@hafid.alghul

[batricide]

Before we return to New Amsterdam, I wanted to bring something forward to all of you.

As things stand we're reliant on Morningstar to survive in the world. This worked while things were new, while there was still a chance we were just passing through, but some of our numbers have been here for months and as we grow it's important we find a way to handle ourselves, both for our own sake and the sake of the people we've been depending on.

What I propose is a plan to make us self-sustaining and ensure that we're doing more than surviving, we're thriving as best we can given circumstances.

We have no shortage of talent among us, meaning that this task is well within our ability to handle. Our different backgrounds have given us a diverse skillset that's currently being wasted by our own lack of order. I propose changing that by introducing voluntary groups that will focus on building specific areas we need to improve on and help move us forward as an organization.

Combat. Business and Finance. Research and Development. Medical. Internal Human Relations. And Public Relations and Outreach. All areas we need to be focusing on and expanding on, each with its own unique skillset.

Each committee will be under the supervision of one or more members of the Displaced, elected by the committee themselves. These Displaced will be in charge of organizing meetings and gathering any necessary supplies.

What I propose is membership of these committees would be strictly voluntary but strongly encouraged. Many of us are experienced in different areas, so I'm not ruling out serving on multiple committees - but to do what is within your limits.

I also suggest there be two "ambassadors" who will serve as the face and effective organizers of our collective as a wwhole, ensuring that things are running smoothly and the necessary conversations are being had and heard. And if the day comes that we're exposed, they'll serve as the face of our organization to the world itself.

This is only a proposal. I can't force anyone to do this, and this only works through voluntary participation. But I encourage all of you to think about it, and if this is something you want to do, think of how you want to shape our future. We can only do so together.

Thank you for reading this and for your consideration on these words.

Comments

@rey.nolo

[forcevisions]

Daisy has been training people in their powers since she came here. She's got plenty of experience. She's the best person to head up any committee on combat, isn't she?

[ Rey deliberately sidesteps any comment on what she wants to involve herself in and instead starts building up other people. ]

[batricide]

[ right in the pride. owch.

but he's made a commitment to this plan, to trying to build their 'people' up, which means shutting up and not flaring up any time he feels slighted. especially when he's been shouting about how much he doesn't want to lead. ]

Johnson would be one of my first choices.

@diana.prince

[monomachy]

I haven't been here long, but I definitely prefer thriving over surviving. I'll do whatever I can to help with this, in any capacity. I have at least a little experience in most of those areas.

[batricide]

I trust your leadership and your combat skills. However you want to get involved, I approve of.

@thor.odinson

[ofmyth]

good

[batricide]

[ thanks, thor. ]

Do you have anything else to add?

@leo.fitz

[retravel]

[ THIS IS THE MOST POLITE HE’S EVER SEEN DAMIAN IN HIS LIFE he's proud ;; ]

Well done, Hafid. I think you make a compelling argument for improving our resiliency and organisation. I also like what you and Daisy have discussed above (and second you two as highly qualified for the work itself): Making co-leaders the minimum may cover the contingencies, as Thor pointed out, in the event of unavailability and disappearances.

[ a beat. ]

My only question is this: Do you (and others) reckon the ambassadors fit within public relations and outreach rather than being separate to all the committees? This is an area where I feel more is, well, more — the more capable and diplomatic minds at the table, the better.

[batricide]

In an ideal situation we'll have no lead for leadership, but it's better to ensure someone is taking responsibility than to leave it to chance.

[ His mind harkens back to his conversation with Strange. About his need for leadership and command. How it doesn't actually work. ]

I agree with the sentiment. I expect anyone serving an ambassadorial role will belong to those committees as it will require both of those skillsets.

[ but.

he might be cognizant of his bias - but that doesn't mean he thinks its wrong. ]

People work better under a leader.

@margaret.carter

[revlon]

I agree that focusing the displaced's efforts is useful, particularly in times of crisis since we've already proven we are capable of such. What would you say are the proposed aims beyond that?

