impure_tale

I would like to clarify a certain issue. There have been debates as to how Edward Sexby would be dealt with after he attacked me in my cabin. At the time I insisted that I would not have the Wardens vote on this for two reasons. The first, which most assume already, is that I would like to decide that myself. The second, and most important, is that I was not about to demand that a system work for me that I spat upon not two hours before I was injured.

I still will not. Sexby has since sent messengers like the craven dog he behaves as to express that he felt it unfair that the decision should be left to me. When two people of the same stature have a disagreement, why should one take authority over the other? I would see more sense in this were the querant not doing so after already deciding that I was guilty and how I was meant to be punished.

No, it's not fair. If we were talking about fairness I would have your last remaining hand, and fuck anyone that dares suggest I wouldn't have the right.

That he would have the audacity to send people and not face me and speak with me as one man professing equality would to another is enough to shake away the layers of medicine and drug. I am angry and my body complains with me.

I have not made my decision. This whining will not induce me to consider more quickly. It is my answer and I shall render it when I wish to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I thought nobody had the authority to even make the latter a possibility.

How do the wardens get anything done?

Sir, what usually occurs is a collective decision making process over punishments - otherwise known as the authority of the group over the one who has transgressed. That is how things are usually achieved in matters such as these, and it usually works - to some extent, but greater than an individual being given carte blanche.

On this occasion, this was not implemented, as, by my understanding, the Marquis objected to the premise of collective authority from the start. Which some interpreted as him refusing to press charges, but others interpreted as him asking for permission to 'deal with it himself'.

I seem to be under the impression that is what he has been granted - or what he believes he has been granted. I know not how many, like the warden I discussed it with, presumed it was a decision not to see me punished at all and then agreed that if he wanted me not punished, I should not be. But this is what I object to.

Shouldn't you two get this confirmed by the other wardens before getting into an argument about it?

[Pause. That's enough being mature from Rex.]

So, how come you didn't wait for collective authority to intervene when you decided the Marquis ought to be punished? It seems a touch, ah, hypocritical, to hold him to a higher standard than yourself.

That, sir, is what I was attempting to do. I talked to another warden, who came to discuss it with the Marquis. This was the result. It was all supposed to be done privately and sensibly, by my count. I did not wish to drag it into an argument.

Because I was angry, and I made a misjudgement - I thought too much in the standards of an old life, and not enough in the standards of this one. One I accept I must be punished for. One I accept, I was at fault for. I am not holding him to a higher standard, for I expect punishment. I know it was illegitimate. Such actions should remain illegitimate. It is a matter of two wrongs not making a right, not a matter of attempting to escape punishment entirely.

~~No, seriously, why are inmates the only ones trying to be reasonable about this?~~

I just think it's interesting that you ignored the oh, so fair warden justice system to get retribution against the Marquis... And now hide behind it calling for 'fairness'.

Not that I agree that one man should be the sole arbiter of your fate, you understand. I agree with you on that particular objection. It's more that I find this entire thing... Amusing.

I ignored a lot of things I should not have to do so. I am not hiding behind it - I simply wish for impartial treatment. Something I recognise, I did not deliver, but that was wrong, I have accepted that.

I find it more hypocritical that I am called upon to recognise my fault - quite rightly - but then permission may have been given for my victim to do exactly the same back at me.

But as none of your fears have been confirmed, you're preemptively accusing your colleagues of hypocrisy to what end, exactly? I'm not sure how this is going to engender cooperative feelings.

Don't get me wrong. I know how far a good accusation can take one, but this seems a touch premature. But then, I'm only an inmate, observing this warden spat as an outsider.

I asked for conformation. This, apparently, was the response to that. From the Marquis' justifications to me, I can see that he intends to take my punishment into his own hands.

If this were allowed to happen, then it would be hypocrisy. I tried to reach a compromise with the Marquis, which was rejected outright. I tried to discuss this matter privately, which, by the looks of things, was rejected outright. I think not I am the one behaving unreasonably or uncooperatively here.

I wish, sir, you had not to observe it, for this matter should have been discussed far more tactfully than it has already. But it is what it is, and I at least thank you for being reasonable.

I can't exactly fault the Marquis for his response. I'd have the same if somebody like Crane tried to ask the same of me-- and I certainly expect the same from some of my, ah, less deserving victims. [BUT NOT FROM THE JERKS WHO TOTALLY DESERVED IT. Rex isn't that mature yet.] There comes a point when civility isn't going to be on the table.

But I suppose we'll see what the other wardens think in time. If they can be bothered to lift themselves up from their institutional apathy.

You're welcome. I thought I'd try something new. [This whole REASONABLENESS THING.]

Which is why I asked a man who I could rely on to be civil, or professional, in the matter, to clarify on my behalf instead of attempting to do it myself.

...Some, sir, I must remind you, have not shown apathy. Narvin in particular, has shown interest and concern on the matter, and there are others which I have talked to privately. I believe there are others who are not apathetic, but are simply indisposed, as well. I will admit it does not appear as such right now, but I must offer some defence to my colleagues, for I know that this is not entirely the norm.

And it was well received, sir.

171

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject