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

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

If you were Mormont is not the criteria for martin's saga.

Sure. Which is why I listed Mormont's treatment of Waymar to establish that there is a pattern there. Or in how he sucks up to Tyrion. The idea that a LC of the NW is keen to antagonize a Lord of Winterfell simply makes no sense whatsoever. The North is not obliged to send food to the Watch in winter. Or send them men.

[Clegane'sPup]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure. Which is why I listed Mormont's treatment of Waymar to establish that there is a pattern there. Or in how he sucks up to Tyrion. The idea that a LC of the NW is keen to antagonize a Lord of Winterfell simply makes no sense whatsoever. The North is not obliged to send food to the Watch in winter. Or send them men.

Mormont wound not antagonize the Lord of WF. I agree. Yes, Mormont sucks up to Tyrion. The Warden of the North is not beholding to send anything to the Wall.

[Morgana Lannister]

Okay, I haven't read the entire thread and I may comment more when I have done so.

For now though, okay, the issue seems to be be:  is it "allowed" or "should be" to let your personal emotions get entangled in the justice procurement process?

Theoretically no, although in this particular example Slynt committed insubordination that had to be punished for practical reasons, even if Sam had done that, Jon would have had no choice if he hope to retain any authority and respect as Lord Commander, but that aside.

Okay, in our society and surely, theoretically at least in theirs, there had to be an unbiais view.  Today, say, we are not less human or less likely to want to dish out revenge or whatever but there are measures inbuilt in our democratic legal systems that attempt to curtail them.  Say, I am a judge, or a jury member... if the person in the dock or one of the witnesses has a connection with me, I cannot sit in that trial...  Yes, for that reason... because we are all humans and if I see someone who has wrong me or my friends in the past as may be, my judgement may be less than sound.

I do not believe it is necessarily always morally wrong to want to see your foe go down but yes for the preservation of a society one cannot just take justice into their own hands (or if one does, it must not become precedent lol).

At the end of the day, any realistic world, real or imaginary will have scenarios where we do enjoy some people getting their comeuppance but of course if everyone were at it freely we would descend into the law of the jungle.  Am I saying that if you do it cleverly good for you?  To a point yes!

I mean execution is an extreme situation unlikely to come up in our lives, but let's go for a more minor example, say:

You work hard at your job, you are good at it. Someone comes in that thinks is as good but is not and envys you, sees you as a threat, tricks you, gets in thick with the boss and you are the next redundancy.  Okay, off you go.  You may struggle paying your mortgage and your kids' college fees for another six months till you land next great job.  Then person who did that applies for a job at the new company you are in, would you give a good reference???  would you hire that person???

Theoretically you should be honest and objective but who would???  Hence we will not allow judges or jurors to sit in a hearing where there are connections with the parties involved... because objectivety is a great aim but not something that comes easily to most humans.

[Ygrain]

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

 Notice how the arguments favoring the OP’s position have changed through the course of this thread from Jon intentionally set up Slynt to be killed to questioning the severity of his punishment. 

Indeed.

Yet we haven't seen a single quote supporting that Jon went too far by executing Slynt. How readers feel, or what they think should be done, is irrelevant. No-one in-world questions Jon's decision then or afterwards.

[The Commentator]

12 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Okay, I haven't read the entire thread and I may comment more when I have done so.

For now though, okay, the issue seems to be be:  is it "allowed" or "should be" to let your personal emotions get entangled in the justice procurement process?

Theoretically no, although in this particular example Slynt committed insubordination that had to be punished for practical reasons, even if Sam had done that, Jon would have had no choice if he hope to retain any authority and respect as Lord Commander, but that aside.

Okay, in our society and surely, theoretically at least in theirs, there had to be an unbiais view.  Today, say, we are not less human or less likely to want to dish out revenge or whatever but there are measures inbuilt in our democratic legal systems that attempt to curtail them.  Say, I am a judge, or a jury member... if the person in the dock or one of the witnesses has a connection with me, I cannot sit in that trial...  Yes, for that reason... because we are all humans and if I see someone who has wrong me or my friends in the past as may be, my judgement may be less than sound.

I do not believe it is necessarily always morally wrong to want to see your foe go down but yes for the preservation of a society one cannot just take justice into their own hands (or if one does, it must not become precedent lol).

At the end of the day, any realistic world, real or imaginary will have scenarios where we do enjoy some people getting their comeuppance but of course if everyone were at it freely we would descend into the law of the jungle.  Am I saying that if you do it cleverly good for you?  To a point yes!

I mean execution is an extreme situation unlikely to come up in our lives, but let's go for a more minor example, say:

You work hard at your job, you are good at it. Someone comes in that thinks is as good but is not and envys you, sees you as a threat, tricks you, gets in thick with the boss and you are the next redundancy.  Okay, off you go.  You may struggle paying your mortgage and your kids' college fees for another six months till you land next great job.  Then person who did that applies for a job at the new company you are in, would you give a good reference???  would you hire that person???

Theoretically you should be honest and objective but who would???  Hence we will not allow judges or jurors to sit in a hearing where there are connections with the parties involved... because objectivety is a great aim but not something that comes easily to most humans.

At the end of the day, Jon was still wrong to kill Janos Slynt.  Jon was unworthy of leading the watch.  Thank goodness the little crannogman put an ending to Jonboy's time as lord commander.  

[The Commentator]

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Indeed.

Yet we haven't seen a single quote supporting that Jon went too far by executing Slynt. How readers feel, or what they think should be done, is irrelevant. No-one in-world questions Jon's decision then or afterwards.

Jon had the only POV.   We most likely would have gotten that quote if we had been given a Bowen Marsh POV in additional to the bastard's pov.

[Bernie Mac]

14 hours ago, teej6 said:

Notice how the arguments favoring the OP’s position have changed through the course of this thread 

Have they really changed? quote the people who have changed their argument in this thread?

The majority of people who think Jon murdered Jon made their case pages ago, why would they need to repeat their posts, whoever gets the last word in does not win the argument. 

Frankly the thread has turned into the kind of shitshow many political conversations become on the internet, with posters sneering at others and their opinions and congratulating people who share their opinion without adding anything to the debate, or the pointless accusations of people only having opinions because they hate  Jon or the Starks - it is the same braindead discourse you will find on the internet when someone is not able to add an actual point so just blame the other person of 'hating america'. 

 

Frankly I don't imagine that most people care enough about Janos or even Jon to endlessly respond just to get some moral victory of having the last word.

14 hours ago, teej6 said:

There is no ambiguity in the text about Jon’s motives right before he lopped off Slynt’s head. We have Jon’s thoughts (as GRRM wrote it) on the matter. Jon does not think about vengence for Ned or how much he hates Slynt,

except there is ambiguity, this thread  clearly proves it. 

The chapter starts out with Jon fantasizing about killing him and making it clear that he does not think of him as a brother. In the split second he orders his execution the only reason he does not pick the more appropriate punishments is that he thinks of the potential problems Janos can cause

 

Janos was not executed for anything he had done in the last 24 hours, he was executed for his past and potential future and that is not justice. 

 

You can prefer Jon as a  character to Janos and still come to this conclusion, you can consider Janos as an awful person and still recognize that he was not given the same second chance that every other member of the nights watch is given when they take the black. 

Being in Jon's same position I'd do the same, but it was vengeance, not justice.

[Tucu]

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Have they really changed? quote the people who have changed their argument in this thread?

The majority of people who think Jon murdered Jon made their case pages ago, why would they need to repeat their posts, whoever gets the last word in does not win the argument. 

Frankly the thread has turned into the kind of shitshow many political conversations become on the internet, with posters sneering at others and their opinions and congratulating people who share their opinion without adding anything to the debate, or the pointless accusations of people only having opinions because they hate  Jon or the Starks - it is the same braindead discourse you will find on the internet when someone is not able to add an actual point so just blame the other person of 'hating america'. 

 

Frankly I don't imagine that most people care enough about Janos or even Jon to endlessly respond just to get some moral victory of having the last word.

except there is ambiguity, this thread  clearly proves it. 

The chapter starts out with Jon fantasizing about killing him and making it clear that he does not think of him as a brother. In the split second he orders his execution the only reason he does not pick the more appropriate punishments is that he thinks of the potential problems Janos can cause

 

Janos was not executed for anything he had done in the last 24 hours, he was executed for his past and potential future and that is not justice. 

 

You can prefer Jon as a  character to Janos and still come to this conclusion, you can consider Janos as an awful person and still recognize that he was not given the same second chance that every other member of the nights watch is given when they take the black. 

Being in Jon's same position I'd do the same, but it was vengeance, not justice.

He was executed for the boots. All part of Owen's plan. We just don't have a POV to show how he tricked Janos and Jon

[Unacosamedarisa]

35 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Janos was not executed for anything he had done in the last 24 hours, he was executed for his past and potential future and that is not justice. 

He was executed for refusing an order, twice, and gross insubordination. 

32 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Janos as an awful person and still recognize that he was not given the same second chance that every other member of the nights watch is given when they take the black.

He was given a second chance. Jon offered him a truce and a command on the Wall. He told Jon to shove it up his bastard arse. 

The execution was justified, though it might not have been justice. I don't know why anyone would look for justice in the medieval penal battalion in the first place. 

[Ygrain]

43 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon had the only POV.   We most likely would have gotten that quote if we had been given a Bowen Marsh POV in additional to the bastard's pov.

You're missing the point. Of course Marsh or Thorne would heartily disagree, but what about Jon's fans in-verse? Do you think they are all so much in love with Jon that they never ever question what he does? And why does Stannis, who is all about upholding justice, assess the situation with a nod? Don't you think that, given his character, he should be the first to tell Jon he's not in the right?

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Have they really changed? quote the people who have changed their argument in this thread?

The majority of people who think Jon murdered Jon made their case pages ago, why would they need to repeat their posts, whoever gets the last word in does not win the argument. 

Frankly the thread has turned into the kind of shitshow many political conversations become on the internet, with posters sneering at others and their opinions and congratulating people who share their opinion without adding anything to the debate, or the pointless accusations of people only having opinions because they hate  Jon or the Starks - it is the same braindead discourse you will find on the internet when someone is not able to add an actual point so just blame the other person of 'hating america'. 

 

Frankly I don't imagine that most people care enough about Janos or even Jon to endlessly respond just to get some moral victory of having the last word.

except there is ambiguity, this thread  clearly proves it. 

The chapter starts out with Jon fantasizing about killing him and making it clear that he does not think of him as a brother. In the split second he orders his execution the only reason he does not pick the more appropriate punishments is that he thinks of the potential problems Janos can cause

 

Janos was not executed for anything he had done in the last 24 hours, he was executed for his past and potential future and that is not justice. 

 

You can prefer Jon as a  character to Janos and still come to this conclusion, you can consider Janos as an awful person and still recognize that he was not given the same second chance that every other member of the nights watch is given when they take the black. 

Being in Jon's same position I'd do the same, but it was vengeance, not justice.

Yes, I was implying your rediculous posts/arguments: “GRRM is being more than clear that Jon overreacted, he has him fantasizing about killing Slynt on the morning of the day he sentences him to death” or “Jon was looking for a reason to kill the man who executed his father and he found it”. Both these arguments were refuted by several posters who provided textual evidence showing exactly the opposite. In fact, what the text shows is that though Jon thought about how easy it would be to chop Slynt’s head off(which btw was an entire day before the actual execution and not as you state the morning of the execution), he did not act upon this instinct and gave Slynt a chance to lead no less, which we know was genuine and no trick based on Jon’s own thoughts. 

As for the rest of your post, sufficient counterarguments with textual evidence has been provided and I think it is unnecessary to rehash them again. 

[teej6]

19 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

You're missing the point. Of course Marsh or Thorne would heartily disagree, but what about Jon's fans in-verse? Do you think they are all so much in love with Jon that they never ever question what he does? And why does Stannis, who is all about upholding justice, assess the situation with a nod? Don't you think that, given his character, he should be the first to tell Jon he's not in the right?

And we know Bowen Marsh supported Slynt. It’s evident from the scene in a ASOS in the bath where Jon overheard Marsh and Thorne trying to convince Yarwick to vote for Slynt to be LC. So his thoughts on the execution would not be objective. 

[aryagonnakill#2]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon had the only POV.   We most likely would have gotten that quote if we had been given a Bowen Marsh POV in additional to the bastard's pov.

Nope, not about Jon hate at all.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon had the only POV.   We most likely would have gotten that quote if we had been given a Bowen Marsh POV in additional to the bastard's pov.

And why do you suppose that Martin did not include a different POV - like Bowen Marsh's - to provide that quote? Martin easily could have; he's the Supreme Being of the (fictional) world, after all.

Could it be that Jon's reasoning and thinking behind his action is actually all the information that readers need to have?

[Chris Mormont]

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a very weird way to reinterpret 'desertion'. If we were to follow your reasoning here it would effectively mean that every black brother sneaking off to Mole's Town should be executed because they sure as hell don't ask their superiors for permission to go there, no?

Sneaking off to Moles Town would be desertion if that man was supposed to walking the wall at the time, because his post is unmanned.  So I think it is safe to assume that the LC looks the other way if the man is off duty and decides to go there instead of to bed.  Which is why Mormont gave Jon a pass when he went for his ride, he was back in time to his duty the next morning.

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They are expected to obey him, but it is just 'tradition' that the obey him the way they do, just as it is 'tradition' that they elect him,

In this world, Lords are obeyed, and in every world, commanders should be obeyed.  If Jon had not done that, what do you think Thorne would have done when Jon ordered him to go out ranging later on in the book.  Thorne knew he didn't have a choice, so he went.  If the choice is certain death vs a few nights in an ice cell, what would a person choose?

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One should also note that Slynt was simply stupid when he was sentenced to death. He didn't grasp the danger he was in, and when he did he quickly apologized.

Jon gave him overnight to reconsider.  And Slynt isn't that stupid, he was already victim of an unfair punishment, and he was in Kings Landing long enough to know, when a superior gives you an order, you follow. 

I will concede that Jon should have been punished more harshly for attacking Thorne, but it is the LC's decision and Jon didn't need to hear his sentence to be sorry.

Slynt was a cancer, regardless if he begged or not, he would always be.  Sometimes you need to cut out the cancer to save the body.

[Ygrain]

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?

[Aline de Gavrillac]

On 7/15/2018 at 8:05 AM, Bowen Marsh said:

That is really what happened.  Jon abused his authority to kill the man who was an enemy of the Stark family.  

Yes.  Jon's friends brought him back to the wall after sneaking out but he fought for the Starks in his own way and used the power of the office of the lord commander to murder a man who was a past enemy of the Starks.  The execution of Janos Slynt was a cold-blooded revenge, pure and simple.  It was not justice.  

That's not the only time his friends had to bring Jon down to earth.  Just like Janos Slynt, Jon did not initially accept his assignment to the stewards.  

He responds, "Do you take me for a servant?"

"Do you think I want to spend the rest of my life washing an old man's smallclothes?"

Jon's reaction to what he feels is unfair and an assignment he felt was beneath him is not too unlike that of Janos Slynt.  Both men felt entitled to something better.  He was resentfuly, initially.  But like Slynt, eventually agreed.  

Most people will react negatively to an assignment they feel is unfair.  You don't murder them for it.  You give them a chance to cool off and see reason, assuming the assignment is reasonable to start with.  

Jon was given a lot of leniency and he should have extended the same to Janos Slynt.  Jon was initially contemplating leaving the watch.  An option that is not available to Janos Slynt.  Jon should have been more understanding to how Janos Slynt felt.  

Jon suspected Alliser's influence in his assignment.  Janos suspected ulterior motives when Jon gave him his assignment.  Of all people, Jon should have understood and effectively reasoned with Janos instead of using his sword to take off his head.  Time in solitary confinement would have done the trick.  

People don't like Jon because he practices double-standards.  Put yourself in Marsh's place.  Jon executes Janos, a man who was liked by many at the wall.  Then the Pink Letter comes.  Jon makes a public announcement and admits he let Mance Rayder live and sent him to fetch Arya, which is basically an act of war against the lord paramount of the north.  I can sympathize where Bowen Marsh would feel he has to remove Jon from his office.  

[Aline de Gavrillac]

3 minutes 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?

Stannis is a poor choice to use as your example of fair and just.  He burned his own men, loyal men who followed his war campaign for eating the dead out of desperation.  A desperation he put them in.  He led them to war and he failed to provide them with food.  

[the trees have eyes]

23 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

That said, I don't think Slynt did anything worthy of death, at least after he swore his vows to the Watch.

In Westeros he did.  It's why no one, not even his supporters and friends speak up.  It's why not one single brother of the NW protests or attempts to dissuade Jon.  They all recognise Slynt refusing his Lord Commander's orders, denying Jon's right to give him orders and attempting to destroy Jon's basis of command in public merit execution.

I understand you don't agree but in Westeros and in the NW you don't have the luxury of behaving like this to someone you are sworn to obey and walking away.  The sheer malice and hostility underpinning Slynt's actions and his performance designed to demolish Jon's leadership cannot be underestimated.

23 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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 Greatjon is a loyal and valuable Stark bannerman who flares up one time over an issue of precedent and the incident is over in a matter of moments.  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.  He does not repeat his transgression and he is smart enough to fall in line immediately.  The bloodriders have a very specific duty to perform after a Khal's death and that is to escort the Khaleesi to Vaes Dothrak: Dany is the one who attempts to break precedent and protocol and ask things of them that are beyond her authority.  She is the one breaking the rules, not them.  They all refuse respectfully and entirely in line with custom / unwritten Dothraki law.  She has no basis whatsoever to demand this from them or demand their lives.  Not to mention after the dragons are hatched they offer their total support to her as if she were a Khal rather than a Khal's widow.

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

And why do you think only an idiot would execute someone for this kind of repeated and open defiance in contradiction of their oaths?  I reckon that in Westeros only an idiot would not.  Poor Vic, even when he gets it right people are on his case.

23 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Jon was not wasteful, he tried to use Slynt at Greyguard  And I see it from all of them because this is Westeros not 21st century Earth.  What you don't seem to realize is that after this Jon realizes he cannot use Slynt, an accurate conclusion that any other Lord or Commander would have reached as well.  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.

23 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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

Insubordination is failing to stand to attention or salute an officer, refusing to address them as "sir".  The idea that this is merely insubordination is fairly ludicrous as is trying to translate the sort of punishments we might mete out for insubordination in 21st century western armies into a feudal Westeros.  The Westerosi mindset is different and Slynt knew the system and has the mindset, he just thought his court connections made him immune.  Slynt is not punished for disobedience alone but for the shocking manner of it.

23 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Jon's reasoning isn't great, there.

< snip >

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.

Like I said before, his reasoning is solid whether you agree with it or not.  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.  It's all rather pointless:  GRRM paints Slynt as an irremediable antagonist to Jon who, when he commits his infamous acts of disobedience, oath-breaking and denial of Jon's authority, Jon correctly reasons for the reader's illumination that he will never change his ways.  It's a conclusion you may disagree with but it makes perfect sense to me.

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.....

23 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

You're not getting it.  Jon let the wildlings through the Wall, he is prepared to try and use the Weeper and he was prepared to try and use Slynt.  Instead Slynt refused in spectacularly incendiary style.  It's disingenuous to pretend Jon did not try and make use of him and that Slynt did not shoot that down himself. 

23 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

It doesn't refute that at all. When Slynt does something worthy of punishment, Jon jumps at the opportunity to kill him. 

Baloney.  When Slynt does something worthy of punishment Jon gives him till the morning to reconsider.  What Slynt then does is worthy of execution.  Jon weighs up alternative punishments before deciding that Slynt is irredeemable and opts for execution.

23 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

This is trite.  The Watch needs every man assumes the men of the Watch will follow orders and obey the Lord Commander they are sworn to obey.  Merely being in the Watch does not make a man useful if all he will do is intrigue against his Commander.  Because by his own actions Slynt is worse than useless, he is malicious and injures the cause of the Watch so they are better off without him.

No, there really doesn't have to be more to it than that.  No, there is no reason why another punishment is more appropriate than the one meted out, in fact they would be less appropriate given Slynt's actions and conduct in the context of Westeros and the NW.  This is precisely why I and others have argued what other Commanders would do when faced with this denial of their authority.  The fact that Jon loathes Slynt is ultimately irrelevant but it seems to skew your assessment of everything that happens; you even ignore Jon's own reasoning because you can't quite believe it.  Why, I don't know, but it's not a hard puzzle to unpick: he tells us why he executes him.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Yes, and it turns out that Lord Janos wasn't the best the Watch had to offer, so he didn't need to choke him down. He would have dealt with Slynt, just as Jon would have given him Greyguard. That doesn't mean that they both didn't prefer that he die.

It seems to me that Stannis is often motivated by his pettiness. Basically every time he dealt with Robert after he was King, for instance. His "right" to Storm's End. This is hardly the topic for that conversation, though. Regardless, it's not for Stannis to tell Jon how to deal with his men, just as it's not Jon's place to tell Stannis how to deal with his. 

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

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Pure semantics.  The Greatjon's initial stated intention to commit a crime was to tell Robb he would take his host home rather than have to take a secondary position in the order of march.  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.

So yes the two points are refuted.  I know some people seem to like a good debate about whether water is wet but come on.

Jon gave Slynt until the next morning to reconsider.  That was a different tactic than the one used by Jon but Robb was facing a challenge in public and Jon was in private so didn't need to act as strongly as Robb.  The fault is with Slynt not getting it (the Greatjon did) and thinking he was above Jon's authority.  In any case Robb did not "cajole" the Greatjon, he threatened him, and there is a big difference.  Here's the definition of cajole btw so yes I do find the idea of Tywin or Stannis cajoling their men into obeying orders amusing.

cajole

kəˈdʒəʊl/

verb

 

1. persuade (someone) to do something by sustained coaxing or flattery.

 

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

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.  No one protests the decision.  Entirely unnecessary?  I think your strange ability to see the loyal and useful brother lurking in poor Janos Slynt's misunderstood breast to be puzzling.  The author paints him the way he does so you know he won't ever be this man.  It's totally unrealistic on your part.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

Any man will change his tune when the sentence of death has been passed and he is literally on the chopping block.  If you think this lasts beyond the moments of mortal danger and the lingering shock I think you are plain wrong.  His hostility would not abate, nor his attempts to undermine Jon, he would simply have become more guarded about displaying it.  Again (yawn) this is all in Jon's thoughts before he passes sentence.

The Greatjon was loyal before his outburst and loyal after.  Slynt was disloyal before and would be disloyal after.  Those assumptions have a huge bearing on what happens to them.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

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.  "An adjustment period is to be expected"?  LMAO.  I think you mean he had designs on becoming Lord Commander and wants Jon out of the way so he can achieve that.

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.

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.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

True. Jon was looking for an excuse to kill him, and he found one, but he wasn't trying to trick Slynt into that position. He could've just accepted Greyguard, I don't dispute that. His crime necessitated punishment, just not execution.

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

No, Jon was trying to use him just as he was trying to use the Wildlings, even the Weeper.  The one area I think you might have inadvertently hit on as a point is that Slynt may have believed Greyguard was a trap.  Because if he had been in Jon's position he would undoubtedly have moved Jon to a remote location with some of his henchmen around him and shortly afterwards had him offed in a tragic shaving accident with a sharp axe.  Janos may be guilty of thinking that Jon would act like he himself would and so be hellbent on remaining at Castle Black.  See Thorne's protestations at being sent ranging as he feared just such a similar fate at the hands of the wildlings that he had planned for Jon.  Unfortunately for Slynt he mishandled the situation, and your fantastically lenient interpretation of the Westerosi oaths and obedience system notwithstanding, he committed capital offences. 

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.....

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

You may have but his reasoning is solid: that if reprieved Slynt will find a way to cause trouble again.  It's not incumbent on him to run through every eventuality in his head (or the author to run through every possible scenario in detail), just to give us several examples as an insight into his conviction that Slynt will scheme again as soon as he finds a way.  

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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. 

Jon attempted to use him at Greygaurd, a position of command, not of humiliation.  Slynt is bound to obey.  He doesn't, he mutinies, he publicly declares he won't follow Jon's orders and that Jon dare not touch him.  He breaches his vows and refuses to act as a brother of the NW.  Jon tried to use him, he refused to be used.  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"), particularly if he causes or will cause more harm than any conceivable good and that is precisely Jon's conclusion.  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.  It feels like you've mangled the character the author gave us out of all recognition.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

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.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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

Pfft.  Anyone can beg for their life when they are on the Gallows or the chopping block.  Words said to save your life are meaningless when you've had a chance to reconsider and there is no noose around your neck.  Promises or obedience secured at sword point are fickle things.  The idea that Slynt did not breach his vows because he backtracked when begging for his life after the sentence had been passed is a fairly risible argument.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

I do say that.  They were not bound by oath to obey him, he was offering them whatever he could to spare his life.  This, unlike the chain of command and fulfillment of oaths, is an actual negotiation the whole point of which is to offer someone something they want, an incentive, to get something you want from them.  I cannot think why you would attempt to blur such a crystal clear distinction between two entirely different things, it's entirely misguided.  Come back to me with an example of Tywin cajoling his men to fight on the Greenfork....  

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

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.  Slynt doesn't have the option of refusing.  I think we all understand the premises of negotiation but this critique of Jon for not sufficiently incentivising a subordinate to obey entirely misunderstands the realities of the system and the situation.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

No.  Robb threatened the Greatjon with the consequences of disobedience.  Mormont did not incentivise Jon into loyalty as Jon had already returned and was not offering any disobedience and Mormont did not offer him anything, he managed him because he understood that a previously highly thought of young man was not an irredeemable problem.  The Mountain's Men are intimidated into loyalty and, yes, they know a bit of rape and plunder are on the cards but are you seriously contending that without the latter two they would refuse to obey?

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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.

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.  Of course if any ruler or commander gives too many unpopular commands he runs the risk of either a revolt or a mutiny (Aerys faced the former because his orders broke the compact between King and Nobility, Mormont faced the latter because his plans to face Mance Raydar beyond the wall with only 300 men were seen by some of his men as pure suicide).  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 to comply belongs in 21st century behavioral psychology and workplace management not in the mix of quasi-feudal, military and penal obligations that make up the Night's Watch.  It doesn't even belong in the armed forces in our time let alone in the Westerosi culture of the middle ages on steroids.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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).

Precisely.  And Janos Slynt absolutely deserved to get "sacked" from the NW.  The rest of your point seems to be obfuscation as I drew a clear analogy between open disobedience, open contempt, public refusal to comply and breach of contract / breaking of oaths in two different scenarios and you had no trouble at all recognizing the punishment was appropriate in the hypothetical case, notwithstanding my boss and I putatively being at odds beforehand.  This was not about Slynt stealing some nails or foodstuffs from the stores.....

As to equivalence, it's an analogy, .  In any walk of life if you break the rules of an organisation too severely you are kicked out.  Given the NW is last chance saloon of course you can get "fired" from the Watch, you do it by "breaching your contract" and getting executed.  Otherwise, deserters would be treated like escaped prisoners and sent back.  They're not, they are executed.  Sure, it's more difficult to replace someone on the Wall but that doesn't mean the ultimate sanction is not on the table.

[kissdbyfire]

18 minutes 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?

I can answer that, it's too easy! 

Stannis likes Jon + this is a Jon hate thread = Stannis is [almost] as bad and as wrong and as unfair as Jon! :

ETA: and fuck a duck w/ a barge pole if a couple of posts down you got exactly that reply! 

Not complaining, but the rabid haters make it so bloody easy!

ETA 2: @the trees have eyes, can I have your autograph? Another spot on great post. 

And by the by, where in seven hells is @Julia H.? I think she'd have a thing or two to say here...:)