[ Unity and teamwork are all very well and good, but to what end? They all have different priorities, different concerns about this world and their places in it. She's curious what would be seen as universal amongst their number. ]

[batricide]

There are a few areas.

Ensuring all new arrivals are brought up to speed and thoroughly taught how to blend into the world they've found themselves in. Not everyone is from a world even half as advanced as this one, and though they've been making due we could be doing better with assisting with the process.

Imparting trainable skills and helping integrate said new arrivals into the workforce. Some of our number are young or lack experience, meaning they're having a difficult time holding a job. Some are living underneath the poverty line.

Organizing meetings so we are all able to touch base and bring each other up to speed to ensure no one is wasting their talents, or struggling to find direction. Some people function better if they have structure to play off of, or someone to hold them accountable.

But most important is fostering a sense of community and comradery.

[ A pause as he drags a hand down his face because he's actually going to say this and maybe mean it.]

That makes the difference between leaving someone to die or banding together to save them, or staying loyal to the group if someone offers you an opportunity to trade up. Working more closely together will ensure we get to know each other, and it's a lot harder to betray someone you see ofen than it is a total stranger who just happens to share your fate.

[ says the pro-murder guy of murdergate. ]

@clarke.griffin

[strove]

First off, Hafid, please trust that what I'm about to say here is in the best interest of everyone, including yourself. If you'd like to speak about our issues in private, I'll send you a message there. But I need you to read this, too.

[Clarke is confident he would regardless of that, but she wants that to be out of the way. There's a reason why Clarke instigated an argument with him in public: it was to get him to be more mindful of his words and actions. To make it so that someone like Connor couldn't utilize his words (or Matches' words, for that matter) against him when they haven't been followed up by actions. That's part of the whole deal she's about to go into here.]

Moving on—

I firmly believe that we're skipping several steps here to come to these committees. If we're going to speak of ourselves as a unified group, we need to set a few ground rules. And by rules, I mean bylaws.

Before we even have an idea of who's committed to representing us, we need to know what it is that we are and aren't allowed to do. If you're arguing that we're a unified group, we need to have some set things in place for how we handle ourselves. I know "laws" and "rules" are something that many people would be opposed to, but since we are handling our own safehouses and ourselves moving forward, I think we should be agreed on how to handle ourselves.

I'm saying things like not arguing to throw one of our own out because they get caustic and angry when something gets up. When two of "our own"—trust me when I say that neither of these men saw themselves as "our own"—killed two men when they first arrived, we had a very, very prolonged argument about how to "handle" them and the situation in which they were found without registered implants. But a lot of it was hypothetical. No one acted. However, it became apparent then that there were some people who used that opportunity to turn against another Displaced to try to exile them.

Those are the types of things we need to be able to shut down. We need rules and laws to protect ourselves. We need them so that we can protect each other. To keep one another from being rash in the face of trials like that.

[Clarke knows that was a sore period for a lot of people, and feels a little bad about bringing it up. But it's the closest comparison she has to the delinquents banding together to lynch Murphy.]

In order to carry out these rules/laws, we need a group that will remain unbiased to review "incidents" and make sure they're handled justly. Since our group is small, I propose a rotating council to review these things—and mediate. The point isn't to punish, but to keep things from escalating among us. We don't have enough people to go about a full council that's voted upon, and by having it rotating, it will account for people coming and going. Each party can even have someone close to them represented on this mediation council.

[Mediation might be idealistic, but it's a place to start. They can discuss where to move from there.]

As for the rest—

Look, I'll come out and say it: emphasis on "surviving" versus "thriving" isn't a good idea. It implies that we're struggling to make it in a world that doesn't have our best interests at heart. We aren't being attacked. We don't know why we're here, but some people have drawn conclusions as to why. We're not dying left and right. As far as I know, our only deaths involved us taking part in something we could have sat out. Before anyone says that's cold, I'm sorry. I didn't sit it out, either, and I'm not aligned with Morningstar. But we need to keep that in mind.

