Kevin's Watch

i agree with Lord Adomorn, my vote is for his right law.

O-gon-cho wrote:Brother Adomorn, I am still considering my vote, should I choose to vote at all. Please answer me this...

Lord Adomorn wrote: Is what you are asking, how are we to know if the threat is benevolent or malevolent? I think that telling the difference between them is based around a few aspects: 1)Who is dealing the threats to who. 2)Past actions. 3)Size of the miltary. For instance a 10,000 man army is NOT nessecary to stop thieves. A much smaller number would serve just as well.

Would this threat be based upon pure numbers, or upon percentage of followers in the military? All of my dragons, and all bonded pairs of dragons and Riders, are required to serve in the Wings of the Weyrmacht. Does this make the Weyrmacht a threatening force? Not at his time, as I have so few followers. But, should I eventually gain in strength, perchance that may change. Would a deity be allowed to launch an asault on me for such?

Do not misctonrue what I meant by that Sister. It was to make a point, not nessecarily exact numbers.

Unfortunately, I also will have to abstain because I do not like the way that law is written.

It leaves too much to vaguery and opinion.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in the begining.

If you dont find the wording good enough to vote yes for, then by all means suggest the edits that you would need to vote yes.

Lord Adomorn wrote:Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in the begining.

If you dont find the wording good enough to vote yes for, then by all means suggest the edits that you would need to vote yes.

:::shaking head:::

Brother, I've said it before, to Nor Yekith as it just happens to have been...

I have no mind for legalese. I will know when something seems "right" to me, and will still ask for clarifications. But I know not how to word what does not strike me as right with the proposed Law, nor how to word changes that will make it seem "right" to me.

Did that make any sense at all?

of course.

What PARTS of it bothers you?

I can change the wording to accomodate.

Lord Adomorn wrote:of course.

What PARTS of it bothers you?

I can change the wording to accomodate.

Brother, after a lot of thought ([-OOC-] and dragging Hyperception in as a sounding board during the majority of our three hour drive home from FIL's [/-OOC-]), I think my main concern is the individual's right to take such an action.

The process needs to be a two-fold criterion which establishes that:

1. There has to be an imminent threat
2. That threat must be credible

Keep in mind, small acts of aggression over time, that are reinforced by verbal spars, are enough to justify major defensive actions by the offended party. However, this is only with the authorization of a majority of peers, once the grievances have been publicly aired. An individual declaring war without authorization will only feed Astavyastaataa Kadna’s domain of Chaos.

If we can establish a system for the Pantheon to consider and vote on a deity’s right to defend oneself on a grand scale, and agree on the percentage of votes needed to give said authorization, then I may consider endorsing a change in the Law.

I admit the offended party would loose the element of surprise. But I think minor skirmeshes could be allowed without majority authorization.

O-gon-cho,

That is first class thinking. I am of a mind to agree that a vote between pantheon members as to whether a god has the right to defend him/herself would be a step in the right direction.

It is not necessarily the law that need re-writing but perhaps the way we enforce it or decide on it.

We could have a discussion of greivances and then action detemined by majority vote. There does not necessarily have to be a percentage of votes. Just a majority should do it.

The conflict between you, Lord Adomorn and Nor Yekith is a prime example.

This does not necessarily have to end in war. Penalties can be paid in other forms.

However, all must agree to abide by the final ruling.

Democratic process. Does anyone have a problem with that?

O-gon-cho wrote: .... An individual declaring war without authorization will only feed Astavyastaataa Kadna’s domain of Chaos.

What is wrong with that?!

Jove wrote:O-gon-cho,

That is first class thinking. I am of a mind to agree that a vote between pantheon members as to whether a god has the right to defend him/herself would be a step in the right direction.

:::blushing:::

Thank you, m'lady.

Jove wrote:It is not necessarily the law that need re-writing but perhaps the way we enforce it or decide on it.

We could have a discussion of greivances and then action detemined by majority vote. There does not necessarily have to be a percentage of votes. Just a majority should do it.

