@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

[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.

[cyberlife]

We're installing ourselves as some kind of governing body in charge of these people when that isn't and shouldn't be the case.

But I will be a part of this community-wide discussion and I'm capable of accepting this idea if it's something that everyone agrees on.

There I will make my stipulations public, but in the effort of full disclosure: I'd only cast my vote pro-separation if Hafid Alghul, Matches Malone, and Kalem Rider are prohibited from interrogating these new arrivals. They are unfit to do so, given their reactions here today. I'm sure there are others, maybe people have made their own points privately, but this is a logical determination.

[rehandle]

I'm talking about the handful of days it takes to have an ID established. The same job that Morningstar do for us now. If we're moving out of Morningstar's care, this job still needs to be done for the reasons I've already articulated. And somebody has to be in charge of it. So yes, in effect we'll be a governing body for the brief number of days before we're equals, but I don't see an alternative. By all means, if you have one, please.

Thank you, Connor.

If we're to go down this route, I agree. This should an exercise in establishing mutual confidence between the new and established members of our group. I'll also add that we avoid "interrogation" in the first place. Conversation, albeit inherently coercive due to the presence of the drug. We'll need to acknowledge this and explain why it's necessary, so as to make the process as unintrusive as possible.

As I say, there'll be a lot to do to work out the appropriate course of action. But if is what we choose, we'll make sure it's played out by the right team.

[cyberlife]

We approach them as victims ourselves, because that's what we are. We are not their governing body and we are not in charge of the decisions Morningstar makes. We are individuals working together to further a common goal. We do not step out of this role or we will instigate an uprising.

That's what happened in my world, that's what could happen in this one.

You're a reasonable man and I don't suspect that you're lying to me about your belief in due process. Thank you.

[rehandle]

Sorry to press the point, but I want to make sure we're both coming at this from the same angle. In my understanding, we're proposing a separation from Morningstar. Not total, but enough that we're no longer a significant drain on their resources or as big a risk to their safety. We will no longer be held in a Morningstar facility. Consequently, our decision-making processes will largely be our own.

How do we as a community of individuals protect that community? How do we ensure that we maintain the necessary levels of secrecy and security without the implementation of any kind of system in the absence of authority? The holding period is necessary. If this incident has taught us nothing, it's taught us that. IDs are imperative, we can't risk being discovered without them.

I really would like to understand what you consider to be the alternative. I mean that. At present I just can't see what else we can do but create our own process that emulates what we we already know works, while taking into consideration the differences that come along with going it alone.

[cyberlife]

I consider what we've been doing a sufficient alternative to what's being proposed. Morningstar gives us information about the incoming new arrivals, we intercept them and invite them back to the safehouse to get their IDs, let everyone as a whole sit with them for the necessary screening period, and that's it. That's what we did before, that's what worked before.

You're focusing on creating a new section of the safehouse when it's not the problem here.

The problem is the glaring gap of time between trafficking victims getting off of the bus and getting to us.

[rehandle]

I see your point. I don't agree with it for reasons I've already expressed, but it's worth raising when the discussion comes up. Others might be more comfortable this way too and there may be a compromise to be struck.

As for the gap, that's an issue, absolutely, and a more relevant one to the current situation. But it's a completely separate problem.

Actually, I'd bring it up somewhere it's going to be seen. It warrants discussion.

[cyberlife]

We can agree to disagree on the safehouse, but now that we share an opinion on something crucial - yes.

I believe you should.

[rehandle]

[ m8 ]

I meant you, Connor. I don't know that I can split myself into enough parts to do justice to finding an adequate solution to that one.

[ once upon a time, yes, but alas. the clone days are behind him. ]

[cyberlife]

(oh.

...

oh.)

Sorry, I misread you completely. I'll see what I can do, but I'm not very popular right now.

I'll wait for the moment, while this network post is still active.

[rehandle]

Really? Who else did you piss off?

[ that's other than hafid, not other than him. you may have exhausted him, but everyone's entitled to an opinion, and connor's isn't exactly bad. and winding up the pro-murder candidate can't have put him in the bad books. ugh, is Stephen going to have to read the backlog of this thing? ]

If you need any help, let me know. And if you could toss me a line when you get it up, just in case I'm not paying enough attention, I'd be grateful.

[cyberlife]

I'd be doing them a disservice discussing it with you.

(but CHRIST.)

You'll be notified. I'm glad we had this conversation.

[rehandle]

[ yikes.

but also, and earnestly: ]

Me too.

Until later, then.