From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 24 Nov 1998 13:31:33 EST
>>I think that if a group, unofficial or not, needs to be brought in to monitor an honor duel, then it defeats the point of the honor duel in the first place -- promising something on no more than your honor that if you win, this will happen, and if you lose, that will happen. An honorable person, fighting an honor duel, will keep his oath without having someone hanging over his shoulder to make sure he
follows
through-- that is the point. Bringing in a group to monitor it takes some of the meaning away from the honor duel.
But really, do we not already have an unofficial body judging honor duels? Case in point, Jeff and Huma's honor duel. Unofficially, just about everyone who had knowledge of the matter had an opinion and "judged" accordingly.<<
Well, to answer the first argument first, I think we pretty well know that not all of our fellow duelists are honourable. If we haven't figured that out yet, we have problems. I'm also just as sure that we don't all agree on who is and isn't honourable. Some people firmly hold specific people to have no honour, others claim those same people as some of the most honourable people in the DoS. Except for those who have blatantly proven themselves
honourless, and even then many people still think what they wish.
The point is that such a body would codify forms and delineate procedure. Quite simply, we have no system for the mediation of such disputes without violence and such a group could attempt to mediate first. As for enforcement, as I said, the body would not enforce results. That would still be up to the loser to do. However, they would make a statement if someone broke his promise in the future. Because more than just the winner would know what
the promise was and that it was broken.
They would also, frankly, provide an impartiality that many honour duels have lacked. It is important to have impartial parties available on such an occasion, neh?
As to the comments about the community already serving in this capacity, the facts are that the community is NOT a judicial body either officially or unofficially. Trying cases of any sort in the court of public opinion generally becomes unfair to both accuser and accused. While everyone has an opinion, people seem just as likely to make differing opinions a personal offense.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
A Suggestion For Your Consideration
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 24 Nov 1998 15:59:22 EST
" Well, to answer the first argument first, I think we pretty well know that not all of our fellow duelists are honourable. If we haven't figured that out yet, we have problems. I'm also just as sure that we don't all agree on who is and isn't honourable. Some people firmly hold specific people to have no honour, others claim those same people as some of the most honourable people in the DoS. Except for those who
have blatantly proven themselves
honourless, and even then many people still think what they wish."
Agreed, completely; however, say, for example, I have a problem with DuelerXY because he tends to slap the serving lads about. I challenge him to a duel where the stakes are that if I win, he must never again lay hands upon the lads, and that if he wins, he can continue his behavior and I will not press my complaint. I already think DuelerXY lacks honor, and so that makes my complaint even more important to me. It just so happens that DuelerXY is a
terrorist and has murdered people in a nearby town for no other reason than he was paid to do it by a mysterious group. I think many people would consider him to be a very dishonorable person. When entering into this honor duel, and if the "body" is brought in to monitor the disposition of the terms, do they have any more right than I do to judge DuelerXY's honor outside of the specific issue we are dueling for? I do not think so.
What if it were a fun sort of honor duel, like loser makes dinner? Should we get involved in those duels regarding a more personal, or intimate matter? What if it is a frivolous matter?
"Trying cases of any sort in the court of public opinion generally becomes unfair to both accuser and accused."
True or not, there is little anyone can do to stop this. Think about it like this: Have you made judgements of your own on many issues? Did you think you were being fair or unfair to both the accused and the accuser when you posted your opinions? In my opinion, we all judge things in the court of public opinion and whether it is official or not, it is just as influential, if not more, as what the ruling body decides.
Having said that, you did bring up something that intrigued me -- mediation/arbitration before it gets to the actual fighting of the honor duel phase. Here's how I envision it. The body's primary function would be to take steps to settle the dispute without having to have the honor duel take place. If the body feels that there is no chance for settlement of differences, the honor duel would take place with the body doing as you suggested in the
incident of one of the parties not fulfilling their end of the bargain.
Keep in mind, however, that members serving on the particular arbitration/mediation panel generally must be agreed upon by both parties, so I do not know if having the same people mediate each dispute is appealing to everyone (or at least, the majority). Not to mention that the two parties must agree to arbitration/mediation in the first place. An idea would be that people volunteer for being placed on an "approved" mediator list (or something like
that) allowing people to have a greater choices to agree upon.
I think there should be a core set of people organizing such a mediation effort committed to sticking with the task and to keeping the group diverse (an even sampling from all ranks/titles, for example, or inviting different RDI's to join each time), scouting for mediators, and also reviewing requests to join. This would entail a lot of work and a lot of commitment.
At this stage of discussion, I am interested in helping in organizing such an effort, or at least hashing out more ideas if people are receptive.
-Morgan
((Author's Note/Comment/Suggestion: Maybe after getting more interest, you might want to get a mailing list started to encourage more freethought brainstorming?))
Date: 24 Nov 1998 15:59:22 EST
" Well, to answer the first argument first, I think we pretty well know that not all of our fellow duelists are honourable. If we haven't figured that out yet, we have problems. I'm also just as sure that we don't all agree on who is and isn't honourable. Some people firmly hold specific people to have no honour, others claim those same people as some of the most honourable people in the DoS. Except for those who
have blatantly proven themselves
honourless, and even then many people still think what they wish."
Agreed, completely; however, say, for example, I have a problem with DuelerXY because he tends to slap the serving lads about. I challenge him to a duel where the stakes are that if I win, he must never again lay hands upon the lads, and that if he wins, he can continue his behavior and I will not press my complaint. I already think DuelerXY lacks honor, and so that makes my complaint even more important to me. It just so happens that DuelerXY is a
terrorist and has murdered people in a nearby town for no other reason than he was paid to do it by a mysterious group. I think many people would consider him to be a very dishonorable person. When entering into this honor duel, and if the "body" is brought in to monitor the disposition of the terms, do they have any more right than I do to judge DuelerXY's honor outside of the specific issue we are dueling for? I do not think so.
What if it were a fun sort of honor duel, like loser makes dinner? Should we get involved in those duels regarding a more personal, or intimate matter? What if it is a frivolous matter?
"Trying cases of any sort in the court of public opinion generally becomes unfair to both accuser and accused."
True or not, there is little anyone can do to stop this. Think about it like this: Have you made judgements of your own on many issues? Did you think you were being fair or unfair to both the accused and the accuser when you posted your opinions? In my opinion, we all judge things in the court of public opinion and whether it is official or not, it is just as influential, if not more, as what the ruling body decides.
Having said that, you did bring up something that intrigued me -- mediation/arbitration before it gets to the actual fighting of the honor duel phase. Here's how I envision it. The body's primary function would be to take steps to settle the dispute without having to have the honor duel take place. If the body feels that there is no chance for settlement of differences, the honor duel would take place with the body doing as you suggested in the
incident of one of the parties not fulfilling their end of the bargain.
Keep in mind, however, that members serving on the particular arbitration/mediation panel generally must be agreed upon by both parties, so I do not know if having the same people mediate each dispute is appealing to everyone (or at least, the majority). Not to mention that the two parties must agree to arbitration/mediation in the first place. An idea would be that people volunteer for being placed on an "approved" mediator list (or something like
that) allowing people to have a greater choices to agree upon.
I think there should be a core set of people organizing such a mediation effort committed to sticking with the task and to keeping the group diverse (an even sampling from all ranks/titles, for example, or inviting different RDI's to join each time), scouting for mediators, and also reviewing requests to join. This would entail a lot of work and a lot of commitment.
At this stage of discussion, I am interested in helping in organizing such an effort, or at least hashing out more ideas if people are receptive.
-Morgan
((Author's Note/Comment/Suggestion: Maybe after getting more interest, you might want to get a mailing list started to encourage more freethought brainstorming?))
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sirduel@aol.com (Sir Duel)
Date: 24 Nov 1998 21:05:21 EST
How can the body decide what is honorable and what is not when everyone has their own opinion of what is honorable and what is not?
Just a question,
Coron.
Date: 24 Nov 1998 21:05:21 EST
How can the body decide what is honorable and what is not when everyone has their own opinion of what is honorable and what is not?
Just a question,
Coron.