Dwilight IC and OOC updates and news!

[Shizzle]

In a valiant attempt to get back on-topic...

Where has everyone in Fissoa gone? I've traveled through have the regions and seen nothing but monsters and undead. Good thing too, because they destroyed my unit, and I have 400 gold on me. But still, I'm trying to buy some food from what is normally a good source.

Is all the adventurers leaving really that big of a problem? Or is there something else going on?

You must be playing Golruk, then?

Well, Skyndarbau is no longer Banker, so Lord Raych will have to do. I haven't seen or heard anything from him though.
The Privateers are assembled in Mangai and Kamade, to face the monsters soon. And Skyndarbau is on trial for 'peasant-loving', after demands for basic rights for peasants (such as property). The Advies might rebel, or just leave Fissoa, seeing that the Judge said that commoners have no rights whatsoever. A referendum asking 'Should commoners have rights' is being held, and Skyndarbau doesn't like it one bit

All in all, this is the biggest event in a while. Most nobles seem to sit back quiet though, which is a shame.

[Anaris]

Well, Skyndarbau is no longer Banker, so Lord Raych will have to do. I haven't seen or heard anything from him though.
The Privateers are assembled in Mangai and Kamade, to face the monsters soon. And Skyndarbau is on trial for 'peasant-loving', after demands for basic rights for peasants (such as property). The Advies might rebel, or just leave Fissoa, seeing that the Judge said that commoners have no rights whatsoever. A referendum asking 'Should commoners have rights' is being held, and Skyndarbau doesn't like it one bit

It seems to me that one of the fundamental problems in such cases is differing definitions of what it means to "have rights."

My guess would be that in this case, the Judge looks on "having rights" as meaning that they are fundamentally on some sort of equal level with nobles, and that they inherently deserve something that nobles must acknowledge or be in the wrong.

On the other hand, the other side, I suspect, looks on it as meaning that commoners are not something you should just kick around and abuse however you want, and that this should be enshrined in law.

In my view, the most appropriate way to define it is to say that commoners do not have rights, as such: but there should be protections in the law against persecuting them for no reason.  This is something that the nobility do for them because it makes sense, not because the commoners have an inherent right to it.

[Shizzle]

Well, yes that makes sense.

Only thing is that Skyndarbau's guildhall in the Judges (newly) assigned region has been torn down, and a case of 'stealing' money from a guild member while he was in jail (for no apparent reason). That's why he'd like at least some rights to be officially declared. The right of property, for instance, or the right to appeal in court. And to a further extent, the right for a noble to be free of speech, as Skyndarbau will most likely be persecuted for his different beliefs.

The main problem is not the discussion though, imho that's just IC. The thing is that none of the other nobles seem to care or participate. Except for the Regent, but his call for rights for commoners is disregarded by said Judge.

Well, I don't want to go to far on about it, because mixing IC and OOC might occur, and I don't want that. The grudge is between Skyndarbau and Shin Shenron, not between me and whoever Shenron's player is.

On a side note: is the Judge generally seen as someone who creates laws, or someone who forces people to follow them? Because it's the freshly chosen judge's new law system that's causing Skyndarbau to go in uproar...

[Anaris]

See, I think the problem is you're still talking in terms of "rights for commoners," when it's been explicitly made clear on numerous occasions that commoners have no rights.

If you talk about them as "protections under law," that's something fundamentally different, even though it may have the same practical effect.

So, under this interpretation, commoners do not have the right to their own property.  However, they can be protected from having it stolen from them by nobles for no reason, with no compensation.

[Shizzle]

Aha, I see. Well, I confused your previous post for a personal opinion. So the word "right" is wrong

I'll refrain from using the word then, or implying it

[Indirik]

On a side note: is the Judge generally seen as someone who creates laws, or someone who forces people to follow them? Because it's the freshly chosen judge's new law system that's causing Skyndarbau to go in uproar...

Depends on the realm. I have been on both sides of things. I have played a judge that declared their own laws. I have also played nobles that attacked judges for creating their own laws. It really depends on the judge's power, and what the other nobles are willing to put up with. Also, it can depend on the law being passed. Laws that people don't like will be met with much more resistance, obviously.