Sister, I admit I am a slow learner to the ways of the Pantheon. I know not if such action would be enforceable without the binding power of Law behind it.

Jove wrote:The conflict between you, Lord Adomorn and Nor Yekith is a prime example.

Uhm...what conflict? As far as I know, I have no conflict with either of those deities? As long as Nor Yekith keeps his promise to reset the borders of Yekithii this Turn, despite the grumbings of possible War. Now, Astavyastaataa Kadna on the other hand...

Jove wrote:This does not necessarily have to end in war. Penalties can be paid in other forms.

However, all must agree to abide by the final ruling.

Democratic process. Does anyone have a problem with that?

Obviously, I do not. But I still feel the power of Law in the Book is the only thing that will bind all of the Pantheon to adhering to the process. Otherwise, to call upon an Old Earth example, we will have the ineffectiveness of a League of Nations instead of the effectiveness of a United Nations.

Astavyastataa Kadna wrote:

O-gon-cho wrote: .... An individual declaring war without authorization will only feed Astavyastaataa Kadna’s domain of Chaos.

What is wrong with that?!

Need I even bother to say I expected such a response from you, cousin?

Sister, I admit I am a slow learner to the ways of the Pantheon. I know not if such action would be enforceable without the binding power of Law behind it.

Yes, I agree and that was what I meant when I said the law did not necessarily need to be rewritten, just voted on by the members of the Pantheon.

Uhm...what conflict? As far as I know, I have no conflict with either of those deities? As long as Nor Yekith keeps his promise to reset the borders of Yekithii this Turn, despite the grumbings of possible War. Now, Astavyastaataa Kadna on the other hand...

I'm sorry. I did not mean you, O-gon-cho, but I was addressing Lord Adomorn as in you, Lord Adomorn..

Obviously, I do not. But I still feel the power of Law in the Book is the only thing that will bind all of the Pantheon to adhering to the process. Otherwise, to call upon an Old Earth example, we will have the ineffectiveness of a League of Nations instead of the effectiveness of a United Nations.

Are we really so fragmented that we could not do this?

I have a problem with only one god having the ultimate authority to bind us all to agreements that do not take into account everyone's needs. Our freedom as gods then is a sham.

Jove wrote:

O-gon-cho wrote:]Obviously, I do not. But I still feel the power of Law in the Book is the only thing that will bind all of the Pantheon to adhering to the process. Otherwise, to call upon an Old Earth example, we will have the ineffectiveness of a League of Nations instead of the effectiveness of a United Nations.

Are we really so fragmented that we could not do this?

I have a problem with only one god having the ultimate authority to bind us all to agreements that do not take into account everyone's needs. Our freedom as gods then is a sham.

Ah...OK.

But am I mistaken in my thinking when we asked Hedra Iren to take on this duty for the Pantheon, that it was done with the intent that the Pantheon must be in agreement to any changes set into the Book?

That was what I thought as well. However, it seems that is not the case at all as you all saw in my recent debate with Hedra over the law. I do not recall a vote for or against the law being raised. It was just given by Hedra. (Then again, I am not known for my lockbox memory, eheh).

Since we are the gods involved, I suggest that we have a say in the laws that bind us.

O-gon-cho wrote:Brother, after a lot of thought ([-OOC-] and dragging Hyperception in as a sounding board during the majority of our three hour drive home from FIL's [/-OOC-]), I think my main concern is the individual's right to take such an action.

The process needs to be a two-fold criterion which establishes that:

1. There has to be an imminent threat
2. That threat must be credible

Keep in mind, small acts of aggression over time, that are reinforced by verbal spars, are enough to justify major defensive actions by the offended party. However, this is only with the authorization of a majority of peers, once the grievances have been publicly aired. An individual declaring war without authorization will only feed Astavyastaataa Kadna’s domain of Chaos.

If we can establish a system for the Pantheon to consider and vote on a deity’s right to defend oneself on a grand scale, and agree on the percentage of votes needed to give said authorization, then I may consider endorsing a change in the Law.

I admit the offended party would loose the element of surprise. But I think minor skirmeshes could be allowed without majority authorization.

I might be wrong, but I thought that the legislation already worded DOES cover those two points with this:

or has visibly backed up claims to attack the world (representative by a simple majority of the Pantheon's lands) with either: 1) a direct use of DRP or 2) the forming of a military with size enough to carry out said actions

as to the vote, I am fine with that. Since changing the Law requires a 2/3 majority it would make since that a review by peers would be the same.

Thoughts?

Lord Adomorn wrote: I might be wrong, but I thought that the legislation already worded DOES cover those two points with this:

or has visibly backed up claims to attack the world (representative by a simple majority of the Pantheon's lands) with either: 1) a direct use of DRP or 2) the forming of a military with size enough to carry out said actions

Brother, IMO the above limits what is seen as an immenent threat to only those two things you list. If Nor Yekith had not taken over half of Immeril, and if he didn't just tell us he was activating his military for defensive purposes, then how would the above justify the possibility of an assualt on him for his smaller actions and/or verbal threats? We have no proof that I know of that DRP was used to cause the Houka that carried the plague to Shakari to spread it there. We have no proof that DRP was used to spread mutagens into the waters from Nor Pupae. But over time a collection of actions and threats, whether with proof of DRP use or not, could justify an airing of grievances to the Pantheon, and the possible decision to launch an attack if reparations and change in intent towards the agrieved party is not forthcoming.

Lord Adomorn wrote:as to the vote, I am fine with that. Since changing the Law requires a 2/3 majority it would make since that a review by peers would be the same.

Thoughts?

Again, I am not good with legalise. I see discussion has spread to another thread. In response to the statements there, I just want to say that we seem to have always operated by Laws, IMO. How many times have we attempted to do an action, only to be told by the AllFather it wasn't allowed or successful due to a Law or rule? In many cases we have no idea that it isn't allowed until we try. I am accepting of that. But, if there is an issue that the majority of the Pantheon seems to have a problem with, is there no way to get it out into the open and have everyone decide on how it is to be handled, instead of the AllFather informing us one by one as we each attempt something similar in our own time?

I am sorry. I guess I'm not making much sense.

I like the element of surprise.

The Law looks unlikely to be passed.

Nor wrote:

Bhakti wrote:
Lie. We helped Undine freeze the Waters around Nor Pupae because you dumped your sludge beyond its territorial Waters. If you had not, you would not have promised not to do it again.


If Undine cannot control water currents then it's his fault. I never intended for the mutagens to spread.

You're correct, Nor Yekkith, I can indeed prevent the spread of your pollutants. In fact, I have done so last turn. However, why should I have to?

You say you never intended the mutagens to spread. I'll give you credit for more intelligence than that! You put something into water, it spreads. You don't have to be God of the Seas to know THAT!

Edit. I will abstain from this vote. I already have the power and the military might to destroy Eiran. I will not vote for a law which will waste the fruits of 19 seasons' work.

Edit II.

I too will abstain from the vote, but not because I disagree with Adomorn or his intentions.

Whilst I respect Hedra Iren, I no longer believe that she is an impartial arbiter of the Law and as such I do not recognise her right to judge what is lawful and what is not. Furthermore, I do not believe that any change in the Law will not be applied in such a way that the original purpose of the amendment is circumvented.

The Law states that a deity may not attack one of their peers without just cause. Such statutes can be found in the legal systems of many developed societies. Yet most such societies have also outlawed intimidation and blackmail, yet such actions are entirely lawful among the deities of Eiran, in the form of the threats made against Bhakti and Jove's son. This would suggest to me that the Law is not established arbitrarily for the good of Eiran, but is subject rather to whim, or to hidden agendas.

Furthermore, when terms were offered to Nor Yekith he rejected them without consequence to himself. This would suggest to me that the Law is powerless to act on its own behalf, or that it is indecisive and unable to take firm action.

If in the future Hedra Iren chooses to act against me because I have taken an action that she deems to be outside the boundaries of the Law then it is well within her right to do so, but I will not bind myself to the Law of Eiran as it stands.