Alright, someone has to break this round of circular logic down, before Sabrina earned herself an aneurysm.
Kaizuki, what do you think about showing the Hoped up Clear Seed without asking to help with Dewitching, simply as an example of a project we're working on right now that we feel fairly certain we can succeed at?
Even if she's not interested in Dewitching, wouldn't this example serve to outline our capabilities? I will accept if you provide an argument on why we shouldn't do it in such a way, 'cause I have my own reservations, but I think we could somewhat benefit from this demonstration, no?
Literally next vote.
I am solely arguing against it being in
this vote.
Especially anything to do with the clear seed.
Why?
Well, for the clear seed, go re-read the last three posts and imagine what "here take a look at this *tosses clear seed*" would be like right now. I don't care which clear seed, it's the same deal. We
just pulled one away from her saying we couldn't trust her. Could we change our mind? Yeah, but
why not do it next vote instead when we'll have established that we've gotten new information about her, so we won't come off as, as... pick an option, stupid, manipulable, whatever.
...
Oh, I think I get it now. *sigh*
Okay. My chief mistake was that I ended up making out "convince her that we can help her" to be the important part of this.
It's literally not.
The important thing here is to get her to put down, on the table, whatever the hell her problem up in Edinburgh is. Because
that will tell us what leverage we have on her. And it will give us an idea of whether we can help her, and an idea of how we
might help her. It allows us to
make progress with the issue.
People have gotten caught up in this notion of "what can we do to show her that we're super competent?" And that's just not helpful, because we can demonstrate that however we want or however she asks, but she'll only ask and/or we'll only know how we want to demonstrate it once whatever her problem is is on the table.
There are only two reasons "convince her we can help her" is important in the
slightest. One, convince her we can
help her: it's about setting us up to ask about Edinburgh in a minimally threatening manner. Two, it's setup for possibly convincing her that
yes we are capable of helping her in the next vote/s.
Apart from those two things,
it is a distraction to be avoided in the name of directness.
When I wrote this:
-[X] You can help her: you don't know the nature of whatever problem there is surrounding whatever it is back home that she values so much, but you're capable of an awful lot beyond just moving grief around.
I purposely made it as vague and simple regarding our "capabilities" as I could. Why? Because the way it's written, it gets that claim out of the way in a sentence's worth of words. It keeps it from being a
distraction from the stuff that's actually important.
Bottom line is, it's only even there as conversational "fluff."
Tangents about how we're so competent are, at this time, unhelpful distractions from our current goal.
This is why I ended up moving from a vote that went
[] We're super competent
-[] We can help with your problem back home
to the current vote,
[X] NOT TO BE VOCALIZED, PROVIDED AS INFORMATION FOR BRINA: You won't get anything done here unless you can break her existing belief that you can't help her. So, be as
direct as possible about this:
-[X] You
can help her: you don't know the nature of whatever problem there is surrounding whatever it is back home that she values so much, but you're capable of an awful lot beyond just moving grief around.
--[X] Virtually anything you're not currently capable of, you either have allies who
are capable of or you expect to develop the capability for in the near-to-mid term.
[X] Cut to voting fairly quickly.
which goes
[] We can help you with your problem back home.
-[] We're competent, don't think we can't help with it.
Anything more specific belongs in a vote programmed like
this:
[] We can help you with your problem back home.
-[] We're competent, don't think we can't help with it.
--[] Here's how we're so competent.
And the problem is, when we get to examples,
we might as well first see what more information we can get out of her, instead of risking shooting ourselves in the foot feat. her saying something of substance and then us saying some unrelated crap.
Does that make any more sense?
Because, the problem is, trying to demonstrate how competent we are in any way that delays the delivery of "your problem back in Edinburgh"
delays conveying to Rionna the point of that demonstration.
And that leaves us feeling
really stupid.