[DRAFT] Preterite Pandect Problems

[Pythaga]

Edit: Coming back to this one after a long break.

I'm not sure if this is any good, but the idea was kicking around so I figured that I might as well write it out and get some opinions.

Second Draft:

Preterite Pandect Problems

The Issue: The legal code of @@NAME@@, officially titled the "Moste Venerable Canon of Assizes, Droits, and Enactments", is widely considered one of the more difficult to read in @@REGION@@ due to its archaic vocabulary. This was brought to the attention of the general populous when @@ANIMAL@@ Griddles, a famed survivalist, was arrested for grithbreaching and assarting in the remote @@DEMONYM@@ wilderness. A muster of apoplectic attorneys, bristling burgesses, and confounded constables have transgressed upon your office, shamelessly shouting suggestions.

Validity: Must have judiciary, good environment, strong environmental protections

Option 1: "Prithee @@LEADER@@, you shan't amend what our progenitors hath wrought," begs Dr. Professor Sir @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, editor-in-chief of the 32-volume @@ANIMAL@@ford Dictionary and noted pedant. "Our unique laws are a fundamental part of @@DEMONYM@@ culture. Don't you agree that petty treason and stoutherie are more couth terms than murder and theft? Think about the heritage and notability we'd lose from such a change!"
Effect: law school admission is determined by spelling bee scores

Option 2: "I'll show that stuck-up what petty treason is," grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, a farmer renowned for @@HIS@@ decidedly uncouth language. "Bigwig dirt grubbers in backward places like Bigtopia can apply for a grazing permit, while we @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ need a pannage warrant, whatever the hell that is! Replace this snooty farce with something folks understand, and you won't have so many of these stupid cases." The papyrus scrolls littering your desk are scattered across the room as @@HE@@ storms off, muttering obscenities about everyone present.
Effect: kindergartners are employed by the government as proofreaders

Option 3: "The real issue here is your iron-fisted environmental protections," argues @@ANIMAL@@ Griddles. "Folks love my, uh, documentaries!" he says, quickly peaking at the script he's holding under your desk. "It would be a whole lot easier to make them if you'd turn a blind eye to us leaving behind broken cameras and the like in a stream instead of having to carry it all out."
Effect: trash in rivers create obstacle courses for fish

First Draft:

Preterite Pandect Problems

The Issue: The legal code of @@NAME@@, officially titled the "Moste Venerable Canon of Assizes, Droits, and Enactments", is widely considered one of the more difficult to read in @@REGION@@ due to it's archaic vocabulary. This was brought to the attention of the general populous when @@ANIMAL@@ Griddles, a famed survivalist, was arrested for grithbreaching and assarting in the remote @@DEMONYM@@ wilderness. A muster of apoplectic attorneys, bristling burgesses, and confounded constables have transgressed upon your office, shamelessly shouting suggestions.

Validity: Must have judiciary, cannot have devolution, must have computers

Option 1: "Prithee @@LEADER@@, you shan't amend what our progenitors hath wrought," begs Dr. Professor Sir @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, editor-in-chief of the 32-volume @@ANIMAL@@ford Dictionary and noted pedant. "Our unique laws are a fundamental part of @@DEMONYM@@ culture. Don't you agree that petty treason and stoutherie are more couth terms than murder and theft? Think about the heritage and notability we'd loose from such a change!"
Effect: law school admission is determined by spelling bee scores

Option 2: "I'll show that stuck-up what petty treason is," grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, a farmer renowned for @@HIS@@ decidedly uncouth language. "Bigwig dirt grubbers in backward places like Bigtopia can apply for a grazing permit, while we @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ need a pannage warrant, whatever the hell that is! Replace this snooty farce with something folks understand, and you won't have so many of these stupid cases." The papyrus scrolls littering your desk are scattered across the room as @@HE@@ storms off, muttering obscenities about everyone present.
Effect: kindergartners are employed by the government as proofreaders

Option 3: "The real issue here is the accessibility of our statutes," argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, @@ANIMAL@@ Griddles' lawyer. "@@NAME@@'s laws are only available in one place, and it really isn't that convenient to go to downtown @@CAPITAL@@ and read them off the Grand Obelisk. Plus, the engravings are rather small. We need to codify and digitize so that legislation can be consulted anytime, anywhere. I assure you, if my client had had access to such a resource, none of this would've happened."
Effect: hacking is now legal according to the newly digitized code of law

[Bears Armed]

Assarting I knew, Grithbreaching I had to look up...

Re option 1: Under RL English law, at least, 'petty treason' was not just a general synonym for 'murder': It applied only to certain types of murders where the killer had been legally under their victim's authority (e.g. wife killed husband, servant killed employer, apprentice killed master).

[Trotterdam]

e.g. wife killed husband

...I don't suppose husbands killing wives counted as treason?

Marriage vows apply to both partners.

[Bears Armed]

e.g. wife killed husband

...I don't suppose husbands killing wives counted as treason?

Marriage vows apply to both partners.

But only the wife's vows include[d] obedience. Remember, this is Medieval law -- not modern law -- about which we're talking.

[Pythaga]

Re option 1: Under RL English law, at least, 'petty treason' was not just a general synonym for 'murder': It applied only to certain types of murders where the killer had been legally under their victim's authority (e.g. wife killed husband, servant killed employer, apprentice killed master).

Thanks for the pointer, I'll try to come up with a replacement. Any suggestions?

I'd appreciate thoughts from anyone on the last option. I'm really not happy with how it fits into the whole, it comes out of nowhere and is rather unrelated. Also, I don't think that I really did a good job addressing the criminal case that is the context for all this, anyone have suggestions for how to either weave it into the rest of the issue or a different way to set all this up in the description?

[Terrabod]

I'd appreciate thoughts from anyone on the last option.

Whereas the last option deals with the physical accessibility of the legal code, the issue itself deals with outdated language - and I think you should stick with the latter theme throughout. The last option is bringing in a new problem that doesn't mesh very well with the rest of the issue.

Also, I don't think that I really did a good job addressing the criminal case that is the context for all this, anyone have suggestions for how to either weave it into the rest of the issue or a different way to set all this up in the description?

Yeah, I'd say the case that fired this whole thing off is forgotten right after it's mentioned. You could try giving the Griddles character a voice and having them argue against these outdated legal terms.

[Daarwyrth]

officially titled the "Moste Venerable Canon of Assizes, Droits, and Enactments"

I wonder whether this would actually be an encroachment on player autonomy. I mean, I had a different name in mind for the legal code of Daarwyrth, and this sort of already determines that for the player. Whether it is a violation of player autonomy would have to be confirmed by an issue editor or someone with more experience in the field, but my advice would be to leave the specific name out.

Option 3: "The real issue here is the accessibility of our statutes," argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, @@ANIMAL@@ Griddles' lawyer. "@@NAME@@'s laws are only available in one place, and it really isn't that convenient to go to downtown @@CAPITAL@@ and read them off the Grand Obelisk. Plus, the engravings are rather small. We need to codify and digitize so that legislation can be consulted anytime, anywhere. I assure you, if my client had had access to such a resource, none of this would've happened."

I think the idea behind the option itself, namely accessibility, is fine. However, I am not too sure about the execution. This assumes that the player's legal code is written on an obelisk, and I am not sure that makes a lot of sense. My advice would be to reframe the issue, but keep the idea behind it about accessibility.

Interesting issue and nicely written, I am looking forward to see where you'll take this

[Pythaga]

Re: Terrabod

Thanks, I'm working on rewriting now and will consider what you suggested.

I wonder whether this would actually be an encroachment on player autonomy. I mean, I had a different name in mind for the legal code of Daarwyrth, and this sort of already determines that for the player. Whether it is a violation of player autonomy would have to be confirmed by an issue editor or someone with more experience in the field, but my advice would be to leave the specific name out.

I don't think it is a violation personally. I'm sure plenty of nations have a list of ministries/departments, but issue authors creating their own ministers isn't an issue; I think this is the same sort of deal. Plus, it's stated that that's the official legal name, in all likelihood the majority of people don't know it and use a far more common and accepted name instead (i.e. whatever the player writes in their factbook). I could try to make this more clear by calling it long forgotten or almost unheard of or something like that.

I think the idea behind the option itself, namely accessibility, is fine. However, I am not too sure about the execution. This assumes that the player's legal code is written on an obelisk, and I am not sure that makes a lot of sense. My advice would be to reframe the issue, but keep the idea behind it about accessibility.

It wasn't supposed to make sense, and I suppose having a validity be high primitiveness would've been good. I do agree though that it's too far out there compared to the rest of the issue, I'll scrap the idea for the next draft.

[Terrabod]

I wonder whether this would actually be an encroachment on player autonomy. I mean, I had a different name in mind for the legal code of Daarwyrth, and this sort of already determines that for the player. Whether it is a violation of player autonomy would have to be confirmed by an issue editor or someone with more experience in the field, but my advice would be to leave the specific name out.

I don't think it is a violation personally. I'm sure plenty of nations have a list of ministries/departments, but issue authors creating their own ministers isn't an issue; I think this is the same sort of deal. Plus, it's stated that that's the official legal name, in all likelihood the majority of people don't know it and use a far more common and accepted name instead (i.e. whatever the player writes in their factbook). I could try to make this more clear by calling it long forgotten or almost unheard of or something like that.

I agree with you here, Pythaga; issues are always coming up with fictional places and jobs and names for things... like Daar's recent draft naming the mayor of @@CAPITAL@@ as John Borison! Or my own draft, where I assume as a starting point that women going topless is prohibited in @@NAME@@ at the moment - even though in some nations' headcanons that won't be the case. Making these kind of assumptions is part-and-parcel of issue writing, and readers are free to accept and ignore whatever they want when forming their own lore (I know I do a lot of ignoring!).

[Random Country 453632]

It seems that Option 3 is the only part about computers, so why is it the issue validity that needs computers but not just the option validity?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Hey, this is quite good.

If I sound surprised by this, its because I just went through a HUGE submissions backlog queue with nearly a hundred bad issues in a row.

[Pythaga]

I’ve decided I’d like to give this idea another go, I’ve written a second draft that completely replaces the third option and tweaks the validity to hopefully make it more cohesive.

Any feedback and suggestions greatly appreciated.

[West Barack and East Obama]

it's archaic -> its archaic

Otherwise this looks good. Though I'm not too keen on the last option as it has almost nothing to do with the rest of the issue, which is on the complexity of the legal code.

[Pythaga]

it's archaic -> its archaic.

Thanks, fixed.

Otherwise this looks good. Though I'm not too keen on the last option as it has almost nothing to do with the rest of the issue, which is on the complexity of the legal code.

I’ve always struggled with option 3 on this one, which is part of the reason I abandoned it. What would you think about dropping it entirely and having only the first two options?

[Lozho]

Since it's the typical 'third option's, if you want to have one, here are a few ideas:

Compromise option: keep the legalese, but mandate education of the whole legal code and the language

Radical option: abolish the legal code, create an anarchy

Weird tech option: someone develops a translator app to autotranslate this into any language/dialect

I mean, 2 options ain't that bad either. Whatever feels best would be fine I think. It's a strong issue.

Also, is the 'loose' in the first option intentional?

[Pythaga]

Also, is the 'loose' in the first option intentional?

That was a typo, thanks for pointing it out.

As for option 3, thanks for all the ideas. I’ll think on it for a few days and see if anyone else has suggestions, then give it another shot.

[Australian rePublic]

Why would updating the language in an attempt to keep up with how the language is evolving be a matter of changing the law? If you insist on keeping the laws written in old language, fine, but have resources accessible to where it could be read in modern language