I came from a world where the emphasis was on survival. We lived in a space station with around 2,000 people because the Earth had burned, making it uninhabitable. We had to learn to develop rations, reuse supplies, and work together, even if we originally came from different walks of life. We didn't start out at 2,000 people, but as you can imagine, we grew to that number in time thanks to having children. Even so, we were under rigid population controls.

I'm not saying my experience is our experience. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. We may be displaced into this world, but we are disparate in our interests. On the Ark, we had a reason to unify: to prolong humanity enough to get back to the ground once it was inhabitable again. That's what we lived according to, and what we believed. We were firmly under the impression that as long as humanity lived long enough, we could return home.

Now, you might be thinking that that's a parallel. It isn't. We don't have unified interests. No one body needs to have a unified interest, but given how few of us there are, I can see that becoming a problem.

Here's a few points of view that people have:

1. That we were brought here as weapons. That one day our weaponization will be activated and we'll be forced to act on someone else's behalf.

2. That we were brought here to abruptly change and modify this world. That we are the agents of change.

3. That this world is somehow against us, and therefore the UNA will eventually be our enemies.

4. That the UNA aren't our enemies, and we can get by without fighting with them.

5. That our overall goal should be to return home, regardless of what or why we're here.

6. That we need to find out why we're here, who we're here for, and put a stop to it.

7. That we need to make sure we don't mess up this world too much, because some people would like to stay.

8. Some people want to help the people of this world.

9. Others just think this is fine, no matter what. Being here is what it is in the end.

10. I'll make an extra number to represent any other interests I'm overlooking. Sorry if I did that. It wasn't my intention.

I'm sure I'm missing some things. In fact, I know I am.

All of these perspectives are fair, and while some are similar, some contradict one another. We don't even know how many contradict one another.

The reason why I bring up living on the Ark—that's the space station where I grew up—is that regardless of our disparate points of view, we had one overall goal: survival. Making sure humanity made it to the ground. These points of view unified us into a solid group. We became what a later group coined as Skaikru. We knew our experiences were valid, and we also knew that we couldn't expect this later group (the humans who managed to survive the Earth burning—it's a very, very long story) to know what we faced. We knew what we had been through. Even when there were class differences and functional differences, we all lived in the very small expanse of land, especially compared to what we faced when we returned to the ground. (To Earth, for anyone who needs clarification.)

And therein lies the problem.

We are not a People. We are not a unified front. I understand that you're trying to make us into that, but not everyone is interested in presenting that way, nor do they have the motivation to do so. Some people are just living their lives here. You call that surviving, other people might call it thriving already. I will oppose any scenario where we have to act as one body moving together. We aren't and won't be that. It's impossible to do that. We all represent different walks of life and experiences. We represent other People, because where we come from is something we carry with us every day. I assure you that this isn't because I'm being difficult. It's because I've talked to a great deal of people here, and I've listened to what they've gone through. It's not just about us being here or what we're doing. It's the different numerical points I made up there. And more.

I don't think it's a bad idea to have people who are set into roles. Having people who are here to ensure we can fight is good, but assuming that's necessary when we aren't forced into battle? That's bad. It's a fine line to walk. I'm not sure we need more than that and a group focused on welcoming people, but maybe I'm thinking too small.

As it is, we have to remember that we aren't a unified front. We can't expect to be a unified front as long as some of us keep coming and going. We have to figure out how to manage ourselves and help ourselves before we see ourselves as surviving, thriving, or any of that. I know I'm focusing on that, but when I say that the majority of my life has been focused on surviving, I'm not exaggerating. Being here is, as they say, a "walk in the park."

So, in summary—

1. We need rules or bylaws that we all agree upon.

2. We need a council of some kind that can act as mediators.

3. In my opinion, this isn't a matter of survival, and I'm extremely put off by the idea that it is. We're not unifying under this concept of survival and becoming one people. We aren't there.

4. There may be too many groups proposed given the nature and size of our group. Consolidate it.

Finally, I didn't touch on ambassadors because—conceptually—ambassadors represent our interests to outside groups. Quite frankly, we aren't there yet. We can return to that in the future.

@stephen.strange

[rehandle]

[ it's clear that this is a deeply considered response and it brings with it a lot of food for thought. she's right - they are not a People, not in the sense of shared goals or shared histories or shared kin. there is no mutual consensus on the meaning of their presence here, no confirmed theory on their purpose or whether or not they have one at all. they aren't even all working to the same ends.

she's also right in that they need a structure to live by, rules in place to ensure they don't destroy themselves before anyone else might get the chance.

but he can't agree with it all. to become a body capable of living by rules, they first have to find a way to feel like a body. they need unity, of a kind. a sense of mutual responsibility for one another. that's something which, in his opinion, doesn't yet exist.

if they don't already have a reason to unify, they need to create one. so far, they're a name, and that name is out. Displaced isn't a private affair anymore and it's yet to become obvious how much danger that poses. they have to be bound by more than the glow in their chest if they're to navigate this world safely with a title and an image and a myth sitting over their heads. their faces appear in shrines now. they are not invisible anymore and the only guaranteed allies they have are themselves and Morningstar, a group whose existence in this world is in itself incredibly fraught with danger. ]

Thank you, Clarke, for this. It's valuable insight.

[ even without this display of her depths, he knows her to be more than the hot-headed youth he once took her for. they've fought hard to be where they are now, and after the dreams there's another new understanding between them that he hasn't followed up on since.

he hopes it's enough that she'll know without his having to say so that his response now isn't meant to minimise all she's offered but to build on it, offer an angle of his own. ]

But no world has any individual group's best interests at heart. At best, we're all starting from zero in a world that for the most part doesn't know we're here. We begin our lives here at a serious disadvantage and up until now it's only been the kindness of strangers that allows us to exist here at all. Strangers who happen to be part of a rebel organization that have and continue to be ruthlessly targeted by the UNA.

While I don't think the word survive is critical to this conversation - (thrive as you've pointed out is even more tentative, currently applicable to some and not to others and arguably entirely subjective) - I also don't think it's necessarily misused.

If it weren't for Morningstar's efforts in providing us with IDs, there's no saying what would've happened to us. The first time we ended up in their care was happenstance. It now seems to have become the orchestrated norm, whoever it is that's dropping us off seems to have deemed Morningstar a convenient keeper, and perhaps that means we're being looked out for and wouldn't have come into too much trouble even without them. But in the best case scenario, without Morningstar's help at each drop off, our lack of ID would've severely limited our capacity to live in this city. No ID means no bank account, no name, no means of getting a job. Increased suspicion, possible arrest, discovery of our abilities in captivity. Who knows what after that.

Few of us have died, true. But up until now Morningstar has borne most of the weight of each of our first few weeks here and enabled us to integrate in a way we couldn't have without them. We've not turned down this help or made any collective move to reject it at any subsequent stage and are only just now beginning to separate ourselves from them - again, with their help and supervision. We've been under their roof voluntarily, worked with them to ensure new arrivals were brought under their care. We're associated with them. It doesn't matter if we have the choice to sit out their battles, avoid active involvement, we accepted their help. We're aligned. That puts us at risk of the notice and the retaliation of some very serious players.

Assuming that something in this world may either now or in the future be out to get us, if not for what we are then for who we've hung our hat with, isn't a reach.

On that premise, I believe unification is exactly what we need. We have to be a whole with a mutual understanding of the risks we face in order to respect the rules imposed on us as a whole to circumvent those risks.

We can't establish rules without a sense of mutual ownership over our collective safety and success in this world. If you don't consider yourself part of, valuable to or served by the existence of a group, why join in with establishing a set of rules for it to live by? And if you haven't joined in with agreeing on them, why abide by them? If laws are to be effective, we will all need to follow them, without exception. For that to happen we need to care about the people in the group whose safety they're designed to protect. That means connecting as a community.

