| Author | Justice Vs Power |
|---|
On this thread, I will give 4 scenarios
No names, no flaming, no insults.
After each scenario is complete, the thread will be open to public, which will vote either Power is right or Justice is required
I will type and put up the scenarios in just a short while. |
| in-ter-ESTING :) |
| Is this about the game? If not, then I will move it to off game forum. |
No inbetween? Or how about both justice and power?
Power without justice is just violence.
Justice without power is just talk. |
for Pantheon:
That's just utopia. In real life, you'll never find them together. |
Let me explain my previous post. Justice and Power are mutually exclusive.
1. Whoever holds Power, makes his own "justice". In most cases it is not seen just by the majority without Power.
2. Those who want to follow "Justice" must renounce to Power. In a vacuum of power someone takes it, and makes (his) Justice. Then I refer you to the point 1 above. |
democracy... or autocracy
is that what u r trying na say ?? |
for naviron:
So what you're really saying is that justice doesn't exist.
In real life of course both can exist together. But it's just a matter of degree.
Instead I would like to argue that only in an utopia or a dystopia that you would find only power or only justice. In real life there are no absolutes; only shades of grey. |
"Yeah, but what I'm arguing is this : if we have the choice between trusting in centralised power to make the right decision in that matter, or trusting in free associations of libertarian communities to make that decision, I would rather trust the latter. And the reason is that I think that they can serve to maximise decent human instincts, whereas a system of centralised power will tend in a general way to maximise one of the worst of human instincts, namely the instinct of rapaciousness, of destructiveness, of accumulating power to oneself and destroying others. It's a kind of instinct which does arise and functions in certain historical circumstances, and I think we want to create the kind of society where it is likely to be repressed and replaced by other and more healthy instincts."
-Chomsky- |
| Topic moved from "General game forum" to "Off-game forum". |
#9
True. But going with that logic, decisions made by the general public (anarchy) is better than free associations of libertarian communities. |
This is indeed a very interesting topic. In the "ideal" world we would have all Americans vote for the punishment of an individual that has been littering. Considering the number of violations of laws in USA, there would be more then a few votes each day.
It would be very good if someone here would invent a working concept that uses few resources, makes corruption impossible and makes perfect justice for everyone. It would most likely give him or her a few Nobel prizes and the gratitude of all humans on Earth.
I would even be bold enough to say that in a small world like LWM, it is difficult to make a justice system much better then we already have. I agree that a few details can be improved, but not significantly. |
Thank u for supporting my topic
Today I will post a scenario in which player x did something and y took action
U guys will vote if power in y'a hand and his actions are correct or x needs justice
Just for a start and clearing the concept, I will start with a short scenario related ti game but without any names or reference to anyone. |
Scenario 1
Player X posts in forum, Y bans him
X Pms Y about it and Y answers.
They have a short discussion
Both say they are right
The solution dervied is both Blacklist each other
Few mins later, Y, who has the "Power" bans X for spamming his inbox and then levies a few more false bans and delets posts so no one can read the truth.
Shud X get justice here or the Y who has power win ? |
It would be very good if someone here would invent a working concept that uses few resources, makes corruption impossible and makes perfect justice for everyone. It would most likely give him or her a few Nobel prizes and the gratitude of all humans on Earth.
Done. Court by internet. Same as now except the jury is the general public that can submit electronic votes via the internet.
Now you might say that only a small % of the general public would actually vote and since they aren't randomly selected, they would make a poor representation of the general public. And of course there's the problem of too many alleged criminals to try.
Though not perfect, many little details added to the system would help. For example:
-a set number for the jury (number can vary in relation to the crime)
-jury being randomly chosen
-those not wanting to be on a jury or not wanting to be in felony courts can choose misdemeanor courts
Why would we use such a system?
-uses less resources (current average cost to try a capital punishment criminal exceeds ten million dollars)
-can use jury on lesser crimes such as littering and thus better justice
-reduces burden on jurors
-faster trials
-better records |
Sci-fi version:
-microchips directly interfaced with our brains
-cpu enhanced brains would process the trials during our idle time and while we are sleeping |
| Nice work Pantheon :) |
Scenario 1
Player X posts in forum, Y bans him
X Pms Y about it and Y answers.
They have a short discussion
Both say they are right
The solution dervied is both Blacklist each other
Few mins later, Y, who has the "Power" bans X for spamming his inbox and then levies a few more false bans and delets posts so no one can read the truth.
Shud X get justice here or the Y who has power win ?
When I first saw this thread I thought it might have been attempt at getting around the rules on how to complain about official character's actions.
However, as it is obviously a fictious example and not related to a real case I will answer.
In your Scenario X is obviously in the right having done absolutely nothing wrong and having not broken any rules then Y is abusing power.
If it had been a more realistic scenario though where X had broken the rules and Y had punished him as Y was required to do by his position and had then tried to discuss it via pm only for X to break more rules then you would have expected a different answer I am sure. |
#14
X should have complained to Secretary since rules state that mod actions aren't to be discussed.
Y can't ban X for spamming inbox. Moderators are only supposed to mod the forums.
And as for the false bans, deletion of posts to hide the truth, etc. well, obviously this is bad (if true of course).
Justice in this system is fairly clear. Mods handle forum justice. Keepers handle justice for combats and tavern. Admins handle finance justice. And Secretary is the appeals process and also handles mail justice (though Insults handle some mail too). |
However, as it is obviously a fictious example and not related to a real case I will answer.
as i said before - Just for a start and clearing the concept, I will start with a short scenario related ti game but without any names or reference to anyone. |
