NationStates Jolt Archive

The Issue
A number of well-dressed gentlemen wearing a varied assortment of swords is insisting that they be allowed to settle their private disputes on the field of honourable battle.

The Debate
"We must be permitted our inherent right to defend our honour through feats of arms!" exclaims Charles Christmas, a bewigged aristocrat sporting a particularly flamboyant swept-hilt rapier. "The right to duel is one found throughout history for the honourable settling of disputes and I must insist that my right to fight be recognised! The world would be so much better - and cheaper too - if conflicts of interest were sorted through trial by combat instead of trial by jury."
[Accept]


"Swords? Heavens, what dreadful things. All sharp and pointy - quite dangerous, you know," says Alexei du Pont, an ardent pacifist. "The things ought to be banned! The best way to settle these kind of arguments are through trials, we all know that. If we go ahead with what these duelling nutters want then innocent people will die! It will be a sad day when people value money more than justice. Apart from lawyers, obviously."
[Accept]



Am I reading this correctly, my two choices are either to allow dueling or to outlaw swords?

There's a third option: dismiss.

Issues tend to have only a limited number of extreme options.

Ballotonia

I choose dueling :wink:

I wound up dismissing, just picking on the wording and the choices it goves. I think it would be better if one could chose to outlaw dueling instead of swords.

I wound up dismissing, just picking on the wording and the choices it goves. I think it would be better if one could chose to outlaw dueling instead of swords.

The effect of that option is that the most trivial disputes are spent in lengthy trials.

If you choose to allow dueling:

"and murderers frequently escape punishment by claiming they were protecting their honour"

You get that.

I wound up dismissing, just picking on the wording and the choices it goves. I think it would be better if one could chose to outlaw dueling instead of swords.

The effect of that option is that the most trivial disputes are spent in lengthy trials.But one cannot chose to outlaw dueling. The choices are to outlaw swords or to allow dueling.

The second option is outlawing duels. I guess it could have been more strongly worded.

If you choose to allow dueling:

"and murderers frequently escape punishment by claiming they were protecting their honour"

You get that.

I don't get how they could be considered murderers... if dueling is legal in your country, then any deaths that result from it occur within the boundaries of the law, and are therefore not murders. It seems to me this is an instance of someone -- either the person who wrote the issue or the mod who edited it -- forcing their own personal, subjective beliefs on everyone else.

Although I suppose if a person cheats in order to win a duel, then it is murder.

I don't get how they could be considered murderers... if dueling is legal in your country, then any deaths that result from it occur within the boundaries of the law, and are therefore not murders. It seems to me this is an instance of someone -- either the person who wrote the issue or the mod who edited it -- forcing their own personal, subjective beliefs on everyone else.

I think the point is that actual murderers are lying and claiming they were dueling.

Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up.

I choose the first one! Its funny!

I don't get how they could be considered murderers... if dueling is legal in your country, then any deaths that result from it occur within the boundaries of the law, and are therefore not murders. It seems to me this is an instance of someone -- either the person who wrote the issue or the mod who edited it -- forcing their own personal, subjective beliefs on everyone else.

I think the point is that actual murderers are lying and claiming they were dueling.

Absolutly correct :wink:

I choose the first one! Its funny!

Sorry mate but you sound about 2 years old :shock:

Just the way you worded that post. I'm sure your not of course :wink:

If you choose to allow dueling:

"and murderers frequently escape punishment by claiming they were protecting their honour"

You get that.

I don't get how they could be considered murderers... if dueling is legal in your country, then any deaths that result from it occur within the boundaries of the law, and are therefore not murders. It seems to me this is an instance of someone -- either the person who wrote the issue or the mod who edited it -- forcing their own personal, subjective beliefs on everyone else.

Although I suppose if a person cheats in order to win a duel, then it is murder.

You're aware that duels need not be to the death, right? You could choose to let people duel to settle disputes without letting them actually kill each other...

Yes, but legalizing dueling without giving people the freedom to choose themselves how far they take it kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth... it's like a half-assed American-style decision.

Now y’see, I hated this issue because of the way the last line in choice #1 was written:

>>>The world would be so much better - and cheaper too - if conflicts of interest were sorted through trial by combat instead of trial by jury.<<<

This wording implies that if one party chooses combat, the other one has no option but to either fight or concede.

Now, if it had been worded thusly:

>>>The world would be so much better - and cheaper too - if conflicts of interest could be sorted through trial by combat instead of trial by jury.<<<

I would have so picked it. But as it was, all I could do is dismiss it.

And realistically, the outcome of option one as it is now is pretty stupid too:

>>>and murderers frequently escape punishment by claiming they were protecting their honor*<<<
(*- was misspelled BTW…)

Just because dueling is legal desn’t mean it’s automatically unregulated; you can’t drive without a license, vote without being registered, or drink alcohol under certain conditions (in public places like malls (at least in Canada anyway) legally, but you can kill people whenever/however? Come on, that’s retarded.

Dueling evolved to have traditions and rules—seconds, witnesses, etc… To think a modern government would legalize dueling but not regulate it, so anyone can just claim an ‘honor/it was a fair fight’ defense like some towns in the Wild West worked when gunslingers killed people is just so stupid it defies description. (Well, unless the Nation is an Anarchy anyway, then I could see it.)

This whole “and murderers frequently escape punishment by claiming they were protecting their honor” is no different than saying “and murderers frequently escape punishment by claiming ‘self defense’ " Y’know; shoot a guy and then put a gun in his hand? Ok, it might be a little easier if Anarchic dueling was allowed, but it’s still murder; if a witness came forwards to state they saw the murderer just kill the guy (not ‘duel’ him) and walk away/put a sword in his hand he’d still be charged with murder, right?

No, this whole Issue was just poorly written/handled; it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, cuz I’d have really liked to allow dueling (not ‘gun-slinging’) in my Nation.

I believe I read somewhere that this was an issue on political freedoms because it involved the legal systems of the government:

Choice 1 = More Libertarian in regards to Pol. Freedoms

Choice 2 = More Authoritative in regards to Pol. Freedoms.

I truly wish I could see the post of where I saw this, although it kind of makes sense. Also, I wonder if there is a backlash in an increase in crime? I currently have this issue and I am debating it - I prefer to dismiss as few as possible.

Please comment.

I personally would've liked to see an option for non-lethal dueling. Beating each other up with foam bats, or something.