Re: Doggeral

[Nik Hughes <Nik_Hughes@ess.niaid.pc.niaid.nih.gov>]

Uther writes:

>But it is done by other means because of the fear of reprisals.  To 
>quote Sir Klaus, "We can all have fun shunning him in person."  If I 
>understand Klaus correctly, this is more in response to the anonymous 
>part rather than the honor part.

There are two things going on with this doggerel. One is an opinion that 
is not popular with a certain segment of the kingdom.  People are 
absolutely allowed to hold any opinion they choose.  They are absolutely 
free to voice their opinion. (False facts are a whole different matter.) 
In this case we have what can be viewed as a personal attack. An attempt 
to injure or make someone feel bad in order to effect changes. Ok. 
Rather base motives, but arguably permissable.

The second is that the opinion is delivered anonymously. This is what 
really annoys me. Striking a blow such as this from hiding is base 
cowardice! If you are going to voice an opinion, at least have the 
courage to stand up and take ownership of it! Those who agree will 
agree. Those people who disagree will disagree. Yes, a person can voice 
their opinions, but they must be willing to accept the results. If I 
don't like what you say, I may give you my opinion back. I have that 
right! But your anonymity takes that right away from me! 

My Pet Peeve is people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves 
and their actions. We have silly waiver rules because of this problem. 
This anonymous doggerel is another example. Here we have someone who 
runs down members of the kingdom, but doesn't want to face the 
consequences. 

And the consequences are not that bad! It is not as if government storm-
troopers are going to show up in the middle of the night to take this 
person away. Let's look at the consequences....

[1] People could tell this person that they are a dishonorable character 
    assassin. This is an opinion. Turn about is fair play.

[2] People could shun the person and not play with them. Ok. If your 
    perceptions are so different from theirs, why would you want to 
    associate with them anyway? And if no one wants to play with this 
    person because of these opinions, shouldn't that tell this person 
    something?

[3] Cuan could banish this person. Ok. So this person won't get to play 
    in the same events as Cuan. Based on the doggerel, this person 
    doesn't believe that this will be very many events. (If they DON'T 
    really believe it, then we have a whole different problem!)

[4] Assuming an authorized fighter, someone could challenge this person 
    to combat. So? This person has the right to refuse any challenge. 
    (Ref., Rules of the List) They may hear noise about cowardice. But 
    they are now anyway. And now we are back to opinions....

[5] Someone could "take matters into their own hands" and assault this 
    person (in or out of the Lists). Ok. A real concern. (But so is 
    getting mugged for your wallet...) Stay out of dark alleys, get your 
    friends to watch your back,  and appeal to the Chivalry for aid if 
    anything goes down. The interesting thing here is that the people 
    who have the most reason to feel insulted by this person would still 
    do their best to keep this person from having their rights (e.g., 
    freedom from injury) from being infringed on.

The sin is not having an unpopular opinion. Lots of people have those 
without spreading them about. The sin is not voicing an unpopular 
opinion. The sin is lack of responsibility. This person didn't have to 
voice the opinion at all and certainly could have voiced in a more 
constructive fashion. But they made the bed they did and should be ready 
to sleep in it!

Klaus