The vague and insufficient outline of a high-risk high-reward plan were just something I threw in there because it was the best I could come up with on the topic, and maybe they'd give someone else some inspiration.
Other vague thoughts... and it's 6-somethign AM here, so they're only somewhat coherent at some point, there's a good chance he's going to wonder why *we* decided to come here, and put ourselves in his power. One of the interesting tactical questions is whether or not we ever tell him (or, alternately, subtly let him know) how thoroughly we've put ourselves in his power, and how we use that. He... might recognize the earrings, for example, if they're from his own company. The fact that we're consciously and deliberately wearing his sign means something, and as a Syndic, he knows it means something. It might be a useful part in an Ethos challenge - part of the counterargument to the "she doesn't have the courage to have confidence in her convictions". Actually, I think the Ethos argument is going to be significantly strengthened is we can somehow sell the idea that moderation is actually one of our convictions. Right now, it looks like he's just using "has confidence in convictions" it as a codephrase for "is a radical". Of course, that's going a bit metagame - the info was gained while she was offscreen - and we don't want to dip too heavily from that well. Might not be worth it after all. Mostly, I'm just trying to dig up chunks of ore for other folks to use.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Maybe Logos "what you're doing is wrong (and goes against the values of the Techonocracy you're supposed to be working for) because logic", then after he objects, use the journal to turn his convictions against him? Leaving either Ethos or Pathos to finish. Assuming starting off with Logos won't immediately blow up in Janice's face.
- Location
- in the trash
"Control sent me here to tell you that you're doing the wrong thing, and left the fiddly details up to me."
Just because we used a Control code doesn't mean that we have to act in a certain fashion or start by appealing to logic. We're carrying out their orders, but that doesn't make us their finger puppets. I mean, Vigilance was presumably not micromanaged
Also, the fact that the codes worked means Roth's Conditioning probably isn't low enough for him to go "wait a minute this can't be right".
And Logos is not very effective at persuading people to give up deeply held convictions. We have to throw Roth off balance first, then we can convince him with logic. If we don't break his fundamental principles first he's not going to listen to our argument even if it's perfectly logical and correct because humans are creatures of emotion.
Just because we used a Control code doesn't mean that we have to act in a certain fashion or start by appealing to logic. We're carrying out their orders, but that doesn't make us their finger puppets. I mean, Vigilance was presumably not micromanaged
Also, the fact that the codes worked means Roth's Conditioning probably isn't low enough for him to go "wait a minute this can't be right".
And Logos is not very effective at persuading people to give up deeply held convictions. We have to throw Roth off balance first, then we can convince him with logic. If we don't break his fundamental principles first he's not going to listen to our argument even if it's perfectly logical and correct because humans are creatures of emotion.
Last edited:
- Location
- in the trash
Actually, it occurs to me:
Roth is probably an Idealist (I'm guessing it's his Vice); that's why he takes so much offense to Janice abandoning Liam. He hates compromises with the enemy and pragmatism. It was probably pinging his Vice every time he was ordered to cooperaree with RDs (Idealist: spend 1 WP to suppress your Vice when you take a course of action antithetical to your ideals).
If we could figure out what his Virtue is, that would probably help with persuading him. Any ideas?
Roth is probably an Idealist (I'm guessing it's his Vice); that's why he takes so much offense to Janice abandoning Liam. He hates compromises with the enemy and pragmatism. It was probably pinging his Vice every time he was ordered to cooperaree with RDs (Idealist: spend 1 WP to suppress your Vice when you take a course of action antithetical to your ideals).
If we could figure out what his Virtue is, that would probably help with persuading him. Any ideas?
Last edited:
Mmm, not quite.
What offends him is people not sticking to (what he sees as) the "logical conclusion" of their beliefs. A Traditionalist who wants to destroy Western civilisation because it offends "the spirits" is someone he sees as following the logical conclusion of their beliefs. If the spirits were real and really controlled the world and they were offended by industrialisation, of course you should destroy it. Of course, such Traditionalists are idiots throwing their lives away in the name of their cultish beliefs, but at least they're internally consistent. Even Selene's lot earn a bit of recognition for that, because they isolated themselves away from mainstream society (because, he adds sneeringly, they couldn't handle its contradictions) - but at least they're acting in line with the integrity of their beliefs.
On the other hand, "moderates" are people who let facts on the ground get in the way of "doing the right thing". He has contempt for them, even if they're people on the same side as him.
Of course, Janice would disagree. But then again, she is a self-confessed "very bad witch" at a technical level. She's largely self-taught, she steals spells from other Traditions and Verbena-ises them, and self-justifies with "oh, they took things from the Verbena in the first place". She's the most post-modern spellcaster you've played in PQ, even more so than Alice. But she doesn't care about the same kind of "integrity of beliefs" as he does, because as far as she's concerned "consistent" beliefs are less important than the outcomes that they result. She cares about moral integrity, not paradigmic integrity - if the consistency of your beliefs about the way the world works leads you to act against what she believes to be a moral action, she'll call you a horrible person.
And hence that's the seeming inconsistency in what Warren Roth says. She's got iron hard belief about... not being an iron-hard believer. She's committed, in his eyes, to being a flip-flopper.
Dream Logic
An offseason swallow
- Location
- In transit
So to grossly simplify, Warren would say the ends justify the means(as in literally, it justified why I do whatever because it's the through line).
And General hardass would argue the means justify the ends(that you should follow what you're committed to wherever it leads).
And General hardass would argue the means justify the ends(that you should follow what you're committed to wherever it leads).
Sirrocco
Pedantic
- Pronouns
- He/Him
...and there's a feeling I get out of this. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but if feels like this is partially driven by Roth having a desire, at some level, that things be *simple*. He wants the Ascension War to be a situation where he can line everyone up, identify who the goodguys and the badguys are, and then have them fight it out until only one side is left. He dislikes those mushy moderates who let practicality get in the way of idealism because they blur the lines in his simple world, and they imply by their actions and stated ideals that maybe *he* should be blurring the line, too. It's a degree of psychological armor. He doesn't want to blur the lines, or introduce doubt into his system. He wants to kill the assholes that killed his parents, and feel good about doing it.
Which suggests that any attempt to make him actually doubt that is probably going to fail before we hammerblow him with the evidence. I'm still not clear on how the other bits work, but I think Evidence needs to come second. We spend the first setting him up our argument - arranging and aligning things in ways that don't specifically challenge his position, but get him to the right headspace/position. We spend the second hitting him with the evidence, and trying to use that to invalidate certain of his core beliefs and/or set some of his core beliefs against one another. We use the third to help him pick the pieces back up, and shape the structure he builds afterwards.
From art of persuasion in general, this gets easier if we can manage if without forcing him to soak too high a loss of internal status. I'm not convinced that that's *plausible*, but it would make certain bits of this easier.
Which suggests that any attempt to make him actually doubt that is probably going to fail before we hammerblow him with the evidence. I'm still not clear on how the other bits work, but I think Evidence needs to come second. We spend the first setting him up our argument - arranging and aligning things in ways that don't specifically challenge his position, but get him to the right headspace/position. We spend the second hitting him with the evidence, and trying to use that to invalidate certain of his core beliefs and/or set some of his core beliefs against one another. We use the third to help him pick the pieces back up, and shape the structure he builds afterwards.
From art of persuasion in general, this gets easier if we can manage if without forcing him to soak too high a loss of internal status. I'm not convinced that that's *plausible*, but it would make certain bits of this easier.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
There are no votes. It's been three days since EarthScorpion's update, and no one has made any votes. 
[x] Logos - Begin with a logical argument based on the proclaimed ideals of the Technocratic Union and how he deviates from them. Point out his hypocrisy and how he's allowing a radical faction to strike against the world he claims to protect.
[x] Logos - Begin with a logical argument based on the proclaimed ideals of the Technocratic Union and how he deviates from them. Point out his hypocrisy and how he's allowing a radical faction to strike against the world he claims to protect.
Last edited:
Sirrocco
Pedantic
- Pronouns
- He/Him
We're all hoping that someone else will figure out something as we sit here going "I can't figure out the right answer here. Can anyone figure out the right answer here? Maybe if I toss out some insights, *someone* will figure out the right answer".There are no votes. It's been three days since EarthScorpion's update, and no one has made any votes.
[X] [Special - Evidence] - Bring out the diary as her heavy guns to start things off. Use the facts in there about Segador to break his confidence and put him off balance for later arguments.
Eh, what the heck. Given that my True Role in this quest is to throw out plans so that other people can develop the real plans in a fit of antipathy-driven creativity....
[x] Logos - Begin with a logical argument based on the proclaimed ideals of the Technocratic Union and how he deviates from them. Point out his hypocrisy and how he's allowing a radical faction to strike against the world he claims to protect.
Because I think it's too early for the evidence. We want him to commit mentally, first. Given that... well, this is a thing that Control might legitimately want. He'll resist it, but the fact that he can't discard the Control thing out of hand, and that the logic stands fairly well on his own means that it'll undermine him a bit. That'll leave him on the defensive, and probably get him to make some more extreme statements to reestablish his position... at which point he'll be in an excellent spot to hit him with the evidence. Then Pathos or Ethos, depending on what looks right at the time.
This also throws in a bit of conversational judo... and I feel like conversational judo is called for here. We ought to be trying to use his own strength against him, and this plan does it repeatedly at multiple levels.
Chloe Sullivan
Subdefective
- Location
- 1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale CA
So... Logos - Evidence - Pathos- Ethos?
aka Plan I am totally judging you.
EDIT: Wait, we got Etiquette +4. We should leverage that. Can that apply to all options or does it favor, say, Ethos?
Last edited:
There are no votes. It's been three days since EarthScorpion's update, and no one has made any votes.
[X] [Special - Evidence] - Bring out the diary as her heavy guns to start things off. Use the facts in there about Segador to break his confidence and put him off balance for later arguments.
This quest tends to take some more time to vote on things because there's a lot more in question than immediate actions (and @EarthScorpion has assimilated that trait from me) and the thematics and approach should require some analysis rather than just jumping in guns blazing.
