InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "No comment."

Sharon Carter (agentthirteen) wrote in incompletedata,
@ 2017-06-24 01:58:00

Entry tags:

daria: daria morgendorffer, dc: comics: pamela isley, dc: supergirl: alex danvers, marvel: (fox/x-men): jean grey, marvel: (fox/x-men): wade wilson, marvel: comics: emma frost, marvel: comics: hope summers, marvel: comics: max eisenhardt, marvel: comics: remy lebeau, marvel: comics: sharon carter, marvel: comics: steve rogers (hydra), marvel: comics: tony stark, marvel: xmen tas: rogue, star wars: canon: bail organa, star wars: canon: han solo, star wars: canon: jedikiller, star wars: canon: mon mothma, supernatural: jo harvelle, the expanse: james holden, wittgenstein: mike

We are all victims of this inhumane violation of our rights. None of us had any choice in this, and we will remember who is responsible for our captivity and the threats they hold over our heads. Whether you choose to play along or sit out is your choice. However the actions we take, the choices that we make here, are our responsibility. Violence and reckless destruction are not excusable, especially not when those you are harming are not our captors but each other.

We are among many individuals who have criminal histories- murderers and psychopaths. Because of our situation, we have viewed them as on our side in hopes they would cooperate for the good of the group. We do not want conflict, but now they have brought it to us through the horrific behavior displayed at the midway. I am highly disappointed.

Do we excuse these actions as allowable given the circumstances, or do we form a system to keep each other accountable?

Many of us come from different realities with different methods of governance, law, and justice. Or lack of. It is important that we recognize and respect this. We cannot impose any system upon the rest and call it fair unless we have majority support.

So I propose an open forum to discuss what rules we find necessary to put in place, what consequences are appropriate, and who we trust amongst us to uphold order. And if you feel differently, you are also welcome to express dissent.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

starsandgarters
2017-06-24 07:37 pm UTC (link)

It's an interesting quandary, especially with free will effectively altered, but I think it would definitely serve us, as a group to discuss our obligations to one another through and outside of these experiments for so long as we're forced to participate.

Perhaps if were to come up with something recuperative rather than punitive. Fines of spare clothing to help new arrivals have something less ridiculous or tasks that benefit the group. That way regardless of motivation, bad acts can yield positive growth.

But I think to some point, we do need to learn to excuse some chaos.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

rocinante
2017-06-24 07:43 pm UTC (link)

I like this idea, that those who act against the interests of the group have to then contribute more than they usually do to the group, to new arrivals. I just have issues with how it would be enforced. As we can see above, one of the alleged offenders from the riot seems reluctant to accept responsibility for what happened, for all that I did see him helping with clean up. How do we force someone to hand over extra clothing or do extra work if they don't agree that they should have to?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

starsandgarters
2017-06-24 08:01 pm UTC (link)

You see, the forced labor strikes me as more intrinsically problematic. Particularly if they refuse to accept responsibility, does that become akin to something like slavery? Whereas donations or fines fall more under the auspices of something like taxation.

Both can be problematic if not consented to, but perhaps in that case we could have some sort of tribunal? Multiple people hearing both sides of an incident and presenting evidence decided upon by either an elected and defined or uniquely selected group of their peers?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

rocinante
2017-06-24 08:09 pm UTC (link)

I like the thought of a tribunal, though I imagine organizing elections would be difficult. There are so many groups to be represented here. Do the mutants vote for their representative? Do the Star Wars group vote for theirs? What of those of us who have low populations from our world, like Amos and I? Who represents our interests?

Or maybe we do it by block, elections by block, and have a five person tribunal created that way. It's an interesting thing to think about and difficult to organize.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

starsandgarters
2017-06-24 09:35 pm UTC (link)

It seems fairer than leaving decisions up to one person. I suppose factionalism does come into play but if we can all promise to look beyond that, we're more similar than we are different, and I have faith in our ability to coexist and collaborate.

Do you think it works better to have semi-permanently elected representatives or create the tribunal anew for each case? I could see it as drawing straws and rotating as well--so to speak.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

rocinante
2017-06-24 09:45 pm UTC (link)

We'd have to trust that people would recuse themselves from cases involving those they're personally connected to. For instance, with all due respect to Captain Solo, he shouldn't be deciding something that involves his son.

I think having semi-permanent representatives for each block would go a long way to creating a sense of stability, personally, with elections happening as we see fit; a term limit of three months, or something like that.

I'm Jim, by the way, and I'm more than willing to help out with this if you want to spearhead the effort.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

starsandgarters
2017-06-24 10:03 pm UTC (link)

I think at base, we do need to have some mutual trust extended between one another, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Perhaps to be revisited when we have some idea of how long we're supposed to be here. And we will of course need to come up with lines demarcating our obligations, rights, and expectations.

However, in this case, I think we can't too aggressively pursue any of the parties involved in the riot. It's unfair to retroactively enforce rules that weren't in effect when actions took place.

