The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2

[Clegane'sPup]

3 hours ago, Targaryen Restoration said:

George is far from a complete pacifist.  He's a realist. 

Cool. Same could be said about Samwell.

[kissdbyfire]

9 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Cool. Same could be said about Samwell.

Indeed. And Martin did say Sam is the character who's more like him on more than [this] one occasion:

"I would probably be Samwell Tarly."

[The Fattest Leech]

17 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Indeed. And Martin did say Sam is the character who's more like him on more than [this] one occasion:

"I would probably be Samwell Tarly."

Oh yeah. I keep reading all of these posts that claim Samwell is useless, or should be used as a ships ballast, his skills aren’t really skills, etc and I just laugh at how many are going to hate the future of the series if they can’t even see this simple fact that George is Samwell Tarly. 

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Oh yeah. I keep reading all of these posts that claim Samwell is useless, or should be used as a ships balast, his skills aren’t really skills, etc and I just laugh at how many are going to hate the future of the series if they can’t even see this simple fact. 

Right? Possibly the main reason I can't wait to get Winds... 

Really curious to see what people will say. That is, if they ever come back.

[Clegane'sPup]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Right? Possibly the main reason I can't wait to get Winds... 

Really curious to see what people will say. That is, if they ever come back.

My penny's worth, when WoW is published there will be a shit storm. I frequently criticize martin ---- the story is his to do what he wants and I wanna know what happens to his characters.

I'm gonna watch the other ending when it comes out DVD BUT I still wanna know martin's ending.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

My penny's worth, when WoW is published there will be a shit storm. I frequently criticize martin ---- the story is his to do what he wants and I wanna know what happens to his characters.

I'm gonna watch the other ending when it comes out DVD BUT I still wanna know martin's ending.

Shitstorm is an apt way of putting it. I might watch the abomination's ending for two reasons: laughs and to make sure it will be over, forever. 

[Clegane'sPup]

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

You are being as exasperatingly obtuse as usual. 

I like to read @Lord Varys  and @Lost Melniboneanget into rambunctious conversations.

 

[the trees have eyes]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, they are wrong.

In your world everyone else always is.  I'll say it again: Mormont led nearly 300 men to their deaths in the Haunted Forest.  Sam failed to send back some incomplete and confusing messages.  Who caused more damage to the NW?  Whose failure was greater?  Why are you not concerned about the mutineers being admitted to the NW but you are about Fat Sam.  You have some skewed priorities here.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon's intervention here leads directly to Sam fucking things up at the Fist and it also leads to Chett's cabal and the mutiny at Craster's.

Chett and his co-conspirators number around 20.  If Sam had not replaced Chett the plan for the mutiny would have fallen to one of the others.  What precipitates their plan is Mormont leading them on what they consider a suicidal mission.  Blaming this on Sam and Jon is a typically absurd claim that shows no regard for the truth.  The mutineers are responsible for their own actions, a basic legal concept that common sense should allow anyone to grasp.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that Sam may have some use is actually pretty much irrelevant. The issue is that the chain of command isn't upheld and that a man undeserving of favorable treatment - Sam Tarly - gets away with 'I don't want to fight, I can't fight, I'm coward, please don't make me do what any other man has bring himself to do.'

No, it's entirely the point.  A point that Mormont and Aemon and Jon see but that you don't, or claim not to at any rate.  The chain of command works just fine once Mormont and Aemon realise that they need to step in and (we assume) diplomatically overrule Thorne.  Only some numpty would insist on a junior or middle manager continuing to grind an individual into the ground when there is a better solution presented because of some dogmatic view that a subordinate can't be overruled for getting it wrong.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And that's just counterproductive in a military environment.

No shit.  So was Ollo Lophand murdering Jeor Mormont.  But the NW makes use of everyone, however shitty their background or apparently unsuitable their skills.  Thorne has no interest in using Sam, Aemon and Mormont do.  I don't really care that you can't accept this, it's simply a fact.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is Thorne's call, not Jon Snow's. If Mormont doesn't see Sam's great qualities by himself then Jon should have accepted that.

You are being deliberately obtuse again.  Your dogma is that a superior cannot intervene when a subordinate's mistake is revealed to him because you say so (chain of command, apparently).  Fortunately in real life as well as fiction superiors do intervene diplomatically (or not) when it's called for.  It's only Thorne's call as long as Mormont has confidence in him.  We know Randyl Tarly failed, we know Thorne will fail so what to do?  Mormont and Aemon see the solution immediately it is brought to their attention.  Stop being so short-sighted.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sam is far too clumsy and weak to be a builder and ends up being a steward in a favorable position for no other reason than having ties to the guys in charge.

He can read and write which actually gives him skills to be a steward most other brothers lack.  He has no ties to the guys in charge and ends up being a steward because a case was put to them that they agreed with.  It's that simple.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is the point. Jon had no right to do that - or would not have any such right in a proper military environment.

In a proper military environment he would not have had to because Thorne would have done it or would have been adequately supervised to prevent his mismanagement of his position.  The fact that Aemon is receptive (and impressed with Jon's proposal) and Mormont consents should suggest that you are on the wrong track with claims of insubordination

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mormont wasn't exactly the greatest Lord Commander of Westerosi history, yes.

Ah, yes, you would have done it all differently.  Of course.  If only Westeros had your wisdom at it's disposal 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Newsflash: In the cases of the criminals the Watch has no other choice but to take them. They cannot send them away. Sam they could have sent away.

And yet they didn't.  Because a volunteer is more reliable than a convicted criminal.  Because they saw a use for the man.  It's there in black and white in the text.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not surprised. I know how Jon subverted the chain of command to get Sam in - but that doesn't mean that's how things should be done, no?

No, it's not how things should be done.  But if you think Jon is the problem not Thorne then you are missing the entire point of what happens.  Jon displays the initiative and critical thinking that Thorne is too jaded and uncaring to bother with and both Aemon and Mormont recognize that immediately.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Newsflash again: The black brothers serve for life. It is inevitable that its members grow old. They deal with that.

Newsflash: Exactly.  So Sam being fat and not very martial is hardly the end of the world if they can make use of him helping Aemon.  They "deal with that" rather than denying themselves a recruit however flabby.  It's not like they aren't desperately short of men and can pick and choose  whoever they like you know?

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not my fault that there is some sort of entrance exam and nobody throws old men out of the Watch. Complain to George about that.

I have no complaints about the rules GRRM created in his fictional world and don't try and make them up to fit my argument.  You have been complaining loudly and constantly about Mormont and Aemon passing Sam against your wishes.  Big deal.  My point is the NW make use of whoever they can, however they can.  It's that simple.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I know that, but this isn't the issue. The issue is that Ser Piggy had to be carried by Small Paul (which the man did, showing that he was indeed in no way a plotter or even a bad person, because no one in his right mind would have bothered bearing Sam in that situation) and that this slowed Small Paul down to degree that they both fell further and further behind the men, leading to their encounter with the Other. If Paul hadn't been slowed down they might never have met the creature - or if they had Paul might have been strong/powerful enough to do something about it. We don't know yet whether can also kill them simply with brute strength.

The point is Small Paul is mentally incapable and was manipulated into the conspiracy without really understanding what it meant: he just wanted Mormont's raven.  The irony is in you accepting without question that this man can be a productive member of the NW - or at least that they can find a use for him - but that they should have kicked Sam out as incapable.  Someone who can use their brain effectively has a different skill set - something Mormont comments on after Sam pointed out that the corpses of Jaffar Flowers and Othor were wrong (the dried blood).

The idea that Small Paul would have faced down and killed the Other but for his noble sacrifice for deadweight Sam is frankly amusing.  We see how easily the Other defeats him and how poor his attempt at swordsmanship was.  But by all means push any ridiculous argument for kicks.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Frankly, you don't seem to understand what I'm writing here. I'm not really of the opinion that Sam should be gone - I just point out that he technically had no place at the Wall and should have never gotten in.

In fact, the whole 'Jon helps his best friend there' scenario is basically a non-issue. Sam hasn't said the words yet. He can go, just as Jon could go until he said the words. That Sam doesn't have the courage to go is his problem - not ours. The man could have been saved from 'evil Ser Alliser' and the other recruits simply by telling them 'Screw you, rapists, I'm out of here. Have fun freezing to death at the end of the world. I go see the world.'

By your rules.  By the specific wish of the Lord Commander and his Maester Sam is admitted to the NW and they have a specific purpose in mind for him.  I'm sorry you keep refusing to accept this but GRRM wanted him there and there he went.  How many recruits should Thorne be allowed to cost the NW who are so desperate for men?  They make use of everyone who is prepared to say the words and Sam was.  Go complain to George abut it.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. Jon actually mocks Ser Alliser in the common hall.

LOL my ass.  Jon offers to help Grenn by teaching him how to prevent being disarmed (his internal monologue notes Thorne has not even bothered to teach the recruits how to hold a sword properly which smacks of negligence).  Thorne, instead of being pleased that the recruits are developing camaraderie and that those with more skills are offering to help others out, things he should be pleased to see and actively encouraging, mocks Grenn in public by saying he would wager Ghost would learn to juggle before the Aurochs would learn how to do that.  Jon takes the wager.  Thorne is pissed because Jon is indirectly (but accurately) pointing out how bad a job he is doing of training the recruits but there is no mockery of him, only by him.  He loses face but that is down to his own shitty behaviour being called out in public.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And he - and his fellow recruits - refuse to beat up Samwell Tarly the way Ser Alliser commanded them to do. In my book that constitutes mocking and refusing to follow an order.

My eyes.. What sort of order is that ffs?!  You are plain wrong.  They are being trained to fight.  The first time Sam fights he drops the sword and says I yield but Thorne has Rast(?) beat the crap out of him on the ground.  It's horrendous.  After that Jon persuades the other boys not to hit Sam after he has yielded.  There is nothing Thorne can do about that as it is not his remit to beat the crap out of recruits for fun but to train them and as long as they go through the initial command to duel or practice he has no grounds for any action.  I would love to hear him explain to Mormont why he wanted any of them punished and what orders they refused; "they just wouldn't beat the crap out of that kid lying on the ground no matter how many times I commanded it my Lord, it's clear mutiny".  Yeah, no, I can't see that going anywhere for Thorne.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You can compare it to make a point. Nobody is saying it is the same to disobey the Lord Commander and the master-at-arms - but one sees a pattern there in Jon Snow. On a smaller scale he did exactly the same thing he accuses Slynt in his mind of possibly doing in the future if he were continue to live - plot behind his back. Or would you deny that Jon plotted by Thorne's back in the entirety of the Sam affair? And wasn't Thorne Jon's superior officer, the man in charge of training the recruits?

You can to make a point, yes, of course but the point should not be gash.  The command of Greyguard is explicitly refused by Slynt and Jon's authority as Lord Commander and over Slynt is denied in it's entirety in public in a dramatic fashion.  Thorne's commands are not disobeyed and his authority is not challenged or denied: the boys can all claim they sparred with Sam until he yielded.  Thorne's real purpose is to enjoy Sam's suffering not to train him and is an abuse of his authority not the legitimate purpose of it, a point grasped by all the boys quickly enough .  If Jon had denied Thorne's right to train the boys and had publicly refused to follow his orders while openly mocking him then your comparison would have a point.   But even though the orders are an abuse of rather than the intended use of the authority delegated to him the boys don't cross the line the way Slynt does.  It's why context matters more than false equivalences.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Were do I deal in absolutes?

All the time.  Like desertion being taking one step south of the Wall.  Or oath-breaking being the moment you decided not to uphold your vows rather than committing any act breaking those vows.  Or equating sex with fathering children.  There's a middle ground and there's context to every situation.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I never said Jon should have been executed for the Sam thing. And certainly not for the aborted desertion thing (although I think one could have executed him for that if one wanted to do that). But he sure as hell should have been punished most severely for the attempt on Thorne.

Not for the Sam thing?  Well that's a relief.  Not for the aborted desertion attempt?  Are you really, really sure you didn't?  I seem to remember you being incredibly dogmatic on what constituted desertion and how it should be punished in the NW.  This sure seems like a change of heart to me!

For attacking Thorne he should and would have been punished.  GRRM seems to share that view which is why he had Jon save Mormont's life to prevent any writing dead ends with Jon's arc or glaring inconsistency in enforcing discipline.  Somewhat amusingly this thread is all about the latter anyway.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The false equivalence is creating a scenario where Jon nearly has a moral obligation to execute Slynt because this is 'a military setting' and then refusing to even consider what it means for a lot of Jon Snow's actions if this actually were 'a military setting' comparable to modern military institutions.

Well this is exactly what I mean.  The context around each situation is markedly different and that is what informs characters' actions and the outcomes.  It's not useful to say "military setting = one solution" so Slynt's denial of his Lord Commander's authority must be viewed or treated the same as Jon using his initiative to protect Sam or suggest a course of action to Aemon.  There is only a superficial similarity on the surface about "orders" and "chain of command" but once you look at the detail and the context it's vastly different.  Slynt went orders of magnitude further.

 

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

In your world everyone else always is.  I'll say it again: Mormont led nearly 300 men to their deaths in the Haunted Forest.  Sam failed to send back some incomplete and confusing messages.  Who caused more damage to the NW?  Whose failure was greater?  Why are you not concerned about the mutineers being admitted to the NW but you are about Fat Sam.  You have some skewed priorities here.

Because I'm making a point here about Jon Snow and Samwell Tarly, not about criminal scum in the Watch.

You try to confuse things by pointing out that other people are shitty or more shittier, too, but that's irrelevant. We are not comparing Sam to some mutineers.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Chett and his co-conspirators number around 20.  If Sam had not replaced Chett the plan for the mutiny would have fallen to one of the others. 

LOL, no. It was Chett's plan, and you have no idea whether there would have been a different plan under a different situation. Chett has some very severe issues with Jon and Sam over the Sam thing.

You don't seem to understand that 'leading to something' doesn't mean direct causation. It was still up to Chett to do what he did, but Jon/Sam contributed to that.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

No, it's entirely the point.  A point that Mormont and Aemon and Jon see but that you don't, or claim not to at any rate.  The chain of command works just fine once Mormont and Aemon realise that they need to step in and (we assume) diplomatically overrule Thorne.  Only some numpty would insist on a junior or middle manager continuing to grind an individual into the ground when there is a better solution presented because of some dogmatic view that a subordinate can't be overruled for getting it wrong.

