Post by Fewms on Mar 1, 2008 3:51:13 GMT
Repealing the Kill-Stealing Law
By Sultan Ptenisnet Cetera
An early reason for the existence of councils on the Disc was to mediate in conflicts, particularly with regard to bad behaviour among playerkillers (the customary lack of playerkillers among the elected magistrates of Djelibeybi has made this reason kind of secondary at the moment). But the council also felt it could make a difference in disputes of the non-playerkiller kind. One of the early laws of the Klatch Council (a mere two or three months after the council's inception) was therefore the law (308) against "kill-stealing." Historically, "kill-stealing" was a greater problem in Djelibeybi because it was the default hunting ground for soldiers, which offered the greatest challenge and experience bonuses. With the expansion of the Disc, that is no longer true. In addition to its status as an anachronism, I'd like to lay out a case here for repealing the "kill-stealing" law:
The lion's share of cases which come before the court of Djelibeybi have traditionally been "kill-stealing" cases. Even so, they account, in my opinion, for a very small percentage of the actual number of incidents. The reason for this is that generally players apologise, reconcile their grievances, and move on. The cases which the magistrates deal with are therefore not merely "kill-stealing" cases but cases of snideness, rudeness, and general immaturity. The notes to the usual kill-stealing case usually consist of denial, sneers, or silence on the part of the accused, and righteous anger on the part of the victim or accuser. Strangely, when the accused ignores the case and accepts the punishment silently, there is less fallout. The case merely has the effect of prolonging what would otherwise be a momentary (and then typically forgotten) flareup on the streets. Can you recall someone who stole kills from you a year ago? On the other hand, can you recall someone who opened a case against you a year ago?
There has been some discussion of the inefficacy of punishments to discourage bad behaviour. This is undoubtedly true; but the suggestion that greater punishment will succeed in discouraging bad behaviour (at least as far as kill-stealing goes) is largely misguided. We all know how effective a full prison system is in preventing crime. Mediation between defendant and accuser, on the other hand, has some positive effects: the victim can accept wergild (a personal payoff, which goes a lot further toward softening the anger than a fine paid into the city's treasury would). Involving the court merely makes work for the magistrates; some magistrates are known to enjoy the process, while others (and I count myself among them) find it burdensome and ineffective. Another question worth pondering is, therefore, if you have filed a "kill-stealing" case and it was ruled in your favour, how much satisfaction did you really get out of the verdict? If you did get satisfaction, was it out of a real sense of closure, or was it a vindictive pleasure? If the latter, then you might want to reconsider your own motives in having opened the case, and how much moral superiority you may even actually claim here.
The Djelian council is the only council that has a law against kill-stealing. It doesn't seem to me that we're better off for it. All we've done is extend the duration of some otherwise ephemeral arguments, get some people mad at us, and give our magistrates some more work. I've heard people say that if we got rid of the law, we'd have nothing for the magistrates to do, which is just weird. The great thing about the Djelian council is that we've created an infrastructure that offers a lot more to its magistrates and citizens than just sitting in a courtroom making enemies. We should take advantage of that.
By Sultan Ptenisnet Cetera
An early reason for the existence of councils on the Disc was to mediate in conflicts, particularly with regard to bad behaviour among playerkillers (the customary lack of playerkillers among the elected magistrates of Djelibeybi has made this reason kind of secondary at the moment). But the council also felt it could make a difference in disputes of the non-playerkiller kind. One of the early laws of the Klatch Council (a mere two or three months after the council's inception) was therefore the law (308) against "kill-stealing." Historically, "kill-stealing" was a greater problem in Djelibeybi because it was the default hunting ground for soldiers, which offered the greatest challenge and experience bonuses. With the expansion of the Disc, that is no longer true. In addition to its status as an anachronism, I'd like to lay out a case here for repealing the "kill-stealing" law:
The lion's share of cases which come before the court of Djelibeybi have traditionally been "kill-stealing" cases. Even so, they account, in my opinion, for a very small percentage of the actual number of incidents. The reason for this is that generally players apologise, reconcile their grievances, and move on. The cases which the magistrates deal with are therefore not merely "kill-stealing" cases but cases of snideness, rudeness, and general immaturity. The notes to the usual kill-stealing case usually consist of denial, sneers, or silence on the part of the accused, and righteous anger on the part of the victim or accuser. Strangely, when the accused ignores the case and accepts the punishment silently, there is less fallout. The case merely has the effect of prolonging what would otherwise be a momentary (and then typically forgotten) flareup on the streets. Can you recall someone who stole kills from you a year ago? On the other hand, can you recall someone who opened a case against you a year ago?
There has been some discussion of the inefficacy of punishments to discourage bad behaviour. This is undoubtedly true; but the suggestion that greater punishment will succeed in discouraging bad behaviour (at least as far as kill-stealing goes) is largely misguided. We all know how effective a full prison system is in preventing crime. Mediation between defendant and accuser, on the other hand, has some positive effects: the victim can accept wergild (a personal payoff, which goes a lot further toward softening the anger than a fine paid into the city's treasury would). Involving the court merely makes work for the magistrates; some magistrates are known to enjoy the process, while others (and I count myself among them) find it burdensome and ineffective. Another question worth pondering is, therefore, if you have filed a "kill-stealing" case and it was ruled in your favour, how much satisfaction did you really get out of the verdict? If you did get satisfaction, was it out of a real sense of closure, or was it a vindictive pleasure? If the latter, then you might want to reconsider your own motives in having opened the case, and how much moral superiority you may even actually claim here.
The Djelian council is the only council that has a law against kill-stealing. It doesn't seem to me that we're better off for it. All we've done is extend the duration of some otherwise ephemeral arguments, get some people mad at us, and give our magistrates some more work. I've heard people say that if we got rid of the law, we'd have nothing for the magistrates to do, which is just weird. The great thing about the Djelian council is that we've created an infrastructure that offers a lot more to its magistrates and citizens than just sitting in a courtroom making enemies. We should take advantage of that.