Puella Magi Adfligo Systema

Hey, so. Just to be clear - I really, really want Rionna gone, from an OoC perspective. I'm sick of the arguments she causes. So let me be clear - yes, you can argue for allowing her to be imprisoned with Yuki, conscious. Or not! Both are possible routes.

But. I'm done with the thread metaphorically talking to her. If you wake her up again, that's fine - but I'll be taking control until she's metaphorically off-screen. Voting on talk scenes with her just isn't going to happen.

I mean, Rionna is pretty clearly a mental patient too. Sane people don't act the way she did. She's still dangerous, of course, and needs to be kept contained with appropriate safety measures, but if we just keep her gemmed she's never going to improve.

I'm cool with keeping her gemmed while we've got plates in the air, to be clear - maybe even past Walpurgisnacht, and thus the span of the quest. But not "forever", in character - and the distinction does matter in terms of how Sabrina approaches the situation in-character.

So... We had this exact same arguments a few days (weeks?) ago. With the same 'points', including the complete turnabout from "what's best for Riona" to "Riona would pick being concious because she'd want to escape", which both back then and now, makes me feel the first argument wasn't exactly honest.

Of course prisoners try to escape their prisons. That's why we take all the security measures we can and only take the less Good route if we don't have enough such measures.

We've basically been roasting every villain in this story over this: That we should try to do better. From Oriko to Rionna, even though Riona turned out to be just bad.

Putting meguca on ice is inhumane. We can't do that when we have the safety measures we got.

Tell Yuki everything, check that the Anti-Magic enchants work, and let Yuki decide whether she can keep Riona safely imprisoned or not.

Yuki aside, what about asking Niko for advice?
I mean, she's a scientist, sorta. And we know she has an inclination in these problems.

If she managed to come up with the Freezer, maybe she could come up with something else.

Redshirt Army said:

I mean, Rionna is pretty clearly a mental patient too. Sane people don't act the way she did. She's still dangerous, of course, and needs to be kept contained with appropriate safety measures, but if we just keep her gemmed she's never going to improve.

I'm cool with keeping her gemmed while we've got plates in the air, to be clear - maybe even past Walpurgisnacht, and thus the span of the quest. But not "forever", in character - and the distinction does matter in terms of how Sabrina approaches the situation in-character.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The entire point has been that we should keep her gemmed until we have proper facilities (in terms of security and rehabilitation!), which won't be immediately available. I don't know of anyone who has argued to keep her gemmed forever. The argument has been that it's far more dangerous for everyone (Rionna included!) to reconnect her before we have all of that set up.

Onmur said:

So... We had this exact same arguments a few days (weeks?) ago. With the same 'points', including the complete turnabout from "what's best for Riona" to "Riona would pick being concious because she'd want to escape", which both back then and now, makes me feel the first argument wasn't exactly honest.

Of course prisoners try to escape their prisons. That's why we take all the security measures we can and only take the less Good route if we don't have enough such measures.

We've basically been roasting every villain in this story over this: That we should try to do better. From Oriko to Rionna, even though Riona turned out to be just bad.

Putting meguca on ice is inhumane. We can't do that when we have the safety measures we got.

Tell Yuki everything, check that the Anti-Magic enchants work, and let Yuki decide whether she can keep Riona safely imprisoned or not.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

We're saying what riona may choose may not be what's best for her eventual rehabilitation and future not murdering people. Right now, with our bare bones system, it's better for her that she be out, rather than dealing with a system that isn't ready for her. It was never dishonest, and it's obnoxious that you imply such.

Gadjo said:

We're saying what riona may choose may not be what's best for her eventual rehabilitation and future not murdering people. Right now, with our bare bones system, it's better for her that she be out, rather than dealing with a system that isn't ready for her. It was never dishonest, and it's obnoxious that you imply such.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The argument was presented:

We should keep Riona gemmed because that's more humane than keeping her locked.

Not once, but twice, counting the first time days ago.

After that was argued against, it was changed to:

Riona will want to escape, so she will pick the option that makes it easier to escape, so we should Gem her.

Which amounts to: We should Gem her because of security reasons. Riona's wants are tangentially related, and I can not reconcile the second argument with the first one. The second one is about Riona being a threat, the first one about how we should choose based on what Riona would feel best (and that Riona would prefer being gemmed than being locked - this argument was actually made).


Call me obnoxious, but when someone presents one argument (which ignores basic common sense like 'a person usually would prefer to be awake in confinment than be in an enforced coma - and if not, it's their choice, we can't choose that for them'), and when that argument is challenged, they present another one based on an entirely different foundation (security), I can't see this as honest arguing.


If the argument is not about what Riona would prefer, if we disregard that (because of course a prisoner would prefer to have chances to escape, that's a given; the point of imprisoning them is to do our best to prevent that), and say the argument is about whether we can keep Riona imprisoned safely?