LOL, but at that point the chain of command has already been subverted and twisted.

Do you know when I would not point that out? If Mormont and Aemon did have the eyes to see what's going on before some recruit pointed it out to them. Nothing was happening behind closed doors.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

No shit.  So was Ollo Lophand murdering Jeor Mormont.  But the NW makes use of everyone, however shitty their background or apparently unsuitable their skills.  Thorne has no interest in using Sam, Aemon and Mormont do.  I don't really care that you can't accept this, it's simply a fact.

In the end it is not Thorne's call. It is the Lord Commander's call - but do you know who's call it was not? Jon Snow's. And that's evident in the story.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

You are being deliberately obtuse again.  Your dogma is that a superior cannot intervene when a subordinate's mistake is revealed to him because you say so (chain of command, apparently). 

LOL, no. You don't seem to understand what a chain of command actually is. I means if you are in the position Sam Tarly is you do complain to your superior officer if something is amiss (or you feel it is amiss), you don't run to the guy at the top and complain to him. The guy at the top should also act through his underlings but he doesn't necessarily have to do this.

It is not Mormont who doesn't care about the chain of command. It is Jon Snow when he goes to Aemon about this.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

He can read and write which actually gives him skills to be a steward most other brothers lack.  He has no ties to the guys in charge and ends up being a steward because a case was put to them that they agreed with.  It's that simple.

And it was the wrong call, as Sam Tarly himself proves later on.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

In a proper military environment he would not have had to because Thorne would have done it or would have been adequately supervised to prevent his mismanagement of his position.  The fact that Aemon is receptive (and impressed with Jon's proposal) and Mormont consents should suggest that you are on the wrong track with claims of insubordination

There are assholes in a proper military environment, too. Proper military environment means a place where modern military standards are actually upheld - which isn't the case at the Watch.

Which was my overall point that drawing this parallel between the Watch and modern military situations is, for the most part, uncalled for.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Ah, yes, you would have done it all differently.  Of course.  If only Westeros had your wisdom at it's disposal 

Well, it doesn't take my person to have a better LC at the Watch, that's for sure. I assume even you would do a better job than Mormont did.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

And yet they didn't.  Because a volunteer is more reliable than a convicted criminal.  Because they saw a use for the man.  It's there in black and white in the text.

And again - they were wrong. And Sam Tarly didn't 'volunteer' as such. He went there because he had to choose between the Wall and death. And he is a clumsy coward.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

No, it's not how things should be done.  But if you think Jon is the problem not Thorne then you are missing the entire point of what happens.  Jon displays the initiative and critical thinking that Thorne is too jaded and uncaring to bother with and both Aemon and Mormont recognize that immediately.

Mormont doesn't really recognize anything as far as we know. He just does as Aemon tells him. And it should be very hard to turn Aemon Targaryen away if you know he is Aemon Targaryen, no? We never hear what Mormont himself thinks of Sam Tarly before he inspects the wights.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Newsflash: Exactly.  So Sam being fat and not very martial is hardly the end of the world if they can make use of him helping Aemon.  They "deal with that" rather than denying themselves a recruit however flabby.  It's not like they aren't desperately short of men and can pick and choose  whoever they like you know?

But why don't they make the types of excuses for everyone? I mean, why do Green and Dareon and Pyp and all the others have to train at arms in the yard? Perhaps they would like to do *other stuff* as well? Or perhaps they, too, feel not up to the challenges? Why gets the clumsy fat guy the special treatment while the men who are actually up for the job don't get special treatment.

And why on earth is nobody teaching them how to read?

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I have no complaints about the rules GRRM created in his fictional world and don't try and make them up to fit my argument.  You have been complaining loudly and constantly about Mormont and Aemon passing Sam against your wishes.  Big deal.  My point is the NW make use of whoever they can, however they can.  It's that simple.

LOL, my wishes are irrelevant. I, personally, don't wish for anything there. I just point out that Sam got special treatment and I point out that this was not the proper procedure. And in a proper military environment that would never happen. Next you are going to suggest everyone should join the SEALS, even people who don't want to use rifles or kill people in combat.

And at times it is better to have no one do something than have a person try to do it who is not up to the task. Nobody cannot make things worse than they are. But a person like Sam can. In any battle he is a loose cannon of incompetence.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

The point is Small Paul is mentally incapable and was manipulated into the conspiracy without really understanding what it meant: he just wanted Mormont's raven.  The irony is in you accepting without question that this man can be a productive member of the NW - or at least that they can find a use for him - but that they should have kicked Sam out as incapable.  Someone who can use their brain effectively has a different skill set - something Mormont comments on after Sam pointed out that the corpses of Jaffar Flowers and Othor were wrong (the dried blood).

I didn't say they should have kicked Sam out - I said they could have done so spare him Thorne's treatment - just as Sam could have left all by himself, an option you seem to ignore because it doesn't seem to fit your narrative of Sam being in real dilemma there. He wasn't.

By and far, though, people with great minds but with the mental and physical weaknesses of Sam Tarly really have no place at the Watch. Perhaps as a maester (although one wonders how great a physician he'll become) but outside of that sphere the men of the Watch are expected to fight - and Sam was supposed to fulfill duties in combat during the great ranging. He failed.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

The idea that Small Paul would have faced down and killed the Other but for his noble sacrifice for deadweight Sam is frankly amusing.  We see how easily the Other defeats him and how poor his attempt at swordsmanship was.  But by all means push any ridiculous argument for kicks.

I actually like that image. But then - perhaps Paul would have had the strength left to run away. Sam cost him his life, no matter how you spin that. 

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

By your rules.  By the specific wish of the Lord Commander and his Maester Sam is admitted to the NW and they have a specific purpose in mind for him.  I'm sorry you keep refusing to accept this but GRRM wanted him there and there he went.  How many recruits should Thorne be allowed to cost the NW who are so desperate for men?  They make use of everyone who is prepared to say the words and Sam was.  Go complain to George abut it.

I know what George wanted to do and did, but that's not the point. The point is that Sam didn't have to take the black, that he was free to leave Thorne and Rast and all the other scum at the Wall. Nobody was forcing him to continue his training. In fact, nobody could have done that. Those are George's rules, not mine.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

LOL my ass.  Jon offers to help Grenn by teaching him how to prevent being disarmed (his internal monologue notes Thorne has not even bothered to teach the recruits how to hold a sword properly which smacks of negligence).  Thorne, instead of being pleased that the recruits are developing camaraderie and that those with more skills are offering to help others out, things he should be pleased to see and actively encouraging, mocks Grenn in public by saying he would wager Ghost would learn to juggle before the Aurochs would learn how to do that.  Jon takes the wager.  Thorne is pissed because Jon is indirectly (but accurately) pointing out how bad a job he is doing of training the recruits but there is no mockery of him, only by him.  He loses face but that is down to his own shitty behaviour being called out in public.

Which is something you do not do to a superior officer in public in a military setting.

And this is not some fairy-tale wonderland for poor boys. The master-at-arms trains the recruits the way he wants, not the way you want (or the way that's objectively best).

Thorne is a lousy instructor but he is the instructor as per the wishes of the LC. And thus he is in charge.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

My eyes.. What sort of order is that ffs?!  You are plain wrong.  They are being trained to fight.  The first time Sam fights he drops the sword and says I yield but Thorne has Rast(?) beat the crap out of him on the ground.  It's horrendous. 

I don't care what it is. All I care is that this was what their master-at-arms expected them to do. How is it not going against orders when they don't do as they are told?

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

After that Jon persuades the other boys not to hit Sam after he has yielded.  There is nothing Thorne can do about that as it is not his remit to beat the crap out of recruits for fun but to train them and as long as they go through the initial command to duel or practice he has no grounds for any action.  I would love to hear him explain to Mormont why he wanted any of them punished and what orders they refused; "they just wouldn't beat the crap out of that kid lying on the ground no matter how many times I commanded it my Lord, it's clear mutiny".  Yeah, no, I can't see that going anywhere for Thorne.

There might be some truth to that but remember - this is not some boy wonderland. Beating the crap out of somebody can and is a way of training and discipline in a world as shitty as George's Westeros. This is a world where husbands do have the royally approved right to beat their women with sticks as thick as their thumbs - and could do other things before that 'progressive sentence' came along.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

You can to make a point, yes, of course but the point should not be gash.  The command of Greyguard is explicitly refused by Slynt and Jon's authority as Lord Commander and over Slynt is denied in it's entirety in public in a dramatic fashion.  Thorne's commands are not disobeyed and his authority is not challenged or denied: the boys can all claim they sparred with Sam until he yielded.  Thorne's real purpose is to enjoy Sam's suffering not to train him and is an abuse of his authority not the legitimate purpose of it, a point grasped by all the boys quickly enough .  If Jon had denied Thorne's right to train the boys and had publicly refused to follow his orders while openly mocking him then your comparison would have a point.   But even though the orders are an abuse of rather than the intended use of the authority delegated to him the boys don't cross the line the way Slynt does.  It's why context matters more than false equivalences.

You seem to forget/ignore Jon and company threatening Rast's life throughout this affair. The crossed a line there. Getting away with something doesn't mean it was right.

But as Olenna would say one assumes even Jon's farts smell like roses, no?

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

All the time.  Like desertion being taking one step south of the Wall.

Desertion is when you leave. Jon himself knows it. He doesn't need you to tell him what he did, he knows it himself.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Or oath-breaking being the moment you decided not to uphold your vows rather than committing any act breaking those vows. 

That depends on the context of the vow. But Jon knows that better than you do, too. That's why he sees himself as an oathbreaker and a deserter.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Or equating sex with fathering children.  There's a middle ground and there's context to every situation.

If you pump a vagina full of semen you cannot control whether there is a pregnancy or not. You do the same thing every time. Which is why sex is the point there, not the question whether there is a pregnancy or living child.

But you don't seem to understand that context only enters into the sentence later on. The crime/offense is usually clearly defined - which is why there can be mitigating circumstances due to context, intention, etc. But that doesn't change the nature of the crime/offense committed.

Jon is a deserter whose desertion was ignored. He tried/risked to kill a superior officer and got acquitted because he did something that had nothing to do with the crime (one hopes we all get the chance to save the judge and jury from some zombies so that we can get off the hook should we ever be accused of a serious crime). One can discuss whether leniency was in order in all those cases - but one cannot doubt what Jon actually did there.

People seem to have a hard time understanding such easy things. 

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Not for the Sam thing?  Well that's a relief.  Not for the aborted desertion attempt?  Are you really, really sure you didn't?  I seem to remember you being incredibly dogmatic on what constituted desertion and how it should be punished in the NW.

It is obvious what desertion is. But this doesn't mean Jon should be executed for what he did there. Just not rewarded the way he was. But I'd of course have no issue with it should Mormont have taken his head for the crime - which he would most likely have been forced to do had he acknowledged - correctly - that Jon did desert.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

For attacking Thorne he should and would have been punished.  GRRM seems to share that view which is why he had Jon save Mormont's life to prevent any writing dead ends with Jon's arc or glaring inconsistency in enforcing discipline.  Somewhat amusingly this thread is all about the latter anyway.

Not sure what kind of point you tried to make there. If George did not want some 'dead end' there he should have just cut the entire attempt on Thorne. Jon would have slept in the Lord Commander's tower anyway, so this whole thing did actually serve no narrative point aside from some cheap tension (and, perhaps, to underline that Jon has his grandfather's temper when he is really pissed).

Just dropping the entire thing because Jon saved Mormont's life is making a mockery out of justice. It is a weird, arbitrary, and shitty way to deal with a crime, worthy of the great judge and king Robert Baratheon who declared that the Stark/Lannister conflict was over because he said so and had no interest whatsoever in understanding why it had started in the first place. He didn't even care as to why Cat had taken Tyrion.

And this is the Watch, a place where discipline has to be maintained at all times because the people there are mostly criminals who do not understand any other language than violence. How do you think it looks when people like Jon and Sam always get rewarded for the things they do or cannot do and others have to work their asses off and get nothing.

There is a reason why Jon Snow quickly acquires enemies in the Watch. Some people are asses to various degrees, but Jon is also the kind of guy who knows how to behave and keep his mouth shut.

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Well this is exactly what I mean.  The context around each situation is markedly different and that is what informs characters' actions and the outcomes.  It's not useful to say "military setting = one solution" so Slynt's denial of his Lord Commander's authority must be viewed or treated the same as Jon using his initiative to protect Sam or suggest a course of action to Aemon.  There is only a superficial similarity on the surface about "orders" and "chain of command" but once you look at the detail and the context it's vastly different.  Slynt went orders of magnitude further.

Still not far enough to force Jon Snow to kill him. He had other options left. Especially since he himself was treated with so much leniency for his offenses.

Jon was a new LC, which means people were not yet accustomed to him leading -> opportunity for leniency.

Jon has a history with Slynt, giving him to opportunity to show that he wasn't nursing a grudge by being lenient.

Slynt has connections to the Iron Throne giving Jon the opportunity to publicly display that he has no issues with House Lannister by being lenient to Slynt.

Slynt is not particularly bright and new to the Watch, so he might not fully understand where to draw the line -> opportunity for leniency.

And so on.

I never said Jon didn't have the right to execute the man. I just say there were more than enough other ways to punish (or make use of him).

Quite frankly, giving him command of Greyguard was a shitty idea. It would give him the opportunity to build a power base of his own far away from CB and it would allow him to continue his plotting away from Jon. 

[Rufus Snow]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Were do I deal in absolutes? I never said Jon should have been executed for the Sam thing.

[Ygrain]

16 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I like to read @Lord Varys  and @Lost Melniboneanget into rambunctious conversations.

 

Had to look up the meaning of the word - one always learns something new on the forums!

21 hours ago, Minsc said:

So Thorne deserved to be attacked by a crazed Jon because Jon cannot controll himself?  The fact that Thorne wasn't even talking to Jon makes that excuse even more absurd. Why should Thorne be barred from saying anything unpleasant about Jon or Jon's father simply because Jon is in the room and Jon cannot control himself?

So, if I stand two metres from you and say to somebody else that Minsc is a moron, it's perfectly fine becase I'm not talking to you? Reeeeeally?

21 hours ago, Minsc said:

There is zero reason that Jeor should have had to send anytime to wait on Jon's punishment. Moreover, even if Jeor was going to be a pushover and not immediately punish Jon the immediate penalties should have been vastly harsher. Rather being just sent to his room and given special privileges of being accompanied by Ghost Jon should have been thrown in an Ice Cell for the night. 

So, when Jon makes a decision on the spot, it's wrong, and when Mormont takes his time and wants to get other opinions, it's also wrong. Can't really win, right?

Also, someone still fails to understand that by being sent to his room Jon was not punished but merely confined to await punishment, so no reason to send Ghost away, either.

[Minsc]

5 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

So, if I stand two metres from you and say to somebody else that Minsc is a moron, it's perfectly fine becase I'm not talking to you? Reeeeeally?

So, when Jon makes a decision on the spot, it's wrong, and when Mormont takes his time and wants to get other opinions, it's also wrong. Can't really win, right?

Also, someone still fails to understand that by being sent to his room Jon was not punished but merely confined to await punishment, so no reason to send Ghost away, either.

That wouldn't be any justification for me to come at you with a knife. So basically no brother is allowed to snark about Jon or he will be excused in attacking them. 

Jon makes an immediate decision informed by his own biases to execute someone for talking back to him.  Meanwhile, Jon attacking a superior because said superior mocked his father to other brothers needs lengthy deliberations. 

It should not have required any deliberations to punish Jon more than just sending him to his room with special privileges. Only Jeor acts like he is Jon's servant thus gives him constant special privileges. 

[Son of Man]

54 minutes ago, Minsc said:

That wouldn't be any justification for me to come at you with a knife. So basically no brother is allowed to snark about Jon or he will be excused in attacking them. 

Jon makes an immediate decision informed by his own biases to execute someone for talking back to him.  Meanwhile, Jon attacking a superior because said superior mocked his father to other brothers needs lengthy deliberations. 

It should not have required any deliberations to punish Jon more than just sending him to his room with special privileges. Only Jeor acts like he is Jon's servant thus gives him constant special privileges. 

Jon is similar to Robb in many ways.  Robb was merciless to Karstark, while Robb himself was doing more damage to his cause than the man he killed.  Robb breaks his oaths and then he could not find it in himself to show leniency to a man who marched south for him.  Jon benefited from the mercy of his former commander after he assaulted an officer and deserted.  Jon surely should have shown mercy to Janos Slynt for insubordination.  Jon was breaking so many rules to get his sister from Ramsay that it is really being a hypocrite to even punish Slynt for insubordination.  

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

Don't blame me for the English language ;-).

1 hour ago, Minsc said:

It should not have required any deliberations to punish Jon more than just sending him to his room with special privileges. Only Jeor acts like he is Jon's servant thus gives him constant special privileges. 

One actually has to wonder about the special privileges of Jon's to run around with a direwolf at the Wall at all. I mean, that is a wild animal prone to, you know, attack people, so why on earth is the boy allowed to keep a pet this size? Why is he allowed to keep a pet at all? Nobody but the Lord Commander has a pet. And he has just some raven.

9 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

Jon is similar to Robb in many ways.  Robb was merciless to Karstark, while Robb himself was doing more damage to his cause than the man he killed.  Robb breaks his oaths and then he could not find it in himself to show leniency to a man who marched south for him.  Jon benefited from the mercy of his former commander after he assaulted an officer and deserted.  Jon surely should have shown mercy to Janos Slynt for insubordination.  Jon was breaking so many rules to get his sister from Ramsay that it is really being a hypocrite to even punish Slynt for insubordination.  

That is basically my point, too. People cut Jon so much slack that one could expect to return some of that leniency now that he is in power. But he doesn't do that.

If people had treated him the way he deserved it he would never have become Lord Commander. He wouldn't even have accompanied the men on the great ranging.

Robb made many mistakes, the worst of them being to actually accept this crown that was offered to him. That closed the door in pretty much all alliances he might have made. And while he could find excuses to justify his own behavior - and that of his mother - he couldn't do that with Karstark. However, we have to admit that Robb actually did punish one of his main supporters once he realized the man had committed an unforgivable crime he actually executed the man despite the fact that this cost him dearly.

Here Robb shows his mettle as a true Stark - you do the right thing (or what you see as the right thing) even if it kills you.

Jon knows that killing Mance would have been the right thing but he doesn't do it. He also knows he shouldn't send him to Winterfell, etc. He does it anyway.

[Son of Man]

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't blame me for the English language ;-).

One actually has to wonder about the special privileges of Jon's to run around with a direwolf at the Wall at all. I mean, that is a wild animal prone to, you know, attack people, so why on earth is the boy allowed to keep a pet this size? Why is he allowed to keep a pet at all? Nobody but the Lord Commander has a pet. And he has just some raven.

That is basically my point, too. People cut Jon so much slack that one could expect to return some of that leniency now that he is in power. But he doesn't do that.

If people had treated him the way he deserved it he would never have become Lord Commander. He wouldn't even have accompanied the men on the great ranging.

Robb made many mistakes, the worst of them being to actually accept this crown that was offered to him. That closed the door in pretty much all alliances he might have made. And while he could find excuses to justify his own behavior - and that of his mother - he couldn't do that with Karstark. However, we have to admit that Robb actually did punish one of his main supporters once he realized the man had committed an unforgivable crime he actually executed the man despite the fact that this cost him dearly.

Here Robb shows his mettle as a true Stark - you do the right thing (or what you see as the right thing) even if it kills you.

Jon knows that killing Mance would have been the right thing but he doesn't do it. He also knows he shouldn't send him to Winterfell, etc. He does it anyway.

Yeah, I suppose he had an obligation to execute Rickard K.  It's too harsh to me but Rickard did more than backtalk a superior officer.  

[Ralphis Baratheon]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One actually has to wonder about the special privileges of Jon's to run around with a direwolf at the Wall at all. I mean, that is a wild animal prone to, you know, attack people, so why on earth is the boy allowed to keep a pet this size? Why is he allowed to keep a pet at all? Nobody but the Lord Commander has a pet. And he has just some raven.

Jeor sees Ghost as an asset to the NW and Ghost has very much proven to be one. He hunts game for the NW. He played an integral part in saving Jeor from the wight Othor. Ghost has never randomly attacked anyone at Castle Black as far as Jeor knows. The Watch needs every asset it can get so why turn away Ghost when he has proven to be very useful? If a recruit showed up with a pack of loyal tracking hounds should Jeor send those away too? Qhorin Halfhand seems to also view Ghost as a resource and wants him to accompany his group on their mission even though he just met the beast, I mean in a lot of ways Ghost is more productive then most of the NW brothers.

[Only 89 selfies today]

On 8/11/2018 at 2:17 AM, Ygrain said:

First and foremost, the LC has an obligation to act in the best interest of the Watch. In its current state, it is not the best interest of the Watch to undermine the trust in its only ally with an army, and so Jon makes use of the situation to utilise Mance's  abilities. Mance can still be dealt with (and most likely will) when and if the current crisis is over.

Jon may not have the right to interfere but he has the need. To stop the Others, he needs the North. With Boltons in power, that's not going to happen. "To protect the realms of men" is the primary part of the NW vows, the rest is secondary. If breaking the secondary parts in order to carry out the primary part is what it takes, then that's what needs to be done. We haven't seen enough of Jon's thoughts to the future but he is not so stupid as not to see this. He gets to release his sister and win over the North, two birds with one stone. The Boltons must be dealt with because you cannot fight one enemy with another breathing on your neck.

Jon does have an obligation to act in the best interest of the Watch, but we know he doesn't always act like it.  He's too conflicted.  He puts the interests of the Starks ahead of his obligation to the Watch.   Executing Mance Rayder is his duty.  It is not in the best interest of the Watch to start a quarrel with the Boltons.  Jon had no need to interfere with the Boltons.  He should have made more effort in reaching out to them and asked for their assistance.  The Boltons have just as much at stake in defending the north than Jon does.  Jon made the Boltons his enemy when he tried to get his sister away from them.  That is an aggressive act of hostility on Jon's part.  It was basically an act of war against the Boltons to send his wildling agents to steal Ramsay's wife.  

[kissdbyfire]

51 minutes ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

It is not in the best interest of the Watch to start a quarrel with the Boltons

Only it's the other way around. It's the Boltons who started a "quarrel" w/ the NW. 

[Starkz]

I can’t believe there is so many pages dedicated to this. Everyone acts like it’s black and white. There’s not always a good or bad choice to make. 

55 minutes ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Jon does have an obligation to act in the best interest of the Watch, but we know he doesn't always act like it.  He's too conflicted.  He puts the interests of the Starks ahead of his obligation to the Watch.   Executing Mance Rayder is his duty.  It is not in the best interest of the Watch to start a quarrel with the Boltons.  Jon had no need to interfere with the Boltons.  He should have made more effort in reaching out to them and asked for their assistance.  The Boltons have just as much at stake in defending the north than Jon does.  Jon made the Boltons his enemy when he tried to get his sister away from them.  That is an aggressive act of hostility on Jon's part.  It was basically an act of war against the Boltons to send his wildling agents to steal Ramsay's wife.  

The Bolton’s don’t care about what happens at the Wall or about the NW. Do you know what stealing is? Stealing is taking something that belongs to someone else for yourself. Jon didn’t think she was at Winterfell and didnt send Mance to Winterfell. He sent Mance to help a girl he thought was his sister per Mel’s vision. He never sent Mance to steal his wife have you even read the books?

[Minsc]

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Only it's the other way around. It's the Boltons who started a "quarrel" w/ the NW. 

I bet that Boltons would say differently with Mance coming down to retrieve Ramsay's bride or Jon giving Stannis advice to use against them.