So things take time. Especially since the discussion is regarding overall approach, because the first action you take will necessarily limit further actions.
- Location
- Spain
There are no votes. It's been three days since EarthScorpion's update, and no one has made any votes.
Don't worry, there is no rush.
We won't see an update in months anyway
Sirrocco
Pedantic
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Pretty sure we leverage that everywhere. It's basically skill at convincing people of things.
- Location
- Library
There are no votes. It's been three days since EarthScorpion's update, and no one has made any votes.
Chill, the filthy casuals like me just need some time to re-read part of the Janice sub-quest and weight options to get what is happening (my memory was that it was already over... and I don't remember any diary).
Sirrocco
Pedantic
- Pronouns
- He/Him
So after some consideration and reading of the posted discussion I think we should open with the diary. Drop the bomb on him to shake his world view as our opening move followed by either plan Activist or Diplomat.
I'll post my vote now but will regularly check this thread for further discussion. If points that sway me are raised I will change my vote.
[X] [Special - Evidence] - Bring out the diary as her heavy guns to start things off. Use the facts in there about Segador to break his confidence and put him off balance for later arguments.
I'll post my vote now but will regularly check this thread for further discussion. If points that sway me are raised I will change my vote.
[X] [Special - Evidence] - Bring out the diary as her heavy guns to start things off. Use the facts in there about Segador to break his confidence and put him off balance for later arguments.
I'm not sure why people think using Segador as their opening argument is such a great idea without a very targeted write-in. Right now, Warren Roth has no reason to like, respect, empathize with, or otherwise care for the Traditions or Janice in any way. "A heartless Traditions murderer killed your family" is something Warren Roth already knows. You're literally giving him ammunition to reinforce his hate. What would probably work much, much better is to make him start to consider the human costs of what he's planning to do, and then show him that he's becoming the man he hated, the man who drove him to hatred.
So you would suggest Pathos as the opening vote then?
Sirrocco
Pedantic
- Pronouns
- He/Him
As noted earlier, though, he currently has both strong psychological incentives and sufficient rationalization to at least attempt to discard out of hand *anything* we hit him with. The trick here is going to be getting under his skin at all. I agree that having the evidence hit that wall and fail to penetrate is a potential lose condition by itself, but in order to start making progress, we have to pick an opener that gets past enough of his defenses to actually make progress. Unless there's something else to give it penetration, I don't see "hey, this terrible thing you're planning to do has human cost" is sufficient. He's already internalized that this war is bloody and terrible, and he's handling it with an ends justifying the means philosophy. Reminding him of it again might sting a little, but it has to be something he's worked through already.
- Location
- East of the Sun and West of the Moon
Okay, if nobody else is going to jump in, let me see if I can get discussion rolling further in the "there is a plan that most people are on board with" direction.
So, the vote here is on the first part of our argument towards Roth. We're not trying to convince him yet, we're just trying to get our foot in the door and set things up for the part where we do convince him. We need to establish ourselves as someone he can't dismiss out of hand, so we need to lead by speaking his language, the language of people he understands and respects. Fortunately we know what that is, because he's a Technocrat and the Technocracy loves the hell out of Logos and wants to marry it and have no children with it because it would be irresponsible to contribute to the global overpopulation problem. Ethos can be dismissed with "fuck you, you're a Trad," Evidence with "fuck you, you're a Trad like that asshole Trad," and Pathos with "I logic'd ages ago that the cost is worth it, P.S. fuck you, you're a Trad," but Logos he has to actually engage with. Even if he out-logics us, he can't just discard our method of argumentation as invalid, which leaves an opening for our later Pathos and Ethos and Evidence to get through to him.
[x] Logos - Begin with a logical argument based on the proclaimed ideals of the Technocratic Union and how he deviates from them. Point out his hypocrisy and how he's allowing a radical faction to strike against the world he claims to protect.
You may note that this ties the vote, preventing any advancement of the story. This is what your inaction has wrought.
So, the vote here is on the first part of our argument towards Roth. We're not trying to convince him yet, we're just trying to get our foot in the door and set things up for the part where we do convince him. We need to establish ourselves as someone he can't dismiss out of hand, so we need to lead by speaking his language, the language of people he understands and respects. Fortunately we know what that is, because he's a Technocrat and the Technocracy loves the hell out of Logos and wants to marry it and have no children with it because it would be irresponsible to contribute to the global overpopulation problem. Ethos can be dismissed with "fuck you, you're a Trad," Evidence with "fuck you, you're a Trad like that asshole Trad," and Pathos with "I logic'd ages ago that the cost is worth it, P.S. fuck you, you're a Trad," but Logos he has to actually engage with. Even if he out-logics us, he can't just discard our method of argumentation as invalid, which leaves an opening for our later Pathos and Ethos and Evidence to get through to him.
[x] Logos - Begin with a logical argument based on the proclaimed ideals of the Technocratic Union and how he deviates from them. Point out his hypocrisy and how he's allowing a radical faction to strike against the world he claims to protect.
You may note that this ties the vote, preventing any advancement of the story. This is what your inaction has wrought.