@gaby

[vns]

[ this was supposed to be one of Gaby's days off. in fact, she's not in the safehouse when the message comes in. ]

Turns out that we're missing two new faces around the safehouse.

I'd play a guessing game as to why I wasn't told, but I don't care. These two faces apparently murdered two people that night.

I don't know who they are, but I do know that they're locked up. Any guesses as to what's going to happen to them?

Genuine question. Because I don't know.

Oh, and because some of you think you can do whatever the hell you want around here: don't think the way out for them is a jail break. Don't even fucking try it. And no, Morningstar isn't in the business of breaking people out of jail, because that would be stupid.

[ she's a little angry. no. a lot. but mostly she doesn't know how to handle this one. ]

Look. You know something? Tell me. You won't be "in trouble."

Comments

[saviorexe]

[He's seen the exchanges. Knows Hafid's stance on this, and perhaps this request isn't as surprising as it should be.]

That'll be a hard sell, given that ushering the newly arrived as quickly as possible to a safe haven with the rest of us has always been a main priority. And there would be no way of guaranteeing honesty even if we did manage to implement a... screening process.

[batricide]

No, but it's better than herding strangers into a secure location and hoping for the best.
Regardless of the innocence of the men in question, this could happen in our own bunker.
Not everyone who comes here is a fighter.
Someone who is, with a dangerous power, could slaughter everyone without blinking.

@stephen.strange

[rehandle]

If you can involve yourself, help us find a smaller sub-location to utilise as a holding bay to cover the time the time it'll take El to construct and assign IDs, I don't see why we can't enact some separation. It'll give us the period of time where the drug's wearing off to get a better sense of the people we're to welcome into our numbers.

We can come up with protocol surrounding what happens if we're in doubt later. But it's at least a level of safeguarding.

[ as for ensuring honesty, that's not totally off the table either. but falling into the kind of screening he could help with can't be their first or only option.

also, at this point, it really couldn't hurt to give this guy something productive to focus on. ]

[batricide]

I have some ideas.
We could ask questions while they're under the effects of the compliance drug. Names, allegiances, crimes.

[ He lives in the seedy underbelly of town - or did. And he's prone to memorizing the worst areas, because that's where the worst people go.

If he works backwards from that there might be a suitable location.

[saviorexe]

[Markus has to chime in here.]

I don’t like the idea of taking advantage of the drug, and I don’t think this is a solution that we should rely on.

[batricide]

[ It's not a good thing, he knows. But he's in full Worst Case Scenario mode. ]

Then what do you suggest, Markus?

[saviorexe]

I would take a more natural approach. We already flock to the new arrivals when they’re dropped off, and many of us are quick to return to the safehouse to meet them, or search for for familiar faces from home.

They can’t leave until their IDs are set up. In that time, it’s our obligation to orient them to the situation at hand — and also to keep each other informed if any of us sense anything worrisome from them. That in itself isn’t inherently difficult to do.

[rehandle]

My concern with that kind of questioning is that we might turn a potential ally into an enemy. I'm sure there are plenty of people here whose lives would be playing out differently were they forced to give real names, previous vocations, criminal activity etc on arrival. For one, that's never black and white. For two, if we immediately destroy any chance of establishing trust with individuals who might have otherwise been sympathetic, or have needed our help, we're creating a whole new problem that doesn't exist yet.

I don't think the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

Having said that and taking into account the possibility of entering into a period of high threat to our secrecy and safety, if we can create a less specific set of questions we might still be able to get an insight into the people coming in without doing the same amount of damage. Questions to understand a morality, the way their homeworld looked upon certain crimes, their own views on certain crimes, etc.

[batricide]

I agree.

[ This guy's smart. He gets it, or at least, he agrees and that's currently enough for Damian. ]

We don't need to know everything about them. I really couldn't care less what any of your names are. What I want to know is if people are going to be safe to be around and have around.

@connor.resnik

[cyberlife]

So they'd be interrogated after being kidnapped for however many months.

[batricide]

You know how quickly you can kill a group of sleeping people before one wakes up, Resnik?

[cyberlife]

Yes, I do.

I also understand that you're scared, Hafid, but these are people we're talking about. Not animals.

[rehandle]

Interrogate's a little strong for what I'm imagining this would be. But I can appreciate you having misgivings around questioning people under the influence.

