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

[Bernie Mac]

29 minutes ago, Megorova said:

If execution of Janos Slynt was personal, and Jon killed him, even though that decision was unjust, then why didn't he also killed Alliser Thorne?

A few things

• this topic is now at 18 pages long, what you are asking has been covered many, many times over the course of the pages, but at least you are on topic so replying to you moves us away from Stannis
• Jon's feelings towards a hated former teacher and the man who executed his father are not equal. It should be obvious he hates one more than the other, Jon fantasizing about killing him should have made this clear
• Thorne had not been put in the same position till after Slynt lost his head, no one knew that execution was  a possibility for refusing a position before that, but now they do no one is likely to take that chance, especially not Thorne
• no one is arguing that Slynt did not deserve to be punished, but that the punishment was extreme
• that Jon executed Slynt not for his refusal but because of what he had done in the past and what Jon feared he could do in the future
• that had anyone else shown the same insubordination that day they'd be sitting in a cell or whipped rather than dead

 

Many of us who are saying it was not justice are not even against the decision, just that we are labelling it a deserved act of revenge rather than an act of justice. 

Quote

Jon had stronger grudge against Thorne, but he didn't killed him.

How petty would Jon have to be to have a stronger grudge against Thorne than the man who killed his father? 

Quote

 

Because, even though Jon didn't liked him, and had a reason to wish him harm, Alliser was abiding to rules of NW, and obeyed Jon, even though he hated him.

Thorne, for all his faults, is still viewed as a brother of the Nights Watch. Jon is more than clear that he can not bring himself to think of Slynt in the same way

 All of a man's crimes were wiped away when he took the black, and all of his allegiances as well, yet he found it hard to think of Janos Slynt as a brother. There is blood between us. 

Quote

 

And who decides that? -> other Watchers, and they decided, that Jon is worthy. Majority of them has chosen HIM. It doesn't matter, what me or you think about Jon's ability or disability to lead NW, what matters, is that NW's people has chosen him.

Well while I don't think this matters, it is important to note the only reason Jon is Lord Commander is that Sam fixed it for him.

[Moiraine Sedai]

20 minutes ago, Megorova said:

If execution of Janos Slynt was personal, and Jon killed him, even though that decision was unjust, then why didn't he also killed Alliser Thorne?

Jon had stronger grudge against Thorne, but he didn't killed him. Because, even though Jon didn't liked him, and had a reason to wish him harm, Alliser was abiding to rules of NW, and obeyed Jon, even though he hated him.

So the fact, that Jon didn't executed Thorne, is a prove, that Jon wasn't driven by his personal feelings, and did what was best for the Watch, when he decided to execute Slynt.

And who decides that? -> other Watchers, and they decided, that Jon is worthy. Majority of them has chosen HIM. It doesn't matter, what me or you think about Jon's ability or disability to lead NW, what matters, is that NW's people has chosen him.

Thorne was not involved in Ned Stark's downfall.  This is not about getting back at your mean former instructor.  It was about Jon using this opening to kill one of the people who helped the Lannisters bring Ned down.

The election was close.  Janos had supporters.  It was political suicide to kill him.

The crows are brothers in spirit.  They gave up their biological families and allies to join.  One crow killing another crow is close to kinslaying.  That is why they tolerate each other.  Desertion is probably the only crime regularly punishable by death because the guilty has left the family.  In other words, he broke his oaths and betrayed the Night's Watch family.  All other crimes are punished less harshly.  The crows truly are a family.  They live as a family and it is only broken when one crow breaks his vows.  

 

 

 

[teej6]

31 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Thorne was not involved in Ned Stark's downfall.  This is not about getting back at your mean former instructor.  It was about Jon using this opening to kill one of the people who helped the Lannisters bring Ned down.

The election was close.  Janos had supporters.  It was political suicide to kill him.

The crows are brothers in spirit.  They gave up their biological families and allies to join.  One crow killing another crow is close to kinslaying.  That is why they tolerate each other.  Desertion is probably the only crime regularly punishable by death because the guilty has left the family.  In other words, he broke his oaths and betrayed the Night's Watch family.  All other crimes are punished less harshly.  The crows truly are a family.  They live as a family and it is only broken when one crow breaks his vows.  

Your post is so full of assumptions with no foundation in the text that I’m not going to even address most of it just the bolded section. I think you base this on the show coz in the books this is what happens:

“The rest was arrowheads, a torrent of arrowheads, a flood of arrowheads, arrowheads enough to drown the last few stones and shells, and all the copper pennies too.”

Arrowheads being the votes cast in favor of Jon. I think the text cleary states that Jon won with an overwhelming majority, don’t you?

[Bernie Mac]

37 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Your post is so full of assumptions with no foundation in the text that I’m not going to even address most of it just the bolded section.

The election was close, there was vote after vote because the brothers could not come to a conclusion.  An election that was not close would not have gone as long, there would have been a clear winner in one the earlier votes

Open your eyes. It's been happening for days. Could he be right? A man needed the votes of two-thirds of the Sworn Brothers to become the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, and after nine days and nine votes no one was even close to that. Lord Janos had been gaining, true, creeping up past first Bowen Marsh and then Othell Yarwyck, but he was still well behind Ser Denys Mallister of the Shadow Tower and Cotter Pyke of Eastwatch-by-the-Sea. One of them will be the new Lord Commander, surely, Sam told himself.

 

 In the end Sam fixes the election so Jon could win, which makes sense from Sam's perspective as the other nominee's have not gone out of their way to make his time at the Wall as easy as possible. 

[Tagganaro]

10 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The election was close, there was vote after vote because the brothers could not come to a conclusion.  An election that was not close would not have gone as long, there would have been a clear winner in one the earlier votes

Open your eyes. It's been happening for days. Could he be right? A man needed the votes of two-thirds of the Sworn Brothers to become the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, and after nine days and nine votes no one was even close to that. Lord Janos had been gaining, true, creeping up past first Bowen Marsh and then Othell Yarwyck, but he was still well behind Ser Denys Mallister of the Shadow Tower and Cotter Pyke of Eastwatch-by-the-Sea. One of them will be the new Lord Commander, surely, Sam told himself.

 

 In the end Sam fixes the election so Jon could win, which makes sense from Sam's perspective as the other nominee's have not gone out of their way to make his time at the Wall as easy as possible. 

You're quoting from before Jon enters and combines both Mallister and Pyke votes, and considering the very thing you quote mentions that 2/3s are needed to become LC, that shows Jon won by a pretty handy majority right?  I think Mallister/Pyke had near 400 combined while Janos was like 150, but I'm guessing there were a few like Othell Yarwyck who decides not to vote for Janos once Jon entered.  I'd guess Jon had something like 450 while Janos was at 125, but that's a total guess and I have no idea if that lines up with the number of NW brothers there.

But yeah, at least 2/3s is not really close is it?

[teej6]

36 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The election was close, there was vote after vote because the brothers could not come to a conclusion.  An election that was not close would not have gone as long, there would have been a clear winner in one the earlier votes

Open your eyes. It's been happening for days. Could he be right? A man needed the votes of two-thirds of the Sworn Brothers to become the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, and after nine days and nine votes no one was even close to that. Lord Janos had been gaining, true, creeping up past first Bowen Marsh and then Othell Yarwyck, but he was still well behind Ser Denys Mallister of the Shadow Tower and Cotter Pyke of Eastwatch-by-the-Sea. One of them will be the new Lord Commander, surely, Sam told himself.

 

 In the end Sam fixes the election so Jon could win, which makes sense from Sam's perspective as the other nominee's have not gone out of their way to make his time at the Wall as easy as possible. 

Goodness gracious! You will twist and turn the text to suit your narrative in any which way possible. Only a person who’s reading of the text is truly subjective would state that the election was close. In the early votes, no one had a clear majority (and btw, Slynt was trailing Cotter Pyke and Malister). But when Jon’s name was thrown in the race, he won by a resounding majority, and there is no ambiguity there in the text. You can argue till you turn blue in the face, but nothing changes this fact.

As for Sam fixing the elections, I don’t agree. Sam may have asked Cotter Pyke and Denys Malister to back Jon by playing on their prejudices, but he didn’t change the actual vote count — he didn’t falsely state Jon won when he actually didn’t. When Jon wins the final count, it’s because people chose voluntarily to vote for him. Whether they based their choice on their prejudices or a crow is beside the point. So, this rediculous argument of yours also doesn’t hold. 

[Bernie Mac]

Just now, teej6 said:

Goodness gracious! You will twist and turn the text to suit your narrative in any which way possible.

Is there any need to be so melodramatic. Some of you are taking this conversation a little too personally. 

Just now, teej6 said:

Only a truly subjective person would state that the election was close.

The election was not close, close elections don't last for so long. 

"Sire," said Bowen Marsh in a defensive tone, "no one has achieved two-thirds of the vote yet. It has only been ten days."

"Nine days too long.

 

Just now, teej6 said:

 

In the early votes, no one had a clear majority

Not sure your point, the person you disagreed stated the election was close, this is a fact given how long it went on for. Close elections take longer to resolve.  This is common sense. 

Just now, teej6 said:

 

(and btw, Slynt was trailing Cotter Pyke and Malister). 

Who has claimed differently, certainly not the person you replied to. 

But as Sam points out with every vote Slynt was gaining more votes, Janos indeed had supporters

Just now, teej6 said:

 

But when Jon’s name was thrown in the race, he won by a resounding majority,

Yup, when Sam fixed the election for him. For all the talk of Slynt being corrupt, it is Jon who owes his position to someone breaking the rules to get him elected. 

Just now, teej6 said:

 

and there is no ambiguity there in the text. You can argue till you turn blue in the face,

Why would anyone turn blue in the face, seriously, chill out. We can debate and still enjoy the discourse, these are only fictional characters we are talking about. It has little consequence what they do or what we think motivates them. 

Just now, teej6 said:

 

but nothing changes this fact. As for Sam fixing the elections, I call that BS.

You can call it bullshit, but that is what happened. 

Jon said there could be honor in a lie, if it were told for the right reason. Sam said, "If we do not choose a Lord Commander tonight, King Stannis means to name Cotter Pyke. He said as much to Maester Aemon this morning, after all of you had left."

"I see." Ser Denys rose. "I must think on this. Thank you, Samwell. And give my thanks to Maester Aemon as well."

Sam was trembling by the time he left the Lance. What have I done? he thought. What have I said? If they caught him in his lie, they would . . .

 

Quite clever on Sam's part, but he clearly was breaking the rules and fixing the election to stop Slynt getting elected, which is what he was most worried about. There seems to be this aversion from some on here to admit that characters they like can be guilty of being in the wrong. 

 

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Is there any need to be so melodramatic. Some of you are taking this conversation a little too personally. 

The election was not close, close elections don't last for so long. 

"Sire," said Bowen Marsh in a defensive tone, "no one has achieved two-thirds of the vote yet. It has only been ten days."

"Nine days too long.

 

Not sure your point, the person you disagreed stated the election was close, this is a fact given how long it went on for. Close elections take longer to resolve.  This is common sense. 

Who has claimed differently, certainly not the person you replied to. 

But as Sam points out with every vote Slynt was gaining more votes, Janos indeed had supporters

Yup, when Sam fixed the election for him. For all the talk of Slynt being corrupt, it is Jon who owes his position to someone breaking the rules to get him elected. 

Why would anyone turn blue in the face, seriously, chill out. We can debate and still enjoy the discourse, these are only fictional characters we are talking about. It has little consequence what they do or what we think motivates them. 

You can call it bullshit, but that is what happened. 

Jon said there could be honor in a lie, if it were told for the right reason. Sam said, "If we do not choose a Lord Commander tonight, King Stannis means to name Cotter Pyke. He said as much to Maester Aemon this morning, after all of you had left."

"I see." Ser Denys rose. "I must think on this. Thank you, Samwell. And give my thanks to Maester Aemon as well."

Sam was trembling by the time he left the Lance. What have I done? he thought. What have I said? If they caught him in his lie, they would . . .

 

Quite clever on Sam's part, but he clearly was breaking the rules and fixing the election to stop Slynt getting elected, which is what he was most worried about. There seems to be this aversion from some on here to admit that characters they like can be guilty of being in the wrong. 

 

I’m not taking anything personal, just exasperated with your rediculous and factually incorrect arguments. And I don’t know if you are deliberately playing obtuse or if you really don’t understand. The point I was trying to make was that the election with Jon’s name on the ballot was NOT close. The poster I was responding to was responding to another’s point that the majority of the NW men had chosen Jon. Kind of pointless to argue about an election where Jon’s name wasn’t even on the ballot, dont you think? The simple fact is that Jon won the election with an overwhelming majority. Show me where in the text it states otherwise. There were ~588 votes cast. Jon needed 2/3rds of that to win, that’s ~394 votes. Say that Jon won only the bare minimum, that is just 2/3rd (although I suspect he won much more based on the text), and every other vote was cast for Slynt (which it wasn’t), that would leave Slynt with only 194. How’s that even close. 

As to earlier counts being close, @Tagganaro responded with the count. Slynt got 137 of the 588 votes, no where close and moreover he was behind Malister and Pyke. I don’t see how this bolsters your argument. 

As to Sam’s scheming, I don’t know how you define “fixing elections”. To me, Sam influenced the outcome of the election by playing Pyke against Malister, he did not fix the election as you say. Fixing an election, to me, would imply Sam had prevented half the NW men from voting, or he may have invalidated half the votes, or he may have lied and said Jon won 400 votes when he actually only won 200, or he may have tampered with the count some other way. Since none of that happened, I doubt he fixed the election. 

[Hugorfonics]

4 minutes ago, teej6 said:

As to Sam’s scheming, I don’t know how you define “fixing elections”. To me, Sam influenced the outcome of the election by playing Pyke against Malister, he did not fix the election as you say. It was upto Pyke and Malister to have their supporters back Jon. Fixing an election, to me, would imply Sam had prevented half the NW men from voting, or he may have invalidated half the votes, or he may have lied and said Jon won 400 votes when he actually only won 200, or he may have tampered with the count some other way. Since none of that happened, I doubt he fixed the election. 

He lied to Pyke and Mallister about the kings plan, but who plays the game and is honest about the king? He also lied about Aemons plans, but what maester speaks the truth?

If either of these surfaced i believe Pyke and Mallister would change their minds, however the vote was overwhelmingly Jon and no election was held afterwords. Nor a recount. Despite the fact that Jon was a traitor in question and being temporarily relived of work, also the vote was counted by Sam and Aemon, the culprits in question. 

The elections not as rigged as it was in America, but it was suspect enough

[teej6]

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

He lied to Pyke and Mallister about the kings plan, but who plays the game and is honest about the king? He also lied about Aemons plans, but what maester speaks the truth?

If either of these surfaced i believe Pyke and Mallister would change their minds, however the vote was overwhelmingly Jon and no election was held afterwords. Nor a recount. Despite the fact that Jon was a traitor in question and being temporarily relived of work, also the vote was counted by Sam and Aemon, the culprits in question. 

The elections not as rigged as it was in America, but it was suspect enough

It is plainly obvious from the text that Jon had won even without a count. It’s not a secret ballot. The men are putting their votes (which is a token signifying each candidate) into a kettle. Here’s the quote for you:

“The rest was arrowheads, a torrent of arrowheads, a flood of arrowheads, arrowheads enough to drown the last few stones and shells, and all the copper pennies too.”

And as to the count, Sam and Aemon are joined in the counting by Clydas. And the last count was done in front of everyone in the hall as they weren’t allowed to leave per Stannis orders. I’d say there’s not much room there for cheating, wouldn’t you? As for the propaganda that Sam lied on the count to favor Jon, those are just lies cause I don’t see how Sam or Aemon could have lied about the count in such an open setting. We also have Sam, Jon, Grenn, and Pyp’s conversation after the election. Nothing in that conversation show Sam lied about the final tally.  

[Megorova]

@Bernie Mac @Moiraine Sedai

Both of you think, that Jon's hate towards Slynt was stronger, than his hate towards Thorne. Though look at his behaviour, when he was dealing with those two:

Thorne:

Quote

And then he heard the laughter, sharp and cruel as a whip, and the voice of Ser Alliser Thorne. “Not only a bastard, but a traitor’s bastard,” he was telling the men around him.

In the blink of an eye, Jon had vaulted onto the table, dagger in his hand. Pyp made a grab for him, but he wrenched his leg away, and then he was sprinting down the table and kicking the bowl from Ser Alliser’s hand. Stew went flying everywhere, spattering the brothers. Thorne recoiled. People were shouting, but Jon Snow did not hear them. He lunged at Ser Alliser’s face with the dagger, slashing at those cold onyx eyes, but Sam threw himself between them and before Jon could get around him, Pyp was on his back clinging like a monkey, and Grenn was grabbing his arm while Toad wrenched the knife from his fingers.

Slynt:

Quote

“If the boy thinks that he can frighten me, he is mistaken,” they heard Lord Janos said. “He would not dare to hang me. Janos Slynt has friends, important friends, you’ll see …” The wind whipped away the rest of his words.

This is wrong, Jon thought. “Stop.”

Emmett turned back, frowning. “My lord?”

“I will not hang him,” said Jon. “Bring him here.”

“Oh, Seven save us,” he heard Bowen Marsh cry out.

The smile that Lord Janos Slynt smiled then had all the sweetness of rancid butter. Until Jon said, “Edd, fetch me a block,” and unsheathed Longclaw.

By the time a suitable chopping block was found, Lord Janos had retreated into the winch cage, but Iron Emmett went in after him and dragged him out. “No,” Slynt cried, as Emmett half-shoved and half-pulled him across the yard. “Unhand me … you cannot … when Tywin Lannister hears of this, you will all rue—”

Emmett kicked his legs out from under him. Dolorous Edd planted a foot on his back to keep him on his knees as Emmett shoved the block beneath his head. “This will go easier if you stay still,” Jon Snow promised him. “Move to avoid the cut, and you will still die, but your dying will be uglier. Stretch out your neck, my lord.” The pale morning sunlight ran up and down his blade as Jon clasped the hilt of the bastard sword with both hands and raised it high. “If you have any last words, now is the time to speak them,” he said, expecting one last curse.

Janos Slynt twisted his neck around to stare up at him. “Please, my lord. Mercy. I’ll … I’ll go, I will, I …”

No, thought Jon. You closed that door. Longclaw descended.

Jon's emotions towards Slynt, were much calmer, than what he felt towards Thorne. Even though Slynt did took part in Ned's death, it was happening thousands miles away from Jon. While Thorne never passed an opportunity to humiliate or mock Jon. And he was always close, and constantly getting in Jon's face, and on his nerves. So what he felt towards Thorne, was stronger and more personal. Nevertheless, Jon has left him alive, even though he hated him more, than he hated Slynt, because Thorne was useful for Night's Watch, and Slynt stopped being part of NW, when he refused to obey to Lord Commander's orders. It was done for benefit of NW. Nothing personal.

[Hugorfonics]

12 minutes ago, teej6 said:

It is plainly obvious from the text that Jon had won even without a count. It’s not a secret ballot. The men are putting their votes (which is a token signifying each candidate) into a kettle. Here’s the quote for you:

“The rest was arrowheads, a torrent of arrowheads, a flood of arrowheads, arrowheads enough to drown the last few stones and shells, and all the copper pennies too.”

And as to the count, Sam and Aemon are joined in the counting by Clydas. And the last count was done in front of everyone in the hall as they weren’t allowed to leave per Stannis orders. I’d say there’s not much room there for cheating, wouldn’t you? As for the propaganda that Sam lied on the count to favor Jon, those are just lies cause I don’t see how Sam or Aemon could have lied about the count in such an open setting. We also have Sam, Jon, Grenn, and Pyp’s conversation after the election. Nothing in that conversation show Sam lied about the final tally.  

I agree. Just from Janos and his cronies perspective (roughly 35% of the watch), the election looked compromised

[Megorova]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Quite clever on Sam's part, but he clearly was breaking the rules

What rules exactly did he broke?

If gathering around you people, that will support your candidate, is equal to breaking rules of elections, then all of them - Slynt, Pyke, March, Yarwyck and Mallister - were also doing it.

You are so biased towards Jon, that it's getting ridiculous.

[teej6]

13 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I agree. Just from Janos and his cronies perspective (roughly 35% of the watch), the election looked compromised

This goes back to the point that Slynt and his cabal were constantly undermining Jon’s authority as LC (a role he never asked for) through their lies and propaganda. Jon tried to put an end to this with his offer to Slynt. However, Slynt being a moron, underestimated Jon and overestimated his own worth and popularity among the NW men. 

[Hugorfonics]

8 minutes ago, teej6 said:

This goes back to the point that Slynt and his cabal were constantly undermining Jon’s authority as LC (a role he never asked for) through their lies and propaganda. Jon tried to put an end to this with his offer to Slynt. However, Slynt being a moron, underestimated Jon and overestimated his own worth and popularity among the NW men. 

Jons offer was to get the throne at his side moved many miles to an unimportant post, it was not an olive branch.

Im pretty confident that Janos was planning on killing Jon, and Marsh's work was the result of Janos' planning. 

He certainly overplayed his hand, though i doubt he expected Alliser or whomever to save him like Sir Lancelot. Then again its hard to plan a coup for the watch when your at a desolate castle far from Black.

I feel bad for Slynt (I sympathize with smallfolk), he was sent by Tyrion because of a personal beef with Petyr and tried his hardest to keep a traitors son of a warg from letting the wildlings in

[Angel Eyes]

15 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jons offer was to get the throne at his side moved many miles to an unimportant post, it was not an olive branch.

Im pretty confident that Janos was planning on killing Jon, and Marsh's work was the result of Janos' planning. 

He certainly overplayed his hand, though i doubt he expected Alliser or whomever to save him like Sir Lancelot. Then again its hard to plan a coup for the watch when your at a desolate castle far from Black.

I feel bad for Slynt (I sympathize with smallfolk), he was sent by Tyrion because of a personal beef with Petyr and tried his hardest to keep a traitors son of a warg from letting the wildlings in

I don’t really have too much sympathy, considering he’s a dirty cop who will murder anyone who says he’s not doing his job right.

[Hugorfonics]

Just now, Angel Eyes said:

I don’t really have too much sympathy, considering he’s a dirty cop who will murder anyone who says he’s not doing his job right.

Fuck the fuzz. No doubt. Dirty cops especially are some of the most disgusting of people. But being a smallfolk who becomes lord of Harrenhall has a romantic aspect i cant get passed

[Ygrain]

5 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The crows are brothers in spirit.  They gave up their biological families and allies to join.  One crow killing another crow is close to kinslaying.  That is why they tolerate each other.  Desertion is probably the only crime regularly punishable by death because the guilty has left the family.  In other words, he broke his oaths and betrayed the Night's Watch family.  All other crimes are punished less harshly.  The crows truly are a family.  They live as a family and it is only broken when one crow breaks his vows.  

Fanfiction much?

If the NW perceived themselves as you decribe, none would have followed Jon's command to hang Slynt. Yet, we have a decent guy like Dolorous Ed doing just that.

[the trees have eyes]

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Daenerys obviously believes she has the authority, else she wouldn't be demanding they obey her.

No, she knows she doesn't  She is attempting something unique, turning them from men appointed by Kahl Drogo to protect her and whose last duty to him is to escort her to Vaes Dothrak into her own bloodriders.  She fails in her groundbreaking gambit until she walks out of a funeral pyre with three dragons at which point they swear themselves to her as they would to a Khal because that is what she has become.

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Except she does not have the authority, she knows she does not have the authority and I would never argue such a brainless premise.  Your comparison fell flat the first time and continuing with a false premise and ascribing it to me wastes both our time.

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

This is disingenuous.  She knows she has no basis for asking this of them or punishing them.  There is no basis for comparison with Jon and Slynt.

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Yes, I am.  What in the world makes you think she does?  She knows their only remaining duty is to take her to Vase Dothrak and all three of them explain this to her.  She knows it but she doesn't want to accept it and tries to get out of it by acting as if she can command them otherwise.  She doesn't believe it, it's a ploy.  It fails.  But something changes with Drogo's funeral pyre.....

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

I don't even know why you are writing this stuff, it's dire.

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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).

Not at all.  This is a tripe of an argument you have tried to put in my mouth but it's nonsense.  How about if you draw a terrible comparison and I disagree with it as patently absurd you don't still keep trying to push that mangled comparison and say I am arguing for it.  Jesus.....

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

He is judged purely and simply on his commission of a capital crime.  Jon can choose to issue other sentences and he most certainly would have if he had believed Slynt was a man who would have fallen into line.  His experience led him to believe otherwise.  You can keep arguing that Slynt was redeemable but there is nothing new left to say on any of this.

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

It's not a capital offence. It's a potentially capital offence, yes.

That's incorrect.  It's either a capital offense or it isn't.  And it is a capital offense.  If the judge chooses to exercise latitude in sentencing then that is up to their judgment.  Slynt could have and would have been reprieved if Jon had believed he could reform but the offence was a capital one: it's then up to the judge to consider if there is a reason not to apply it.  The answer was no.  You disagree but I don't.

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

But there are mitigating circumstances. I've gone over them, but it being a first offence

Maybe his first offence should not have been such an enormous capital one in front of Castle Black.  You keep arguing he should have been treated more leniently but no one in story argues this.  Why is this and what is the author trying to show us?  No one in Westeros protests so I don't see why you refuse to wrap your head around this.

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

and the Watch needing every man are two examples.

No, the NW will still hang men for mutiny and I imagine for both desertion and murder.  The argument that every man is needed isn't a magic formula that at a stroke ends capital punishment.  And Jon's conclusion is that the man will intrigue against him and will be worse than useless because he will injure the cause of the NW rather than serve it.

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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

He is executed for committing a capital crime.  The sentence is just.  In considering whether he can be reprieved his past actions and likely future actions are considered and they count against a reprieve but it is his present actions that warrant execution.

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

He's guilty of a capital crime.  In a society where capital punishment is routinely enforced Jon is under no obligation or expectation to reprieve him and wait for him to do it again.  Everyone understands this.  No one at Castle Black tells Jon that before Slynt's execution.  I don't know why you are so adamant about this but no one in universe spoke up.  The system doesn't work the way you apparently wish it should.

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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

< snip >

It's silly to accept it as fact that it's good, sound reasoning just because Jon made was the one who reasoned it.

What contradiction?  Just because you can't imagine a way for Slynt and Thorne to plot doesn't mean they couldn't it just means you haven't thought of it.  The author gives us a brief insight into Jon's reasoning and that is that Slynt will not fall into line.  I do not think the author expected an inquest over Jon's thinking or a pedantic critique of the thoughts for not offering a detailed assessment of all possible means of plotting and the likelihood of countermeasures being inadequate, and that this was enough to highlight the problem of reprieving Slynt.

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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).

This is twaddle.  Slynt commits a capital crime.  My point was that if he had not refused in spectacular fashion in front of Castle Black and agreed to go to Greyguard things would have gone differently.  What utter balls is this about Jane stealing a loaf of bread (never a capital offence anywhere to my knowledge) and being flayed alive for it got to do with Slynt being punished for a capital crime?  You make the most absurd comparisons.  If you insist on debating me over hours and hours please make valid points. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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).

If you commit a capital crime then the punishment is clear.  Whether Jon is glad about it or not, whether he has a desire for revenge or not, the punishment is clear and just.  Ran has repeatedly linked Jon hoping that Slynt come to his senses overnight which is the direct opposite of what he would hope for if he was motivated by revenge as you insist yet you keep on discounting anything that challenges your conviction that Jon is motivated by revenge.  Why not base your conviction on the text rather than ignoring it?

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

You seem to be arguing that Jon only executes Slynt out of a desire for revenge.  In a system where capital punishment is common is it really hard to comprehend that men execute other men without the need for personal enmity to drive them to it?  Ned had no bias against Gared and Robb would surely have preferred to leave a bannerman like Karstark alive but given his crimes he executed him.  Jon tries to use Slynt at Greyguard, he hopes Slynt will come to his senses but when he doesn't he executes him for a capital crime.  His thoughts show he was thinking clearly and practically and not motivated by revenge or acting with clouded judgment, this simply isn't what is on page....

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Well actually they are.  The alternative is that Stannis is prepared to condone injustice which is the opposite of his character.

My contention is that Jon would have done just the same with another brother who committed a capital crime and had a history of intriguing and plotting against him and who he assessed would continue to do so.  The fact that the number of people who would do this is limited to Thorne and Slynt does not make Jon impartial.

7 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Isn't this really because Tytos had allowed them to grow over mighty so Tywin had to wait for the time to be right to move against them.  When he did he wiped them out.  And I doubt Tywin would have accepted Slynt's performance from either House, first time offence or not, it would have confirmed him to be as weak as Tytos and just encouraged other bannermen to ignore him.

7 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Water is wet. Oathbreaking is not always a capital crime. I fail to see the connection.

But oathbreaking is a capital crime so why are you arguing that it isn't?  The latitude that a Lord can apply in sentencing does not change the fact that the stipulated punishment is death which is why no one protests the execution of Slynt despite your unconvincing argument that he could not possibly have known it was a capital offence.

7 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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?

No, he orders his execution for refusing his orders and publicly stating that he will not take orders from a traitor's bastard.  To pretend that this is about "protesting orders" when it is about open defiance and completely undermining Jon's authority is disingenuous.  What I am looking for is an officer, like Marsh who is there, to propose a more lenient punishment or intervene and ask for mercy.  The lack of any attempted mitigation in favour of Slynt is fairly telling and it's because he has gone too far.

7 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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

 No, I have made it very clear I consider he is judged for what he does in oathbreaking.  The question then is whether he should be reprieved and Jon's conclusion, based on his prior behaviour in the NW and not in KL, is that he will continue to scheme and will not make a "fine" brother.

7 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.)

All fine in 21st century terms but in Westeros jurisprudence runs a different course.  There's not a lot of point in trying to apply our values and system to Westeros but I at least understand your granite insistence that Slynt be given another chance.  In our world I would agree with you.  In our world he would, in Westeros he might have had he not transgressed so severely but he did and he didn't get a second chance any more than Gared did.

7 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

It seems like you have definite convictions (no pun intended) about how the criminal justice system should work and are projecting them in story.  I know we all bring our particular frame of reference to bear and it's neither possible nor even desirable to put it aside before reading historical fiction / fantasy but I'm much more prepared to accept the rules the author gives us in his literary world and weigh characters (imperfectly) based on that.  The execution of Gared was far more shocking to me than of Slynt because we understood some of what Gared had been through and there were mitigating circumstances to consider (was he even compos mentis or was he temporarily insane?) while I find no such mitigating factors for Slynt at all.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

I don't know if this is much of an argument for Slynt.  There are plenty of police chiefs, generals or officials in third world countries who use their position as a means of enriching themselves and seek and cling on to those positions not out of desire to serve but out of self-interest.  Stannis would have executed Slynt if his witnesses hadn't been murdered.  Countries are genuinely much better off without those people skimming off the public purse or extracting bribes.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

On that we disagree.  Unless this is going to become about semantics.  It warranted execution and it deserved execution but what can truly be said to "necessitate" execution. You can easily argue nothing does and end up with life imprisonment instead.  But that's not how the NW works and there is nothing to suggest that, if reprieved, he could be made to serve rather than plot.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Actually among the mountains of text I had lost sight of this as we were arguing over any number of bemusing premises like who is sworn to obey who or whether everyone deserves a second chance in Westeros no matter what, etc....

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Your personal notions of what should be a capital crime have no bearing on what actually is a capital crime in Westeros.  It's a fundamental point that you are unwilling to accept but this is a capital crime.  It's the rejection of that fundamental point that seems to underpin your conclusion that it must be about revenge.  If you accept the realities of the Westerosi system rather than standing by your own convictions and acknowledge Jon hoping that Slynt would reconsider rather than going nuclear and challenging his authority in public then you might not fall into the "it's all abut revenge" trap.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

I completely disagree.  A visit to a brothel overnight is not desertion.  If the man was supposed to be manning the wall and left his post he would be guilty of dereliction of duty but the guys who are in the brothel rather than their beds are not intending to or attempting to desert.

Slynt challenges the Lord Commander's authority and denies his right to give him orders.  The men who slip off to Mole's town and are back at their posts in the morning are doing something that does not impact with their duties and that they know their Lord Commander does not have an issue with.  Nor is it against their oaths

Slynt's crime is as serious as it gets, those digging for buried treasure are guilty of nothing at all.  Comparing the two things is farcical.

Nor is Gared's desertion, an individual act on a ranging, remotely as serious as Slynt publicly denying the right of the Lord Commander to command a member of the NW in front of the whole garrison.  Slynt's is far graver.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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. 

Why would he?  The man's not a deserter.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

It's not desertion if you don't desert.  At the very most you could argue these men slipped off the base without permission but that's a petty matter of indiscipline.  You can't even argue the men are absent without leave if they are back in the barracks before reveille.  They're off duty so they visit a prostitute and are back before dawn - and voluntarily of course.  There is simply no desertion to talk about.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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?

Like most of your scenarios this is so mangled as to be bogus.  Jon did not try and prevent anyone from "bringing Slynt back" because Jon was the one who kept giving him chances to reconsider.  In your analogy Jon should be the one trying to bring Slynt back but Slynt refuses his offer and whips his horse on down the Kingsroad.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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

Of course he didn't.  He was unwise enough to remark unguardedly that Tywin was the true ruler of Westeros.   Many people said this in private and they meant Tywin was a powerful and effective Hand.  No one thought Payne was denying Aerys's authority but when Aerys learned of it he punished Payne as an example to remind Tywin who was boss and put him in his place.  This was an insolence that Aerys was probably entitled to punish and, being Aerys, the punishment was typically cruel, but was as much about his power dynamic with Tywin.  Payne never privately or publicly denied his king's authority: if he had denied Aerys's authority to his face and told him to "stick it up his arse" he would have lost more than his tongue.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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

Jaime loses his sword hand and a large part of his identity. It has a profound change on him.  Being exiled and sent to the NW does not change Slynt one bit.  The author set nothing up in Slynt's story to hint at redemption.  I don't buy your new improved and reliable Janos Slynt, there is nothing to show you aren't selling the same goods with a bogus warranty.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Perhaps my imagination is failing, because I truly cannot see any true threat, here. Not only would it be incredibly difficult to plot, he'd now know that this kind of insubordination won't be tolerated. When he knows his life is on the line, is he really going to risk it? If it was easy, maybe, but I don't see how he could. 

Yes, the Wall is a road, but it's quite a long one. You don't just duck in to the neighbouring castle for a bit, it's a big deal to travel that distance. And if he, or men under his thumb are caught doing so, the consequences would be severe.

He only ever plotted when he thought he was invincible. Once he knows that's not true, it stands to reason he'll stop.

I suppose I do think that. Or, at least, I think Jon is smart enough to do so. I honestly cannot see any way that he could continue to conspire that is not incredibly risky.

He'll have weeks and then months, why do you think you have considered every angle?  It seems you are just massaging your ego here. 

Oh, it stands to reason, does it?  Pure conjecture.  Your blind and dogged faith in the taming of Janos Slynt is misplaced I fear.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

You mean the author had a character in mind and wrote him a particular way for a particular purpose.  For some reason you keep fighting against this and wanting to turn this character into someone he never was.  I honestly don't know why.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Well such is freedom of thought and it is your prerogative to read Janos Slynt's character as a man who would have his damascne conversion and be an example of the successful reforming capabilities of the NW or would have but for the vengeance of Jon Snow.  I think a more reasonable interpretation is that he was created as an antagonist first and indirectly for Ned and then Tyrion, and then secondly to Jon, that he was created with no redeeming characteristics and that the reader should have no reason to doubt or be troubled by Jon's conclusion.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

We are not talking about impudence though we are talking about oathbreaking and treason.  Keep the carrot and the stick too, it's too late for either approach.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Some transgressions are too great to be tolerated.  This may conflict with your personal view but in universe it's not a contentious premise.  I don't know why you bothered to bring up Longclaw at all to be honest, it was a reward for saving a man's life and Slynt has done no such thing.  Greyguard should be seen as a carrot and Jon emphasizes to Slynt the importance of the command but Slynt is simply not interested in working with Jon.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

I'll repeat: if one of them had defied him and denied his authority in the manner Slynt did to Jon he would have had no choice (and no other thought) but to execute them.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Nah, this is too much of a muddle.  At least you recognize there is no adequate punishment other than firing but you say you would work with them again and forgive them as long as they were punished (by firing).  If they were fired your organisation would not hire them again whatever your view on it so you would have to leave your job to be able to work with them again. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Well that would get you sacked in the 21st century office too (where do you work? No, don't tell me), you can't assault people.  In any case in Westeros Slynt does warrant an execution and consistently refusing to acknowledge this doesn't change the Westerosi system, it just makes you either reject it (and what does that achieve?) or misunderstand it.

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Thing is you are intruding your personal opinions into the system rather than observing and accepting how the system works.  Individual acts of desertion and even murder, serious though they may be, are nowhere near as serious as a challenge to undermine the Commander.  It's why treason is more serious than murder for a monarch or a commander.  One footsoldier's desertion or murder of another is a breach of discipline that will be punished but a public refusal to fight or denying the Commander's authority disables the whole army.  It seems this is one of the many unbridgeable gulfs between us.

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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

Or perhaps he should have committed some lesser offense that carried a lesser sanction.

Thanks for that wall of text, man 

 

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

 

[Lord Varys]

Both the Slynt faction and the 'Jon faction' schemed, yet there is no reason to believe that scheming, manipulating, blackmailing, etc. isn't the (proper) way to be chosen LC. 

Aside from concrete election fraud men talking to each other should be 'illegal'.