Jump to content

cyberdirectorfreedom

Members
  • Content count

    318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cyberdirectorfreedom

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,393 profile views
  1. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2

    Last chance before what? Who would believe anyone would go from nothing to execution over this? I've had "last chances" that I didn't take (as a child), and while I was punished, I wasn't met with the greatest punishment possible. You may be a linguist, but you're wrong, regardless. Don't be so arrogant as to assume you can't be. Your measure of impulsive implies that only instinctive reactions can be impulsive, which is obviously untrue. You have to think of something before you do it (excepting instinct), otherwise you cannot come to the decision. Poor thinking and hasty action are the hallmarks of impulsive behaviour, not a complete (and impossible, mind you) lack of prior thought. And you truly think that'd be just? I thought you were arguing that Slynt's execution was necessary because of his repeated and dangerous disregard for Jon's authority, undermining him not only with his refusal, but with his demeaning words, also. Are you now arguing that refusal of one order should be met with execution? Or is this solely for Slynt? Couldn't be. Regardless, I'd be fine with that, other than the execution. I heartily agree that Jon should've had Slynt dragged out into the yard and punished for his initial refusal, in their private meeting. I think it's a fine comparison. The parent/child dynamic is similar enough to a military organisation in a medieval setting. The parent has ultimate authority, the child is expected to obey. Disobedience is punished, at the discretion of the parent. Anyway, I'm sure your guardian didn't simply repeat their instructions, should you not have obeyed an order you found distasteful. Well, that is to say, I'm sure that, if repeating instructions didn't make you follow the order, you weren't punished in the harshest way possible. Punishments for disobedience tend to be met with light punishments at the beginning, progressively getting harsher in the face of further disobedience, until you learn to obey without issue. You don't start with the harshest punishment. So, insults aren't worth punishment, but disobeying a single order is worthy of execution. Or it's worthy of execution, when paired with the insults, that by themselves aren't worth punishment? I'm not sure I understand your position. Eh, what choice does he have at this point? Once he gave the order to kill Slynt, he didn't have much of a choice but to follow through. I don't approve of Jon giving the order, but backing down would have been foolish, indeed. He'd forever be seen as too weak to follow through on his threats. A wishy-washy reputation is significantly worse than a harsh reputation. Weakness doesn't inspire much loyalty. It's all in the interpretation, isn't it? I'd say that GRRM wrote that section to show that Jon couldn't overcome his personal issues, despite attempting to. We see this later, when he sends Mance off to get Arya, and later again when he abandons the Watch entirely because he can't let his sister go, and is murdered for it. He wants to be a loyal man of the Watch, but cannot let his past life go. It's similar, I think, to Arya throwing away the trappings of her old life, to join the House of Black and White, but being unable to part herself from Needle. Well, Jon's no Alistair. Jon at least tried to put his issues aside. He's also a hell of a lot more mature than Alistair. But I do think the situations are a bit similar. Loghain is a very nuanced character (the speech he gives if you win the Landsmeet, before the fighting starts, is wonderful), yet Alistair refuses to see him as anything other than the man who killed my "father". Jon, likewise, can't manage to part Slynt and the death of his father. Jon tried, but when the opportunity to kill the man came up, he took it. Bit off topic, but I strongly believe that is the best game ever made. As Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." There are worse people than the likes those on this forum, voting in every democratic election.
  2. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why SweetROBIN?

    Falcons are large birds, robins are small birds. One day, he may grow into a fearsome falcon, but for now, he's just a Sweet Robin. For reasons I don't truly understand, it's also a traditional nickname for Robert, as has been pointed out by others.
  3. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2

    Guess I'm back. Why not just one chance? Why not check to see if he'd obey after being punished? Slynt's first punishment was execution. I don't know if you've ever been told to do something you didn't want to do, but being told again doesn't often instill a desire to obey. Some form of incentive is needed (in this case, not being punished again would be fine incentive). Jon's response to Slynt's initial refusal was to do absolutely nothing. Why should Slynt expect any other response from his continued refusal? Slynt should've been punished immediately. Continued refusal in the face of punishment shows refusal to change. Continued refusal in the face of nothing shows nothing. Slynt never had opportunity to change, because Jon had never given him reason to. Being executed for a crime that, only one day prior, was met with no punishment is absurd. One chance would've been enough. If you're going to argue using the dictionary, you should look up forethought, too: forethought: "careful consideration of what will be necessary or may happen in the future." Forethought isn't just thinking about something before doing it. It's careful consideration. Jon's thoughts when choosing to execute Slynt directly contradict his prior, more carefully considered thoughts. Impulsive fits just fine.
  4. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    I don't want to continue pushing this discussion off topic, but I have a thought on this, so since you asked, I thought I may as well answer. Whether or not Stannis believes that the law ends at the Wall, it's not really true. Starks have often fought wildlings, but regardless of that, if the law ends at the Wall, it still covers Mance. He's a brother of the Night's Watch who has deserted. As Ned showed when he executed Gared, execution of deserters is not the sole domain of the Watch, but the duty of all lords. Ned wouldn't execute a man unless he had to, right? If Mance was just some wildling, I suppose Stannis could do as he pleased. But as Stannis purports to be the true King of Westeros and that there is a false King on the Iron Throne, surely Stannis must abide by the laws of the Seven Kingdoms. Therefore, it's his duty to execute Mance, when he has him, and Stannis is known for doing his duty (and expecting others to do theirs). Now, this leads me to two conclusions, each of which favour a different viewpoint regarding Stannis's knowledge: I don't really favour either one over the other, I'm really not sure whether or not Stannis knows of Mance, arguments both ways have merit. Now, conclusion one is that Melisandre might've believed that Stannis would never be able to be convinced, and so made the elaborate hoax of executing Rattleshirt in Mance's place, to trick Stannis and the men of the Watch. Conclusion two is that Stannis is aware, but to save his reputation, and to avoid causing additional tension between himself and the men of the Watch, comes up with the elaborate hoax (Stannis wouldn't want to be seen to be avoiding his duty, especially since his desire to claim the throne is based on it being his duty). It's plausible that Stannis would believe it to be more difficult to do his duty at the Wall if the men of the Watch hate him or are actively pushing to have Mance executed.
  5. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Oof, I know that feeling. Ah, I didn't actually fully explain (I was going to come back to it, I think), so that makes sense. My point was that, of course, the Greatjon went from zero to treason in six seconds, so it was all so immediate. Everything that happened was met with punishment, everyone moved on. Slynt, on the other hand, had his crime building for a while, which wasn't punished until the end, with his execution. My point was that Slynt should've been punished earlier, when his crime was less severe (as in, before he overstepped his bounds in so publicly). At his first refusal, he could've just had him whipped and sent on his way to Greyguard. Jon, rather foolishly, allowed Slynt to continue his behaviour, allowed him to consider himself above Jon, allowing it to build to the climax it did. I don't think he was being malicious, though. Daenerys obviously believes she has the authority, else she wouldn't be demanding they obey her. If she believes she has the authority here, there's no reason she wouldn't behave in the same way as she would when she believes she has authority, and actually does. Yet she doesn't behave as you suggest she would. The only difference between the situations is that, with Daenerys, the disobedient ones are in the right. But that's irrelevant, as Daenerys believes she is in the right. Do you disagree that she believes she has authority? If she doesn't think she has authority, why is she ordering them around? People only behave as if they have authority if they believe they have authority. If I were King of the World, but didn't know it, I wouldn't be going around telling people what to do, as I don't believe I have any authority to do so. Of course, the reverse is true, also. If I thought I was King of the World, but was not, I'd behave as if I was. Of course I know you aren't suggesting that she execute them. But you are suggesting that she thinks she should execute them (because she believes she has authority over them). I wouldn't say we're good, about this. Victarion is an idiot, and I'm certain he would behave the way you say. "No man calls Victarion Greyjoy a fool and lives to boast of it." Yeah, pretty sure he act as you suggest. That doesn't mean I'm saying only an idiot would do so. Yes, I think it's a stupid thing to do, I don't think I've ever denied that. Non-stupid people can do stupid things. I'm pretty sure that this was Slynt's first bit of trouble since Jon became Lord Commander. He can't be judged for trying to kill Jon before he was LC, because there was no crime. Jon was a suspected turncloak who claims to have killed Qhorin on his own order (we know it's true, but it certainly does sound unlikely), and by his own admission took a wildling into his bed, caring for her more than as just a cover. Hardly instills trust, but it was no crime. Other than that, once Jon was Lord Commander, it seems that nothing happened until this situation, with Greyguard. It's also quite obvious that Slynt wasn't going to obey without being forced to. But Jon absolutely could've forced him to, but he didn't. Until he gets punished. As you said yourself, "How long should he continue". There's no stopping and starting, it's one continuous offense, which is Jon's fault, as he's in a perfectly fine position to punish the man. Now, of course you can disobey the same order multiple times, but this is the same act of disobedience. He's still disobedient, he's not disobedient again. One offence. Yes, and it was a crime the first time. Why should that go unpunished, yet "multiple offences" are punishable by death? That makes no sense. And if it should be punished (it should), why was it not punished? Even if we should consider it multiple offences (I don't think we should), we should give it the same punishment as the first offence, just more times. (For instance, if a first offence is punishable by 10 lashes, but a second offence is punishable by 20 lashes, and so on, for five offences, he should only be given 50 lashes, not 150, as he'd otherwise deserve. You can't delay someone's punishment just so you can punish them worse, later.) Even in that case, as I maintain that a first offence for this kind of behaviour shouldn't be met with death, he shouldn't have been executed. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's entirely plausible that it wouldn't have escalated that far, if Jon didn't allow it to. Few people get whipped, and then immediately turns around and act the same way. But how does that show that he can never be trusted? He's not going to just change overnight because Jon asks him to. There was no punishment but death. Punishment exists to act as a deterrent, but it doesn't work unless you actually use it. There's no fear of punishment, as Jon didn't punish him, until he executed him. Slynt didn't believe that he could be touched, so of course he's not going to respond. Duty, at least this early on in his career in the Night's Watch, is not enough to put Slynt in line, as he's shown. Fear of punishment may do so, but Jon doesn't bother to check. The only reason that Slynt behaved the way he did is that he believed himself to be in a superior position, but any punishment would show him, implicitly and without question, that he is not in a superior position. From there, he can gain a healthy fear of his Lord Commander, without which he won't obey. Why not try? It's not a capital offence. It's a potentially capital offence, yes. But Jon goes through other options. He doesn't dismiss them because Slynt's crime warrants only execution, but for other (and yes, in my opinion, poorly thought out) reasons. But there are mitigating circumstances. I've gone over them, but it being a first offence and the Watch needing every man are two examples. Sure, but you can't execute people based on what they may do. That is most certainly unjust. First of all, I think it probable that he would fall in line, not absolutely certain. Few things are. But the only pattern Slynt showed is that, when he doesn't fear reprisal, he'll act out. Jon could've given him fear. We see, perfectly well, that when Slynt is afraid, he acquiesces to Jon's demands. Sure, you say that won't last once the sword is lowered, but the sword is never truly lowered. That's what punishment is supposed to entail. The sword, waiting to drop, always there when you consider disobedience. If, of course, he showed that he'd do the same, despite the threat of punishment (as in, Jon has punished him, and he shows himself to be disobedient again), then perhaps your point would have merit. He hasn't, though. There's no inkling that he wouldn't, either, as before his execution, we never see him with fear. No, because there's a direct contradiction in his reasoning. That shows poor reasoning, not solid reasoning. I think five men showed up with Slynt. Slynt was sent to the Wall with the six men he offered to be his replacement, minus Allar Deem, who was thrown overboard. It'd be trivially easy to keep them separate. Keep those five men at Eastwatch, or with him at Castle Black. Problem solved. Ravens don't deliver messages directly to people. They go to the rookery. Jon can read all mail, if he chooses. There's no issue there. I agree. If GRRM wanted us to believe Jon's reasoning was sound, he'd have given a few examples of sound reasoning, as the basis, rather than what we got, which was contradictory. I don't think that's a mistake. It's silly to dismiss reasoning because I don't find it comprehensive or detailed? I haven't dismissed it for not be comprehensive or detailed, I've dismissed it because the reasoning we are given is full of holes, and is directly contradictory. What other reason would I need to dismiss it? It's poor reasoning. Reasoning based on contradictions is poor reasoning. It's silly to accept it as fact that it's good, sound reasoning just because Jon made was the one who reasoned it. This is such a non-argument. You could say that about anything. "If Jane had behaved differently, and didn't steal that loaf of bread, Frank wouldn't have ended up flaying her alive". No, I'm not suggesting that Slynt's crime is similar to stealing a loaf of bread, nor that his execution is quite as bad as flaying someone alive. It's hyperbole, to make a point. The point I'm making is that, just because punishment is warranted, that doesn't mean that the punishment given was warranted. In both cases, what happened with Slynt and what happened with Jane, each criminals actions lead them to their position. But Jane's punishment doesn't fit the crime, and I maintain that Slynt's doesn't, either (though it is, of course, less of a massive leap). Of course he abandoned the attempt. If he truly wanted to attempt to make use of the man, his first punishment of the man wouldn't have been execution. What we're arguing about it motivation. You are of the view that Jon punished Slynt solely because of his actions. I am of the view that Jon punished Slynt because of his actions, yes, but upped the punishment out of a desire for revenge (which is to say, vengeance was clouding his judgement, which prevented him from being impartial). I think it does. Such thoughts colour everything that's happening. Whenever Jon is dealing with Slynt, he ruminates on how difficult it is to see him as his brother, or has thoughts about Slynt's treatment of Lord Eddard. If Jon were thinking clearly, if Slynt hadn't murdered Jon's father, I truly don't think that he'd have executed him. Punished, yes, without a doubt, but not execution. Jon's reasoning was poor. The reason his reasoning was poor is because he wasn't thinking clearly. The reason he wasn't thinking clearly is because Slynt killed his father. All throughout Jon's dealings with Slynt, Jon is trying to be impartial, but however hard he was trying, I think he failed at the end. Those things are not refuted by Stannis's approval. Stannis is known to be just, but harsh. He's the kind of man who jumps to the harshest punishment. Now, that's still justice, because Stannis is impartial, when he does so. It's not based around who the offender is, nor what the crime was. Harsh punishments all around. Jon was unjust because he wasn't being impartial, and he wouldn't have made the same call if another man were in that position. There is room for mercy in justice, but Stannis is notoriously without mercy. Yes, oathbreaking can be punished by death. Not always. The Reynes and the Tarbecks, for instance, were willfully disobedient, and often. They would refuse to pay taxes, openly mocking their lord, etc. Yet Tywin was willing to let the live, so long as they would get back in line. Now, you may say that Slynt had enough chances to get back in line, and that's not a terrible point, but he wasn't punished once for his offences, so why would he have done so? It was never "get back in line or I'll kill you", it was "get back in line". Considering he was never punished, there was never any reason for him to get back in line. If Jon telling him to get back in line was going to be enough, he wouldn't have gotten out of line in the first place. Water is wet. Oathbreaking is not always a capital crime. I fail to see the connection. (Also, the bolded is an amusing typo which completely changes your point. I know what you meant, though, but it's still amusing.) "You're all such big, strong men. These Northmen could never stand up to you!" - Lord Tywin Lannister Yeah, bit ridiculous. Heh. I'm not saying that it's not within Jon's rights to execute the man, just that it's such an extreme thing to do. If it were to be expected that this behaviour is worthy of death, why is there such shock? It seems to me that this is the last thing anybody expected Jon would do. So sure, nobody protests, but you'll recall that Jon is ordering the execution of Slynt for protesting his orders. You'd have to be mad, or certain that you'd have people willing to back you against Jon. If someone tells Jon "you can't do that,", why would anyone expect any answer but "just like I can't order Slynt to go to Greyguard? Hang him, too."? I don't think that would be Jon's answer, but we have the luxury of being inside the man's head (and even still, there's evidently debate about his motivations). How do you suppose the men feel? Yes, I agree. But that's precisely my point. Slynt thought he was untouchable. Other scummy sorts on the Wall don't think they're untouchable, and they therefore obey, and are considered loyal enough to serve. The difference between these men and Slynt is that Slynt thinks he's untouchable, not that he's definitely beyond being put to use, no matter what is done. Yes, I'm sure it's quite unique, but he behaved that way because he, erroneously, believed himself to be in a superior position. Jon can prove to him, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he is mistaken, by punishing him in any way. After this, the exceptional difference between Slynt and the other scum is removed, and there's no reason to believe he wouldn't obey, just as they do. I was more thinking teenagers, but I never said he'd could come to see Jon as a father figure (he's more than twice his senior, that's ridiculous). It was just an idle connection, but the point was that parents are a child's (and by child, I mean son or daughter, not a young human) superiors, and children often come to realise that their parents are actually smarter than they are (or were, at the time), and so come to appreciate what they've done. Slynt could come to see his superior, his Lord Commander, in a similar vein. Because Jon is in the right, just as most parents are in such situations. Yes. Men who don't fear death will never be changed by the threat of death. Men who do fear death, men like Slynt, can be changed by the fear of death, or at least cowed by it. Yes, because he still had his sense of superiority. That could absolutely be whipped out of him. So he's being judged (to the point of execution) for crimes he committed before joining the Watch, and for the negative things he did to Jon (none of which were crimes) before Jon became the Lord Commander. Is that what you're saying? I've never said Slynt was loyal. I've said that he could be made loyal. Or, with regards to his service in King's Landing, I said he was loyal enough. Not loyal. Which is true, as he was judged to be loyal enough to serve for approximately two decades. And by fine, I mean serviceable, good enough. Not fine as in fine wine. But I hardly shifted the argument. You brought up his previous crimes in relation to why he cannot be trusted, and his previous crimes are not allowed to be used to judge him, on the Wall. It's a clean slate sort of deal. Anything that happened, anything you did, before taking the Black is wiped clean. Yet you say this is what directly lead to his death. So saying he shouldn't be judged on those crimes is hardly changing the subject. Did I say that he should be punished? No. He was able to be talked out of his issues, that problem was solved. Slynt is unable to be talked out of his issues, but that doesn't mean he's a lost cause. Everyone has issues when first arriving at the Wall, that's natural. There are other ways to alleviate people of their issues. Like a severe whipping, for instance. I have never said that Slynt would have made a good brother. But I maintain that he could have made a good enough brother, given the chance. I don't believe that anyone can be made to be loyal and useful. There's no reason not to try, though. If people are unwilling or unable to learn from their punishments, there's no reason to keep trying. For instance, say someone is imprisoned for assaulting another, and serves, say, five years on good behaviour. A lot of people will learn from that. Prison is awful, as I understand (never been, myself), and now it's not just a theoretical deterrent, but something they have knowledge of, and will try harder to avoid. If, however, that same person is imprisoned for such an offence again, why should we assume that, this time, after release, things will be different? No reason I can see, have them done with. (You may think that this is contradictory with my thoughts about Slynt, but it's not. His crimes before the Wall should be washed away. If he were executed before going to the Wall, I'd not have a problem. He'd never been punished for anything, on the Wall, until his death.) This is a side issue, but I don't really approve of such blank slate sorts of deals, such as the Wall. I understand it's necessary in Westeros, and it's lawful and should be obeyed, but still. Murderers are another story. Even if they can be changed, it's irrelevant. To allow a murderer to go free (no matter their time in prison), is to spit in the face of their victim(s) and their grieving loved ones. They should simply be killed. If the deterrent failed, like it did in the hypothetical with the other person, well, now at least one more person has been killed. Any known murderer being released from prison puts, quite literally, everyone in the world at risk (a murderer from the UK probably won't end up murdering too many people in some random town in the US, but still. It may be hyperbolic, but it's not untrue.). Theoretically, at 25 years to life, a murderer could go to prison and be released twice, on good behaviour, and be free to do so again. Absurd. And if someone is never going to be freed, what's the purpose in wasting the resources to allow them to live in prison? Nonsense. Anyway, back to the topic at hand, my issue with Jon is that he didn't even try to force Slynt to obey. He ordered him to do so, yes, and he gave him time to repent, but he should have punished him. If he disobeyed, despite his punishment, then he should be killed. Not before. That he could become loyal. Is that impossible? Another, pettier man might've had him mucking the stables for the rest of his life. Another, more vengeful man might've killed him. He could very well be thankful for being given command of Greyguard instead. He's not thankful for it at the point he died, no, but he could well have become thankful to him, in time. That doesn't sound too unreasonable. That he was loyal enough. He served for two decades, that seems to support this. Yes, he was corrupt as shit, but he still served the greater purpose of his role, which was keeping order. There are other corrupt people on the Wall who serve just fine. That he could have been a fine brother given the chance. These things aren't untrue. Those weren't my arguments. Once again, you're trying to make it sound like I'm saying Slynt is some kind of paragon of decency, but I'm simply not. I'm just saying, if given the chance all of the other scum got, he'd probably serve just as well. Yes, the others didn't need to have a sense of superiority whipped out of them, but that's not all that difficult. One tiny extra step, it's not that much to ask. I think you're the one not being objective. I've never denied that Slynt is a real piece of garbage. All I'm arguing, and I firmly believe it, is that since coming to the Wall, Slynt hasn't done anything that necessitates execution, and that he could be made to serve, just as anyone else can. Right, I think you've just misinterpreted what I meant by fine. It is a bit absurd that it can mean both exceptional and average. But I meant average. I wasn't offended, it just wasn't what I said. Regardless, stupid people can do intelligent things, and intelligent people can do stupid things. I maintain it was a stupid thing. I've never ignored what Slynt did. I've always maintained that it's worthy of punishment. I've never denied that Jon was right to punish Slynt, just that he went too far. Yes, because he wanted revenge, and that clouded his judgement. You already know that's how I feel. What's the point of any of this? I'm responding to your points. Of course I could just have a blanket statement that it boils down to revenge, but I'm responding to you with the reasons why I think it boils down to revenge. Just as you are, about why you think it doesn't. I don't understand the issue. Doesn't it? I'm not saying that it should be Jon's main reasoning, but it's certainly extra incentive not to kill the man. It's a side issue, though. I don't think the crime itself, considering it's a first offence, to be worth capital punishment. I didn't misunderstand, I was making a point. Both sorts of desertion are desertion, of course. Yet one goes completely unpunished, and another is punished by execution. The point I was making is that, even though it's still desertion, there is room for leniency. Slynt's crime is more akin to the Mole's Town excursions, or to Jon's trip, rather than it is to Gared's desertion. This comes down to the punishment, too. I'm certain nobody would raise a massive protest if the Lord Commander decided to execute a deserter freshly back from Mole's Town. It traditionally goes unpunished, but that doesn't mean it's not desertion. You can be damned sure there'd be some shocked faces, though. And why did it lead to nothing? Because Jon's friends brought him back. Jon could have "brought Slynt back" from his crimes (by having him punished, and making it perfectly clear that it won't be tolerated), but he chose not to, then decided to execute him. Do you imagine that, if Mormont rode out with Jon's friends and prevented them from bringing Jon back, that he'd be perfectly justified in executing Jon, when he's inevitably caught? Well, perhaps, because he did desert, but that's incredibly underhanded and cruel. Jon could have tried. If Jon's friends were unable to bring him back, so be it. If Slynt proves he's unable to be cowed, after he's punished, so be it. But why not just try? I seem to recall that Ilyn Payne denied Aerys's authority. He had his tongue ripped out. Other punishments are available. Because the threat of being scourged, or of having your tongue ripped out, or of spending a week in the ice cells could never keep discipline? Only death? I think not. You don't have to be young to develop a bit of wisdom. Take Jaime, for example. Perhaps my imagination is failing, because I truly cannot see any true threat, here. Not only would it be incredibly difficult to plot, he'd now know that this kind of insubordination won't be tolerated. When he knows his life is on the line, is he really going to risk it? If it was easy, maybe, but I don't see how he could. Yes, the Wall is a road, but it's quite a long one. You don't just duck in to the neighbouring castle for a bit, it's a big deal to travel that distance. And if he, or men under his thumb are caught doing so, the consequences would be severe. He only ever plotted when he thought he was invincible. Once he knows that's not true, it stands to reason he'll stop. I suppose I do think that. Or, at least, I think Jon is smart enough to do so. I honestly cannot see any way that he could continue to conspire that is not incredibly risky. Well, that's awfully meta, isn't it? Considering GRRM knew he was going to have him executed, there's no point beginning some redemption path. I think it clear enough, however, that Slynt is no worse than some of the disgusting wretches on the Wall, and could be made to serve as well. But how do you know the author hasn't given us a few lines of thought, and deemed that adequate for us to understand that Jon hasn't really thought this through? You're making an assumption here. I'm of the impression, by the way, that GRRM gave us these lines, and left us to come to our own conclusions, one way or the other. I agree. You have them whipped for their impudence, then have them dragged back in line. Carrot and Stick. This is a time for the stick. No, but he'd have rewarded them in some way, surely, which he doesn't need to do. Considering saving Mormont's life is what they should do. I think he was already on the Wall before both of those wars. He was Lord Commander before the Greyjoy Rebellion, at least. No, don't be absurd. What I'm suggesting is that Jon should've had Slynt whipped, or imprisoned in one of the ice cells, or perhaps had his tongue out. Carrot, Stick. Longclaw was an example of the carrot. But Jon should've used the stick. I was just pointing out that men don't always do as they should, and that incentives and punishments are used in order to have them do so. That's actually exactly my point. It's the same issue of contention, yet Tywin was willing to let the Reynes and the Tarbecks live, if they would back down. Of course I'm consistent, I'm not a hypocrite. If you said these kind of things to me, though, and I were your boss, I'd forgive you, and work with you again, so long as you were punished adequately. Mind you, there is no punishment I might consider adequate below firing, in our current age. But if there were, it'd be okay. There'd still be some tension, of course, but that'd change with time, so long as you had. It's the kind of thing someone might punch you in the face for (not me, but a more... testosterone filled man, perhaps), but not hold against you for the rest of your life. I know it's different with Slynt, considering it's also dangerous to Jon's authority, which is why it requires somewhat more of a punishment than a punch in the mouth, but still not execution. Still, as I said earlier, it's not as if there's no first offence worthy of death. Murder, for instance. Deserting the Wall, I'm fine with death being the penalty. I'm saying what I said, nothing more. Perfect analogies are worthless (ironically enough), because they don't offer a different perspective. They need hyperbole, or a new point, to make someone reconsider their point. If a perfect analogy would convince someone of anything, they wouldn't need convincing, as they'd already come to the same conclusion from whatever the analogy is analogous to. So, no, I guess, I don't really have a point. Not one that applies to the topic at hand, I suppose. Just ruminations on analogies. Perhaps he should've been given one punishment, instead of three chances, before he was out. Who would do it is irrelevant. A hypothetical Janos Slynt who is exactly the same, but never murdered Jon's father (say, if Ned died from infection of his leg in the Black Cells). He'd have the same bluster. Would Jon kill him then? I, obviously, have my doubts. It's almost as if we're all seeing something that is, evidently, open to interpretation, and we're interpreting it differently. Not much of a shock, I have to say. That's basically the main point of contention for a lot of us. But with the caveat, I suppose, of wondering whether or not justice is really justice if it's imperfect.
  6. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Neither of them, really. Between Jon taking forever to sheathe his weapon, and Slynt going full Slynt, tensions were clearly high with both of them. Both of them could have handled things far better. Ah, fair enough, my bad. I definitely do agree. When thoughts start being outlawed, we're all in danger.
  7. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Yeah? But he didn't stick to just fantasizing about it. He cut the man's head off. Directly fulfilling said fantasy. Thoughts are not a crime, though, I will heartily agree with you on that.
  8. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Yes, a polite welcome, indeed. With naked steel in his hand, fantasizing about how nice and simple it'd be to cut the man's head off. "That he did, albeit with poor grace, crossing his arms, scowling, and ignoring the naked steel in his lord commander's hands. Jon slid the oilcloth down his bastard sword, watching the play of morning light across the ripples, thinking how easily the blade would slide through skin and fat and sinew to part Slynt's ugly head from his body." "Robb was saying with the voice of Robb the Lord. His sword was across his knees, the steel bare for all the world to see. Even Bran knew what it meant to greet a guest with an unsheathed sword." "Olyvar Frey offered it up hilt first, and her son drew the blade and laid it bare across his knees, a threat plain for all to see." Yes, he was already cleaning it. But he could have put it aside as soon as Slynt arrived, rather than day-dreaming about killing Slynt, long enough for him to sit down, and then some. Even if Jon didn't mean it as a threat, it obviously comes across as one. It's far from a polite welcome. I think that says it all. He wouldn't have killed other men for the same offense. He could've been harsh with Slynt, without killing him. The same as he would've been with others. The difference isn't that Slynt is an officer, it's that he murdered Jon's father. Officers usually get a more lenient punishment, anyway. It's why they're beheaded instead of hanged, for instance, as it's considered more merciful. There's a lot to show that Jon was avenging his father, here, including the way he killed Slynt. Not having someone kill him, but swinging the sword himself. Not only is it a direct parallel to the way Slynt killed Lord Eddard, but it's something that Ned taught Jon to do, himself. Jon's father is on his mind. It seems to me that Jon is acting more as Jon Snow, son of Eddard Stark than he is Jon Snow, Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.
  9. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Harsh justice is justice, yes, but justice is supposed to be blind and meted out impartially. I don't believe that's what happened here. Sure, Jon may have been "legally" able to do what he did. In theory, a Lord can act how they please, executing people for the least of offenses, should they deem it justice. In practice, they cannot, because there'll be a mutiny. You can abuse your power while still being within your power. I reread these passages, by the way, and found I was right in my other post, in thinking that Stannis wasn't there when Slynt publicly disobeyed him. Stannis came out because he heard the commotion in the yard. So all he would've seen was Slynt's reactions to being executed, not the reason why. It doesn't paint Slynt in the best light, it's true, but I'm sure a lot of people react negatively to their executioners. Stannis wouldn't have any idea whether or not Jon was being just. He didn't see what happened. Sure, he didn't burn people because he was cruel, but that doesn't make it not cruel. Burning to death is often considered one of the worse ways to go. Shortly behind things like being flayed alive, and it's mostly because it's comparatively quick. I'm sure if R'hllor was the god of flaying people alive, you wouldn't excuse Stannis flaying people alive "because he's not cruel like Ramsay". Nowhere in Westeros but with Stannis is burning people alive considered justice. Burning people alive is fine, but having someone's tongue torn out is where you draw the line? Harsh justice is justice still. Anyway, the reason I suggested it is that it covers all of the reasons that people are saying necessitated Slynt's execution. It prevents him from plotting. It firmly establishes Jon as a no-nonsense Lord Commander, who won't tolerate with this level of mutinous insubordination. It, obviously, punishes Slynt for his remarks. Is it worse than killing him? It might seem to be more harsh, but at least this way, he gets to live, perhaps work his way to some measure of redemption. It also keeps the Watch from losing a man, unless he decides to desert, which is a death sentence anyway. It wouldn't be my choice, though, as I firmly believe that Slynt would be most useful to the Wall in a leadership position, which would be borderline impossible without a tongue. You'd have to get one of the few people who are literate to translate for him for there to be even a hope that he could lead, which is a bit wasteful, and he couldn't make immediate decisions. There's a reason Ilyn Payne didn't continue leading men. It would be quite unnecessary, considering there were other ways to put him in line which allowed him to keep all of his abilities. Yes, it is one of Jon's duties. But he didn't deliver "his brand of justice", because he wasn't being impartial, and justice requires impartiality.
  10. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Love the tone. Maybe I should rephrase: what's laughable or insane about this thread? People have different opinions than you do? Madness. The only thing laughable about this thread is your way of dealing with people with different opinions. Your mockery and your self-righteous, arrogant superiority only serve to lessen your own position. This is supposed to be a civil discussion, and the only thing you choose to offer is snide remarks and insults. Laughable indeed. Of course he's a judge. He's the proverbial Judge, Jury and Executioner. Part and parcel with being a Lord. Never said he should allow Slynt's behaviour. Except Jon didn't die in the ice cells. So, it's not necessarily a death sentence, if they're released. It certainly needed to be addressed. Publicly whipping Slynt and parting him from Thorne would've put a stop to Slynt's nonsense. Death was hardly necessary. I could say the reverse. There have been some thorough, thoughtful and clear description of the events which lead to Slynt's execution that infer it was emotionally charged. If those arguments can't convince the "Slynt's death was necessary" camp, I doubt any argument is going to. I daresay that few of us are on the fence about this topic. That doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. For most of us, we don't feel the way we do because we've missed something. There's nothing to point out that make someone think "oh, I hadn't thought of that", because we have, on both sides of the discussion. We know the text, we've just interpreted it differently. There may be some people on the fence, however, who perhaps hadn't thought of some interpretation, or have forgotten some fact, and these discussions could serve them well, to have differing opinions calmly discussed, to be able to decide which interpretation they favour. I'm sure that most of us discussing this passionately have thought of both interpretations, and others, but have come to the conclusion that one is right. You're not going to wow someone with something they've already considered. Having him whipped, imprisoned in the ice cells for a time or having his tongue out are a few examples. And just this one chance. The Wall is overseen by a Lord, and justice is one of the duties of a Lord. Perhaps the difference is that the Greatjon's "punishment" was immediate, whereas Slynt's wasn't. Post-punishment, it seems both men would've followed orders, only Slynt's punishment was death. Yet she is demanding it, and I'm sure she expects them to obey her. Of course I see the difference, but it's the closest possible situations she's been in (except, perhaps, with Jorah's exile, in which he's quite insubordinate and mouthy, but to which she chooses to send him away (though that's out of emotion, of course, so it hardly applies to thoughts of impartiality)), and she doesn't react at all in the way you are suggesting. That's my point. When did I say only an idiot would do so? In fact, I think I made it quite clear that I think it's entirely possible that someone who is not an idiot would make such a decision. I'm going to quote myself here: So I obviously don't think that only an idiot would take such action. Also, to call Slynt's actions "repeated" defiance is a bit of a stretch. This is the first offence. Both refusals - the one the night before and the one on the day of his death - were the same offense, refusing the same order. He hasn't shown that he can never be trusted or made to be of use, just that he'll need some punishment. Firstly, it's not necessarily a capital offense. Other options of punishment are available. Secondly, there's no reason to assume he can't be made to not do so again. Jon hasn't tried to punish him even once, to see how he'd react in future. It's all supposition, with no backing. He showed that he wouldn't obey this one order without punishment, but that doesn't mean that he could never be made to fall in line. How so? Because you agree with it? You seem to be suggesting that because Jon made this reasoning, that it must be sound reasoning. Is it not possible he could be wrong? I'd say so. In fact, I say it's trivially easy to push holes in some of his reasoning, especially the idea that Slynty (accidentally made that typo there, but I kind of like it, so I'm keeping Slynty in, here) would continue plotting with Thorne immediately on release from prison; this is despite the fact that part of the reason for sending Slynt to Greyguard is to part the two of them. That's a direct contradiction. Not at all solid reasoning. Jump through hoops? It's not jumping through hoops to not choose a last resort first. Not even a close to what I was saying. What I said was that if Jon were to choose to remove Slynt's tongue, that having him command Greyguard would be more difficult, so if Jon were to choose to punish him in that way, he'd also need to choose to do something else with Slynt. Never did I say that Slynt should be free to choose what he does, nor that anyone else should. Come on... Never said he didn't try, just that he abandoned that attempt almost immediately, at the first opportunity. It's disingenuous to pretend I've said otherwise. Slynt thought he was in a superior position. He was wrong, obviously. If he was shown this, there's no reason to assume he wouldn't become sufficiently obedient. There is, in fact, reason to believe that he would become obedient, as his final words clearly show. That was when he came to the conclusion that his position was weaker than he thought, and he espouses obedience. Of course, Jon couldn't know this before choosing to kill him, so that's hardly marks against him, but it's still worth noting. Sure, but is that the whole reason? Perhaps not. Hypothetical: During the day, Jon thinks to himself that it's cold (or perhaps he doesn't even bother, it's always quite cold at the Wall). Later in the day, he needs to go outside. He walks to the pegs on which he keeps his cloaks. He has two cloaks. Which of the following do you think is a more likely: ""This cloak is clean enough," Jon thought, pulling the cloak around himself and stepping out the door." Or: ""This cloak is clean enough," Jon thought, "and it's also quite cold, so I need a cloak." He pulled the cloak around himself, and stepped out the door." Now, I don't know about you, but I'm leaning strongly towards the first one. The cold is an obvious potential reason to desire a cloak, especially if he'd been thinking of it earlier. This hypothetical is, of course, rather petty, and perhaps Jon's desire for vengeance isn't quite so patently obvious as "people wear cloaks because it's cold", but the point remains that it something doesn't need to be said during a decision for it to be a reason said decision was made. I'm certainly saying it's possible. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Stannis was even present when Slynt openly defied Jon. If he was out in the yard, drawn by the commotion, as I think he was, he'd only have seen Slynt mouthing off about not being intimidated by Jon and such. I'm sure a lot of people go to their death mouthing off about their executioner. So, for reasons that Stannis nodded, there are plenty. One, as I mentioned earlier, is that Stannis often seems to be a bit petty, and he obviously wants Slynt dead. Another is that he might be approving of the fact that Jon didn't allow Slynt's "connections and friends" to overpower him, and that he made a decision of his own, regardless of how it might be taken in King's Landing, or by Slynt's friends. Do what you think is right, regardless of the potential backlash. Sounds like Stannis. There are other reasons. He could have just been reassuring Jon that he wouldn't involve himself, regardless of how he feels. Jon's men are his to deal with. Hell, it could've just been a greeting. People often nod at each other as a greeting (this seems unlikely, but not impossible). Perhaps he was agreeing that Jon was right. But does that make it right? Stannis is known to be just, though quite harsh. "My father always said you were a just man." Just but harsh had been Lord Eddard's exact words, but Jon did not think it would be wise to share that. The Greatjon's reaction shows how reasonable he thought Robb was being. It enraged him. At the point Robb would be warring against the Greatjon, he'd have just previously warred against the Crown, which is, of course, illegal. Robb is obviously willing to go outside the law, so who knows if it'd actually be lawful. You'll notice that Hoster Tully didn't have Walder Frey killed for arriving at the Trident too late (thereby disobeying his Liege, surely). It's not so cut and dried as all that. And I'm sure that you can't be the one who holds the position that water is dry. No, you are right, and I am wrong, is that how it is? The situation is murkier than you're making it out to be. Yeah, I'm completely wrong here. I've always thought that cajole had a threatening connotation. I am, evidently, wrong. I used the word to mean a somewhat lighter form of threatening or intimidating. It... simply doesn't mean that. I feel like quite the ass. I guess replace "cajole" with "intimidate", and I'm saying what I actually mean. Damn. I've never said it was petty. It warranted some