In my opinion, a coming together of individuals to help organise, protect and progress our existence here would give us that. The proposed groups would in that sense represent less a system of government, more an opportunity for everyone to become as involved as they choose in our collective actions and a renewed chance for us to work together. Everyone is invited to the table. Those who choose not to sit do so of their own accord and that choice is respected but it's made clear that a chair is always waiting for them should they wish to add their voice. Nobody is overlooked or overworked, we support and rely on one another. Inclusion and teamwork begets a sense of responsibility to the people with whom we're working and sharing our progress.

With that established and our life here protected and enhanced by the results of a more structured collaboration, along with efforts made toward ensuring none of us feel alienated or unwilling to speak their mind, we'd be much less likely to leave people out of the rule-making process. And much more likely, following that, to live by them.

As things stand, we're disconnected. We need to fix that before we can make any attempt to truly mutually agree on anything as important as bylaws. I think this proposal, if carefully reviewed and ultimately designed to suit the people it'll serve, ought to tend both to that disconnect and to the need for self-management and help that you've identified. Creating a more accessible system for open communication across the displaced and a visible community for the newly arrived to be able to integrate with during a time when we've all felt very lost.

We're unstable by nature. It's important to create as much stability within that as we can while we're still so much in the dark - both for our sake and the sake of the future newly displaced.

[batricide]

[ There's a very long delay in his response.

He doesn't like Clarke. He thinks she's manipulative, calculating, and someone he would honestly quite gladly shove off of a roof if the opportunity ever presented itself. He doesn't think she's a good person, nor that she has anyone's best interests at heart but her own. He could tear a strip off of her here and now to bring that up, that he's sick of the show she puts on, but...

But it's the tone of the words that gets under his skin. The emphasis that she's 'lived this' and addressing him as if he hadn't. That he knows less. What she's describing is focused on a different kind of survival than the one he means - one he'd learned and mastered at a young age, not one he'd developed as a teenage caught in a war for the fate of the world.

So he doesn't pick the fight. ]

You aren't the only person who came from a world focused on survival. Don't assume I speak from a place of ignorance when I say my piece, because I don't. This is every bit a matter of survival. Maybe not now, but later, because my experience dictates that when people like us exist then problems inevitably come to find them. We're fine now- how long is that going to last? How long are we going to be able to keep skirting under the radar? How long before one of us interferes with something far bigger than the whole, and we're all left fending for ourselves against a threat bigger than us?

We can't assume that people aren't going to come after us eventually just because they haven't yet, that's pure ignorance. We need to be bigger than who and what we are in life or death situations. Right now we're relying too heavily on external forces. You keep emphasizing that we 'aren't there yet' - what are we going to do when we are but have no plans in place? Come up with something at the last possible minute and hope it works?

That can't keep working. That won't keep working.

Without Morningstar we'd be screwed. If they were to leave now or drop all support then we'd flounder and eventually drown without their guidance. So with that being said, I disagree that we don't have unified interests. Many of the people I've spoken to have similar thoughts and feelings on the situation we're in, they don't believe or do one simple thing. They just prioritize all the points you listed differently because they have their own things to worry about. Having organization and structure would help give focus to those who need it, support to those who need it, and allow us to hit on those interests more effectively.

Welcoming people doesn't do any good when those people aren't being taught how to actually live in this world, or given the necessary aid to. They're being fed and housed but that doesn't benefit us or them in the long run. You welcome them, you feed them, to train them - then they stand a chance of being able to do whatever 'interests' them best. Like it or not, being 'Displaced' means we're responsible for one another if we want to succeed at blending into this world and keeping things secret, or if we want to protect our image so people don't come hunting us down.

So I disagree that we are not 'a People'. Everything I've seen and experienced runs counter to that. People already view us as one, both externally and internally. There's an understanding of what and who we are to each other, but no ability to follow up or build on it. But there's a want to be one. We're disorganized. There's a difference. We're fully capable of moving as one and organizing as a group. Shockingly, people die all the time in organizations. Coming and going isn't a problem unless you have no plans in place to keep things running if someone disappears or dies.

