Written By Natasha
Jan. 28, 2022, 7:49 p.m.(1/7/1017 AR)
Relationship Note on Macario
As an official magistrate of the Court of the Crown, I typically refrain from commenting on the issues and arguments at play in active disputes in the same fashion as my lack of published comments regarding the realm's politics in cognizance of my position as High Lord Victus Thrax's Voice; at least, unless I am specifically, officially required or asked to do so. I believe that my colleagues who sit upon the Court's bench should have both the duty and privilege of exacting their reason and rationale upon those who trust them to adjudicate matters fairly, and all without having to concern themselves with the prospect of such being swayed by outside opinions from the rest of their brethren who also practice within such an honorable vocation.
However, since the cerebral exercise posed in your white journal appears to be relatively academic, with the acknowledgment that it was inspired by one of your cases, I do not see a need to refrain to express my confusion as how you managed to reach the conclusion you have when both the reasoning and analysis used to formulate it are so incomprehensible to me.
Chaos is generally defined as "behavior so _unpredictable as to appear random_, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions." If chaos was indeed caused by an instigator, and punitive damages were mitigated due to both parties' decision to somehow render the outcome of the chaotic incident predictable, I do not know whether to describe it as chaos was accurate from the start. For instance, were one to decide to cause an accident (the "chaos") for the express purpose of seeing said accident result in the death of a certain person (the "predictable outcome"), that would not be considered an accident under the eyes of the law. From my perspective, it would be considered a premeditated event that resulted in a murder, and depending on the laws of the jurisdiction in which the accident occurred and the status of the person who died (that is, whether the victim was noble or commoner), there would be no mitigation - the sentence would be execution.
My other issue regarding your legal hypothesis is the idea that involved parties would have any agency at all in something that is a _genuinely_ chaotic occurrence. Agency is generally defined as "action or intervention, _especially such as to produce a particular effect_." If chaos is defined as above, and agency covers proactive or passive action that causes an intended result, I do not know whether such a thing exists in light of a circumstance that is by nature unpredictable, because then it must follow that the result would be unforeseeable to anyone involved or caught in it.
Lastly, regarding your point: "Trust between enemies is key. In this instance, it's not about the trust that both parties will do the 'right' thing, but rather the predictable thing." Without getting into the philosophical debate on whether it is possible for trust to exist among enemies (to which I say, "it depends"), I think that there is a clear difference between trust in this context - that is, the firm belief in someone or something's reliability - and one's ability or prowess to effectively act against another person due to his personal knowledge on how his rival or enemy operates. In such a maneuver, I do not think any trust is required, or that it should be described as such at all.
However, since the cerebral exercise posed in your white journal appears to be relatively academic, with the acknowledgment that it was inspired by one of your cases, I do not see a need to refrain to express my confusion as how you managed to reach the conclusion you have when both the reasoning and analysis used to formulate it are so incomprehensible to me.
Chaos is generally defined as "behavior so _unpredictable as to appear random_, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions." If chaos was indeed caused by an instigator, and punitive damages were mitigated due to both parties' decision to somehow render the outcome of the chaotic incident predictable, I do not know whether to describe it as chaos was accurate from the start. For instance, were one to decide to cause an accident (the "chaos") for the express purpose of seeing said accident result in the death of a certain person (the "predictable outcome"), that would not be considered an accident under the eyes of the law. From my perspective, it would be considered a premeditated event that resulted in a murder, and depending on the laws of the jurisdiction in which the accident occurred and the status of the person who died (that is, whether the victim was noble or commoner), there would be no mitigation - the sentence would be execution.
My other issue regarding your legal hypothesis is the idea that involved parties would have any agency at all in something that is a _genuinely_ chaotic occurrence. Agency is generally defined as "action or intervention, _especially such as to produce a particular effect_." If chaos is defined as above, and agency covers proactive or passive action that causes an intended result, I do not know whether such a thing exists in light of a circumstance that is by nature unpredictable, because then it must follow that the result would be unforeseeable to anyone involved or caught in it.
Lastly, regarding your point: "Trust between enemies is key. In this instance, it's not about the trust that both parties will do the 'right' thing, but rather the predictable thing." Without getting into the philosophical debate on whether it is possible for trust to exist among enemies (to which I say, "it depends"), I think that there is a clear difference between trust in this context - that is, the firm belief in someone or something's reliability - and one's ability or prowess to effectively act against another person due to his personal knowledge on how his rival or enemy operates. In such a maneuver, I do not think any trust is required, or that it should be described as such at all.
Written By Calista
Jan. 23, 2022, 10:08 p.m.(12/25/1016 AR)
Relationship Note on Macario
There are those whose paths I happen to randomly cross and it is often nothing more than a single conversation where we exchange a tidbit here and there and proceed to go on with our lives. Our paths diverging once more. When our paths crossed, I assumed the same would be the case. I could tell from the tone of your formal letter (which did nothing to dissuade me from the fact that you are a lawyer), you wished to host our first meeting, but I somehow convinced you to be my guest instead. I expected a lawyer and from the facade, that is precisely what I received. However, as I learned of your past, of your family's story, I was presented with the most unexpected twist of fate.
Now that we have crossed paths, they have become so entangled and intertwined, I cannot fathom diverting.
Now that we have crossed paths, they have become so entangled and intertwined, I cannot fathom diverting.
Written By Romulius
Jan. 22, 2022, 6:46 p.m.(12/23/1016 AR)
Relationship Note on Macario
I assure you that the 'traditionalists' of our Peerage do not view you in the best of ways.
Written By Cesare
Jan. 16, 2022, 8:01 p.m.(12/11/1016 AR)
Relationship Note on Macario
My goodness. Who told you I am chased by demons? Or is this simply a very clever metaphor for how quickly I sometimes have to leave to attend to my duties, or perhaps you refer to demons of a more intangible sort? In any case, I hope someone will inform the demons they are meant to be chasing me, they've been quite lax in their duties. On second thought, perhaps do not.
Written By Sunaia
Jan. 13, 2021, 10:42 a.m.(9/28/1014 AR)
Relationship Note on Macario
That was -- Scholar, I swear't -- a incredibly bland and terribly uneventful picnic. Lord Macario asked a lot of questions, he laughed at my (terrible -- admittedly) jokes and brought wine that was more suited to a courtly table rather than the edge of the forest. What I mean to say is: cups. He brought cups. Cups. Instead of just drinking the wine straight from the bottle. Gods -- fucking cups.
The only concession I will grant is that Lord Macario can keep up a brisk pace on the trail.
Must be the legs.
The only concession I will grant is that Lord Macario can keep up a brisk pace on the trail.
Must be the legs.
Written By Martino
Jan. 2, 2021, 8:50 a.m.(9/6/1014 AR)
Relationship Note on Macario
You seem to have an affinity with drawing these ghost stories to you at the moment.
I'm not sure that is a good thing or not but, still, they make for fine entertainment.
I'm not sure that is a good thing or not but, still, they make for fine entertainment.
Please note that the scholars may take some time preparing your journal for others to read.