severe punishment, something that I've not disputed once. I'm not whitewashing anything, not trying to hide his crimes. What Slynt did was stupid and dangerous, and it necessitated action. It did not necessitate his death, however. No? It obviously shocked Slynt. Ser Alliser and Bowen Marsh obviously don't approve. The decision almost caused a small war when it was made. Janos Slynt's face went as white as milk. The spoon slipped from his fingers. Edd and Emmett crossed the room, their footsteps ringing on the stone floor. Bowen Marsh's mouth opened and closed though no words came out. Ser Alliser Thorne reached for his sword hilt. Half the men in the hall were on their feet. Southron knights and men-at-arms, loyal to King Stannis or the red woman or both, and Sworn Brothers of the Night's Watch. Some had chosen Jon to be their lord commander. Others had cast their stones for Bowen Marsh, Ser Denys Mallister, Cotter Pyke … and some for Janos Slynt. Hundreds of them, as I recall. Jon wondered how many of those men were in the cellar right now. For a moment the world balanced on a sword's edge. Then Ser Alliser stepped aside, everything calmed down. But it certainly looks to me that the decision caused a lot of tension. I find your inability to see it to be just as puzzling. The vast majority of the brother's of the Watch, loyal and useful, one and all, are scum the likes of which you'd not choose to associate, should you be able to avoid it. Rapists, thieves, killers, traitors, jaywalkers, you name it, the Wall has it. The filthy animal who raped all of those septas, and branded himself for each one so he wouldn't forget any of them, for instance. There's some filth on the Wall that make Slynt look like a saint. Yet they can obey. They can be trusted (enough). We have no idea what they'd have been like at the beginning, but I don't imagine they'd have been quite so servile as they are now. Slynt could be just as loyal, or more, given time to properly adjust to his new situation. With a more lenient Lord Commander, like those others had. Eventually, just like petulant children who didn't like that their parents didn't let them do whatever they pleased can grow to appreciate their parents, Slynt might even come to be thankful for Jon. We'll never know. Not any man. Some will go to their deaths spitting their defiance. Karstark, for instance. ""Would you speak a final word?" "Kill me, and be cursed. You are no king of mine." The axe crashed down." He'd never have changed, never repented, and was being punished for a crime already committed that couldn't be taken back. Worse than Slynt's actions on the Wall, and yet defiant to the end. To turn back at that point would have been the height of foolishness, I'll say that. He'd forever have been seen as too weak to follow through. Regardless of whether or not it made Slynt fall in line, it'd show that doing what Slynt did will be scarcely punished. Bit of fear, repentance, acceptance. That'd never do. That said, there are ways of putting the fear of death in someone without actually being moments from killing them. That's what Jon should've done, and we can see it would've worked. Surely he wasn't completely loyal before his outburst, or he'd have just followed orders. As you are saying Slynt should have. Crimes he shouldn't be judged for, on the Wall. The fact he's never seen Harrenhal is irrelevant, he was still it's Lord, and was treated as such. Of course he should have. Just as Jon should've reacted more submissively when he found out he was to be a Steward. Jon grew out of that quickly enough. I'm sure there were ways to whip Slynt's attitude out of him. I'd recommend doing so "literally". You declare that I'm not being objective, and then have the audacity to put words in my mouth to skew my viewpoint towards ridiculousness. Nice. Not once have I claimed that Slynt was the Watch's "finest brother", or that he was in any way a good person. That I haven't completely dismissed his usefulness does not mean that I am trying to alter his character. "The vicious Jon Snow"? You speak as if I've painted Jon as some distasteful monster, that I've accused him of something so horrendous and out of the ordinary, that no man should ever act like he does. How absurd. His actions are perfectly understandable, they are just wasteful, stupid, and emotionally charged. But you know what? I'd probably do the exact same thing as he did. If someone killed a person I love, and I held their life in my hands, they'd almost certainly die. That hardly makes it the right thing to do. If Jon was actually supposed to be judging Slynt for those actions, I'd have no issue. But they were supposed to be washed away by taking the Black. Jon couldn't see past Slynt's crimes, and as much as that is perfectly understandable, it's not just. It would take a rare person to be able to truly be impartial, and Jon is not that person. That's all. There's scarcely a good climate for Slynt's actions. I've never defended his actions, though. Never would. That is a logical conclusion, and one that not only I make, but Mormont made too. There's a point where desertion actually becomes desertion. Digging for buried treasure at Mole's Town is fine, midnight rides out from the Wall are fine, should friends return you, but actually leaving is not fine. Of course, a time comes when being lenient isn't possible, but it seems clear that Mormont always made the attempt. What Slynt did is not at all comparable to murdering another brother or "true" desertion. I do suppose that it could be comparable to Jon's attempted desertion. Borderline capital. Jon could've taken the position of his friends and "brought Slynt back", but he chose not to. I've never changed Slynt's character, nor have I made him out to be some model citizen. I've maintained that he could be made to obey, and that he'd be good enough to serve on the Wall. Not some paragon of dutifulness, just decent enough. I'd love to hear how. At Greyguard, away from Ser Alliser, there's little he could do. Perhaps he'd send ravens to Castle Black, addressed to Thorne? Well, Jon could read any mail (not just that which is addressed to Thorne, just in case) coming from the other castles first (which I'm sure he does, anyway, though it'd mostly be addressed to him). Problem solved. Slynt could bluster on about Jon to the men he's assigned. Well, give him men that can be trusted. Problem solved. There's nothing he could do. Please tell me how he could continue plotting. I'd love to hear it. Yes. They can work, though. Jaime's oaths to Catelyn, for example. He intends to keep them. Oaths secured at sword point are indeed fickle, no doubt, but oaths enforced by sword point are much more secure. If Slynt stepped out of line after being sent off to do whatever Jon would have him do, post-punishment, he'd know that one more misstep would be his demise. He obviously did not want to die. It stands to reason that he wouldn't provoke what he now knows is a dangerous bear, even if he thought to provoke it when he falsely thought it was a little squirrel. A threat of death is a powerful thing. No, he was Tully's bannerman, sworn to serve Lord Hoster and Riverrun. Robb was on his way to break the siege at Riverrun. Lord Walder "should have" jumped at the chance to do assist Robb in this. Instead, he forced a little extra from the situation. Your dismissal of this critique entirely misunderstands the difference between the ideal of the system and it's realities. Ideally, all men should just obey their leader, without question, as they ought to do. In reality, it doesn't quite work that way. The only difference between what Lord Walder did and what Slynt did is that Walder was actually in a superior position, whereas Slynt mistakenly believed he was. If Robb could've shown Lord Frey that he wasn't in a position to make demands, Walder would quickly have kowtowed to Robb's commands without needing further incentive. All Jon needed to do was show Slynt he was mistaken. I don't approve of what either one of these men did, by the way, that's just the reality of the system. I was referring to Longclaw, here. Jon only did what he should have done, when he protected his Lord Commander. Service is it's own reward, so why is good service rewarded? Incentive. I know that, ideally, Slynt should just obey, but that's not the reality. It simply isn't. If someone can get something more for doing their duty, they're going to want to. Persuasion, incentive, or punishment in order to have your subordinates obey. That's not unreasonable. Take Tywin's dealings with the Reyne's and Tarbecks, for instance. Lord Tytos should have smacked them back down, but didn't. By the time Tywin involved himself, they were so sure of themselves that they wouldn't kneel. Despite this, Ser Tywin tried repeatedly to smack them down, to allow them to surrender. Tywin warred against them, and time and again he tried to make them surrender. By the time he killed them all, he'd given them multiple chances and reasons (they were losing the war, for instance) to back down. Contrast this with Jon, who merely told Slynt to obey, and killed him when he wouldn't. Just because someone gets out of line, that doesn't mean that they need to die. Just smacked back down. Right. But you cannot be sacked from the Wall. If being sacked is the same as being executed, where are the other steps? Having you scourged, having you imprisoned, having your tongue out. Do you really think that your boss wouldn't, say, have you whipped (should she be allowed to do so) and then have you put back to work, instead of getting rid of you and needing to find and train another person? That your boss wouldn't think that your offense necessitated more punishment than being suspended or having your pay docked, but that something harsher, but not quite to being sacked, would be reasonable? There is no harsher response but to fire you, so that becomes the only choice. That is not so, for Jon. Yeah, fair enough. If a one-to-one analogy or metaphor would work, you wouldn't need to bother with the analogy or metaphor at all, considering agreeing with one would automatically have you agree with the other. Unless you're dealing with a hypocrite, I suppose. Yeah, as a last resort, not the first. Being annoying, being a cunt, or even being an annoying cunt are not traditionally punished with death. Heh. That would've been something, indeed! I wouldn't recommend it, though. Even among servile positions, that's just salting the wound. Wouldn't be a great decision, though certainly an amusing picture. I'd actually say so, too, but the fact is that the Greatjon had already decided he was to support Stark over Crown. If he'd obey, just not behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns, he's already put Robb's authority first. That's why I named it a crime. They're all treasonous criminals as far as the Crown is concerned, anyway. I can see both sides, but surely vows to the higher authority come first. Yeah, I've racked my brain, and I honestly can't come up with any way that Slynt could continue to conspire, after a punishment and going to Greyguard, in any way that matters. I've asked, in this monstrously large post, so hopefully I'll get an answer. Leading the garrison would be a bit hard, though, seeing as how nobody would be able to figure out his orders, if they're all illiterate. Could be good for a laugh, I suppose, seeing him trying to mime out some orders to his men, but ideally Greyguard would be run well. Nor did Slynt. That particular offense is on Allar Deem, not Janos Slynt. In that televised rubbish, it's Slynt who kills Barra, but not in the books. He orders it, but he's also ordered to order it, by either Cersei or Joffrey. So who's really at fault, here? Deem for going through with it, Slynt for ordering him to do so, or Cersei or Joffrey for wanting it done in the first place? All of them, I suppose, but surely Slynt's role is actually the least egregious, considering he's just a mouthpiece for Cersei or Joffrey in this situation. What's wrong with it? I suppose I have no issue with those men being punished, even executed, but executions traditionally aren't conducted by burning someone alive. That's a particularly cruel death. It was mutinous, perhaps, but there was no mutiny. Mutinous insubordination. Wow, that was one hell of a long post. Slightly more than half the page, at present. Damn.
  11. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Well then, this may surprise you, but I'm actually all for the death penalty. Removing the offending hand of thieves, gelding rapists, etc. If all rapists were gelded, I daresay that there'll be far fewer repeat offenses. I say such punishments were far greater deterrents than the penal system we have today. I'd be all for bringing such punishments back. That said, I don't think Slynt did anything worthy of death, at least after he swore his vows to the Watch. Robb and the Greatjon paints a different story. A greater crime, met with mercy. Daenerys's bloodriders outright told her, at the end of AGoT, that they wouldn't follow her orders; she didn't try to have them killed, eventually convincing them to follow her. Victarion's an idiot, I can believe he'd do so. The others, hard to say. He'd be punished, surely, but killing him would just be wasteful. I don't see it, from any of them. It is insubordination. It only harms Jon's authority if he does nothing about it, which I'm not suggesting he should have done. Jon's reasoning isn't great, there. —and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said. A day or ten cramped up inside the ice would leave him shivering and feverish and begging for release, Jon did not doubt. And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again. He and Thorne will begin to plot again? Thorne wasn't going to Greyguard, problem solved. Jon knows that sending Slynt to Greyguard will part him from Thorne, as it's one of his reasons for giving him command there. "Janos Slynt," said Jon. Gods save us. "A man does not rise to command of the gold cloaks without ability. Slynt was born a butcher's son. He was captain of the Iron Gate when Manly Stokeworth died, and Jon Arryn raised him up and put the defense of King's Landing into his hands. Lord Janos cannot be as great a fool as he seems." And I want him well away from Alliser Thorne. The fact that the punishment would occur would go to show that he's not untouchable, like he thinks, and that Jon's authority is recognised by all others. There's not much he could do, alone, and I'm sure he'd be able to realise this. This could very well make him fall in line. Tell him if he doesn't, he won't get another chance. If he doesn't, execute him then, what's the issue? —and tie him to his horse, he might have said. If Slynt did not wish to go to Greyguard as its commander, he could go as its cook. It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him? I agree that this isn't the best punishment, but it's hardly inevitable that he'd desert. All men know the price for desertion is execution. Still, it'd leave him seething, serving as the cook (he also mightn't be able to cook, so that's another downside), so it's not what I'd recommend. "—and hang him," Jon finished. Really? Nothing else comes to mind? It's hard to plot without a tongue. That was never considered. Although, I suppose it is also admittedly difficult to lead a garrison without a tongue, but he doesn't have to be given command of Greyguard. Anyway, the point is that there are plenty of other punishments, which could easily put Slynt in line or prevent him from plotting with Ser Alliser, without simply killing him. Considering that the Watch needs every man it can get (which I do believe is something that Jon espouses quite a bit), throwing Slynt away was foolish. "The Watch has need of every man it can get," Donal Noye said when they were alone. The Night's Watch needs every man. Why kill one, to no end? -Jon himself, here The beacon was burning on Weatherback Ridge, and the Night's Watch had need of every man. -And here If the wildlings were coming, the Wall would need every man. -Here too There's probably more, that was just a cursory search. They're good points, and considering it's a point that Jon himself makes often enough, I'd think he should follow his own advice, and make use of the men he has, instead of killing them, if it can be avoided. Death should be the last resort. It doesn't refute that at all. When Slynt does something worthy of punishment, Jon jumps at the opportunity to kill him. Considering the fact that the Watch needs every man - something Jon knows quite well - and the fact that Jon could quite easily punish Slynt in another way, there must be something more to it. He wanted Slynt dead, as his own thoughts show. He's either emotional, or he's a fool. I don't think Jon's a fool, and it's perfectly understandable that he'd be emotional. Yes, and it turns out that Lord Janos wasn't the best the Watch had to offer, so he didn't need to choke him down. He would have dealt with Slynt, just as Jon would have given him Greyguard. That doesn't mean that they both didn't prefer that he die. It seems to me that Stannis is often motivated by his pettiness. Basically every time he dealt with Robert after he was King, for instance. His "right" to Storm's End. This is hardly the topic for that conversation, though. Regardless, it's not for Stannis to tell Jon how to deal with his men, just as it's not Jon's place to tell Stannis how to deal with his. The Greatjon's actual crime was bearing steel against his Liege. He spoke of returning home and leaving Robb to his war, itself not a crime (though the act itself would be). I spoke in my previous post about incentives and cajoling, which seemed to amuse you. You may notice that Robb threatening to hang the Greatjon for an oathbreaker is his way of cajoling the man into obedience. Something Jon didn't bother doing with Slynt, you may also notice. So, no, I wouldn't say that refutes those points. I never named Jon a despot or tyrant. Strictly speaking, Jon didn't exceed his authority, but to execute someone for insubordination, on his first offence? Particularly extreme, entirely unnecessary. Eh? So being unhappy with you Liege's decision is reason enough to draw steel on him? Well, Slynt was obviously unhappy with Jon's decision, and he didn't even draw his blade on Jon. You could very well say that he was testing Jon, in fact. Only, when the Greatjon found out that his assessment of Robb was misguided, he changed his tone and was given a chance. When Slynt found out his assessment of Jon was misguided, he changed his tone and still lost his head. Janos Slynt twisted his neck around to stare up at him. "Please, my lord. Mercy. I'll … I'll go, I will, I …" Sure sounds like he changed his tone. Does he? Slynt made a loyal enough subordinate to the Lannisters. How long was Slynt at the Wall? A few weeks? A few weeks into Jon's time on the Wall, he was still a sulky, arrogant brat, who felt he was better than everyone there (which is fair enough, I suppose). It took months for Jon to come to truly commit himself to the Watch. Yes, Jon was still a child, and Slynt should know better, perhaps, but it was still quite a radical change for him. Lord of Harrenhal to brother of the Night's Watch. An adjustment period is to be expected. He could have made a fine enough brother of the Night's Watch, given the chance, just like most of the other distasteful souls there. True. Jon was looking for an excuse to kill him, and he found one, but he wasn't trying to trick Slynt into that position. He could've just accepted Greyguard, I don't dispute that. His crime necessitated punishment, just not execution. Yep. Not disputing it. Not worthy of execution, though, especially not in the current climate at Castle Black. Sure, but why did Jon consider that the best option? Jon's reasoning is very flimsy, which I went over earlier, especially in regards to Slynt plotting with Ser Alliser, despite the fact that he chose to send Slynt to Greyguard to part those two. There are many, many reasons not to throw away a capable member of the Watch, if it can be avoided. Jon scarcely considered not killing the man. The Watch is disgustingly undermanned, with fewer than 600 men voting for the Lord Commander. Every man is needed, Jon knows this, yet it didn't occur to him with regards to Slynt, when deciding his punishment. Bide his time doing what? Parting him from Ser Alliser, his main source of support, through which he gains legitimacy, prevents him from doing much harm. He can seethe as much as he wants, but if Jon gives him trusted men, there's not much he could do but obey. Or desert, I suppose, but that's unlikely. He has nowhere to go, considering his life is forfeit if he truly leaves the Wall. So, yes, fall in line. They're not incompatible if he does obey in the end. His last words certainly indicate that he would do so. Tyrion's savages had no true desire to fight for him. He provided them an incentive: weapons, the Vale. It worked perfectly well. They didn't swear oaths to him, you may say. Fine. Walder Frey had no desire to fight for Robb Stark or Hoster Tully. Robb provided him with incentive. Marriage, among the rest. He did swear oaths, being Tully's bannerman. Yet incentives were still needed. Incentives work, for some. Robb Stark cajoled the Greatjon into loyalty. Mormont cajoled and incentivised Jon into loyalty. The Mountain's Men are cajoled into loyalty. Cajoling works, for others. There are two ways to get people to do what you want. The carrot and the stick, as they say. Jon tried the carrot, and the minute it failed, he lopped his head off. He should've tried the stick. It wouldn't have hurt Jon any. The carrot and the stick can work in conjunction, too. What's to lose your cool over? It's a civil discussion about a work of fiction we all love. Does it? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Slynt not be punished. You'd absolutely deserve to be sacked. But you could also be sacked for stealing pens, an offense that would not earn an execution on the wall. Getting fired from your job and being executed on the wall are not the same equivalent punishment. You can't get fired from the Watch, and it's more difficult to replace someone on the Wall (people actually want jobs, few people want to go to the Wall). Oh? I have no issue with Jon, all in all. I'm not ignoring what happened, I just think that there was more to it.
  12. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    "I will permit you to take the black. Ned Stark's bastard is the Lord Commander on the Wall." The Blackfish narrowed his eyes. "Did your father arrange for that as well? Catelyn never trusted the boy, as I recall, no more than she ever trusted Theon Greyjoy." All he knows is that Catelyn hated him. This is the only time I can recall the Blackfish speaking of Jon. Most people will not know of Catelyn's distaste for the boy, nor would they care. Nobody has any reason to distrust Jon, south of the Wall, except for Cersei and the Blackfish.
  13. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    It's difficult, so we can just not bother and call it justice? Completely fair, and completely impartial, as all judges should be. Justice is supposed to be blind, and when Jon accepted to be Lord Commander, he accepted all that that entails. Lordship carries with it some duties. Yes, of course Jon would've let him live, had he done that. Few people are disputing that (I certainly don't agree that Jon had no intention to truly give him Greyguard). The reason this is never addressed "adequately" is that it's completely besides the point. The point is that Jon jumped at the chance to kill Slynt, because Slynt killed his father. Insubordination need not be met with death. I doubt Stannis is being entirely impartial, either. He clearly states that he wanted Slynt dead for his crimes in King's Landing. Stannis narrowed his eyes. "Do not trifle with me, my lord. I saw the proof Jon Arryn laid before the small council. If I had been king you would have lost more than your office, I promise you, but Robert shrugged away your little lapses. Do you, perhaps, recall what happened next? The Greatjon attacks Hallis Mollen and bares his weapon with the intent to murder his Liege, presumably. This is a crime traditionally punished with death. So, of course, Robb has him executed, yes? No, he has his wolf savage him, shows mercy, and gains an ally. "My lord father taught me that it was death to bare steel against your liege lord," Robb said, "but doubtless you only meant to cut my meat." This was obviously the wisest move. Despite the fact that he could have killed the Greatjon, it was not the only option available to him. Likewise, executing Slynt was not the only option available to Lord Snow. It wasn't an ex-judicial murder with no basis. It was a barely judicial murder with an incredibly flimsy basis. Insubordination can be punished with death, and that's all Jon needed. Slynt's insubordination most certainly did need to be addressed. Execution was not the only answer. Yes. He was wrong. Death is not the only way to show someone that they are not untouchable. He could have had him scourged. 20 lashes, say, administered by Ser Alliser. That'd show, perfectly well, that Slynt isn't untouchable, and would show that even Ser Alliser, Slynt's biggest supporter, accepts Jon's command. He'd fall in line. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come." I don't see "I vow to not be a prick" in there. He's certainly a prick, and he certainly should've followed orders, but if everyone killed those who wouldn't follow orders without some cajoling or incentive, few people would lead more than an army of the dead.
  14. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Whether or not Marsh takes power himself, it's still a coup. The intent was to remove Jon from power. coup NOUN 1. A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. Certainly fits that definition. But it's just semantics, really. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
  15. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    I guess it's fine when you do it? The Watch is woefully undermanned as it is? There's a serious lack of men who can read at the Wall? In Mormont's words: Apart from the men at my table tonight, I have perhaps twenty who can read, and even fewer who can think, or plan, or lead. Or this lovely treat, straight from Jon's mouth, trying to convince Maester Aemon to take on Sam: The Night's Watch needs every man. Why kill one, to no end? Make use of him instead. It's a good point. But Jon wasn't particularly respected, anyway. Feared, perhaps, but that's one of the reasons he was killed. Feared and vulnerable is a dangerous combination. Jon deliberately avoided showing off his power, to his detriment, as Melisandre noted: Perhaps he did not think himself worthy of the King's Tower, or perhaps he did not care. That was his mistake, the false humility of youth that is itself a sort of pride. It was never wise for a ruler to eschew the trappings of power, for power itself flows in no small measure from such trappings. She would have no need of them today, but Melisandre made it a point to keep a pair of guards about her everywhere she went. It sent a certain message. The trappings of power. The second quote is quite telling, as of course if Jon had guards with him at all times, he wouldn't have been quite so vulnerable during Marsh's coup. If Jon had wanted to be feared and respected, however, he would have taken the King's Tower, and he would have had guards with him. As he made a point of not doing so, I see no reason to believe that fear and respect were his reasons for executing Slynt. Incentive, perhaps, but not the primary motivator.
×