I haven't touched on rules and bylaws because we aren't there yet and it's pointless to create rules when people haven't had the opportunity to weigh in on them.

For the rest of my point, I'll point you to what Strange said. You can discuss the rest of this with him if you'd rather, given our 'issues'.

@caroline.forbes

[gasping]

[ caroline has skimmed SO MUCH but she read "don't kill your fellow displaced" and immediately rolled her eyes so hard they went into the back of her head ]

committees are a great idea!

[ says the girl who ran a dozen of them back home ]

what about a committee to help people get settled when they arrive? and maybe make the safehouse less totally depressing? we could decorate the safehouse, put together welcome baskets, maybe get some clothes that don't look like old dish rags?

[batricide]

That would fall under Human Relations. I discussed with Nolo, it may be beneficial to combine both Human Relations and Public Outreach into one group - Human Resources.

That could cover decorating the safehouse and ensuring that all new arrivals have whatever creature comforts they need and are brought up to speed.

@rey.nolo

[forcevisions]

I agree.
Morningstar used to take care of getting us oriented, but not every one of us has chosen to join Morningstar. I think if we want to be separate from them, we need to do this part ourselves.

@eugenides.attolis

[kleptocratic]

Committee to help people not wear black all the time, please.

@cassian.andor

[evasives]

I have not been here particularly long, but I have noticed there is little by way of keeping all of the Displaced connected to one another, outside of the same access to the network.

It seems like smart thinking to try and create a way to put everyone on the same page, so to speak. At the very least it would allow easier access to information and resources. Moringstar is valuable but a collective for ourselves would be equally so.

[batricide]

Exactly my thoughts.
Consider this more a resource than an attempt to govern the people. We all have valuable skills that are not being used, the more connected we are, the better.

@markus.manfred

[saviorexe]

For all the differing opinions, is it simple enough for us to agree on the fact that a more connected group — whether it be by shared goals, circumstance, or organization — would be beneficial to us in the long run? This isn't the end-all-be-all, but it is a discussion that's needed to happen for a while now.

If anything, it's a step in the right direction. And I'll help where I can.

@rey.nolo

[forcevisions]

[ emphatically whispering THANK YOU in the most exasperated voice and then -- ]

Yes.
We have common experiences, common needs, and common enough interests. Building a stronger community will only help us.

@hafid.alghul

[batricide]

[ This is about how he imagined this would go, so he can't say he's terribly surprised. Frustrated and rapidly running out of his already incredibly limited patience, but not surprised.

He made a commitment.

He said he'd do this. So he's going to. ]

I'm going to keep this succient.

1. We want to be working towards something - whether that's unity, finding answers, or taking care of each other - not against something. My focus on potential threats is solely mine.

2. We are not yet at the point of needing a government, so the committees I proposed should be seen strictly as a resource and a means of organizing people with similar skillsets and drives. If the need for stricter governing and organization comes into play, then we'll approach that then.

3. Laws will need to be discussed. This is not the conversation for that - I suggest we have that one in person, there's no capacity to misunderstand or misinterpret intent. This one should have been conducted there as well.

Which brings me to my fourth point.

4. We need more in-person meetings if we're going to be anything other than scattered. Once the new Safehouses are set up, after the next flood of new arrivals, we should have that conversation.

Griffin is right that we're a group, not a people. I want to change that. I believe we are fully capable of doing so. We just need to work towards it.

[And that has used up his allotment of positive words for like, the next decade. ]

@clarke.griffin

[strove]

Thank you. I assume this saves me time?

[She's stepping away after this.]

@marcos.diaz

[heliophilous]

[ he's not even touching that big explosion up there. ]

we had something similar but less structured where i come from. it wasn't always perfect but it worked ell enough and i found that giving people a purpose helped especially when you're dealing with something like...this.

[ this being in an unfamiliar city with unfamiliar people and being forced to try and get along. ]

not everyone can lead but most people can go on resource runs or sit and hold an injured person's hand. it's not hard and it makes people feel like they're contributing to the bigger picture.

idle hands are the devil's workshop and all. i don't know where exactly i'd fit in but the idea's a good one. and being somewhat more unified definitely sounds better than being fractured and all over the place.

[batricide]

Precisely.
The more purpose we can give people, the better they'll feel. Not all of us are fighters, or scientists or doctors. There's still plenty that can be attended to. I'd be interested to hear how it was set up for you.

@jon.snow

[998]

[well this blew up. jon likes the sound of the committees, but aspects of this presentation are...troubling. hafid's assumption of authority regarding combat training bothered him in the extreme, and this has the same sort of general presumptive air. jon had been trying to follow along, and see how peggy and fitz responded, how seriously he should take this, before committing himself to anything. somewhere along the way, though, jon lost the thread of what was being said. reading words in the air doesn't come naturally to him, and he's still not used to this kind of instant written communication. the response to clarke's post has been slightly too much for him. that being said, he still has a few points to make.]

Many of these ideas are sound. We should be helping each other as best we can to live as well as we can. What concerns me is that we ought not draw a line between ourselves and the people that live here. In my experience that only leads to trouble down the road. It's true that we have been drawn into a conflict against our will. Not everyone should have to fight it. But if we fight, we ought to fight not for ourselves but for the good of this world and all who live here. Much has been said about what constitutes a people and whether we are one. Where I come from every last House and holding considers themselves a people and will fight for that people to the detriment of all the rest. I have given over my life towards trying to get them to fight for all people instead.

It's true we are reliant on Morningstar, but so is everyone else in this world. As it stands it's them or the United Nations. If we don't like them, we are better off changing them from the inside, rather than cutting ourselves off. It has also been said here we know nothing of this world. We must learn what we can from those that live here already, and the agents that have been kind to us are worth looking to in this time. In truth we are lucky to have this alliance. They are hard to come by.

I will help with the councils, if I can. But I will not put our small group before all the rest. I swore an oath to defend all the realms of people, not just my own. I mean to keep it as best as I can.

Re: @jon.snow

[batricide]

I don't mean that we shun Morningstar or their aid entirely, I mean that we raise ourselves up so we're not leaning so heavily on their support or aid.

And I'm not saying we put ourselves before the good of the world itself. I'm saying we need to build on us as a group so we can better serve the world and each other. Whether we like it or not, we are different from the people here by virtue of being here.

Saving the world is great but when we still have people in our safehouses lacking the tools to live comfortably in this world, or people of our own ranks feeling aimless and disconnected, we need to look inward and fix them before we act outward.

@katelin.philips

[covertness]

i think it's a good idea to create some (loose) form of structure and cohesion amongst us

i assume most if not all of us want to know how we came to be here, where we stand and what's been done to us [ and how to get back home ]

so i'd suggest using this to build a platform for information sharing, too. none of us hold all the pieces, but i think many of us hold some. the network is useful for disseminating information, but this can help

@leo.fitz

[retravel]

[ 😍 ]

I agree. Being on the same page can only bring us closer together.

@yalena.yardeen

[motivation]

[ she's not touching any of the drama with a ten foot pole (although she's definitely getting drunk with johnny while reading along), but - ]

i want in on combat

@dawn.masterson

[replicates]

seconded.

[ to both those things, yikes. thanks dutch. ]

@william.kaplan

[wiccant]

As someone who is new here and kind of floundering on what to do, I like the idea of committees?

I don't see what the big deal is if they're not mandatory. Having a group of people to turn to and ask questions without feeling like an idiot would be great, and I know that not everyone here has friends and family from back home to rely on.

Being able to go "hey, I want to learn more about x" and having a group to contact or possibly get into that isn't reliant on Morningstar (I really do appreciate them, but what happens if we don't have them around anymore?) sounds pretty solid.

[batricide]

[ oh.

it's you. ]

Agreed.

[ He... doesn't know what else to say because everything he's been saying is apparently wrong, so he just awkwardly leaves it at that. ]