[cyberlife]

I'm glad you understand, Mr. Strange, but separating people who are helpless and scared - and not releasing them until they pass some kind of morality test with all of the little boxes checked off - is a very bad idea.

I can't approve of this.

[rehandle]

I understand that, I do, but I'm not talking about passing anything.

We keep the separate safehouse well stocked, and ensure there are a number of us who stay with any new arrivals to keep them safe and help make it as easy a transition as possible. We're always kept penned in for at least a few days regardless of where we happen to be, so that part doesn't strike me as an issue. All I'm suggesting is that during this time one of our number has a conversation with each newcomer about their world and their views. Not as a test, not to decipher whether they're in or out, just to give us a sense of whether or not we need to be wary.

We come from too diverse a pot to put checkboxes on morality. But we do need to be careful. We've been lucky up until now, but there may well come a time where that isn't the case. And if there are those amongst us who feel we need to take extra precautions, those voices need listening to.

[cyberlife]

"Separate" is the operating word in this conversation.

How do I know any one of you - the people who have already been in and out of the safehouses - won't go off and murder someone in your free time? None of us have any right to keep these people from others. There is safety and strength in community - I think we should be encouraging more togetherness instead of... making them feel different and scrutinized.

[rehandle]

You don't. And for the record, I'm less interested in the physical danger represented by newcomers than the threat of exposure. If we're no longer living in a Morningstar-overseen safehouse, we ourselves will be the only authority responsible for ensuring newcomers don't go outside before they're ready. My concern is that handling freedom of movement for our existing number while limiting early freedom for newcomers if we're all sharing the same space will be difficult when we've only our own authority to rely on. And if someone panics and runs, or is let go by somebody who remembers how much they hated having to wait, and they don't have an ID yet but they already know our location and the faces of whoever happens to be living in our safehouse? Or if somebody develops an active intention to sabotage us, or even just to seek out safety and help from a more widely recognised authority, and knows exactly where we've set up camp?

We're too vulnerable. I would like to be as kind as we can, but there needs to be balance.

I'm looking at a safety net, not an entry exam. I'm not looking to exclude, I'm looking to take care.

But I hear you.

We're not deciding anything now. There's a lot to be done, and a lot of discussion that needs to take place. As you say, we're a community, and I think this needs to be decided as communally as possible.

[batricide]

I'm not scared.

[cyberlife]

We all are, whether it's for ourselves or other people.

I'm very familiar with this segregation process; it'll make them feel even more frightened and liable to make bad decisions.

[batricide]

So you put your blind faith in anyone who looks vulnerable and it's worked out for you?

[cyberlife]

I put my blind faith in people who stood in control of a very bad situation - one exactly like this. I was wrong because, as it turns out, they also elected to murder people who only wanted to be free.

You are not fit to make these decisions and your immediate, emotional, unfounded judgement of others is exactly the reason why.

[batricide]

You're calling me out on projecting? Seriously? How about you?
Are you so scared of making the wrong choice that your decision is to make none at all?

[saviorexe]

So are you suggesting a separate building altogether, or a “quarantined” zone within the same location?

[He isn’t sure if he likes it; the opposite of welcoming to a group of confused and probably frightened individuals. But this is not an unreasonable concern, all the same.]

[batricide]

Separate building, same area. Or an entirely different location of the building from long term residents of the safehouse.
If people want to stay with them to bring them up to speed that's fine. Accommodations can be made. It will also allow for 1:1 medical care and attention if needed. Less clutter and noise while they acclimate and get brought up to speed. After being vetted they can be brought to the larger area or be guided to help find a place and work.

[saviorexe]

It’ll be something you can bring up with the rest of us wanting to discuss this as a group. If it’s a legitimate concern of yours, then I won’t discard it just because I don’t necessarily agree with it.

[Appeasing, yet letting his own opinion shine through. Markus walks that delicate line with someone who has practice doing so.]

Keeping them separated from the main group instills a sense of disparity that we don’t want. They’re going to be scared and confused, and setting them aside for the sake of questioning — even if it is a screening process consisting of only generalized questions — is only going to foster distrust.

That’s the last thing we need right now. Just look at the state of this post; we need a sense of solidarity.