Puella Magi Adfligo Systema

[Ugolino]

@Ugolino

Several parts of your additions are phrases I specifically avoided after carefully reviewing our last conversation on the subject. Specifically, the idea that Oriko is "useful" or that she's "on our side" are no-zones when it comes to Homura and set us irreconcilably at odds with her.

The reason I picked the wording I did, is we can't make a persuasive argument here. Both can't as in will fail, and can't as in can't afford to. The entire point is to avoid butting heads with Homura over her dislike of Oriko, careful picking around rubbing "she was right about feathers" in her face, and taking a cautious stance that emphasizes working with our team and with Homura without pushing our judgment of Oriko at her. Again.

We can certainly mention feathers, but not to emphasize Oriko was right. Instead, something like here are the circumstances this appeared, what do you think?

I get what you're trying to say with the additions, but Homura won't.


The part at the start about expectations was picked to indicate to Homura that what happened today didn't match what we know either, while avoiding spoiling Mami by referencing that it was an unusual with attack.

I mean, wording can use work all over. Not arguing that. But that edit misses the message entirely.

Click to shrink...

I'm taking a risk with honesty...and don't want to go for the politician's answer that misses out on the chance to get Homura to trust Oriko as a source, albeit an unreliable one. Anything is better than her current mindset of kneejerk paranoia and distrust. We shouldn't butt heads with Homura over Oriko but we can't just roll over to avoid any chance of disagreement because of it.

We want to keep Homura's trust, and the vote tries to do that, but we definitely shouldn't compromise our approach too much out of fear of offending her when we want to eventually get Homura to at least treat Oriko's information as useful/not see her as a dead threat walking.

Also...we kind of want to 'spoil' Mami, ie: keep her in the loop about this. This isn't something we want to keep secrets about given that we're trying to reduce our compartmentalization where possible and this is important for her to know about.

 

[boonerunner]

Several parts of your additions are phrases I specifically avoided after carefully reviewing our last conversation on the subject. Specifically, the idea that Oriko is "useful" or that she's "on our side" are no-zones when it comes to Homura and set us irreconcilably at odds with her.

Click to shrink...

"useful" should be fine. I would even go so far as to say that it's essential. If Homura doesn't think that Oriko is useful, then there's a fair chance that she will decide that it isn't worth keeping Oriko alive at all. "on our side" is where Homura might balk. But that line is specifically in the context of Walpurgisnacht and "Feathers", so I think it's probably fine. Homura doesn't like Oriko, but you can be sure that she hates Walpurgisnacht more.

The reason I picked the wording I did, is we can't make a persuasive argument here. Both can't as in will fail, and can't as in can't afford to. The entire point is to avoid butting heads with Homura over her dislike of Oriko, careful picking around rubbing "she was right about feathers" in her face, and taking a cautious stance that emphasizes working with our team and with Homura without pushing our judgment of Oriko at her. Again.

Click to shrink...

I think that there is some room to make a persuasive argument here. In our last conversation, it got to the point where Homura was frustrated and blocked off and not really listening. But right now "there's a hint of expectation in her eyes".

We can certainly mention feathers, but not to emphasize Oriko was right. Instead, something like here are the circumstances this appeared, what do you think?

Click to shrink...

Talking about the feather does not count as "rubbing it in Homura's face". The vote says "It does seem to be evidence that she's not just making things up." Homura was worried that Oriko was making up the whole thing about Feathers, but now we have evidence that there was truth to Oriko's claims. We need to examine that evidence and Homura should want to do so. The only way that the Feather would make Homura balk is if she is completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that Oriko might be right about "Feathers" being a threat.

 

[VilimL]

[X] Ugolino

 

[Kai Merah]

[x] Ugolino.

I like this. It mentions the feather we found, clues Mami in a bit more, and seems to be the best worded of the votes currently.

 

[EtchedSteel]

[x] Ugolino

 

[Gadjo]

I... actually agree with SWB here. Saying nice things about Oriko to Homura is a dangerous thing to do.

I mean, how would we feel if Akiko had been more competent and for some reason wanted to kill Mami? And succeeded? We'd be pretty damn averse to working with her.

 

[landcollector]

Sabrina shouldn't become a sockpuppet for Homura though.

 

[moonstne]

[x] Ugolino

 

[Crasian01]

Sabrina shouldn't become a sockpuppet for Homura though.

Click to shrink...

This seems incredibly unlikely, given the multipartisan nature of this thread.

(this is, to an extent, a politics joke)

 

[Gadjo]

Sabrina shouldn't become a sockpuppet for Homura though.

Click to shrink...

doesn't really make her a puppet though. We're just acknowledging that Oriko is very dangerous and stating out loud that we... don't have a lot of concrete ways of verifying her info or keeping her from manipulating us. It's pretty much saying "Yeah now that I think about it, having too much trust in Oriko could end poorly for us. She's too valuable to get rid of though, and I want to believe she can be good, but that might not be realistic."

 

[AuraTwilight]

[x] SWB.

 

[TJSomething]

[x] Ugolino

 

[Gadjo]

[X] SWB

For now, anyway. The Ugo vote tries again to defend her to Homura and it won't work.

 

[Sereg]

[x] Ugolino

Us saying that Oriko is useful is essential. If Homura decides that Oriko is more dangerous than useful, at best she's going to stop us from getting information from her. At worst, she's going to off her while we aren't looking.

 

[aeqnai]

[X] SWB

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

I'm taking a risk with honesty...and don't want to go for the politician's answer that misses out on the chance to get Homura to trust Oriko as a source, albeit an unreliable one. Anything is better than her current mindset of kneejerk paranoia and distrust. We shouldn't butt heads with Homura over Oriko but we can't just roll over to avoid any chance of disagreement because of it.

We want to keep Homura's trust, and the vote tries to do that, but we definitely shouldn't compromise our approach too much out of fear of offending her when we want to eventually get Homura to at least treat Oriko's information as useful/not see her as a dead threat walking.

Also...we kind of want to 'spoil' Mami, ie: keep her in the loop about this. This isn't something we want to keep secrets about given that we're trying to reduce our compartmentalization where possible and this is important for her to know about.

Click to shrink...

Setting aside the characterization of a politicians answer (what does that mean?), how can it possibly be a good idea to lead with "I thought about what you said" and then repeat the exact same talking points we made last time.

We don't need to get into a debate with Homura. It isn't an emergency to use what new evidence we have to change her mind, not that such a thing is necessarily at all possible at all. It's not like she doesn't know that circumstances and what evidence we have supports Oriko's ideas. That's not what's in the way of her opinion of Oriko.

Again, why are we trying to get into another debate with Homura?

Look, go back and reread the last conversation. Homura sees us as her chance, but she also sees herself losing us to Oriko. Both literally, as in Oriko is a danger to us, and figuratively, as in we focus on Oriko's crises rather than hers.

We need to promote the idea that we are her support and she is ours. That's why I focus on the idea that we're part of a team and tackling things together. Plus, hopefully Homura will include Mami in her 'us', which seems far more surmountable than Oriko.



Which brings us to Mami. I would absolutely love to be completely free with our answer here, but Homura (and Sabrina) are specifically referring to other timelines here. And that's something Homura needs to decide to release, not us. What do you think happens if Mami gets another "what are you talking about?" moment? Does Homura explain? No, she drops the subject.

The only way to clear this up is to work on convincing Homura that Mami is as much a part of our team as Sabrina and herself. And we've done a good job on that so far, but pressuring her into a disclosure or blundering into one isn't going to work.

 

[Ugolino]

Setting aside the characterization of a politicians answer (what does that mean?), how can it possibly be a good idea to lead with "I thought about what you said" and then repeat the exact same talking points we made last time.

We don't need to get into a debate with Homura. It isn't an emergency to use what new evidence we have to change her mind, not that such a thing is necessarily at all possible at all. It's not like she doesn't know that circumstances and what evidence we have supports Oriko's ideas. That's not what's in the way of her opinion of Oriko.

