- Location
- Somewhere in the area
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
[X] Plan Search Actions and Psychology
You'll want to tag Thors for that, since his plan is currently winning.I'm also not terribly enthused with burning a +50 Pioneer level artifact on a Common Theory.
It's only a 5% chance and it only mentions permanent damage, not death. I'm not too happy with it either but not finishing "Illness Of The Mind" makes more suicides very likely.I don't think we should risk ^Ä^ health (possibly very existence) simply for a slight increase in speed.
Changed the Artefact. @Thors_Alumni feel free to copy that part if you agree with @GodwinsonI'm also not terribly enthused with burning a +50 Pioneer level artifact on a Common Theory.
That's fine. I posted the alternate plan because it comes down to a decision on if the risk to ^Ä^ is worth it if it prevents further suicides. Maybe it won't matter at all and we roll a 6 on the bonus we get from "Grease The Wheels", or we roll a 1 and can't finish the project anyway.I think it's still to much of a risk using them since a lot of people will get mad if they get hurt.
Gnu wrote an idea, but I don't know if they plan to do any revisions.
I'm not sure how good the comparison is.My worry about doing the Academic Specialization before the Cultural Specialization is that that was what destroyed the pre-Collapse civilization. During Interlude: Our Graves Of Greed, Deep Below, Mes explicitly states that he did give humanity knowledge stores and technology from before their... pre-pre-Collapse? Anyway, they promptly abused said knowledge to the extend that he gave up on them.
To me, that drives home that for everything that we can regain of the pre-Collapse knowledge, it's even more important how that knowledge will be used. And that is a cultural question.
[X][Voices] "My first reaction is utter horror and disgust at the Rose of Flesh cult's actions, and the actions of the Empire Judiciary.
After that, there's a microscopically small part of me that understands what Judge B'il did. Protecting mutants and the disabled from eugenocide is an important function of the courts, and - in spirit at least - that is what Ordnance 14-VV7 is meant to do. However, Courts and Judges have a responsibility to do more than robotically execute the most literal interpretation of the law. They exist to ensure that the varying details of each case are considered and judged in context, so that the letter of the law never violates the spirit. To be the oil that allows the machinery of justice and society to function. Judge Bi'l's attitude is an abdication of that responsibility, and he has thus demonstrated himself utterly incapable of performing his job.
As such, the other 99.999%? That's equal parts cold determination to do everything in our power to set this right, and towering fury of NEVER AGAIN."
[X][Declaration] "The core of Humanity is found in our bonds to each other. To care, to love; these are both our privilege and our duty as members of the human race. Suffering cries out to be remedied; great suffering demands great compassion in response. The Pilgrims live by this principle, and we refuse to stand idly in light of recent events.
Survivors of the Rose of Flesh, the Pilgrims welcome you. Should you desire it, you need only approach any Pilgrim and we will provide you with shelter, safety, food, care, and work if you are able. We cannot undo the crimes of the Rose of Flesh, but we will do whatever we can to help you heal and build anew.
The Pilgrims firmly recognize the right of all persons to bodily autonomy. Empire Ordinances #326b-S and #14-VV7 are a violation of that right and are actively harmful policies to the Empire and its people. While we recognize the intention of these ordinances to protect the rights of the mutated and the disabled as a critical, praiseworthy goal, we cannot abide a law which allows such travesties as Judge B'il's decision.
We condemn, we denounce, we abhor the absolute lack of humanity displayed by the Empire Ordinances #326b-S and #14-VV7. We declare that with the cruelty and intellectual cowardice of his decision, B'il has demonstrated himself manifestly unfit to hold the position of Judgeship. The Pilgrims will do everything in our power to right these injustices, until the task is done."
I will post this for now, but if a anyone has suggestions I am open to revising.
I. Literalism: literal text of the Constitution
- Just read the words: All answers found in the wording of the Constitution.
- No external sources as support.
- Complete belief in Constitution's ability to provide answers.
Advantage:
- Removes judge's predisposition: Follow the law, not what the judge wants the law to say.
- Problems with Literalism:
- Seemingly inconsistent outcomes: Seem at odds.
- Ambiguity in Constitution: Sometimes seem intended by framers to provide flexible document.
- Lack of precision in language itself: Words have different meanings and contexts.
- Some values in Constitution are at odds with each other, but the literalist approach offers no guidelines for resolving the differences.
II. Original Intent: historical basis; intent/motives of framers
III. Doctrinal Approach: follow precedent
- What is the law supposed to mean? Purpose of Law?
- What the framers intended the Constitution to mean.
Advantage:
- To deviate from intent is to change the nature of the Constitution.
- Law doesn't change according to interpretations of judges.
- Starting point when faced with unanticipated circumstances: Derive principles and apply to circumstances.
- Disadvantages:
- Lack of complete record: No transcript of Convention debate
- Whose intention to follow? Whom do we mean by framers?
- Demands that judge know something that is in some sense unknowable: How do you truly know true intent?
IV. Competing Interests (Prudential): balance one interest against another
- principle of Stare de cisis:"Let the decision stand"
- New cases should be decided the same way as old cases.
- Follow precedents if similar facts in previous cases.
- Makes laws stable and predictable so people know what to expect because judges follow previous decisions.
- Advantages:
- Adopt principle and apply to cases with similar circumstances: Attempts internal consistency by judges in decisions.
- Consistency and continuity in law.
- Disadvantages:
- Size & diversity of cases/rulings: Always find precedent for either side.
- Most common approach, but it's used by judges in both majority and minority opinions.
- Difference between
ratio decindi: underlying principle/rule of decision
obiter dictum: excess language; legal reasoning to support decision
Which is which?- Justices can alway decide facts of case are different from precedent: No guidelines for following precedent.
V. Structuralism: larger relationships within the Constitution, not specific provisions
- Which outcome is most sensible? Practical application of what judge believes he or she ought to do.
- Which value deserves more protection?
- Concerned with deciding on case-by-case basis: What makes the most sense for those circumstances?
- Recognizes implications of the decision.
Problems:
- Fails to ensure consistency: Less weight to precedents. Depends on what judge thinks.
- No standard means of making a decision: Judges have to weigh criteria on their own. Should be a standard under which any judge could come to same conclusion.
- Subjective opinion of judge.
- Difference between Prudential and Precedent:
- Prudential = particulars of case over legal principle
- Precedent = principle over particulars of case
- Problems:
- More abstract approach means less accurate.
- More chances of multiple interpretations.
- Subjective
As annoying as literalist judges can be
They are one of the main reasons why you dont have law reforms every time a new party takes power
People like b'il exist to ensure there isnt civil war by passing wild reforms that anger huge chunks of society against each other
Or if the radicals like the church of eden becomes mainstream they cant simply steam roll the law to do their biding
My problem with this point is that it ignores that there are other groups that recover pre-Collapse knowledge. We know of groups like the 4S, who we are working with, or the 3-Point University, which is the main research center for the empire. And god knows what the Forge Clans have hidden away.They are active in the world, doing their own thing. They are the first to make use of any knolwedge they reclaim, giving an example and raising their influence and ability to affect the world in the process.
I would note that Artefacts like that can simply be found in ruins by scavengers or adventurers, which leads to entire countries being destroyed. See the Starlight Crusade or, in the hands of more competent groups, the Bio-Forge Heresy.Edit: Oh, and there's also the fact that the Pilgrims are still worlds away from mind controlling brain implants, designer bioweapons, and the like. They litterally don't have the stuff that was mentioned as used for the worst atrocities in atrocities in the pre-collapse civilisation, and they will not for a long time, if ever. The things that they do have are mostly just useful things, stuff that would give economic prosperity and improve peoples lives.
Looking back on this. This line might come out as too aggressive towards the law itself. It wasn't the law that lacked humanity, quite the contrary, they were meant to protect people from similar situations. It was B'il himself that showed a lack of humanity, the law will need to be revised to prevent these kinds of fuck-ups but it does not need to be thrown out entirely.We condemn, we denounce, we abhor the absolute lack of humanity displayed by the Empire Ordinances #326b-S and #14-VV7.
Hell, remember the collective shit brick everyone dumped after we pulled out the daughter.
Looking back on this. This line might come out as too aggressive towards the law itself. It wasn't the law that lacked humanity, quite the contrary, they were meant to protect people from similar situations. It was B'il himself that showed a lack of humanity, the law will need to be revised to prevent these kinds of fuck-ups but it does not need to be thrown out entirely.
Yeah, but revision sounds a lot less radical than 'throw it out'. Sounds more concrete also, like: this is what's wrong with the law, let's change it so the law is better.I'm not sure if I agree - the original idea was that a law that allows such loopholes is inhumane, because they *will* be exploited. Still kinda feel that way.
Yeah, but revision sounds a lot less radical than 'throw it out'. Sounds more concrete also, like: this is what's wrong with the law, let's change it so the law is better.
Getting the empire to ammend a law seems to me like an achievable goal, especially when that law was put in place by a previous emperor, who are deified by most of the population.
It's heavily implied. You say that the pilgrims cannot abide by the law as it currently is as well as heavily enphazise that the law is inhumane.I don't think I used that phrase though? The closest I came was "fixed".
It's heavily implied. You say that the pilgrims cannot abide by the law as it currently is as well as heavily enphazise that the law is inhumane.