I say again, let Yuki judge that, she knows her powers. Between Yuki's powers and the Anti-Magic, I'd say it's pretty much impossible for Riona to escape unless, say, the Iowa group attack Fukushima, or something like that.

[X] Kaizuki

Onmur said:

The argument was presented:

We should keep Riona gemmed because that's more humane than keeping her locked.

Not once, but twice, counting the first time days ago.

After that was argued against, it was changed to:

Riona will want to escape, so she will pick the option that makes it easier to escape, so we should Gem her.

Which amounts to: We should Gem her because of security reasons. Riona's wants are tangentially related, and I can not reconcile the second argument with the first one. The second one is about Riona being a threat, the first one about how we should choose based on what Riona would feel best (and that Riona would prefer being gemmed than being locked - this argument was actually made).


Call me obnoxious, but when someone presents one argument (which ignores basic common sense like 'a person usually would prefer to be awake in confinment than be in an enforced coma - and if not, it's their choice, we can't choose that for them'), and when that argument is challenged, they present another one based on an entirely different foundation (security), I can't see this as honest arguing.


If the argument is not about what Riona would prefer, if we disregard that (because of course a prisoner would prefer to have chances to escape, that's a given; the point of imprisoning them is to do our best to prevent that), and say the argument is about whether we can keep Riona imprisoned safely?

I say again, let Yuki judge that, she knows her powers. Between Yuki's powers and the Anti-Magic, I'd say it's pretty much impossible for Riona to escape unless, say, the Iowa group attack Fukushima, or something like that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If you can't see it as honest you're not paying attention. Let's try this again: keeping her gemmed until we have a proper system for people like her is beneficial for security and mental health reasons. She, in her anger, will choose to be awake because she'll want to escape, and out of not being able to accept that she's a prisoner. She will, upon choosing to be awake, rage against the walls of her cell and deteriorate mentally because our prison won't be ready for such difficult prisoner. Therefore, it's unfair to even present her the choice. Especially since to her no time will pass either way. It makes little difference to her whether she wakes up now or two weeks from now, except that we'll be actually ready to handle her needs.

Now quit accusing me of being dishonest just because you don't understand my argument.

... why.

Gadjo said:

If you can't see it as honest you're not paying attention. Let's try this again: keeping her gemmed until we have a proper system for people like her is beneficial for security and mental health reasons. She, in her anger, will choose to be awake because she'll want to escape, and out of not being able to accept that she's a prisoner. She will, upon choosing to be awake, rage against the walls of her cell and deteriorate mentally because our prison won't be ready for such difficult prisoner. Therefore, it's unfair to even present her the choice. Especially since to her no time will pass either way. It makes little difference to her whether she wakes up now or two weeks from now, except that we'll be actually ready to handle her needs.

Now quit accusing me of being dishonest just because you don't understand my argument.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I have been paying attention.

However this is the first time I actually see this argument fleshed out in this thread. Parts and pieces of this argument have been thrown around, but not in a way that made sense. I'd say this argument hadn't actually been made before, not in a coherent fashion anyone should be expected to understand.

And I have problems with it, problems I could have addressed before if the argument had actually been made, rather than parts of it thrown around alongside expleitives.


My first problem is that you are choosing one way Riona could act as true, when she could react differently. She could snap quite so badly, or she could not; she could rage but then calm down; she could simmer and just decide to not talk to anyone. She could face this in a lot of ways.

If she does take it with utter rage and starts hurting herself? That's simply solved by gemming her then, not before she does it.

Here you are deciding what Riona's actions are going to be, but there are other options. Every person is different and how they react to different situations can be surprising.


My second problem is that you say it's unfair to give her the choice. I feel it's more unfair to not give her the choice, to deny her her very freedom. We might not agree on this, but the idea that the more fair thing is to take the choice away from her? I can't really comprehend it. Even if Riona might hurt herself, her freedom of choice is still important. Again, if she does start hurting herself, that would be the time to restrain and perhaps gem her, not before, not without giving her a chance to exist as a person, and not as a piece of jewelry.

That time would 'not pass' for her either way, I can't accept that. Time will pass, and it will matter to her once she's awake. That goes for almost everyone in such a position, I think.


I believe there are other options, that giving Riona the freedom of choice as to how to be imprisoned within the safety limits we can stablish is the more moral, humane option. Hasrsher measures should be implemented if they become necessary; I don't agree that the path you describe is what will necessarily happen.

[x] Onmur

Inserted tally

Onmur said:

I have been paying attention.

However this is the first time I actually see this argument fleshed out in this thread. Parts and pieces of this argument have been thrown around, but not in a way that made sense. I'd say this argument hadn't actually been made before, not in a coherent fashion anyone should be expected to understand.

And I have problems with it, problems I could have addressed before if the argument had actually been made, rather than parts of it thrown around alongside expleitives.


My first problem is that you are choosing one way Riona could act as true, when she could react differently. She could snap quite so badly, or she could not; she could rage but then calm down; she could simmer and just decide to not talk to anyone. She could face this in a lot of ways.

If she does take it with utter rage and starts hurting herself? That's simply solved by gemming her then, not before she does it.

Here you are deciding what Riona's actions are going to be, but there are other options. Every person is different and how they react to different situations can be surprising.


My second problem is that you say it's unfair to give her the choice. I feel it's more unfair to not give her the choice, to deny her her very freedom. We might not agree on this, but the idea that the more fair thing is to take the choice away from her? I can't really comprehend it. Even if Riona might hurt herself, her freedom of choice is still important. Again, if she does start hurting herself, that would be the time to restrain and perhaps gem her, not before, not without giving her a chance to exist as a person, and not as a piece of jewelry.

That time would 'not pass' for her either way, I can't accept that. Time will pass, and it will matter to her once she's awake. That goes for almost everyone in such a position, I think.


I believe there are other options, that giving Riona the freedom of choice as to how to be imprisoned within the safety limits we can stablish is the more moral, humane option. Hasrsher measures should be implemented if they become necessary; I don't agree that the path you describe is what will necessarily happen.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Indeed, she could react differently if she just acts contrary to literally every establishing character moment she's had since she showed up, ya got me there. And this argument has been made constantly whenever i was around to make it.

And it is sometimes unfair to present someone a choice they can't be expected to make- like asking someone if they want to know the witchbomb- there are situations where, without information or perspective you don't have- you can't be expected to make a good decision for your own health.

And excuse me for the expletives, but arguing with you is quite frustrating since you start calling me dishonest and then going "but what if [something extremely unlikely that's being hinted against every time the gm posts]?"

Onmur said:

[X] Kirika:
-[X] Ask for extra Enchantments:
--[X] Handcuffs, something you can use on active enemy meguca.
---[X] Including one for Riona, for when she's woken up.
--[X] Bracelets you (all?) could wear for protection.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't see any reason why we need these things immediately. It's late at night, everyone is tired and we certainly don't want to wait around for Kirika to make everything. Also it feels like kind of an imposition to just turn up out of nowhere and ask for a bunch of crap, the anti-Riona stuff makes sense since that has a high priority but everything else can wait.

Basically let's just commission the stuff and pick it up later when it's convenient. Besides I'm sure everyone would appreciate the chance to come up with their own desired designs and maybe give Kirika some time to work out an on/off switch. Basically let's do all this later, maybe ask her to make some general anti-magic handcuffs for the next time we visit and put off the rest for later.

[x] Onmur

[x] Onmur

Gadjo said:

Indeed, she could react differently if she just acts contrary to literally every establishing character moment she's had since she showed up, ya got me there. And this argument has been made constantly whenever i was around to make it.

And it is sometimes unfair to present someone a choice they can't be expected to make- like asking someone if they want to know the witchbomb- there are situations where, without information or perspective you don't have- you can't be expected to make a good decision for your own health.

And excuse me for the expletives, but arguing with you is quite frustrating since you start calling me dishonest and then going "but what if [something extremely unlikely that's being hinted against every time the gm posts]?"

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is the first time this argument is made in such a coherent way I have seen. I've seen disjointed bits and pieces of it thrown around, and I can only recall them as part of this argument because for once, the argument is actually made and stated coherently where I can see it.

Perhaps this whole thing was extremely obvious to so many people that they could understand the argument without it ever being made explicit in its entirety. I could not, as I see now we disagree on a few fundamental premises.

I haven't exactly tried to call you in particular dishonest (I think), but I admit I wasn't clear:

I have seen the argument made (on its own, disjointed from everything else) that Riona should be Gemmed because she would prefer that. With this I disagree on a fundamental level - not that she necessarily wouldn't, or that it wouldn't be better for her, I accept those might be possibilities, but only just. I do expect Riona to react badly, but I couldn't say for how long; speaking only for myself, I'd expect her to calm down after she realizes lashing out doesn't help - I think that would be in character with what we've seen, and not contraty to what we've seen.

Once this argument was challenged, there was, twice, a change* to the argument that we should gem Rionna because she would choose to be concious, and the way this was presented, to me read like this argument was based on the fact Riona would try to escape and kill others, and not at all on her own well being and health.

That, that I could only see as dishonest goal post shifting. First an argument about Riona's wants, then one which I still feel* completely disregards that to focus on security issues, but both these arguments presented as the same one, without an apparent link in between.

*In the way the arguments were presented.