And I'm Hank, it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

rocinante
2017-06-24 10:12 pm UTC (link)

It's a complicated issue, setting up something like this, I know. Obligations should be things like being fair, even-handed, and making decisions with the philosophy of helping the group rather than punishing the individual. Rights for those before the tribunals would include things like fair time to tell their side of the story and innocent until proven guilty is a good, old-fashioned standard for any court of law.

No, you're right in that regard. Ren did help clean up and wasn't the instigator and Deadpool seems difficult to pin down, so pursuing anything would likely do more harm than good. But, going forward, we can set something up given input from everyone.

Wish it were under better circumstances, but it's good to meet you.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

starsandgarters
2017-06-24 11:02 pm UTC (link)

They're not that unusual circumstances where I'm from. I'm just waiting for the inevitable reveal that we're slowly working towards a multi-dimensional apocalypse.

The argument has less to do with any tacit agreement with anyone's actions before or after the fight, and more to do with the unconstitutionality--so to speak--of ex post facto legislation. It is unfair to expect people to uphold a standard of which they were unaware at the time.

Unfortunately I'm not sure we have the training to set up a judicial system, do we want some sort of independent prosecutor, or is it to be the wronged party or their representative arguing against the accused or theirs. The former obviously requires more effort, but may reveal a more thorough case. To what point does right to privacy trump right to discovery?

Even if we start with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the second is already on shaky grounds. Rights should be something like right to safety, right to property, and autonomy. And I think consideration should be given for the restrictions imposed on us by the experiments.

Hitting someone out of anger is different than the scientists pitting us against one another. Stealing someone's jacket may be justified if it is to prevent one's block from physical punishment.

I don't want to decide, but I think they're points that merit discussion at least.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

rocinante
2017-06-24 11:34 pm UTC (link)

I know that I don't have the training to set up a judicial system. I'm just the captain of a space ship none of you have ever heard of, I have no legal or moral authority. But I do have a keen sense of right and wrong, I've been told, and can try to help navigate the various issues.

You're right in that it's more nuanced given that we're captives here, given that the situation can change on a whim of a scientist, of one of our captors. We should be taking that into account while we're figuring all of this out.

It may be a lost cause to try to set something up but, again, I'm willing to help.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

agentthirteen
2017-06-25 05:39 am UTC (link)

Thank you both for participating in this discussion, you have brought up many valid points and concerns that we definitely need to work through if we do decide to implement anything. Nothing has to be decided overnight, but I feel like we're starting off in the right direction by allowing everyone to come forth and address their issues.

Representatives would be essential to making this the most fair, and they certainly need to be elected democratically for people to have any faith or trust in this at all. I don't want anyone to feel like it's a special position people hold over others. We do not need any more abuse of authority than what we're already under.

However too simple of a system and we face it being ineffective. Too complicated of a system and we risk it being too tyrannical or overbearing. We need to find a balance that everyone is comfortable with.

It also needs to be flexible enough to account for changes in our circumstances. Do we need to regroup and adjust our expectations each time we face a new scenario?

No matter what we do, it must be open to public scrutiny and opinion, and the rules and consequences must be made fair before any attempt to enforce them.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	starsandgarters 2017-06-25 06:58 am UTC (link)
	Regrouping might be wise. To have some sort of tête-à-tête, even over the network when we arrive in a new scenario might be helpful. And then again after a few days and we have a bit of a better understanding. Communication may be key, unless that is somehow restricted. (Reply to this) (Parent)

shootfirst
2017-06-24 10:04 pm UTC (link)

My apologies for jumping in on this, Jim, but I just wanted to say that I completely agree.

If it was anything involving Kylo, I wouldn't want to be making any authoritative decisions at all. Not that I want to make any authoritative decisions in the first place, I wouldn't even put my name in the running, but I shouldn't be making decisions involving my son nor should anyone be making decisions where an obvious personal bias in any direction is involved.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

rocinante
2017-06-24 10:13 pm UTC (link)

No worries. My apologies for using you as an example but it was the first one that popped into mind.

And I, for instance, wouldn't want to be involved in making decisions regarding Amos. We're crew, we're too close. I would advocate for him, depending on the circumstance, but I wouldn't be able to trust myself to be impartial. We all have our biases; it's good to be aware of them.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

shootfirst
2017-06-24 10:29 pm UTC (link)

It was a good example, no apologies necessary.

I think that's completely fair. If this is something that we're going to impose, then impartiality is a necessary objective. We also need to be on the lookout for people who have biases against certain parties too, though. I wouldn't want Leia or Viceroy Organa sitting on a tribunal for Krennic, for instance. As entertaining as that would be, it would be unfair.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	rocinante 2017-06-24 10:42 pm UTC (link)
	You're right there, definitely. Sorting through all those biases is going to be difficult, but we have precious few other options to work with, here. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -