The Heir of the Dragon: A Rhaenyra Targaryen Quest
Toaster cult
I Am An Imaginary Living Body
- Location
- Tokyo
- Pronouns
- She/Her
We have write-ins that exceed 150 words man, thats kind of absurd, especially for descisions that definitely matter but not like. major? and when the regular votes are all under 2 sentences. its a house of the dragon quest we really dont need to be citing Ohio common law. I get the impulse but like, thats not what the quest is focusd on,ad is puting way too much detail into things that generally dont matter as much as theeffort pu in. theresa reason we got three judgements and not one.
I dont want to seem anti-discussion, because I like discussion but it really doesnt have to be in the vote and make Teen spirit just quote over 100 words. There is a strength in simplicity you absoloutely lose by being so granular
Last edited:
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
[K] Threadban any player whose write-in contains more than three commas or more than one semicolon.
- Location
- Your pantry
- Pronouns
- He/Him
*cracks knuckles*
Clearly the next step to this whole process is to write up an entire 2000 word essay on why Rhaenyra should rule one way or the other, and then pin the link into a vote!
Clearly the next step to this whole process is to write up an entire 2000 word essay on why Rhaenyra should rule one way or the other, and then pin the link into a vote!
Ah man, fuck me, I guess, I didn't pay attention during, English class when they taught us proper punctuation, and it's haunted me, ever since,
- Location
- United States
I'm pretty sure it can? Like something people are going to be writing about when writing these laws is like a random mugging, which wouldn't have preceding messages and might not have any witness testimony.
And this kind of makes sense, right? Like, imagine a case where nobody is dead - both sides (naturally) claim the other started the altercation, and they defended themselves. A fight definitely happened, but unless there's any evidence about who actually started it, there's no real way to determine who did.
But this is deep enough outside Westeros that if we were going to continue this it'd probably have to go somewhere else.
yet
Toaster cult
I Am An Imaginary Living Body
- Location
- Tokyo
- Pronouns
- She/Her
"My lords"Rhaenyra sarts, lookig at the assembled crowd with the barest hint of trepidation "I have reached a verdict." the crowd hushes, eager anticipation on Lord Forresers face " htps://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/the-heir-of-the-dragon-a-rhaenyra-targaryen-quest.133209/post-33932693 "*cracks knuckles*
Clearly the next step to this whole process is to write up an entire 2000 word essay on why Rhaenyra should rule one way or the other, and then pin the link into a vote!
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
"I have dreamed a dragon dream of conforming the Seven Kingdoms to a place called. . . 'Ohio.'"
Magnos III
(Unverified Planeswalker)
So basically Rhaenyra needs to write a thesis on the theme of the dichotomy between Westerosi Law and Ohio Law with a particular emphasis on the intent of the meta-narrative.
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The defendant's plea cannot satisfy his burden of production, still less his common law burden of proof, because a plea is not evidence. But his testimony (which is evidence) can, even if standing alone. It could even satisfy the common law burden of proof if it was both sufficiently credible and sufficiently weighty. But why would you want to open the door to cross-examination if you don't have to? Most criminal defendants, even those whose cases reach trial, don't.
But coming back to "sufficiently credible and sufficiently weighty," I don't find the murderer's testimony to be either. It's his word against that of more than half a dozen. He has a motive to lie (to save his head), while his accusers do not because they are not on trial. I don't see any evidence that his accusers coordinated their testimony, and yet they testified consistently with each other. He was admittedly intoxicated which would effect his memory; some of his accusers might be as impaired as he, or worse, but at least one was probably better. He definitely doesn't meet a burden of persuasion if he has it, and even if the standard is reasonable doubt, I'm left without any.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- They/Them
[X] [First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
[X] [Second] Send him to the Wall for inciting the fight and have a wergild paid to the families of the dead from his possessions.
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
[X] [Third] No matter what happens, we need to make sure this guy's daughter gets food.
[X] [Second] Send him to the Wall for inciting the fight and have a wergild paid to the families of the dead from his possessions.
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
[X] [Third] No matter what happens, we need to make sure this guy's daughter gets food.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Well, if someone wants simple, I can do simple versions of my own votes. The simple versions will be the bolded ones below.
[X][First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
OR
[X][First] The Boltons maintain the road, so if they want the Whitehills charging a toll, then they can. But no raising the toll any higher than it is now. The Forresters have evidence that a Whitehill man destroyed the dam. But because the Forresters tortured the only witness to death, their case against the Whitehills is weakened. The Whitehills pay only half the cost of repairing the dam, and get to keep the money from charging the Forresters the higher tolls.
[X][Second] Execute him.
OR
[X][Second] Write-In: Execute him. Also decree that the first claim on the traitor merchant's estate will go to pay customary damages for wrongful death to the survivors of each of the three dead men. If there is anything left for the merchant's heirs to inherit after the wrongful death damages have been paid, then they can have it.
OR
[X][Second] Write-In: Execute him. And pay damages to the survivors of the three dead men from the seditious drunkard's estate.
[X][Third] Write-In: In recognition of the poacher's unusual and desperate conditions, and that he may remain able-bodied and capable of supporting his daughter, the court will allow him to compensate Lord Stark by forfeiting all his land. The land is now Stark property, to rent to tenants or otherwise to do with as they see fit.
OR
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
OR
[X][Third] Since the poacher was a desperate man, we commute his sentence. Instead of death or maiming, he will forfeit all his land to the Starks. He is now a tenant of the Starks and not a freeholder. They can decide his rents.
The third vote (my bolded version) is basically the same as my old write-in, just shorter and punchier. Note that this is a harsh punishment; if he weren't the sole able-bodied male in his family it might be harsher than maiming him, because it means he doesn't have land to pass on to his descendants. It's also a punishment that only freeholding peasants who own their own land could even hope to pay, and one that significantly rewards a noble when it is applied. So it doesn't set a strong precedent for "soft on poaching," and nobles will probably not freak out over infringement on their literal privilege.
The second vote is basically the same, just shorter and punchier.
The first vote is also tightened up but basically the same. Trying to (grudgingly) treat the torture confession as evidence, while still slapping the Forresters pretty hard for torturing the only witness to death. Assuming the tolls during the time spent fixing the dam add up to less than half the cost of repairing the dam, then if this was a scheme by the Forresters then it only sort of worked. And if this was a scheme by the Lighthills, then they still wind up regretting it. Which is kind of important because it IS entirely possible that this was a Lighthill scheme all along, but also possible that this was a Forrester scheme to incriminate their neighbors for something that happened by bad luck, and we now have no way to know.
[X][First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
OR
[X][First] The Boltons maintain the road, so if they want the Whitehills charging a toll, then they can. But no raising the toll any higher than it is now. The Forresters have evidence that a Whitehill man destroyed the dam. But because the Forresters tortured the only witness to death, their case against the Whitehills is weakened. The Whitehills pay only half the cost of repairing the dam, and get to keep the money from charging the Forresters the higher tolls.
[X][Second] Execute him.
OR
[X][Second] Write-In: Execute him. Also decree that the first claim on the traitor merchant's estate will go to pay customary damages for wrongful death to the survivors of each of the three dead men. If there is anything left for the merchant's heirs to inherit after the wrongful death damages have been paid, then they can have it.
OR
[X][Second] Write-In: Execute him. And pay damages to the survivors of the three dead men from the seditious drunkard's estate.
[X][Third] Write-In: In recognition of the poacher's unusual and desperate conditions, and that he may remain able-bodied and capable of supporting his daughter, the court will allow him to compensate Lord Stark by forfeiting all his land. The land is now Stark property, to rent to tenants or otherwise to do with as they see fit.
OR
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
OR
[X][Third] Since the poacher was a desperate man, we commute his sentence. Instead of death or maiming, he will forfeit all his land to the Starks. He is now a tenant of the Starks and not a freeholder. They can decide his rents.
The third vote (my bolded version) is basically the same as my old write-in, just shorter and punchier. Note that this is a harsh punishment; if he weren't the sole able-bodied male in his family it might be harsher than maiming him, because it means he doesn't have land to pass on to his descendants. It's also a punishment that only freeholding peasants who own their own land could even hope to pay, and one that significantly rewards a noble when it is applied. So it doesn't set a strong precedent for "soft on poaching," and nobles will probably not freak out over infringement on their literal privilege.
The second vote is basically the same, just shorter and punchier.
The first vote is also tightened up but basically the same. Trying to (grudgingly) treat the torture confession as evidence, while still slapping the Forresters pretty hard for torturing the only witness to death. Assuming the tolls during the time spent fixing the dam add up to less than half the cost of repairing the dam, then if this was a scheme by the Forresters then it only sort of worked. And if this was a scheme by the Lighthills, then they still wind up regretting it. Which is kind of important because it IS entirely possible that this was a Lighthill scheme all along, but also possible that this was a Forrester scheme to incriminate their neighbors for something that happened by bad luck, and we now have no way to know.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm not gonna have a vote run off because ultimately this vote both doesn't need it and isn't overall important enough to justify it
Rat King
Izutsumi-pilled
Y'all really are overcomplicating this lmao.
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
Last edited:
Magnos III
(Unverified Planeswalker)
I do have the distinct impression that Teen Spirit is reading all of this talk about precedent, valid forms of evidence, burden of proof, reasonable doubt, Martin v. Ohio citations, common law, watsonian perspective, dichotomy of Westerosi & Ohio Law (with particular emphasis on the intent of the meta-narrative), etc, etc, etc… and having some regrets about bringing a law debate to a community of nerds (SV+SB+QQ+etc) that is infamous for over-analyzing every minute detail about the smaller things all the bloody time.
Either that or he is having a blast and eating popcorn seeing how intense we are getting.
Either that or he is having a blast and eating popcorn seeing how intense we are getting.
Imperious
Without the sun of my life
Honestly that makes me even more interested in taking action/s to study courts held by Jaehaerys. Would help us avoid any landmine in case we make a ruling that's in stark contrast to previous precedent due to ignorance, as well as add to the legitimacy of our own rulings if we can find a basis for them in existing precedent given that Rhaenyra as only the heir still doesn't have the authority to produce obligatory precedent.
- Location
- United States
I mean there's just so many levels of possible disagreement.
1) What might have actually happened.
2) What the certainty of that can be.
3) Whether any evidence should be discounted, or whether anything that's not evidence should be counted.
4) What the punishment should be given that.
5) What the punishment can be given precedent and Westerosi politics.
On the first one in particular - almost anything between "The Forresters grabbed a random guy, told the Maester they caught him sabotaging their dam, tortured him until he claimed he was a Whitehill armsman, and then killed him in order to get out of paying tolls" to "Whitehill sent this guy to sabotage their dam and the Forresters conducted themselves in the questioning no worse than any other Westerosi house would" could be true and we have no way to really know.
Magnos III
(Unverified Planeswalker)
Oh don't get me wrong I also think that this is all very interesting and it's fun to watch people taking it so serious and having some interesting debates about it, hell I even learned some things reading it (like with the debate about burden of proof on self-defense). It's just that I cannot help but laugh when I think about the kind of face that our QM is making reading pages after pages of this.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Ohio has been mentioned far more times in this quest than I ever expected
Godwinson
"Well, I've got nothing."
If we had judged a case between merchants in Gulltown, it'd be Delaware.
Cassiemouse
Market Atheist
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
Somic
It's meow or never
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
Imperious
Without the sun of my life
I mean if we're going to really go full throttle on becoming master of laws at some point then comparisons to real life legal systems is probably inevitable. If we actually devote some actions to studying law at some point perhaps you may even want to draw it inspiration from certain real life court decisions for whatever landmark cases may exist in Westeros at this point in time. Knowing those cases would probably also help us in making more informed choices when sitting in judgement, as opposed to mostly just deciding by the seat of our pants.
Last edited: