(RP) Questions for prospective Protectors.

[Bobar]

Please feel free to submit questions which all candidates can answer as they will.

I will submit a hypothetical one.

In a war between demons and Sosaria we are in danger of losing one of our cities (as we did Magincia) As Protector you have a choice between 2 paths.

1. A group of innocent citizens are about to be eliminated by the Demons, by diverting your forces you may save their lives but will subsequently lose the city.

2. Alternatively you can sacrifice the citizens and by destroying the demons stronghold be victorious and win the war.

There are NO other alternatives an immediate choice is necessary, as Lord Protector which path do you take?.

There is obviously no RIGHT choice just an insight into a candidates character

 

[Escaflowne]

*Reads the Question and rubs chin*

Option 2 without a doubt! The hard truth is that sacrifices have to be made in times of war and there will always be collateral damage. Some may call me emotionless for this but those that beleive it not to be true are only fooling themselves with false pretenses of a peaceful land filled with rainbows; the world can be a cruel place.

By destroying the Demon stronghold and winning the war it will prevent future loss of life and in doing so only the lives of a few have been lost the save the lives of many. Sacrifice for the greater good as it were.

This is but a mere example of the tough choices that need to be made as Lord Protector.

Vote Escaflowne!

 

[Kou (DoT)]

Escaflowne is right, of course.
The continuation of a war is almost universally bad, and so in most cases, the greater good must take precedence.
To oversimplify the decision, if the course of a war that goes unstopped will result in more innocent casualties than the aforementioned decision, then whichever way the decision is made would be to condemn innocents.

However, such a decision should never be taken lightly.
Even if losses are an inevitable part of war, it's important to make the decision knowing that every lost life is someone's husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter.

 

[Irvyn]

There are two factors to be weighed here. Firstly, the greatest good of the greatest number, and secondly, the relative value of property versus people.

If this situation is exactly as Magincia, where the population had been evacuated, then I would unhesitatingly divert the army to save the innocents. A city can be rebuilt; a person cannot be replaced.

If, on the other hand, the city is still populated, despite my desire to save the small group, I would have to insist that the army continued to the city to defend it. I cannot save a small number of people at the expense of a greater number.

This would apply even if that small group included someone dear to me, or someone considered important to the lands. Such is the burden of command.

However, the problem is couched in very black and white terms: in real life it might well be possible to send a small force to divert the demonic attack away from the group of innocents, or to assist them to escape, while the main army continued to the city. One must weigh up the situation on the ground before attempting a decision. A poorly informed decision may end up as more disastrous than a wrong one with all the facts.

 

[Aurelius]

"Protector" is an interesting term....

Who (and maybe what) do the candidates believe they would be 'protecting', what do they consider there is a need to 'protect' against, and how will this 'protection' be provided?

 

[Bobar]

"Protector" is an interesting term....

Who (and maybe what) do the candidates believe they would be 'protecting', what do they consider there is a need to 'protect' against, and how will this 'protection' be provided?

The role has yet to be completely defined but the general outline can be found here Europa Event Moderators Website

 

[Bobar]

From the replies received so far the candidates appear to be uniform in their views on the question posed.

I now offer a much harder question (and truth to tell I have no reasonable answer myself)

A citizen of Sosaria is alleged to have committed a crime (let us say murder) in one of the rebel territories. He then left and returned to Britain. As Lord Protector you are told of the allegation. What action could or should you take, if any?.

Most speeches have referred to Justice, where does Justice lie here?. Consider any answer carefully this is a legal minefield.

 

[Kou (DoT)]

The role was clarified during the questions following Fynn's speech, during which I asked if it was not a huge advantage for him to be able to base his campaign off knowledge of what the role entails, rather than assumptions.
In essence, it's a mixture of military command, and liason.
To give commands to the fighting forces of the land (that agree to follow the position), and to act as a liaison between them when there are problems between them.

To answer the question of Justice, I'm not sure that falls strictly under the purview of the Lord Protector.
I think the decision would lie with Nathan, ultimately, as Protector of Britain.
However, the question seems to be more to investigate the candidates' interpretation of Justice.
Justice is a balance of deed.
Similar to trade, a criminal must "pay for their crimes" in order to "balance the books".
To continue that analogy some, while a criminal must pay, it's unjust to "overcharge", or issue a punishment that exceeds their crime.
Before any punishment could be dealt, the determination of how much punishment (and indeed the question of guilt) would need to be made in a fair trial.
Unless the accusing city could guarantee such a trial, then they would have to be tried in a city that could.

 

[Bobar]

This question was not designed to obtain an objective view of Justice but to get a specific view of this instance, speeches talked about Justice and Diplomacy being integral to the role yet consider these implications.

The complaining territory would not be happy if nothing is done in effect giving licence to Sosarians to murder one of their subjects with no penalty. Some real diplomacy required here.

Who or where could hold a trial?. The problems all lie with jurisdiction.

Sosaria could not arrest and try the accused because we have no evidence a crime has even been committed and would not be able to investigate the event it having been committed on 'foreign' soil. Diplomacy of the highest order here?.

Sosarians would be unhappy if one of their number was dragged off to an independancy for an alleged crime where Sosaria could not guarantee a fair trial. No mechanics for extradition exist and are unlikely to ever be as this would entail recognition of a rebel rule. An even greater degree of diplomacy?.

As I posted this is a minefield and which ever way you turn more questions arise and yet for all of this one burning question remains.

The accused may have committed murder and if nothing is done Justice fails miserably. Nobody can be satisfied with this. I have no answer, does a candidate?.

 

[Escaflowne]

Who (and maybe what) do the candidates believe they would be 'protecting', what do they consider there is a need to 'protect' against, and how will this 'protection' be provided?

Well i beleive we would be protecting the united nations of humanity and all that they stand for; their populace, their culture and years of history of grand civilisations of man and elf alike.

There is a need to protect all of this from threats internal and external. Such as armies of evil undead, demons and any other darkness that threatens to engulf the land. Wars with other advanced and intelligent races such as orcs, ratmen, ophidians who threaten to conquer the realms of man. Last but not least internal civil wars which need to be prevented and stopped should they arise to cease damage to our nations and not leave us in a vulnerable state to the threats mentioned above.

This protection would be provided politically with strong policies and the works of councils/advisors to keep the peace diplomatically or with the Iron Fist of the united armies of our nations to crush any opponents.

A citizen of Sosaria is alleged to have committed a crime (let us say murder) in one of the rebel territories. He then left and returned to Britain. As Lord Protector you are told of the allegation. What action could or should you take, if any?.

All criminals must pay the price for their crimes and accept their punishment or face death! I absolutely agree with your comment on jurisdiction. The criminal must be charged under the laws of the lands in which he commited the murder or crime for any other case. In this case he would have to be detained and deported back to this rebel territory and face trial there under their laws; and under the terms that representitives from Britain or wherever the criminal may come from oversee the trial to ensure that it is done fairly.

Should the murder have been a death on the battlefield though by soldiers from two warring nations then the punishment should not lay with the soldier who commited the killing; he would have just been doing his duty and acting under orders. The responsbility would be that of the commanding officer and if anyone were to be trialed for it, it would be them and their punishment to take.

 

[Bobar]

'All criminals must pay the price for their crimes and accept their punishment or face death! I absolutely agree with your comment on jurisdiction. The criminal must be charged under the laws of the lands in which he commited the murder or crime for any other case. In this case he would have to be detained and deported back to this rebel territory and face trial there under their laws; and under the terms that representitives from Britain or wherever the criminal may come from oversee the trial to ensure that it is done fairly.'

I feel this answer does not fill the requirements see -

'Sosarians would be unhappy if one of their number was dragged off to an independancy for an alleged crime where Sosaria could not guarantee a fair trial. No mechanics for extradition exist and are unlikely to ever be as this would entail recognition of a rebel rule. An even greater degree of diplomacy?.'

I agree that in normal cirumstances what you suggest is the norm but here we have abnormal problems. Sosaria does not recognise the rebels so would certainly not be willing to hand over a citizen. One reason being that they would be UNABLE to ensure a fair trial. If the trial was deemed to be unfair there would be no way to enforce a reversal OTHER than a military one. Another reason is that a tacit admission of the legality of the rebel territories would be implied by any agreement.

Let us not foget too that the citizen is only accused of a crime making it even less likely he would be given up to any Justice but that of the Royal Courts. The charge could be false, would any land offer up one of its citizens to a foreign justice in these circumstances?. I think not, here lies the dilemma, whilst everyone would like justice nobody is likely to compromise.

The answers to this question may well lie outside the remit of a Lord Protector but fine words about Justice and Diplomacy are within the speeches.

Congrats to the two candidates who have attempted a reply, as I said I have no answers, only all the obstacles.

 

[Escaflowne]

Hrmmm a good debate indeed my friend.

This is why i stated that representitives from the kingdom would watch over the trial to make sure it was a fair one, and if it wasn't then as you say perhaps military action would be needed to retrieve the accused.

After reading your response and giving it some thought i beleive the main issue here is the Kingdoms failure to acknowledge the legality of independant states which would cause the problems. Are the lands not big enough to have seperate nations independant from the kingdom? Is it not possible for these nations to be allied with the kingdom and work together as friends?

The Kingdom fails to acknowledge these clearly functional independant states such as Vesper and wishes to control the whole realm and force everyone to follow the Kingdoms way of life and it's culture. Many times the Kingdom has invaded and used military means to try and accomplish this. This is nothing short of Tyranny and Power hungry! Trying to control everything and everyone, enslave people to the virtues and force folk to bow down to the soveriegnty.

People should be free to choose the way of life they want to live, they should be able to choose if they want to follow the virtues, they should be able to choose if they want to live in the kingdom or a different independant state! I have no problem with the Kingdom and their way of life, I DO have a problem however with it trying to force its will upon others and consume the entire land! I just want people to have the freedom of choice and freedom of beleif! Such is the Principle of Chaos!

 

[Adol]

As another potential candidate, I must apologize for not having had the time to respond before now; I've been unable to get home before 7pm most nights, and the last two I leapt straight into recording via Sausage-cam the speeches then being given... the last 4 are now up in the thread elsewhere!

But to answer the question of Justice, if I may bring in a little of the philosophy from the world Lord British and the Avatar came to us from, and which I too once inhabited... Immanuel Kant spoke of the "Categorical Imperative", which put simply stated that a Moral Maxim must be able to be acceptably universal in order to be declared necessary.

Thus with murder, the positive principle can be described as "I can commit murder"; but it can never be a universal because, whilst you might think of all kinds of reasons you should get away with, or someone else deserves to be murdered, if you universalise it to say "anyone can commit murder", this would imply people could murder you in turn; which no sane person would want anyone to have the right to actually do.

However the negative proscription "You should never commit murder" can be safely universalised, as every sane person would, at least in theory, argue that all should be safe in their bodily person from unreasonable violence. Whether in practice this holds true is a different question, but as a moral principle it holds.

Now, in the example we have been given, the moral choice we are asked to consider is a little more subtle; let me try paraphrase the question.

"Someone is alleged to have committed murder"

But this is just a statement of fact, someone has said that someone else is a murderer. The issue we actually have, and as Lord Protector should try and address is this;

"Can someone be accused of murder without judgement on that claim?"

If we try and universalise this, to being "everybody can be accused of murder without being judged for it", it would clearly become a recipe for mass murder, as there would be no way to prove anyone was ever guilty of it as there could be no trial of the claim. Obviously we cannot take "Can somebody" as a moral maxim either then. It opens the doors to abuse. Therefore nobody should be allowed to be accused of murder without the powers that be investigating.

As Lord Protector, you must stand firm on the principle of answering the charge, no matter where the rumoured murder is living.

However, the term "accused of murder" itself needs to be teased apart; in the real world, we cannot allow "anybody can accuse anybody else of murder" either. Some people are just liars, or mad, or vindictive or jealous; thus we cannot take any one accusation at face value either. It must be proven to be a reasonable claim, and be a solid case before we start acting on the word of anybody at all.

As Lord Protector then, you must insist that all evidence be presented to you in your official capacity before acting to arrest anybody. But if evidence there is, arrest there must be.

Why? Because it could never be a universal that "Someone about whom there is justified suspicion they are a murderer should be allowed to remain free." If we were talking about something which was down to personal choice, such as the endless debate about differing models of living, the question is more complex still; but murder, as we have seen above, is not going to be legal in any of our city states. It's a universally proscribed action. On this basis alone, the Lord Protector must act.

But where, once the arrest has been made, should the trial be held?

I will spare you even longer philosophizing, but let me outline the basic issues which I believe decide in favour of a trial within the jurisdiction the crime was committed;

* It will allow easy access for the relatives of the deceased to the trial proceedings
* It will help limit the ability of people to just "move away" from being brought to Justice, because they must return to the scene of their crime and answer for it.
* It will enshrine the basic respect for evidence based trials, because in order to receive the prisoner in the first place, you will have had to present convincing evidence to another's standards, not just your own
* More abstractly, it will start the process of integration of disparate political entities at at least the Justice levels.
* Whilst in the other direction, it also shows a tolerance though for regional authorities, by respecting their authority.



Now... a more difficult question would have been "Would this hold true in the case of crimes of conscience, or thought crimes?"

To that my answer would be; No. No arrest would be made for breaking crimes against state enforced morality. And to those who say "But it would be an insult to our independence", let me remind you I have no plan to arrest any Vesperian or Trinsish traveller the moment they set foot in their opposite city, and you cannot possibly require that this be universally the case...