Jump to content

cyberdirectorfreedom

Members
  • Content count

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cyberdirectorfreedom


  1. 21 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

    If you don't punish cities that resist then everyone will - why is that hard to understand? If they can say at any point "ok I give up" and get treated the same then everyone would fight.

    "Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you." - Tywin Lannister

    When Tywin Lannister thinks you're being over the top, perhaps you're being over the top.


  2. The concept of a unicorn being a horse with a horn already exists in-universe. The Brax sigil is a unicorn:

    His shield bore a unicorn sigil, and a spiral horn two feet long jutted up from the brow of his horsehead helm. Tyrion reined up to greet him. "Ser Flement."

    Plus, as White Ravens quoted earlier, Jon recognises a helmet as made from a unicorn's head. Jon hasn't seen a unicorn any more than Ghost has. If Jon can tell a unicorn by sight, Ghost should be able to. I think the enormous goat was just an enormous goat, and I don't think the quote indicates that the goat had only one horn, just that only one of its horns raked Shaggydog.


  3. 18 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    I'd say being told explicitely "this is your last chance" pretty much qualifies.

    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.

    18 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    :bs:

    The crux of forethought is, giving thought to future action. The crux of impulsive is, not giving thought to anything,  future action included. Try harder next time, and don't teach a linguist meanings of words.

    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.

    18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    I'd be good w/ one chance. Give him the order, and if he refuses - even w/o all the insults and attitude, chop his head off right then and there.

    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. 

    18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    Yes, I have been in the past (as a child) and still am at times being told to do things I don't necessarily want to do (for instance, at work). 

    But I am not a member of a military organisation in a medieval type setting, so I think this is a poor comparison.

    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.

    18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    This is a very silly argument. Jon gives Slynt the order in private, and tells him to be ready to leave the next morning. Slynt says he won't go, but Jon hopes that Slynt will change his mind after sleeping on it. Mind you, at that point Slynt had insulted Jon but the order hadn't been really refused yet since Slynt was only supposed to leave the next day. 

    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.

    12 hours ago, Buell Rider said:

    To kill a broken man who finally agreed to follow orders is just butchery.  

    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.

    10 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

    I firmly believe GRRM wrote that whole section to show Jon overcoming his 'personal' issues in favour of what serves the Watch better - ie giving Slynt something to do that would be useful, and make use of his experience as a commander.

    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.

    8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    If you want to see a man unable to put aside his personal grudge (death of a father figure), watch here and tell me if you really think this is what Jon did.

    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.

    4 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

    Sometimes I'm glad that I don't live in the same country where some of these Slynties are going to grow up and eventually be allowed to vote :bang:

    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.


  4. 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.


  5. Guess I'm back.

    9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    Jon gave Slynt a second chance, and a third, and then a fourth. I did ask the question but got no replies so far. How many chances would have been enough? How many times should Jon have allowed Slynt to refuse to obey his LC? Would 12 chances have been enough? Perhaps 27? More? 

    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.

    8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    impulsive:

    "acting or done without forethought"

    1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

    Impulsive doesn't mean just fast, impulsive means without thinking. Jon thought his decision through, therefore it wasn't impulsive. You can use a different wording to argue your case, e.g. didn't think it thoroughly enough because it was an on the spot decision, but you simply cannot say it was impulsive when it wasn't as Jon's thinking process is described black on white. 

    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.


  6. 1 hour ago, Ran said:

    Why this elaborate hoax if Stannis accepts the idea that laws have come to an end at the Wall? It's not enough that with his authority he says he's not to be killed?

    38 minutes ago, Ran said:

    If he wanted Mance to be able to move around, he could have said he was to be untouched, kept manacled, and given a guard.

    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.


  7. 7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Well I wrote a long response to this and then somehow deleted it :tantrum: so I'm going to go through it all again and then for the sake of my sanity throw away my keyboard.

    Oof, I know that feeling. 

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    but I don't really follow your point about immediacy of punishment since Slynt had his head chopped off so I'll leave it.

    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. 

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    What is the relevance of this?  A comparison has to have some basis to be useful.  Dany has no right to ask this of them and no legitimate basis for enforcing any kind of punishment if they quite lawfully refuse as they do. 

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    It's a false argument to try and take this and say that I am suggesting she execute them for this: I'm not, you know I'm not

    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).

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I listed a number of rulers or commanders who wold have executed Slynt, you denied any of them would  "apart from Vic, but he's an idiot".  You can play with semantics here but it seems to accurately sum up your argument which was no one would have done the same except Victarion and only because he's an idiot.

    Are we good now?

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Ran outlined the sequence a little earlier so I won't repeat that but he's working away in the background to undermine Jon and when he is given a suitable command at Greyguard he is given a number of opportunities and a deal of time to wrestle with himself and obey the order.  He doesn't.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    How long should he continue to refuse Jon's order and how many times can he refuse it - a day, a week, a  year, once, twice, a hundred times - before you consider it more than the first offence?

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Each act of disobedience creates an impression and a problem and each refusal is more heated, more contemptuous and more problematic for Jon.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    It's an escalation that ends in front of almost all of Castle Black and Stannis's men.

    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. 

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    But Jon's whole experience of him as a brother is that he cannot be trusted, an impression that Slynt spectacularly fails to correct and only affirms and emphasizes by his refusal to accept orders and his open statement in front of everyone that he is beyond Jon's authority.

    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?

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    It is a capital offense.  Mitigating circumstances or belief in the contrition of the offender might earn a reprieve.  But there are none and he isn't,

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Future events are by necessity supposition with no backing, that doesn't prevent people from making reasoned decisions based on experience and a clear pattern of behaviour.

    Sure, but you can't execute people based on what they may do. That is most certainly unjust.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    You may think he would fall in line but this is based not on any pattern of behaviour but the very supposition with no backing that you are keen to argue should count in his favour.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I think it counts against him as he has given no inkling that he will fall in line as you contend.

    There's no inkling that he wouldn't, either, as before his execution, we never see him with fear.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    How not?  Because you say it isn't?

    No, because there's a direct contradiction in his reasoning. That shows poor reasoning, not solid reasoning.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Well, Slynt is known to have connections in KL and there will be brothers in the NW who will be prepared to work with him - some of the dozen or so corrupt Goldcloaks who came with him for a start - so merely physically separating Thorne and Slynt would not prevent intriguing;

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    and as castellan at Greyguard he would have ravens and the ability to communicate.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    As I said before I don't think it's necessary for GRRM to provide more than a basis for Jon's reasoning to illustrate the point he is making,

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    and it seems silly to dismiss it because you don't find it comprehensive or detailed enough.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Had Slynt behaved differently Jon would never have ended up with this last resort.

    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).

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    He didn't abandon the attempt, Slynt repeatedly refused and repeatedly escalated the matter and went past the point of return.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Well if you agree in substance I'm not sure what are we arguing about.

    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).

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Whatever is bubbling along in Jon's subconscious it does not impinge on his coolly rational and logical approach in deciding how to punish Slynt.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Does it make it right?  Stannis is notorious for his sense of justice.  His approval is independent confirmation that he would have done the same and that all the rest of the excuses - Slynt didn't know it was a capital offence, it was only a first time offence and he should have been treated more leniently, Jon was emotional not rational, it was murder not justice - are refuted.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    We do as it happens.  Oathbreaking is punishable by death and the Greatjon is a feudal vassal of the Starks.  He is bound to obey or he will face sanctions up to and including death.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    You are taking up positions that seem dangerously close to arguing water isn't dry.  You did just that by coming close to arguing that oathbreaking is not a capital crime right above.

    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.)

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Sh*t happens.  I did find the idea of Stannis or Tywin coaxing or wheedling their men to get them to obey orders or go into battle quite funny.  Hopefully you do too.

    "You're all such big, strong men. These Northmen could never stand up to you!" - Lord Tywin Lannister

    Yeah, bit ridiculous. Heh.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    But no one protests.  There are quite possibly a 100 of the NW there including Thorne and Marsh, the latter a senior officer and Jon is a newly elected Lord Commander so if he is overstepping his authority now would be the time to say something.

    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?

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    He did this because he thought he was better than Jon and he thought he was untouchable, no rapist or poacher or murderer is going to think that and deny his Lord Commander's authority.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I doubt you would find anything remotely similar from any of the scum among the Watch; Slynt's challenge is exceptional and probably unique.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    This is the NW and you are saying Slynt should be treated like an infant and will come to see Jon as a father figure?

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Right. Most men then.  Men like Slynt.  He didn't spit his defiance.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    It is worth pointing out that being sent to the NW by Tyrion didn't change or break him in the slightest

    Yes, because he still had his sense of superiority. That could absolutely be whipped out of him.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I've no idea why you think there is a point there to make.  The Greatjon has no history of causing problems for either Ned or Robb prior to his outburst.  His outburst is the one example of him briefly not obeying orders so Robb has no reason to consider him a prior or a constant problem.  Slynt is the opposite.

    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?

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    It's my response to your peon of praise for Slynt who you declared as loyal and said he would have made a fine brother .  It's your unrealistic assessment of his character I was disagreeing with.  You probably realized that so shifted the argument.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Jon never refused to be a steward, he expressed his disappointment because he wanted to be a ranger.  Did he repeatedly refuse to be a steward, deny anyone's authority over him and tell anyone to "stick it up your arse?" 

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Repeating the assertion that Slynt would have made a good brother

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    You know, for someone who claimed to believe in the death penalty you sure seem to make a strong indictment of capital punishment.  If you believe with the right incentives or treatment anyone can be reformed and their behaviour changed to make them both loyal and useful why do you believe in capital punishment?

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I paraphrased but you did argue that Slynt had shown he would become loyal

    That he could become loyal.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    and might even be thankful to him in time,

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    you argued that he was loyal in KL

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    and that he would have been a fine brother given the chance;

    That he could have been a fine brother given the chance. These things aren't untrue.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I'm sorry if you find me presenting your arguments back to you to skew things towards ridiculousness

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    you are whitewashing Slynt and I don't find it objective.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    No, you said fine brother, I exaggerated and said finest.  I admit the charge.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Didn't you get offended when I said you argued only an idiot would execute Slynt (poor Vic) and that you thought Jon was emotionally charged and not a fool?  Well, here you are saying Jon was stupid.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    And the bolded simply asks us to ignore everything Slynt does and Jon reasons and reduce Jon's motivations, actions and reasoning down to revenge.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Bravo, you have just reiterated your conviction that it's about revenge.  I'm not sure why we needed all this dialogue if that is your position, a couple of lines would have sufficed.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    That's not the point.  You argued that it was the wrong climate to execute Slynt in as if that gave him some immunity.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    What? I am going to be charitable and assume you misunderstood.  By the return of deserters I mean the men like Gared or the two men with Osha Robb fights in the Wolfswood.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Equating a midnight excursion that led to absolutely nothing with an open challenge to the Lord Commander that threatens the entire basis of the NW is flabbergasting.

    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?

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    If someone denies the king's authority they get their head chopped off

    I seem to recall that Ilyn Payne denied Aerys's authority. He had his tongue ripped out. Other punishments are available.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    You need only look at Mormont's murder at Craster's to see why discipline is kept so strict

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    This is not the character on page, he's a middle aged man not a pliant youth

    You don't have to be young to develop a bit of wisdom. Take Jaime, for example.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    There is a huge failure of imagination on your part here.  You're acting like it's some cast iron argument but he's not in solitary confinement and there are men who would be willing to listen and aid him.  The Wall is a road so the castles are not in isolation and rangings cross the wall all the time.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Maybe you think you are smart enough to foil all those potential schemes but I'm not convinced.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    and where has the author set up elements that he will use to play with the notion of redemption.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    For the umpteenth time, the author gives us a few lines of thought from Jon and deems that adequate for the reader to understand that Slynt will be recalcitrant

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Does this mean any subordinate can refuse a command and expect to extort a better offer as an incentive to obey?  Absolutely not.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Are you saying that if someone else had saved Mormont's life at any point in his long life, both before he took the Black and after, he would have given them Longclaw as an incentive to continue good service?

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Presumably he saw battle during the Robellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion and with wildling raiders.

    I think he was already on the Wall before both of those wars. He was Lord Commander before the Greyjoy Rebellion, at least.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I'm not sure where you are going with this.  Should Jon have given Slynt Longclaw to incentivise him?

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    And you should consider why the Reynes and Tarbecks refused to kneel and why Tywin had to destroy them militarily: they had successfully challenged the authority of their Lord and were bannermen in name but no in fact.  That's the problem Slynt's challenge presents to Jon.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Even thinking of the office environments I am familiar with over 20+ years I am laughing at the idea that there would be a path to return to work in this scenario but at least you are consistent in arguing that no first offence, however great, shouldn't be forgiven and a path back offered.

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I have no idea what you are saying.  The analogy is fairly simple, do you have some particular point?

    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.

    7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    He was given three chances.  Three strikes and you are out.

    Perhaps he should've been given one punishment, instead of three chances, before he was out.

    6 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

    This is a rather large assumption...what other men are stupid enough to so openly disobey their own commanding officer?

    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.

    6 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

    Wow, seems like we are just reading different books.  :cheers:

    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.

    6 hours ago, Leonardo said:

    Perfect Justice? No.

    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.


  8. 10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

    Tell me, who shows self control at this meeting? 

    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.

    10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

    Ooops, sorry. I should have made myself clearer... I wasn't talking about Jon (hence the first line in my post, "I'd like to add something that is not directly connected to the OP") here. It was more of a general observation.

    Ah, fair enough, my bad. I definitely do agree. When thoughts start being outlawed, we're all in danger.


  9. 2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

    I'd like to add something that is not directly connected to the OP,  but still. Fantasing about strangling some fucking despicable eejit is not a crime. It's not even "wrong" as long as you stick to just fantasing about it.

    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.


  10. 5 hours ago, Ran said:

    and this after Jon welcomed him, offered him a seat, and informed him that he was to command a fort with thirty men under him.

    4 hours ago, Ran said:

    proceeded to politely welcome him after Slynt refused to appear at first light,

    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.

    4 hours ago, Ran said:

    Execution? Well, none of them are officers, who would naturally have a higher bar of behavior because they set the example for the men below them. But harsh, just the same.

    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.


  11. 1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

    Harsh justice is justice still, i.e. the punishment is not completely out of range for the offence.

    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.

    2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    Meaning, if Slynt's punishment was not only harsh but also unjust, Stannis would have had issues with it.

    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.

    1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

    Cannibalism is a huge offence against the societal taboos, a sin against the gods, and Stannis' god is R'hllor. I'd never worship such a god and I think Stannis made a huge mistake by his choice, but he had the men burnt for this reason, not out of innate cruelty or perversion like Aerys used to.

    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.

    1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

    BTW, I am rather shocked that people think Jon should have had Slynt's tongue removed...

    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.

    50 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

    So, one of Jon's duties then? And he performed his duties, and delivered his brand of Justice. 

    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.


  12. On 7/18/2018 at 4:15 AM, kissdbyfire said:

    Erhm. I said it, black on white. Not surprised w/ the question though, so I'll repeat myself:

    the laughable insanity that is this thread

    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.

    On 7/18/2018 at 4:19 AM, White Ravens said:

    Jon isn't a judge, he's the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch in a brutal medeival-type society.

    Of course he's a judge. He's the proverbial Judge, Jury and Executioner. Part and parcel with being a Lord.

    On 7/18/2018 at 4:19 AM, White Ravens said:

    Allowing a mutinous faction to exist in his ranks would weaken the Wall's defenses. 

    Never said he should allow Slynt's behaviour.

    On 7/18/2018 at 4:19 AM, White Ravens said:

    I've seen quite a few posts stating that Jon should have imprisoned Slynt rather than lop his head off but on the Wall that is a death sentence as well...

    Except Jon didn't die in the ice cells. So, it's not necessarily a death sentence, if they're released.

    On 7/18/2018 at 4:47 AM, Ygrain said:

    Had his defiance gone without a response that would put a stop to it once and for all, it would have led to the creation of a faction that would split and cripple the Watch at a critical time,

    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.

    On 7/18/2018 at 9:17 AM, teej6 said:

    I feel if @the trees have eyes very thorough, thoughtful and clear description of events of the Slynt execution can’t convince the “Slynt was unjustly killed” camp, I doubt any argument is going to.

    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.

    On 7/18/2018 at 9:34 AM, kissdbyfire said:

    What would have been, in-universe, a suitable punishment for Slynt? How many more chances should Jon have given him?

    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.

    18 hours ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

    I don't know why anyone would look for justice in the medieval penal battalion in the first place. 

    The Wall is overseen by a Lord, and justice is one of the duties of a Lord.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Had the Greatjon been Slynt he would have responded to Robb's warning-cum-way-out of "perhaps you only meant to cut my meat" by repeating his threats the following day.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    She has no basis whatsoever to demand this from them or demand their lives.  

    I'm sure you see the difference so I don't really see what your point is.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    And why do you think only an idiot would execute someone for this kind of repeated and open defiance in contradiction of their oaths?

    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:

    On 7/18/2018 at 3:59 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

    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.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    If the man has committed a capital offence and there is no reasonable chance he will refrain from repeating such behaviour then it's fairly straightforward.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Like I said before, his reasoning is solid whether you agree with it or not.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Your argument seems to rest on the idea that Slynt can be useful so should be reformed and rehabilitated in some way, hence the hoops you jump through to find some alternative punishment for Slynt and some "useful tasks" for him to perform afterwards.

    Jump through hoops? It's not jumping through hoops to not choose a last resort first.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Slynt doesn't have to be given Greyguard?  Perhaps every member of the NW should only be "asked" to do what they want to.  Come on.....

    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...

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    It's disingenuous to pretend Jon did not try and make use of him and that Slynt did not shoot that down himself. :dunno:

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    The Watch needs every man assumes the men of the Watch will follow orders and obey the Lord Commander they are sworn to obey.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Why, I don't know, but it's not a hard puzzle to unpick: he tells us why he executes him.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    So you are arguing that Stannis's nod of approval is because Jon executed a man Stannis did not like?

    I'm certainly saying it's possible.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    You don't think his nod of approval is for Jon dealing with a mutinous subordinate denying his right to give him orders?  You really don't think Stannis's gesture has anything at all to say about how the newly elected Lord Commander has just dealt with a serious and public denial of his authority?  Or that this gives any insight into how Stannis himself would have dealt with such a challenge?

    Be honest now.

    11 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    For those who maintain that Jon was in the wrong: can you please entertain me and answer one question?

    Why does Stannis nod at Jon after the execution?

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Then Robb told him he could do so, they would fight the war without him and return and hang him for a traitor. 

    This makes it perfectly clear that refusing to obey your Liege's orders is punishable by death and that it is commonly understood so in Westeros.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I know some people seem to like a good debate about whether water is wet but come on.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Here's the definition of cajole btw

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Stop pretending this is some petty act of insubordination, we can't have any kind of sensible discussion if you whitewash Slynt and act like you can't believe your eyes at what happened.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    No one protests the decision.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I think your strange ability to see the loyal and useful brother lurking in poor Janos Slynt's misunderstood breast to be puzzling.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Any man will change his tune when the sentence of death has been passed and he is literally on the chopping block.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    If you think this lasts beyond the moments of mortal danger and the lingering shock I think you are plain wrong. 

    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. 

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    The Greatjon was loyal before his outburst and loyal after.  Slynt was disloyal before and would be disloyal after.

    Surely he wasn't completely loyal before his outburst, or he'd have just followed orders. As you are saying Slynt should have.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Don't make me laugh.  He served Robert Barratheon and Stannis would have had him executed for corruption and theft if Slynt had not been able to murder the witnesses against him.  He backed the Lannisters after Robert's death because LF bribed him to do so.  He was Commander of the Gold Cloaks and has never even set eyes on Harrenhal.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    He could have made a fine enough brother of the Night's Watch, given the chance?  Well, perhaps he should have followed orders rather than trying to act like he was the kingpin and untouchable.

    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".

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    In all honestly I can't see any objectivity in your assessment of Slynt's character or actions and the whitewashing is becoming particularly grueling to have to put up with.  The idea that the NW was robbed of it's finest brother by the depredations of the vicious Jon Snow is cartoonish and clownish and goes against everything the author shows us of this character.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Given Jon is a new Lord Commander, unusually young to boot, and has Stannis trying to wring concessions out of him I would argue that the climate at Castle Black is exactly the wrong one to try and publicly defy, ridicule and destroy your Lord Commander's position and that even a dimwit would avoid putting him in the position where he had to face down a challenge.  Seems we disagree over everything.....

    There's scarcely a good climate for Slynt's actions. I've never defended his actions, though. Never would.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    This is not a negotiation, Slynt is not indispensable despite your argument (which logically concludes in the abolition of capital punishment in the NW and the return of deserters as "every man is needed"),

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    You don't agree but have offered precious little other than a character transplant to turn Slynt into a model citizen after his damascene conversion on the chopping block.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Ah, the damascene conversion is all but certain then?  I find that a little too naive to be plausible.  It's far more likely he would find a way to continue plotting.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Promises or obedience secured at sword point are fickle things. 

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Walder Frey was not Robb Stark's bannerman.  Catelyn undertook a difficult negotiation in order to reach an agreement.  You are equating a free agent in a negotiation with a vassal bound to obey. 

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    this critique of Jon for not sufficiently incentivising a subordinate to obey entirely misunderstands the realities of the system and 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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Mormont did not incentivise Jon into loyalty

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Well this seems the nub of the matter, the idea that Jon needs to find a way to get Janos to do what he wants other than simply ordering him to. 

    ...

    But the idea that a perfectly reasonable order can be disobeyed and the one giving the order should seek the best strategy to persuade or incentivise the subordinate

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Precisely.  And Janos Slynt absolutely deserved to get "sacked" from the NW.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    As to equivalence, it's an analogy, :rolleyes:.

    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.

    11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Sure, it's more difficult to replace someone on the Wall but that doesn't mean the ultimate sanction is not on the table.

    Yeah, as a last resort, not the first.

    9 hours ago, Vhagar's Ghost said:

    Oh come on. Slynt deserved it, glad Jon did it, he was an annoying cunt. Good job Jon.

    Being annoying, being a cunt, or even being an annoying cunt are not traditionally punished with death.

    8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    I have to say reading this I thought of Slynt being assighned as a common steward to which is tasked with butchering animal after having his tongue ripped out. It would be gloriously ironic; after all all the evil stuff Slynt did, all his work to rise above his caste,  he ended up right were he started. 

    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.

    8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    Do the oaths House umber have to the Iron throne supercede their oaths to house Stark? I would say yes. I can also see why someone could say no and it's the opposite .

    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.

    8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    True. Slynt(even with a tongue) could not actually convince many if anyone to actually desert given doing so would have them immediately hunted and killed-quite literally staying at the grey guard is the only really viable option they have that involves living-it's near close to winter and a castle is the best shelter they're liable to get-

    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.

    8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    Taking Slynt's tongue however although would can be seen as a practical(the most important thing to consider here)  and just punishment for his insubordination; even if he tried to persuade people he'd fail 100% of time given no one besides Slynt who could read would  be at castle. 

    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.

    5 hours ago, Vhagar's Ghost said:

    Sansa and Penny didn't go ahead and slaughter innocent babies.

    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.

    3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    Wow. Just wow. You really pick this one on Stannis?

    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.

    3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    Let's stick with the correct word: mutiny. Because labelling it as insubordination really evokes the wrong image.

    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.


  13. 42 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

    The first problem with this continues to be the modern mindset that we should not kill anyone.  In this world there are different rules and different punishments, harsh though they may seem.

    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.

    42 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Second, is the narrow focus on Jon as if this is somehow a specific fault of his (due to his relationship with Slynt): if Slynt had acted like this with Tywin, Balon, Stannis, Roose, Victarion or I dare say even Robb, Ned or Dany he would have ended up hanged or beheaded for treason fast enough. 

    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.

    42 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Third, is what I have referred to as minimizing Janos's open and contemptuous defiance of the basis of Jon's authority into a minor workplace dispute or as you label it, insubordination, as if all acts of insubordination are equal and can be labelled as petty misdemeanors, when this is in fact far more serious and an open challenge to Jon's authority.

    It is insubordination. It only harms Jon's authority if he does nothing about it, which I'm not suggesting he should have done.

    48 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

    When deciding what punishment to mete out Jon considers several other options before discounting them as ineffective in dealing with Slynt's mutinous behaviour.

    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.

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    It matters because it refutes the argument that his treatment of Janos was the settlement of a personal vendetta when it was really a measured and considered act dealing with a brazenly mutinous subordinate.

    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.

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    and if you continue that passage (as you later invite me to) you will find Stannis saying "If it happens that Lord Janos here is the best the Night's Watch can offer, I shall grit my teeth and choke him down".

    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.

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    unless you want to argue that this rigid man was motivated by a petty desire

    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. 

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    The salient point is that Robb was entitled to threaten and therefore to actually execute the Greatjon for disobedience (or treason).  This refutes the arguments

    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.

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Jon was not justified in or was exceeding his authority, thus becoming a tyrant or despot, etc, in executing Slynt.

    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.

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    I feel you are overlooking the point that the Greatjon was simply unhappy with his his placement in the order of march and was testing Robb.

    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.

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Jon knows Slynt will never make a loyal subordinate.

    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.

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Had Slynt behaved differently he would not have met that fate.

    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.

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Slynt's disobedience and denial of Jon's authority in front of Castle Black is as open and shut a case as you could possibly ever expect to see.

    Yep. Not disputing it. Not worthy of execution, though, especially not in the current climate at Castle Black.

    1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Execution was not the only answer. No, but it was the one Jon considered best

    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. 

    2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Fall in line or bide his time?

    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.

    2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Well I see, "I pledge my life and honour to the Night's Watch" which is incompatible with "No traitor's bastard gives orders to Janos Slynt.....I will not have it boy, I will not have it".

    They're not incompatible if he does obey in the end. His last words certainly indicate that he would do so.

    2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Let's not pretend Slynt did not break his vows and that what he did was merely a commonplace reaction to giving orders he was insufficiently incentivized (lmao, stock options maybe?, new job titles or shorter working hours?)

    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.

    2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    or cajoled (I imagine Tywin and Stannis don't expect obedience, they have to cajole their men into feeling appreciated enough to "accept the offer to take part" in the battle) into choosing to obey.

    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.

    2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    In any case Greyguard was the incentive but Janos was greedy, stupid and arrogant and that led him to make terminally bad decisions.

    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.

    2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    @the trees have eyes, I have to say I thoroughly admire your patience and your ability to remain cool as a cucumber amidst the laughable insanity that is this thread. You are a far better person than me. :cheers:

    What's to lose your cool over? It's a civil discussion about a work of fiction we all love. 

    2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    Somehow, this aspect keeps evaporating from counterarguments. 

    Does it? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Slynt not be punished.

    2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    If I refused my boss's instructions, was given until the next day to reconsider my position, still refused and told her inf front of the whole office to "stick it up her bastard arse" and that "no [insert suitably incendiary personal invective] gives me orders, I will not have it ****, I will not have it" I would be sacked on the spot and walked out of the building.  No one would say that she had it in for me anyway and so it was grossly unjust, that I should have been suspended for a couple of weeks or assigned new duties instead, no one would argue I had not breached my contract or committed gross misconduct and a sackable offence (a number of them actually), no one would argue she had become a tyrant and exceeded her authority, no one. 

    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).

    15 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

    Your being far too kind, it boils down to disliking Jon and completely ignoring what happened.

    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.


  14. 21 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

    No one trusts Jon south of the Wall. Blackfish thinks Jon’s the equivalent of a dirty cop.

    "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.


  15. 18 hours ago, White Ravens said:

    Maybe it is possible to treat the killer of your own father impartially but I would find that a difficult thing to do.

    It's difficult, so we can just not bother and call it justice?

    18 hours ago, White Ravens said:

    How fair and impartial should Jon be when dealing with someone who has been nothing but hostile towards him literally tried to kill him?

    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.

    17 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Had he gone to Greyguard as ordered and refrained from openly despising his Lord Commander and making public his refusal to obey his orders he would be alive and well.  This is never addressed adequately and I'm tired of saying it.

    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.

    17 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    When Stannis gives Jon a nod of approval do you think he is approving of Jon "avenging Ned" or dealing with a mutinous subordinate defying and challenging his command?

    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. 

    17 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    When Robb is leading the Northern host to free Ned the GreatJon doesn't like his position in the order of march and says he won't come, to which Robb tells him he will hang him for a traitor!

    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. 

    18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    If it was an ex-judicial murder with no basis do you not think it would have been commented on.

    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.

    18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    It's clear that Slynt has talked and transgressed himself into a cul-de-sac but he believes his connections make him untouchable.  He was wrong.

    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.

    18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    But he broke his vows and paid the price. 

    "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.


  16. 7 minutes ago, Buell 2K said:

    Oh, by the way, there was no coup by Marsh.  At least not yet.  The next book may go in that direction but we cannot say Marsh has intentions of taking over. 

    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.

    12 minutes ago, Buell 2K said:

    Sad to say Marsh may pay for it with his life but he did what needed to be done.  :)

    Perhaps. Perhaps not.


  17. 3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

    No he  didn't, I am so tired of some on here excusing characters actions as being 'forced into it'

    45 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

    As a result Bowen has no other choice but to Kill Jon

    I guess it's fine when you do it?

    1 hour ago, Faera said:

    I really can’t see any arguement for why Janos Slynt could have been left alive after he openly refused an order repeatedly and told the LC where to stick 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.

    10 minutes ago, Faera said:

    Machiavellian it might be but Jon being respected and feared is what was needed during that time of uncertainty.

    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.


  18. 3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    Jesus Christ, I can't believe I forgot just how violent Jon's confrontation with Allister over laughing about Ned's execution was. 

    Ned's imprisonment, not his execution.

    His punishment was way too light, though. Imprisoned in his room, not even in one of the ice cells. He let Jon keep his wolf, too, for some reason. Admittedly, it turned out to be a good decision on Mormont's part, but there was no way he'd have known the dead would rise and that he'd need Jon's help.

    I agree that Jon didn't need to kill Slynt. There was plenty he could have done to punish him, without killing him. He could have had him scourged, imprisoned in the ice cells, had one of his hands off, had his tongue out. He could have set him on triple shifts mucking out the stables, had him be the cooks servant, put him in the stocks for all to jeer at. He could have sent him to another of the castles, one under the command of a brother he trusts. Killing him was foolish and wasteful, all emotion, no thought. Amusingly, I'm seeing a nice parallel to Joffrey's execution of Ned.

    15 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

    When the shield that guards the realms of men writes a letter and says they need help, YOU LISTEN.

    That shield hasn't guarded the realms of men for thousands of years. According to the stories the wildlings tell, the last time a King-beyond-the-Wall actually threatened the realms of men, the Starks had to take charge of the situation. When anybody claims that they need help against myths, you don't listen. Not without proof. Especially not when they're housing traitors.

    18 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

    George did not write characters like Slynt and Cersei to be secretly sweet people.

    I don't think anybody's accusing Slynt of being a real sweetie-pie, just that he didn't deserve to be executed. He was already punished for the crime he was executed for; all crimes are washed away when someone takes their vows. Slynt's insubordination required punishment, yes, but not execution.

    21 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

    And in general, funny that many here complain that Jon Snow is too predictable and too “perfect”, yet when the author puts Jon in a situation that shows he is not so perfect, posters STILL complain. 

    Presumably, most of those are different people. People who dislike Jon, or dislike some of Jon's actions, don't necessarily dislike Jon or those actions for the same reasons. I'm sure there are hypocrites with those opinions, sure, but there are hypocrites with all kinds of opinions. People will complain about everything. Though by "complain", I really mean "be opinionated". Calling the discussions here "complaints" seems unnecessarily combative.


  19. On 7/13/2018 at 5:56 AM, Lee-Sensei said:

    It wasn't treason.

    Hmm. I really should get around to reading that World book. Makes you wonder how many lords never swore oaths of fealty to Robert.

    On 7/13/2018 at 5:56 AM, Lee-Sensei said:

    It often worked.

    The difference between Balon and the lords Grandison and Cafferen is that the latter were serving their king, while Balon was serving only his own ambition.

    On 7/13/2018 at 5:56 AM, Lee-Sensei said:

    Robert was passive. That sounds more like Cersei.

    He wrenched free of her. "Why should I? Everyone knows it's true. My father won all the battles. He killed Prince Rhaegar and took the crown, while your father was hiding under Casterly Rock." The boy gave his grandfather a defiant look. "A strong king acts boldly, he doesn't just talk."

    The strong king that Joffrey is referring to is Robert, though. I don't think Cersei ever had anything quite so complimentary to say about the man.


  20. 10 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

    Robert pardoning the Greyjoys wasn't foolish. That's what almost everyone would do. They also took a hostage to ensure that he wouldn't rise against them again.

    Perhaps pardoning the Greyjoys would be fine, but not Balon. It was his rebellion. He wouldn't rise against them again without his head. Make Theon the Lord of Pyke, and take hostages to ensure his loyalty, fine. If Balon had seen that he was losing, and surrendered earlier with the terms he received, that would be okay (preventing the deaths of thousands of people), but the fact that he fought to the bitter end and still came out so well is absurd. There is absolutely no reason that he should have been left alive.

    Ned's treason earned him either execution or the Wall. They didn't just free him and say that they'll kill Sansa if he does it again.

    10 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

    Also, that doesn't sound like something he would say and it doesn't fit his actions as King.

    Sure it does. Joffrey is saying this in the context of war. "A strong king acts boldly, he doesn't just talk" is certainly something you might hear Robert say if someone told him that he shouldn't have fought alongside his men. Tywin, for instance, leads from the back. Robert leads from the front. Aerys most certainly wasn't fighting during Robert's Rebellion, and I'm certain that Robert considers himself a stronger king than Aerys.

    Though, of course, it might have simply been some idle rubbish that Joffrey himself came up with. 


  21. I don't really think there's much of a contrast between those quotes. Balon Greyjoy didn't surrender, he lost his war. Robert's armies broke down Balon's walls, and took his castle. Tywin's point is that if you prove that you're willing to accept someone's surrender, future opponents won't fight to the end, the way Balon did.

    I suspect that, if it were Tywin's war, he'd have executed Balon, removed the Greyjoys from Pyke, and then he'd have accepted the surrender and renewed oaths of fealty from the Lords who followed Balon is his foolish rebellion, so as to put an end to the fighting.

    You can be damned sure that if Robb Stark had lost his war by having a Lannister army take Winterfell from him as he was hiding within, he'd never have been free to rule Winterfell after. Balon got off way too easy. The only punishment was Theon being taken, really. His other two sons died in the fighting, so they weren't chastisement. He was allowed to keep his seat, his lands, his bannermen. He was essentially as well off as he was before his rebellion, but with fewer children and more spite. I'm sure it came as a shock to absolutely nobody when he resumed his war at the first possible opportunity. Robert was a fool (though that's not surprising, either).

    I'd say that Cersei was perfectly accurate in her assessment of Tywin, there, and I wouldn't say it contradicts anything Tywin has said.

    As for Cersei shifting the blame to Robert about the bold king remarks, I'm sure she's lying about Robert "often" saying that, but I don't think she's lying when she claims it wasn't her that said it. "A strong king acts boldly, he doesn't just talk" is what Joffrey actually says, and that sounds a lot more like something Robert would say than something Cersei would say.


  22. On 6/9/2018 at 7:44 AM, Sigella said:

    - Gatehouse-Ami's libido shames her House at any given oppurtunity,

    Well, that's nothing to do with her being a Frey. Ami is Lord Walder's grandchild, through his third wife, Amarei Crakehall. All of the Crakehall women are sluts.


  23. I think it's the weakest of the series, but I wouldn't say I didn't enjoy it. I will say, however, that I think that Theon's chapters saved the book. Easily among the best chapters of the series. Reading those chapters, I'd quickly forget any sort of disappointment I'd have had with the previous chapters. The epilogue was brilliant, too, so it certainly ended on a high note.

    It wasn't as good as AFFC, in my opinion, but then I started reading these books after ADWD was released, so I didn't have any disappointment at the missing characters, as I immediately read Dance after, anyway.


  24. On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    The keyword here is “could.” You don’t’ have any textual evidence to support that claim, just your belief and speculation.

    Yes, the keyword here is could. I'll come back to that.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    In the books, Dany doesn’t just believe that maybe GM nailed up the kids. It’s presented as something the GM evidently did.

    No, what is presented in the books is that Daenerys believes that the Great Masters were evidently responsible. Nothing more.

    Do all rash actions have to be called out as rash actions to be rash actions? I don't think so.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    The point is you can’t hold one character to one standard and another character to something else entirely. If you do, then that’s your bias. Bias has no reasonable basis.

    Okay, so what, I should have gone completely off topic and spoken about other characters? Why would I have done that? You can't say I'm biased for not decrying the actions of other characters when we're not talking about those characters.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    You could say that slavery in the southern states weren’t criminal until Lincoln made it so with the Emancipation Proclamation. So in this light, Lincoln would be a “mad tyrant” as you say.

    I don't seem to recall that Lincoln crucified a bunch of people without proof of the crimes they were accused of...

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    You can’t say that the GM are being “oppressed” by Dany because they can no longer kidnap, torture, and enslave other people.

    Sure you can. She's actively preventing them living their own way. A way of life they've had for centuries. It's not a bad kind of oppression, but it's oppressive, regardless.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    She does try, as quoted above. She makes sure she executes the leaders, who cannot be ignorant of what happened. They are the ones who give the orders.

    Right, but are they the ones who gave the orders? It's entirely possible that this wasn't some collective act, but was the actions of a few. So, no, she doesn't try to get the right people.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    I was being sarcastic.

    So was I.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Yes they were. They were the leaders. Even if one looked the other way, they would be complicit in an atrocity.

    They wouldn't be "looking the other way" if they didn't know about it at all. There's no proof that they did all know.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    It is very explicitly stated in the books that GM did it. Not that they may have done it, but it was them. They are the guilty party.

    No. That Daenerys believes that? Yes. That it's true? Not at all.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    The question that you should be asking is, ‘is it actually okay to retaliate against them in that manner even if they did that horrible atrocity?’ That’s what Dany momentarily asks herself. The moral conundrum here is not that the people Dany nailed may have been innocent, but whether it’s okay to commit atrocities even if the reasoning is righteous. Like, Nazis are bad without a doubt, but should you carpet bomb Dresden? Is it okay to kill all the slaver families to wipe out slavery once and for all from Mereen? Ultimately, does the end justify the means? That’s what Dany has to decide for herself.

    Yes, it's a good moral quandary. It's not the only takeaway from this situation, though.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Only within reason. There should be contradictory evidence, other statements, or other perspectives to make us doubt that a POV character might be wrong. Otherwise, there’s no basis to think that what a POV character sees, hears, or thinks is anyhow wrong. That would just be baseless speculation.

    But there's a difference between baseless speculation and speculation. If a POV character has thoughts that the sky turned red recently, and nobody has ever explicitly said that the sky is and has always been blue, should we believe them? 

    The fact that Daenerys believes this without proof is a hint that she might be wrong. The fact that there are no other perspectives confirming her thoughts is a hint that she might be wrong. I completely agree that it's speculation, but I would hardly say that it's baseless.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    No you didn’t.

     

    Her first act as Queen of Meereen, the crucifixion, was the act of an absolute tyrant. Her later action are not those of a tyrant, but of a benevolent dictator. This is not a good thing. Her back and forth about her leadership style is the root cause of her inability to rule over the Meereenese.

    Yes. I did.

    On 4/17/2018 at 2:21 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Yes, wanting to free slaves, stop wartime rape, save innocent people from being murdered, recognizing oppression…all that doesn’t give Dany a keen sense of justice I suppose.

    She thinks that crucifying people without proof is justice. Many of her rulings as Queen of Meereen are awful. Her sense of justice is wanting, I think.

     

    Anyway, I said I'd come back to it. Could. I have a question, and I'd really like an answer. It's a yes or no question, but you can feel free to elaborate, of course. Here we go:

    Do you think it is possible that Daenerys could have been wrong? No matter how likely you think it, a hundred to one, a million to one, whatever. Do you think it's at all possible that the Great Masters didn't conspire together to crucify those children? That it was the action of a few?


  25. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    It would require a stunning amount of ignorance for some of the GM to not know that kids were crucified to get back at Daenerys.

    No, it wouldn't. It's not a stretch to believe that the Great Masters have other things on their mind, besides keeping tabs on the others.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    When Dany is in Mereen, some GM don’t come up to her or her advisors and say we didn’t support that.

    Why would they bother? It's done, now. No point bringing it back up, and risking punishment.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    It’s all in your head.

    Sure, I suppose it is. Just as your interpretation, which is equally unsupported by the text, is in your head.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    You have made up this convoluted theory

    Convoluted? There's nothing convoluted about it. Daenerys could have been wrong in her belief that all of the Great Masters were complicit in the crucifixion of the children, and she didn't even try to confirm her belief, she just crucified a like number of Great Masters. Seriously, what's convoluted about that?

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    to prematurely and illogically portray Dany as a crazed tyrant randomly crucify slave masters because they are oh so innocent of child murder.

    No. I didn't want her to be a crazed tyrant, and go looking for support in the text. I read the text, and came away with the impression that she's a crazed tyrant (in this, at least).

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    But we can say the same for other “good” characters in the books as well, especially Jon and Tyrion. Tryion lashes out when he is angry (kills Shae, crushes Merillion’s fingers, etc), but do you call him a mad tyrant? Jon also enacts cruel-type of punishments against his subordinates; I don’t see you call him a mad tyrant.

    A large part of why I'm not calling Tyrion or Jon tyrants is because we're not talking about Tyrion or Jon. We're talking about Daenerys. Regardless of how I feel about Jon or Tyrion, they simply aren't the topic of conversation, so why would I bring them up? Also, why would you? It's not as if I referred to them favourably. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    But you do use this one thing, based on mere theorizing, to call Dany a crazed tyrant. Why do you think that is?

    I think it's probably because I think those are the actions of a crazed tyrant.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    In the books, characters are considered good or bad based on their ability to empathize.

    Oh? Here I am, judging people on their actions...

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    If that happened, the commoner would get executed. Everyone she or he knew might also get the axe.

    Everyone they know? That makes no sense.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    The suspicion would be enough to garner punishment. No one is going to go out of their way to prove a mere commoner innocent.

    Sure, they don't care to exonerate the commoner, but they do want to ensure that nobody can get away with murdering a nobleman. They'd want the right person.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Huh? If Tyrion did have evidence to exonerate him, first it would need to be acceptable to Lysa. At that point I highly doubt she would have accepted any. In a scenario like this, the outcome of the trial is largely based on the judge’s opinion. And Lysa was a very biased judge.

    Yeah, I don't think so. It's not like it's a one on one trial. There was a room full of people. If there was some evidence that was compelling enough to sway the opinion of everyone in the room, there's no way Lysa could get away with killing Tyrion, regardless. At least, not without everyone there knowing that she decided to disregard the evidence, and completely abuse her power to murder him.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    In some cases the lords just make up crimes just to hang people, like what Roose Bolton did to Ramsey’s mother’s husband. Dany doesn’t do anything like that with the GM.

    Strictly speaking, that's exactly what she does. Slavery wasn't a crime when the Great Masters were doing it, nor was the crucifixion of those children. She did come along and make up crimes to kill people. Don't get me wrong, though, she was within her rights, as Queen, to create her own laws. 

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    No, just no. There is no “nice” way to enslave people.

    I never said there's a nice way. But there are certainly ways to have slaves that are comparatively nice, compared to other slaves. There are no ways to crucify someone that is comparatively nice to other crucifixions.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Ahahahahahaha… absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Yeah, that's actually my point. No proof isn't proof that something didn't happen, but it's certainly not proof that it did happen. There's no proof either way, but the burden of proof is not on the accused. Daenerys was supposed to provide the proof that the people she crucified were the ones who were guilty of the crime they were accused of. She didn't even try.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    *facepalm*

    You have wowed me with your impeccable logic and reasoned arguments.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Okay, let’s dial back. Say Dany is only interested in vengeance and not justice. If so, why would she be offended that the GM crucified kids in the first place? They are not her kids. They aren’t even Dothraki. Why would Dany want to avenge random slave children then if she doesn’t care about justice?

    What kind of sense does that make? It has to be about justice, because she cares about the fate of those children? If she didn't care about the fate of those children, she wouldn't want vengeance.

    1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    You are kidding.

    No, really. She considers the slaves her children.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    More *facepalm*.

    You continue to amaze and astound with your detailed arguments, refuting my points at every turn.

    Seriously, that's twice now you've ignored that question, despite directly quoting it. I know why, it's because there is no proof they were all complicit.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Let’s say that a coworker is secretly a serial killer. In that case, then it would have nothing to do with you, of course. However, if you stood by and watched your coworker murder children in the name of the organization, or if you had any knowledge of their actions in any way, then you would be complicit in the crime. Saying that ‘it had nothing to do with me’ is not a defense in this case. It’s possible that you had zero knowledge of the crime, but you would seriously need to prove it, especially if the crime benefits you in any manner.

    How was I to stop my coworker? Ask them to please stop murdering children? I never said I wouldn't go to the police if I had proof or if I witnessed murder. But I'd definitely not quit my job. But no, I wouldn't need to prove anything. The burden of proof wouldn't be on me.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    In the case of the GM, the murder of the children benefits the group as a whole.

    So? You can do things that benefit others, without them being a part of it.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    It’s part of their defense strategy as I mentioned before. A wayward GM don’t kill the kids for sick personal benefit.

    I don't think that's true. It's not much of a defense strategy, all it serves to do is piss Daenerys off. It strikes me less as a defensive move, and more of a "we can do what we want" statement.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    If anyone asks who nailed up these children? The answer would be simple: the Grand Masters. It’s not one GM, some, GM, it’s the GM.

    Right, so because it's "common knowledge", it must be true? There's no way they could be wrong? Just because "the Great Masters" did something, that doesn't mean that they all did it. For instance, say a Great Master had their men destroy someones shop. This person could say that the Great Masters destroyed his shop, despite it being the action of one person (and their goods). The same way people might say that "the cops" did something. That doesn't imply that every police officer did that thing.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Yes, of course, If the GM did that, then they would admit that a crime has occurred. It would indicate that child murder is unacceptable within this society.

    Oh, so it's not that they were directly involved with the crime, but that they don't think there was a crime that earned them crucifixion? I... see.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Yes. They do. These are the most powerful people in Mereen, some of the most powerful in all of Slaver’s Bay. But somehow they were powerless to stop over hundred children being nailed to the posts?

    Uh huh. So, they possibly didn't know, and definitely didn't care. Why does that mean that they were part of it? Seriously, I don't get it. I'm not saying they were good people, but that doesn't mean they're guilty of this crime.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Because that’s what’s actually written in the books! The GM act as one.

    Really? The Great Master Hive Mind is in the books, is it? I don't think so. They're individuals, who make individual decisions.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    They are horrible, terrible slavers who think it’s perfectly fine to nail slave children alive. They don’t consider atrocities like that to even be crimes.

    Okay, they don't think it's a crime. That doesn't mean they partake in these not-crimes. Do you do everything that's legal? I doubt it.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Are you suggesting that there’s a GM like LF who is blaming everyone else for the nailing of hundreds of children and Dany just believes it? Hahahahahahahaha.

    No, and I never implied that. I'm suggesting that the opinion of POV characters can be wrong.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Once again, just no. As in, you have no idea how wrong you are here.

    Enlighten me. You're right, I have no idea how wrong I am. Just saying that isn't very helpful. How wrong am I? Is it easy to see what's happening a mile away? Are the Great Masters themselves watching what's happening from the walls, to see the crucified children? "You're wrong" is the most worthless statement anyone can make. It's not going to change anybody's mind. Why am I wrong?

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Yes there is one and they just did that.

    Really? You believe there's a "crucify slaves" policy when being besieged by an anti-slaver opponent, despite the fact that this is the first anti-slaver opponent Meereen has ever had?

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    The slaves are not fridges. They are human beings.

    Yeah, I told you it'd sound crass. The point stands, though.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    The GM has no obligation to shelter freed slaves and Dany doesn’t make them either.

    No, she doesn't make them shelter the slaves, but you make it sound as if they're doing the wrong thing. Mistreatment is the word you used.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    Then they deliberately throw elderly and infirm former slaves to the streets to create more problems for Dany. They want to show that the reason for all the homeless in the streets is Dany and her anti-slavery stance. Being anti-slavery is bad for the economy is the point here I think. But I’m not sure whom they are trying to convince. The slavers would always be pro-slavery, and the enslaved would never be.

    I don't think there's any message being sent. They just don't want to house and feed people who aren't working for them.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    I don’t think you know what the word “tyrant” means. Or dictator for that matter.

    A tyrant is a cruel and oppressive ruler. Definitely fits with my usage. A dictator is a ruler who has total power, typically obtained by force. Also fits my usage.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    If Dany had been an absolute tyrant, she would have killed all the slave masters and their families. She would have taken everything they had to do with as she pleased. But that's NOT what she does here. 

    Tyrants don't necessarily just murder everyone, and I already stated that Daenerys dances between tyrant and benevolent dictator.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    The mistake she makes in Mereen is trying to rule with the slavers. It was never going to happen because the slavers have zero intention of not being slavers. She should have stripped them of their ranks, repossessed all the wealth, and reset the economy to paid labor where no one is a slave.

    I agree, she should have.

    2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

    She was too accommodating with the Mereneese. That was the problem.

    ...

    The challenge for Dany would be to tackle all of this as queen. Can she balance her sense of justice, which is quite keen, with the reality of ruling, which requires making nasty compromises with unsavory characters? How she overcomes these challenges would determine whether she is a hero or not, or something in between, when the story finally concludes. 

    I agree. Well, not with Daenerys having a keen sense of justice. But regarding whether or not she's a hero, I feel she's got villain and hero within her, fighting for dominance. When she makes a decision, either way, things will go much better for her.

×