Some realms try to deal with this through constitutions, or other such bodies of rules and procedures, with varying levels of success.

[Shizzle]

Aha. Wow, I must say this forum is really broadening my views on things. I suppose my view on judges is too modern then: nowadays Judges can't pass laws, parliament does.

Though I recall (Late-)Medieval France (or early-modern) to be having parliaments, so I suppose their judges had no legislative powers either?

Personally, I think it's wrong a single person can decide what's good an what's wrong. That doesn't make it necessarily 'un-medieval' though

[Meneldur]

Aha. Wow, I must say this forum is really broadening my views on things. I suppose my view on judges is too modern then: nowadays Judges can't pass laws, parliament does.

Though I recall (Late-)Medieval France (or early-modern) to be having parliaments, so I suppose their judges had no legislative powers either?

Personally, I think it's wrong a single person can decide what's good an what's wrong. That doesn't make it necessarily 'un-medieval' though

Even in modern states, the authority of the Judiciary can vary. Here in the UK judges can only interpret laws, not change them, but in the USA their "Constitutional Court" has the ability to overturn legislation deemed to contradict the constitution.

[Shizzle]

Well, yes. But then again, the Constitutional Court doesn't really apply for private persons, does it? It's function is more to protect the state against ... democracy

[Meneldur]

Well, yes. But then again, the Constitutional Court doesn't really apply for private persons, does it? It's function is more to protect the state against ... democracy

Considering an important part of the Constitution is the "Bill of Rights", which details the civil rights of private persons, and that part of the role of the Constitutional Court is to ensure that no government law infringes upon these Constitutional Rights; I would say that the Constitutional Court most certainly applies for private persons.

Of course it primarily functions, as you say, as a way to preserve the democratic system of the United States. However it also functions as a guardian of the civil liberties of each individual US citizen.

[Jens Namtrah]

Which is all very academic.

The practical issue here is, the nobles of Fissoa have been unable to come to grips with the fact that they are no longer on an old, settled island like Atamara. As they stab, imprison, rob and mistreat the advies in the realm while debating their right to do so, the advies have all simply wandered off to safer areas, leaving Fissoa to the mercy of the monster hordes.

The relationship between nobles and others in real history evolved over time due to circumstances in the world. Fissoans haven't learned this yet.

[Bedwyr]

I don't get people who mistreat advies on Dwilight for no reason.  Seriously, just because they aren't nobles doesn't mean you treat them like !@#$.  Soldiers aren't noble, and you don't mistreat them without a damn good reason either.

[Nerukou]

Matt, this is a classic case of only giving your side of the story. He didn't mention the fact that the adventurer was rude to a noble, who arrested him, and then rude to the judge. The judge confiscated his gold, and when released he had this "Verminator" guild member, who happened to be a noble, confront the judge for his actions. "For no apparent reason" is Shizzle's way of saying "the adventurer pissed off the wrong noble, and paid for it".

[Bedwyr]

Ah.  Fair enough.  My point still stands, though, as I do know people who piss off advies for no reason on Dwilight.

[Jens Namtrah]

Matt, this is a classic case of only giving your side of the story. He didn't mention the fact that the adventurer was rude to a noble, who arrested him, and then rude to the judge. The judge confiscated his gold, and when released he had this "Verminator" guild member, who happened to be a noble, confront the judge for his actions. "For no apparent reason" is Shizzle's way of saying "the adventurer pissed off the wrong noble, and paid for it".

That is completely incorrect.

The advy ("Anders") challenged another advy to a duel. After the duel, the Lord of the region threw Anders in prison without saying anything. The judge took the gold and released him, again without any communication. (All of this occurred while I was in bed sleeping; I woke up and found I had been arrested, rob, and released without a word of explanation. )

Anders complained loudly in the guild; other advies shared their outrage and the Noble who runs the Guild took it upon himself to complain to the Judge.

The Noble who did the arresting apparently said it was because the advy "Marrow", who Anders challenged, was his "half-brother" or something, and it annoyed him. I have not heard any claims otherwise.

You may be basing your version on IC info you got from in-realm discussion.