Again, why are we trying to get into another debate with Homura?

Look, go back and reread the last conversation. Homura sees us as her chance, but she also sees herself losing us to Oriko. Both literally, as in Oriko is a danger to us, and figuratively, as in we focus on Oriko's crises rather than hers.

We need to promote the idea that we are her support and she is ours. That's why I focus on the idea that we're part of a team and tackling things together. Plus, hopefully Homura will include Mami in her 'us', which seems far more surmountable than Oriko.



Which brings us to Mami. I would absolutely love to be completely free with our answer here, but Homura (and Sabrina) are specifically referring to other timelines here. And that's something Homura needs to decide to release, not us. What do you think happens if Mami gets another "what are you talking about?" moment? Does Homura explain? No, she drops the subject.

The only way to clear this up is to work on convincing Homura that Mami is as much a part of our team as Sabrina and herself. And we've done a good job on that so far, but pressuring her into a disclosure or blundering into one isn't going to work.

Click to shrink...

Trying to be noncommittal rather than honest and dancing around actually answering questions. I don't want to do that at all and feel it's just another case of trying to 'play it safe' with an awkward situation...which while easy and apparently the less risky option is actually intentionally not doing anything to fix the problem. If we repeat ourselves slightly, it's because the facts haven't changed.

The vote doesn't get us into a debate, and that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it did. I disagree that my vote does anything but be largely supportive of Homura's POV, especially with us mentioning that we AGREE with Homura we can't trust her. But if we can't get Homura to see Oriko as an asset, we have failed. Homura is never going to really trust her unless we work at it, the team isn't going to work unless we get more openness, and Homura's unease is just going to build and build until things give way, badly. Maybe not in and of itself, but its pressure we won't need in the future and that we can do something about.

There's not mentioning other timelines, and then there's actively avoiding telling Mami useful information because its vaguely connected. I don't see the problem with my edit to the vote and honestly...the current version of yours makes me cringe a bit with what it tries to do re: honesty and Sabrina characterization. It's 'playing it safe', quotation marks very much necessary, and that doesn't help.

tl;dr small risks now are better than large problems later, we need to start trying to get Homura to treat Oriko as an (unreliable) asset rather than an enemy waiting to happen, and keep Mami in the loop where we can ffs.

 

[Muramasa]

[] Abstain



Honestly. I'm done with this vote. I'll pick up the pieces afterwards if I have to but we're talking in circles at this point. Regardless...

@Firnagzen

I dont care what vote wins at this point. Please lock the vote at some point today. At this rate we'll be rehashing the same tired arguments into next week and onwards.

Edit: Or I can't seem to make up my goddamn mind.

 

[Ugolino]

I... actually agree with SWB here. Saying nice things about Oriko to Homura is a dangerous thing to do.

I mean, how would we feel if Akiko had been more competent and for some reason wanted to kill Mami? And succeeded? We'd be pretty damn averse to working with her.

Click to shrink...

We aren't saying nice things though. We're trying to appeal to practicality more or less and saying that, factually, Oriko's information has been good so far but that we're aware of the risks.

SWB avoids pointing any of that out in the name of Playing It Safe, which while it might make for more peaceful, uneventful, non-status quo changing updates in the short term is just making problems for us in the not so distant future while not making any progress on cooperation.

If not now then when and where do we start if we're never going to try changing Homura's mind on Oriko as an asset if nothing else?

What I'm definitely not voting for is a Murderface-style vote that essentially goes 'eh, maybe we should shoot her, she could be irredeemable' which is what that section boils down to. It flies in the face of characterization and our goal of getting everyone as allies, not to mention reinforcing Homura's distrust of Oriko rather than trying to alleviate it. The SWB vote encourages Homura's distrust and murderface inclinations, not helps with it.

 

[FlatlineAskari]

We don't need to get into a debate with Homura. It isn't an emergency to use what new evidence we have to change her mind, not that such a thing is necessarily at all possible at all. It's not like she doesn't know that circumstances and what evidence we have supports Oriko's ideas. That's not what's in the way of her opinion of Oriko.

Click to shrink...

Yes, we do. Whether we can change her opinion or not, we have service to reward and a promise to keep.

Homura wants to know what we think. We don't particularly want to lie to her; however, we don't want to think like she wants us to because it flies in the face of the available evidence and also lies on the path to total, abject bad-crazy.

 

[Ugolino]

Yes, we do. Whether we can change her opinion or not, we have service to reward and a promise to keep.

Homura wants to know what we think. We don't particularly want to lie to her; however, we don't want to think like she wants us to because it flies in the face of the available evidence and also lies on the path to total, abject bad-crazy.

Click to shrink...

Yeah. Essentially, honesty is the best policy here. Say what we think while getting across that we aren't just ignoring that Oriko's problematic.

 

[DracoDracul]

[X]Ugolino

Long term I think it's better that we be honest in our opinions.

It may cost us points now, but it will cost us more if agree with Homura now, but can't stick with it.

 

[boonerunner]

How can it possibly be a good idea to lead with "I thought about what you said" and then repeat the exact same talking points we made last time.

Click to shrink...

Our reasons for trusting Oriko have not changed since yesterday, so it's not surprising that there is some overlap. But the logical points that we made yesterday were not the problem. The problem was that we didn't listen to Homura and acknowledge her point that Oriko was potentially dangerous and that we need to be careful with her rather than trusting her blindly.

We don't need to get into a debate with Homura. It isn't an emergency to use what new evidence we have to change her mind, not that such a thing is necessarily at all possible at all. It's not like she doesn't know that circumstances and what evidence we have supports Oriko's ideas. That's not what's in the way of her opinion of Oriko.

Again, why are we trying to get into another debate with Homura?

Click to shrink...

Homura is not defensive right now, she's curious. Additionally, there are two important new pieces of information that affect her relationship with Oriko:
1. The Feather shows that Oriko's concerns about the future are valid, not a lie that she made up on the spot.
2. The failure of Oriko's original plan to save Sayaka reinforces the idea that Oriko's precognition/planning is unreliable and that she needs to rely on us in order to succeed.

These points merely reinforce what we already believed, so they don't seem like such a big deal to us, but for Homura this new information could be a game changer and my reading of the current situation is that she does want to discuss it. She definitely wasn't eager to talk while we were around Oriko, but when it's just Mami and Sabrina, she is willing to be more open.

Look, go back and reread the last conversation. Homura sees us as her chance, but she also sees herself losing us to Oriko. Both literally, as in Oriko is a danger to us, and figuratively, as in we focus on Oriko's crises rather than hers.

We need to promote the idea that we are her support and she is ours. That's why I focus on the idea that we're part of a team and tackling things together. Plus, hopefully Homura will include Mami in her 'us', which seems far more surmountable than Oriko.

Click to shrink...

Ugolino's vote very much focuses on the team of Homura, Mami, and Sabrina, and treats Oriko as an unreliable element. An unreliable element who is still useful, to be sure, but the vote makes it clear that we will be on Homura and Mami's side if there is any conflict.

Which brings us to Mami. I would absolutely love to be completely free with our answer here, but Homura (and Sabrina) are specifically referring to other timelines here. And that's something Homura needs to decide to release, not us. What do you think happens if Mami gets another "what are you talking about?" moment? Does Homura explain? No, she drops the subject.

Click to shrink...

In the most recent iteration of the vote, the other timelines are not specifically referred to. We merely talk in general about Oriko's untrustworthiness and poor planning skills. Homura will naturally be thinking of the timeline where Oriko killed Madoka. But Mami will be thinking of earlier in this timeline when Oriko's plans caused her to burn down Sayaka's house and break Hitomi's arm. The general points are valid for both situations (although Homura's feelings are naturally more extreme).

 

[Gadjo]

Hm. Ugo makes a fair point, I suppose.

[X] Ugolino.

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

Unsure.

[X] Synchronized Writers Block.

It's a 'prettier' vote than the others, better arranged and it brings up some details we've missed.


I'm half asleep, but wouldn't this piss off Homura? From a normal perspective it's fine, but from her perspective, doesn't it look like we're siding with Oriko on the 'Kill Madoka/Save the World' issue?

Perhaps we could point out what we did that other time instead, and put more emphasis on how ridiculous Oriko's plans are (how last resorts should be last resorts).

This first bit.

Click to shrink...

made this edit to address this concern

EDIT: Made a whole ton more edits later on so just keep scrolling down through discussion.

[] Ask to have this conversation more privately (timestop).
[] She gave us good information today, Mami. But it was also clear she has no real idea what caused today's attack.
-[] It's up to the three of us - this team - to figure that out. This incident was outside my expectations too. Given all the circumstances, it looks to me like Sayaka was specifically targeted. Discounting everything Oriko claimed, it's still attractive to conclude that something unknown to us directed this attack.
-[] Listen to what the others say in response. If the subject wavers from Oriko, cut the vote here. If it doesn't, or if they don't say much, continue.
[] Homura... I've given some thought to what we talked about yesterday.
-[] Oriko gave us useful information today, but you're right that I shouldn't rely on her information to always be good. I think it's obvious I like to think the best of everyone, but...
-[] ...there's also is what she might withhold from us, what she doesn't know, and when she acts unchecked.
-[] I mean, we restrict her now because when she is free to act she takes extreme and dangerous measures. (Make eye contact with Homura so she understands we're also accounting for the other timeline.) And what she tried with Sayaka didn't even work.
-[] What I think is sensible to keep doing, is check any information she gives us, stay alert for omissions or agendas, and treat her as only one potential source while continuing to pursue our own goals using our own methods.
--[] If that changes over time, it will only be as her actions conclusively support she's being forthright and helpful.
-[] But as I said, I'm not exactly the most sensible person when it comes to being trusting, so I'm relying on you - both of you -to watch out for me or reign me in. Like you tried to do yesterday. So, thank you for that, and I'm sorry I made you worry.

Click to shrink...

Still working on the rest for various wording issues.

Trying to be noncommittal rather than honest and dancing around actually answering questions. I don't want to do that at all and feel it's just another case of trying to 'play it safe' with an awkward situation...which while easy and apparently the less risky option is actually intentionally not doing anything to fix the problem.

Click to shrink...

That just says that you don't actually get what the problem even is.

If we repeat ourselves slightly, it's because the facts haven't changed.

The vote doesn't get us into a debate, and that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it did.

Click to shrink...

But it isn't about the facts. From an ooc perspective, Oriko's trustworthiness isn't really up for questioning. From Homura's perspective, given why she's opposed to Oriko in the first place, why are the facts persuasive at all?

I disagree that my vote does anything but be largely supportive of Homura's POV, especially with us mentioning that we AGREE with Homura we can't trust her. But if we can't get Homura to see Oriko as an asset, we have failed. Homura is never going to really trust her unless we work at it, the team isn't going to work unless we get more openness, and Homura's unease is just going to build and build until things give way, badly. Maybe not in and of itself, but its pressure we won't need in the future and that we can do something about.

Click to shrink...

But the way to work on her unease isn't to talk it off by repeatedly stating how useful the person she hates is. That's actively counterproductive. Oriko's usefulness becomes self evident the more we're patient. Today in itself is a fine example.

This is something we have to wait on and resist pouncing on 'evidence'.

There's not mentioning other timelines, and then there's actively avoiding telling Mami useful information because its vaguely connected. I don't see the problem with my edit to the vote and honestly...the current version of yours makes me cringe a bit with what it tries to do re: honesty and Sabrina characterization. It's 'playing it safe', quotation marks very much necessary, and that doesn't help.

Click to shrink...

I can certainly make it more obvious, but really it's a very small phrasing change.

tl;dr small risks now are better than large problems later, we need to start trying to get Homura to treat Oriko as an (unreliable) asset rather than an enemy waiting to happen, and keep Mami in the loop where we can ffs.

Click to shrink...

What you characterize as small risks are relationship-breaking misreads that we've already proven don't work ffs.