You explain how you feel certain of quite a few things that I haven't seen explained in a coherent fashion until now (indeed, the times this has come up, the focus was on something else, either arguing that someone would prefer to be gemmed rather than being awake; or that Riona should be gemmed for security reasons, with quite some emphasis on denying her any freedom because, well, "fuck that").

The premises you used are not such that I can easily accept; before now, I didn't even conceive they could be seen as quite that important (I mantain that we shouldn't gem Riona unless it becomes 100% clear she will hurt herself in prison, as I feel freedom of choice is paramount). So I could straight up not understand the argument until now.


I thank you for actually expressing it in a coherent fashion, and recognize there was an honest argument beyond all this, but I have to insist the argument you presented, I don't feel it has actually being made until now; every time the focus of each part of the argument was pointing in a different direction, and not towards the path you now presented.

Don't call it a grave, Firn, this is the future you chose.

Look guys, this is the only important thing right now.

We have a lot of questions for Riona.
We want to know what she's hiding in Edinburgh, what's going to happen now that she's not commanding her shades, whether she has any contingency plans that would let her escape, and what-if-anything she knows about Feathers.

Have we thought about how we're going to interrogate her?
Do we have an applicable mind-reading or truth-compelling power?

Saki's, perhaps?

In theory, I suspect that Riona's own power can be used to compel people to do things.
ie, she tried to use it to compel us to "let her out" of the privacy sphere.
Should we try to use her power on her, to compel her to answer our questions truthfully and completely?
I suspect that's a slippery slope that we don't want Sayaka going down.

(This probably shouldn't happen right now. In particular, it needs to wait until we tell Sayaka about witches, which definitely shouldn't happen right now. Still, I'm curious how we're going to do it. After we interrogate her, that might affect our decision about how to imprison her.)

theauthor said:

Look guys, this is the only important thing right now.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Sure it's important, maybe even the most important. It is not however the only important thing we have to do, there's other things that are also important.

Gadjo said:

I see no reason shopping can't wait till tomorrow

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's just that we aren't the ones doing the trip by ourselves; it's Homura who's doing the trip and we're just trading along.

Sure, Sabrina'd have to ask Homura to delay the shopping trip until tomorrow which she may agree, but there's a change she won't postpone it like when hacking the meteorological services. Until we agree on chainging things, I'm going with the agreement as it is now.

Onmur said:

The premises you used are not such that I can easily accept; before now, I didn't even conceive they could be seen as quite that important (I mantain that we shouldn't gem Riona unless it becomes 100% clear she will hurt herself in prison, as I feel freedom of choice is paramount). So I could straight up not understand the argument until now.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Riona is our prisoner now and an extremely dangerous one: the importance of her freedom is minimal to nonexistent.

Wirikidor said:

We have a lot of questions for Riona.
We want to know what she's hiding in Edinburgh, what's going to happen now that she's not commanding her shades, whether she has any contingency plans that would let her escape, and what-if-anything she knows about Feathers.

Have we thought about how we're going to interrogate her?
Do we have an applicable mind-reading or truth-compelling power?

Saki's, perhaps?

In theory, I suspect that Riona's own power can be used to compel people to do things.
ie, she tried to use it to compel us to "let her out" of the privacy sphere.
Should we try to use her power on her, to compel her to answer our questions truthfully and completely?
I suspect that's a slippery slope that we don't want Sayaka going down.

(This probably shouldn't happen right now. In particular, it needs to wait until we tell Sayaka about witches, which definitely shouldn't happen right now. Still, I'm curious how we're going to do it. After we interrogate her, that might affect our decision about how to imprison her.)

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I doubt we're gonna get much of Riona anytime soon, if we just attempt talking.

And as you say, slippery slopes. I think we really want to keep Sayaka clear of any of them. Maybe literally make Umika come over to X File Riona? I don't quite remember what X File does, but wiki says it lets her read minds.

... In before Riona knows Occlumency and can protect her mind even without magic.

Well, supposing we could have Riona's mind read, I'm not confident on the morality of doing it. I know Riona's a monster, but we also can slip off slipery slopes.

Filraen said:

Riona is our prisoner now and an extremely dangerous one: the importance of her freedom is minimal to nonexistent.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

And I just posted about slipery slopes just as you were posting.

I would be very worried where we'd end up if we accepted this.

Again, I can see situation in which we'd need to keep Riona gemmed, I just think we can keep her safely contained without a need for it, that she won't be a threat to others under double Antimagic and under Yuki's watch.

If we can keep her safely contained, if Yuki agrees it's safe enough* (she should know her own powers, and should have been studying the Anti Magic charms), then I think we can't eliminate the importance of Riona's freedom, simply because she is a person. Of course, not her freedom to go around killing people; only as much freedom as can be granted without putting anyone in danger.

*This is basically the crux of the matter to me. Will our friendly** munchkin jailor consider these measures safe enough?

**Not actually a friend yet, I think.