by Amorphous on Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:51 pm
Figured I'd better post this because argument is fairly inevitable!
First, the details of the situation:
- Aspasia planted a letter in Wildcard's back while in the Sports Hall (a Safe Zone)
- Wildcard found the letter and persuaded someone else to open it
James and I both first decided that the innocent victim (club treasurer) survived the attack, as she was still in a Safe Zone at the time and therefore by the rules could not have been killed. Had this happened to an actual player, we probably would have ruled a one-day illness or something (e.g. 'x is so weakened by the poison that she cannot make an attempt for the next day, but would be able to defend herself').
We next ruled that Aspasia is incompetent for (whether intentional or not) making an attempt in a Safe Zone.
Lastly, and this is where I suspect it begins to get controversial, we ruled that Wildcard is incompetent for having a role in the near-death of an innocent. Our logic behind this is that had the innocent opened the letter outside the Sports Centre (not a Safe Zone) then we would take her as dead, and therefore Aspasia would be Wanted for killing an innocent. However, Wildcard had a large role in the death as it was he who persuaded her to open the letter (handing over something that he knew could be dangerous to an innocent person). In this case Wildcard would also be declared Wanted. Since Aspasia is Incompetent rather than Wanted, Wildcard is Incompetent too.
This does raise the issue of what, exactly, someone is supposed to do if they get a poisoned letter and they don't want to die themselves. There's no easy answer to it: the best solution might be to pass the letter on to their own target, which if successful would be considered a legal joint-kill on the part of the individual and the person who gave them the letter in the first place.
Lastly, if anyone still thinks the Wildcard-incompetent ruling is unjust, the only way I can think of explaining it is by analogy:
If a car mechanic tells a customer that his car is safe to drive when in fact (through neglect on the mechanic's part) the brakes are faulty, and the customer dies as a result, then the mechanic would probably be charged with manslaughter. If the mechanic told a customer the car was safe to drive when he KNEW the brakes were faulty then he would probably be charged with murder, even if the faulty brakes themselves were accidental and not a deliberate murder attempt. We're trying to replicate the same principle here.
Hope that makes some sort of sense!
If Jack Bauer was put in a room with Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Nina Myers and handed a gun with two bullets, he'd shoot Nina twice.