|
Post by jayne on Mar 26, 2011 0:26:25 GMT
Scenario: a 13 year old girl jumps out of a car in midtown Manhattan traffic causing cars to swerve to avoid missing her but causing them to hit other cars. Should she be arrested?
Reason one: In the car, her brother spilled ink on her best sweater. Result: She is in BIG trouble and her parents have to pay for damages.
Reason two: A carjacker had just jumped into her car and killed her mother in front of her eyes. Result: She runs until she collapses then Jones shows up "for the girl"
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 26, 2011 0:39:42 GMT
If her mother had explained what was happening, or her father talked to her about it, learning that her existence was killing her mother might not have been as traumatizing.
Having it thrown at her like a weapon during a fit of anger only made something terrible that much worse.
I DO think she owes Eglamore an apology though. Trama or no trama, she could have done him serious harm and she never meant to do that.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 26, 2011 3:37:46 GMT
Scenario: a 13 year old girl jumps out of a car in midtown Manhattan traffic causing cars to swerve to avoid missing her but causing them to hit other cars. Should she be arrested? No, because I'm pretty sure the criminal penalty for jaywalking is either a ticket or a verbal warning at the discretion of the officer on the scene. Even if she was in genuine immediate danger I wouldn't argue against giving her the verbal warning for her own good (as you're just as dead if you get run over by a car as by the murderer chasing you) and it might help the girl to not Darwin herself in the future. The civil penalties for the damage to the automobiles may have to be borne by the girl's next-of-kin if the girl was not in immediate danger, or by the criminal who was assaulting the girl if she was. On the other hand, if the girl's mother was killed a week before she charges headlong into traffic I would be in favor of a ticket and fine as a wake-up call, and possibly holding her for psychiatric evaluation to see if she intended to harm herself or others. Antimony doesn't have more right than any other student. If there is an honest-to-god traumatic condition which causes any student to act in an unapproved manner, then punishment should not be applied. A fake traumatic situation or not so much traumatic situation means the student is just trying to get away with something. That's an entirely different manner and yeah... punish away! So, the crux of the matter is, it has to be genuinely traumatic. Then I must ask two questions: First, how do we sort the genuine traumas from the very-upsetting but not-so-much-mindbogglingly-traumatic situations? Second, how far does this immunity to punishment go? Does a great enough trauma excuse any and all rule-breaking permanently, including the safety rules, or is there some sort of eventual limit? Submitted for your approval: A person is very upset because her co-worker committed suicide. She has been caught going over the railing on the top floor of a sky-scraper where she works. She says she wasn't thinking of jumping, she was just upset and wandering around. The rule is that anyone who goes over the safety rail near the edge is banned from going back to the roof; should she be told by the building super that he understands her grief and that it's okay for her to wander around outside the rail on the roof as much as she likes?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 26, 2011 14:28:56 GMT
Scenario: a 13 year old girl jumps out of a car in midtown Manhattan traffic causing cars to swerve to avoid missing her but causing them to hit other cars. Should she be arrested? No, because I'm pretty sure the criminal penalty for jaywalking is either a ticket or a verbal warning at the discretion of the officer on the scene. Even if she was in genuine immediate danger I wouldn't argue against giving her the verbal warning for her own good (as you're just as dead if you get run over by a car as by the murderer chasing you) and it might help the girl to not Darwin herself in the future. I should have said "Should she be punished" instead of arrested. How she is punished doesn't matter. But you're still concerned with her doing it again. She's to be punished so she doesn't "Darwin herself in the future" If someone does something because they are traumatized, they are, by definition, irrational. They can't prevent themselves from being irrational to avoid punishment. In Annie's case, if she was told she was responsible for her mother's death then waited a week to fly into the forest, then yeah, she's not running because she's traumatized. The story took place over a week for us but to Annie, she had JUST found out about it. "She died because of YOU" then Annie ran away. Tom showed us she was irrational by the swerving scenes. She wasn't thinking clearly. It is the authority's responsibility to ascertain this correctly. We know what happened here because we're the audience. So this doesn't sound like I'm excusing Annie specifically, lets use the girl who ran away after seeing her mother shot. " Does a great enough trauma excuse any and all rule-breaking permanently, including the safety rules, or is there some sort of eventual limit? " You tell me. 1) She ran into moving traffic right after seeing her mother killed 2) Ten years later, she's late for a meeting so she jaywalks, causing a taxi to swerve to avoid hitting her. Can she still use "My mother was shot" as a reasonable excuse? Invalid example. "Very Upset" does not equal "Traumatized" You need an example that would cause the person to become irrational.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 26, 2011 14:57:50 GMT
Regarding "It is the authority's responsibility to ascertain this correctly." Jones did a good job when Jack was causing spider induced trouble. She decided he wasn't responsible for his actions. Jones was upset with Annie and told her so. I also think Annie should apologize to Eglamore for her actions. I don't think Jones would punish Annie for acting irrationally. That said, Jones might assign her extra work to improve her emotional training. That shouldn't be treated as a punishment, just a needed lesson. Jones should explain that to Annie so she doesn't misunderstand. Now, we don't know if Eglamore will think punishment is in order. I think he's not ascertaining the situation correctly if he does, but my belief does nothing to change that!
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 27, 2011 3:59:14 GMT
But you're still concerned with her doing it again. She's to be punished so she doesn't "Darwin herself in the future" If someone does something because they are traumatized, they are, by definition, irrational. They can't prevent themselves from being irrational to avoid punishment. In Annie's case, if she was told she was responsible for her mother's death then waited a week to fly into the forest, then yeah, she's not running because she's traumatized. The story took place over a week for us but to Annie, she had JUST found out about it. "She died because of YOU" then Annie ran away. Tom showed us she was irrational by the swerving scenes. She wasn't thinking clearly. It looks like she's walked/run a couple blocks during those distorted-panel scenes. That's time passing that argues against her diminished capacity. Also in the previous comic the panels are distorted a bit but she seems able to talk and think about the ramifications of what Renard's saying, and she sure could concentrate enough to toss a fire wall in Egger's path. She'd had a nap and the panels were normal again by the time she told Coyote and Ys that her mother tricked Renard into being captured. And it has been a few years since Surma's death. Renard's words were very hurtful but still just words. Invalid example. "Very Upset" does not equal "Traumatized" You need an example that would cause the person to become irrational. Hmm, that sounds like you would be in favor of at least banning the woman from the rooftop since she wasn't traumatized enough? But okay here's another example: Mo lived in a small village until he was recruited as a child-soldier by a local warlord at the age of 9. His initiation ceremony and basic training was the murder of his entire family by his captors by machete, and he was forced to kill his own mother as a test of loyalty. For the next three years he participated in various acts of ethnic cleansing, rape and murder at the warlord's command. Then he was rescued by a NGO charity and relocated to a peaceful democratic country. The neighborhood he moved into had a crime problem so Mo carried a knife for protection whenever he was able. A couple years after he arrived some kids said some very mean things to him about his mother so Mo stabbed them to death along with an innocent bystander who was trying to break up the fight. Should Mo be held responsible for any of those deaths?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 4:46:01 GMT
But you're still concerned with her doing it again. She's to be punished so she doesn't "Darwin herself in the future" If someone does something because they are traumatized, they are, by definition, irrational. They can't prevent themselves from being irrational to avoid punishment. In Annie's case, if she was told she was responsible for her mother's death then waited a week to fly into the forest, then yeah, she's not running because she's traumatized. The story took place over a week for us but to Annie, she had JUST found out about it. "She died because of YOU" then Annie ran away. Tom showed us she was irrational by the swerving scenes. She wasn't thinking clearly. It looks like she's walked/run a couple blocks during those distorted-panel scenes. That's time passing that argues against her diminished capacity. Also in the previous comic the panels are distorted a bit but she seems able to talk and think about the ramifications of what Renard's saying, and she sure could concentrate enough to toss a fire wall in Egger's path. She'd had a nap and the panels were normal again by the time she told Coyote and Ys that her mother tricked Renard into being captured. And it has been a few years since Surma's death. Renard's words were very hurtful but still just words. Are you seriously arguing "Its been 15 minutes and she's STILL traumatized? Get over it already Annie! Sheesh, move on, you killed your mom YEARS ago!" No, she just found out about it and ran until she collapsed. I'd say she made it to here before she regained control of herself. She is still very upset but she is no longer irrational. Exactly! She was just upset, not irrational. She should follow the same rules as anyone else or face the consequences. "The rule is that anyone who goes over the safety rail near the edge is banned from going back to the roof" So yeah, she's banned! That is the consequence she must face. Well, if he was a pit bull, he would be euthanized. But he's not. What do you mean "held responsible"? He's obviously not responsible for getting himself indoctrinated by repeated trauma. If he was rescued and left on his own with no help to overcome his violent conditioning, then I'd hold his rescuers responsible. He would still need to be sent to a guarded psychological facility to prevent him from harming anyone else. Say he escaped on his own... then the same thing happened and he killed a bunch of people. First, arrest him. Assuming the true story is revealed, he should be contained until such time as he is no longer a danger to himself or society, but remember he may never reach that. He's not being punished for what happened to him. He's as much a victim as those he killed.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 5:12:12 GMT
At this point, Annie has regained control of herself. If Eglamore had walked up instead of Ysengrin, Annie would not respond by throwing a wall of fire at him. If she did anything punishment-worthy at this point, she would have to take responsibility for her actions because at this point, she would be making a conscious choice to misbehave.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 27, 2011 6:21:09 GMT
Well, if he was a pit bull, he would be euthanized. But he's not. What do you mean "held responsible"? I mean criminally responsible, but the difference between being locked in a regular jail and a psychiatric facility for the violently insane would probably be lost on Mo (he might prefer the former, actually). He's obviously not responsible for getting himself indoctrinated by repeated trauma. If he was rescued and left on his own with no help to overcome his violent conditioning, then I'd hold his rescuers responsible. War criminals sometimes blend in with refugees because the refugees are too scared to say anything, but suppose that the NGO did know some or all of Mo's story. They do not have the budget for extensive psychological reconditioning of the people they evacuate from conflict zones. He would still need to be sent to a guarded psychological facility to prevent him from harming anyone else. Say he escaped on his own... then the same thing happened and he killed a bunch of people. First, arrest him. Assuming the true story is revealed, he should be contained until such time as he is no longer a danger to himself or society, but remember he may never reach that. He's not being punished for what happened to him. He's as much a victim as those he killed. If you're saying that what society needs to do to Mo to protect itself from Mo is on Mo's abusers and not society, I think I can agree. Pesky detail: He's still a minor. If tried as a sane juvie Mo might be out at 18. If placed in a mental facility they have to let him out as soon as they figure he's no longer a danger. Some of the relatives of Mo's victims might themselves be traumatized if Mo is released after just a few years for a triple homicide. Therefore, since Mo probably does understand that people die when stabbed enough times, and that killing is illegal where he lives, I believe that makes him sane enough to be tried even though he was obviously traumatized. Since the juvie system isn't designed to deal with people like Mo the standard practice is to get him tried as an adult. Are you seriously arguing "Its been 15 minutes and she's STILL traumatized? Get over it already Annie! Sheesh, move on, you killed your mom YEARS ago!" No, she just found out about it and ran until she collapsed. I'd say she made it to here before she regained control of herself. She is still very upset but she is no longer irrational. Actually I am trying to illustrate that mind-reading is very difficult! Even in comics it's tough to say what someone was feeling or thinking or why they did something, in real life it's nearly impossible. To make things harder, the people who're so traumatized that they can no longer think rationally are some of the people we want to see freely walking around the least. If a rule requires punishment that's not appropriate to what happened then the rule is unjust and needs changing, but I think that exceptions to rules should be few. Getting inside someone's head and deciding how upset they were when they did something is iffy at best. It is also possible to be compassionate and understanding while insisting that someone still needs to face the music for what they've done. Also: Detention isn't the worst thing in the world.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 27, 2011 11:55:17 GMT
Let's not forget that Annie's been causing problems for the Court almost since the day she arrived (and it's a good thing for her that they don't know that she sent Robot across the bridge at the start, or broke his CPU out of robot prison). Their patience with her must be wearing thin; it's not just a matter of punishing her, but preventing her from causing more problems for them. If she gets detention, it might be detention until she graduates (under the theory that she can't stir up more trouble if she's kept sitting at a desk in detention room rather than sneaking around the corridors of the school).
Presumably they haven't decided her punishment yet (there has to be more reason for that than "Tom can't finish this story of Annie trying to get Kat to be her friend again if she's locked up"), but I suspect they soon will.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 13:30:39 GMT
Actually I am trying to illustrate that mind-reading is very difficult! Even in comics it's tough to say what someone was feeling or thinking or why they did something, in real life it's nearly impossible. To make things harder, the people who're so traumatized that they can no longer think rationally are some of the people we want to see freely walking around the least. If a rule requires punishment that's not appropriate to what happened then the rule is unjust and needs changing, but I think that exceptions to rules should be few. Getting inside someone's head and deciding how upset they were when they did something is iffy at best. It is also possible to be compassionate and understanding while insisting that someone still needs to face the music for what they've done. Also: Detention isn't the worst thing in the world. I'm not using mind reading. I'm using Tom's cues. When viewing what happened from Annie's perspective, the entire world was warped. The next scene is from Eglamore's perspective and the image's frames are straight again. So yeah, in this comic, as opposed to real life, we do know Annie is irrational at this point. I'd ask Tom to confirm this but we can't do that anymore. Rules require consequences to be effective. "Do this or you will be punished in some appropriate manner" You can't punish someone to prevent them from being irrational. Its not effective and its just cruel. Someone goes through something so terrible that their mind shuts off, so lets top that off with detention... make her write lines now... What is the point? What do you mean to achieve? Detention is not the worst thing in the world but if it will have ZERO effect, don't bother.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 13:36:54 GMT
As for Mo: "He's not being punished for what happened to him. He's as much a victim as those he killed. "
So, in my judgment, he's not being held criminally responsible. He's to be detained until his conditioning can be reversed, if it can be. Its the same as someone who is insane and just wants to kill people. You don't punish them, but you can't let them go free as they are a danger to society.
You don't give insane people trials either. They are evaluated and treated, not punished.
Also, I'm a software engineer and this is a made up abstract case. I have no idea how accurate my judgment is compared to people who actually know about this stuff. But you asked me, so that's my answer.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 13:45:56 GMT
Punishing Annie will not prevent her or anyone from acting irrationally. Say we punish Annie so that the rest of the students learn there are consequences to leaving the court. Well, there already are consequences to leaving the court.
Say we DON'T punish Annie and one of the other students tries to leave the court and says, "Annie did it! Why can't I?"
My official response would be: "While you're in detention for a week, I want you to think about it and explain the differences between what happened to Annie and what you've done"
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 27, 2011 14:13:34 GMT
Oi, you wrote that last post while I was composing this and somewhat stole my thunder. Possible alternate explanation: Renard made Antimony cry and the panel distortion is because she (and the reader) sees through her tears. I miss asking Mr. Siddell about stuff on Formspring but since he shut the account down around Christmas I can't help but wonder if that was his Christmas present to himself, and then I don't miss it so much. (Sorry, Tom!) Rules require consequences to be effective. "Do this or you will be punished in some appropriate manner" You can't punish someone to prevent them from being irrational. Its not effective and its just cruel. Someone goes through something so terrible that their mind shuts off, so lets top that off with detention... make her write lines now... What is the point? What do you mean to achieve? Detention is not the worst thing in the world but if it will have ZERO effect, don't bother. Well, the general point of detention is to give the student time to reflect. Usually that's reflection on whatever conduct that led them to rule-breaking but it can also be time spent thinking about anything. I didn't get much detention in school but for minor offenses it was just meditation time; for somewhat worse stuff they might assign an essay on how you screwed up and why (to make sure the point is driven home) or possibly rewriting some pledge not to do it again some hundreds of times. I'm not sure that would be useless in this case. Even assuming that people in general wouldn't mature from this sort of reflection I don't think there's a reason to excuse Antimony. Heck, even if she just sits and stews in detention for a week she's not really harmed. As for Mo: "He's not being punished for what happened to him. He's as much a victim as those he killed. " So, in my judgment, he's not being held criminally responsible. He's to be detained until his conditioning can be reversed, if it can be. Its the same as someone who is insane and just wants to kill people. You don't punish them, but you can't let them go free as they are a danger to society. You don't give insane people trials either. They are evaluated and treated, not punished. Indeed though the difference between treatment and punishment can be a fine line. Competency hearings have judges and defense lawyers and someone from the prosecutor's office and they take place in courtrooms. I don't know much about the sort of psychiatric treatment that someone like Mo would get but I am guessing that it isn't fun. Also, I'm a software engineer and this is a made up abstract case. I have no idea how accurate my judgment is compared to people who actually know about this stuff. But you asked me, so that's my answer. It is a difficult case, isn't it? There are serious consequences whichever way you decide. But that is why I used it... and it is only partly fiction. [random]I don't know much about software (I studied TSR-basic and COBOL in high school, alas) but I know just enough to sometimes enjoy The Daily WTF. When you tire of discussing perversions of justice and science, check that site out for perversions of info tech. [/random]
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 14:23:17 GMT
Well, she's already crying when this scene starts so I don't think the warping is because she can't see clearly. As it sinks in, the world goes wonky. I mean really, the buildings are twisted because she's got tears in her eyes and can't see well? I don't think so. Can we agree: if she is in fact irrational at this point, she should receive no punishment. If she's just upset and knows better, she should get detention. (With the understanding that our discussion has no effect on whether she actually gets detention or not. Eglamore could be working on the required paperwork to have her expelled right now!)
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 27, 2011 14:29:22 GMT
Well, let me put it this way... If she is indeed so upset that she cannot follow safety rules then Antimony should get mandatory psych counseling. So I'm for either detention or pshrinkage, not sure which is worse.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 14:35:34 GMT
I Never tire of discussing science! Injustice makes me exhausted and frustrated. I'm a programmer: I think in abstract cases all the time. Injustice = bad and therefore should not exist. That's it, end of story, delete injustice, injustice = null, overrite injustice with justice. Now that its decided, make it so!
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 14:39:12 GMT
Well, let me put it this way... If she is indeed so upset that she cannot follow safety rules then Antimony should get mandatory psych counseling. So I'm for either detention or pshrinkage, not sure which is worse. You're not getting the whole, "She's traumatized" thing. Yes, she is so upset that she can't follow the safety rules. She's so upset, she can't follow any abstract rules that don't effect her basic survival instincts. She can't run back and turn in her homework even though she'll be in trouble for not turning that in. This is a temporary condition. As for counseling, that's a good idea. I mean, with what she's been through already, she needs some help. She's already blaming herself for her dad deserting her.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 14:43:59 GMT
OH as for: "Should Annie be punished for not turning in her homework on time"
Yes, she can't use the 'traumatized' excuse for this because she had time before this occurred to turn in her paper. She waited until the last minute to turn it in and then something happened. She should learn not to wait until the last minute because in real life, emergencies happen.
She could TRY to use that as an excuse but.... well Jones wouldn't fall for it.
"Should she be punished for leaving the court in a blind rage" No. There were extenuating circumstances.
"Should Annie be punished for not turning in her homework on time" Yes. Those circumstances do not excuse her from this responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 27, 2011 17:11:29 GMT
You're not getting the whole, "She's traumatized" thing. Yes, she is so upset that she can't follow the safety rules. She's so upset, she can't follow any abstract rules that don't effect her basic survival instincts. She can't run back and turn in her homework even though she'll be in trouble for not turning that in. This is a temporary condition. I do understand that she's traumatized, I do not agree that some forced reflection on her behavior after that trauma is automatically useless. People can learn how to handle their emotions and stressful situations better, that's why not everyone reacts the same way to traumatic events. Antimony is still a kid but the primary reasons she flipped out are still there; she's also the central character of the comic so odds are that something similar will happen again. Excusing her conduct may seem more compassionate and reasonable in the short run but won't help her when next time the poo hits the fan. As for counseling, that's a good idea. I mean, with what she's been through already, she needs some help. She's already blaming herself for her dad deserting her. I tend to agree (though Antimony would probably consider that a way worse punishment than detention). Terrible thought: Dr. Disaster seems to be in charge of the team-building exercises... Figure he might be Antimony's counselor? Not sure how that would work out but it might make for an excellent comic.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 27, 2011 18:36:25 GMT
You're not getting the whole, "She's traumatized" thing. Yes, she is so upset that she can't follow the safety rules. She's so upset, she can't follow any abstract rules that don't effect her basic survival instincts. She can't run back and turn in her homework even though she'll be in trouble for not turning that in. This is a temporary condition. I do understand that she's traumatized, I do not agree that some forced reflection on her behavior after that trauma is automatically useless. People can learn how to handle their emotions and stressful situations better, that's why not everyone reacts the same way to traumatic events. Antimony is still a kid but the primary reasons she flipped out are still there; she's also the central character of the comic so odds are that something similar will happen again. Excusing her conduct may seem more compassionate and reasonable in the short run but won't help her when next time the poo hits the fan. As for counseling, that's a good idea. I mean, with what she's been through already, she needs some help. She's already blaming herself for her dad deserting her. I tend to agree (though Antimony would probably consider that a way worse punishment than detention). Terrible thought: Dr. Disaster seems to be in charge of the team-building exercises... Figure he might be Antimony's counselor? Not sure how that would work out but it might make for an excellent comic. I agree there should be some reaction but not punishment. The fact that she lost her cookies over this is a sign she needs some help!
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 27, 2011 22:20:01 GMT
Eglamore could be working on the required paperwork to have her expelled right now!) I've said this before, but I don't think that the Court would expel Annie. For one thing, if they do and she takes Reynardine with her, they can't keep an eye on him any more. And if she leaves him behind when she goes, presumably never to return, that might break her ownership over his plush body, allowing him to get free and possess somebody else. For that matter, they might think it dangerous to send Annie into the outside world in the state she's in - what if she flares up again? A more likely punishment would be to lock her up in a fire-proof cell where they can watch her.
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Mar 27, 2011 22:43:03 GMT
Eglamore could be working on the required paperwork to have her expelled right now!) I've said this before, but I don't think that the Court would expel Annie. For one thing, if they do and she takes Reynardine with her, they can't keep an eye on him any more. And if she leaves him behind when she goes, presumably never to return, that might break her ownership over his plush body, allowing him to get free and possess somebody else. For that matter, they might think it dangerous to send Annie into the outside world in the state she's in - what if she flares up again? A more likely punishment would be to lock her up in a fire-proof cell where they can watch her. Like the new dorms maybe? Other than her clothes (and lets NOT go there), about the only flammable things in there would be her books, the bed, and whatever belongings. Theoretically, she could melt her way out of a fireproof (that is, metal) room, but it's unknown whether her physical body could withstand the heat equivalent to that of the center of the sun or even deep in the Earths core. Edit2: Of course though, the court could easily create a chamber surrounded by water (which incidentially, the dorms are), even then, there would have to be some kind of opening for air/food and people to enter/exit, but they could do a double airlock with a water filled middle chamber. Overly elaborate? Maybe. Is it in the Courts style? No idea..... jayne: Wasn't that part of Coyotes point behind his offer to stay in the forest for the summer, to get her some help? Despite any secondary or teritary or nth level of motives and plans Coyote is sure to have.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Mar 28, 2011 0:37:55 GMT
Like the new dorms maybe? Other than her clothes (and lets NOT go there), about the only flammable things in there would be her books, the bed, and whatever belongings. Theoretically, she could melt her way out of a fireproof (that is, metal) room, but it's unknown whether her physical body could withstand the heat equivalent to that of the center of the sun or even deep in the Earths core. Hm, most metals melt below 3000°C. Iron, the most common metal, melts around 1800°C. That is very hot, but much colder than the temperature at Earth's core or on the surface of the Sun (both about 5500°C?) To compare, an incandescent lamp is around 2200°C, though, so really it doesn't require that much energy and heat dissipation if it is concentrated in a small point. Also contrast with a lightning bolt: around 28.000°C…
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Mar 28, 2011 0:46:19 GMT
Like the new dorms maybe? Other than her clothes (and lets NOT go there), about the only flammable things in there would be her books, the bed, and whatever belongings. Theoretically, she could melt her way out of a fireproof (that is, metal) room, but it's unknown whether her physical body could withstand the heat equivalent to that of the center of the sun or even deep in the Earths core. Hm, most metals melt below 3000°C. Iron, the most common metal, melts around 1800°C. That is very hot, but much colder than the temperature at Earth's core or on the surface of the Sun (both about 5500°C?) To compare, an incandescent lamp is around 2200°C, though, so really it doesn't require that much energy and heat dissipation if it is concentrated in a small point. Also contrast with a lightning bolt: around 28.000°C… Yea, I did think of that, such as a plasma arc cutter and I was sort of rambling off a little. Or maybe just give her a lightsabre, LAUGHING ON LINE On the serious side, she could certainly work with plasma, the problem is how. If she just levitates it and just uses it like a lens or just makes it shoot a laser-like beam. Edit: Stupid word edit filter thingy of toms and it's OUT LOUD, not ON LINE
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Mar 28, 2011 2:07:01 GMT
I've said this before, but I don't think that the Court would expel Annie. For one thing, if they do and she takes Reynardine with her, they can't keep an eye on him any more. And if she leaves him behind when she goes, presumably never to return, that might break her ownership over his plush body, allowing him to get free and possess somebody else. For that matter, they might think it dangerous to send Annie into the outside world in the state she's in - what if she flares up again? A more likely punishment would be to lock her up in a fire-proof cell where they can watch her. Like the new dorms maybe? Other than her clothes (and lets NOT go there), about the only flammable things in there would be her books, the bed, and whatever belongings. Theoretically, she could melt her way out of a fireproof (that is, metal) room, but it's unknown whether her physical body could withstand the heat equivalent to that of the center of the sun or even deep in the Earths core. Edit2: Of course though, the court could easily create a chamber surrounded by water (which incidentially, the dorms are), even then, there would have to be some kind of opening for air/food and people to enter/exit, but they could do a double airlock with a water filled middle chamber. Overly elaborate? Maybe. Is it in the Courts style? No idea..... jayne: Wasn't that part of Coyotes point behind his offer to stay in the forest for the summer, to get her some help? Despite any secondary or teritary or nth level of motives and plans Coyote is sure to have. Knowing the court, that's probably exactly why they're using the underwater dorms. Though, they'd be sacrificing everyone else in them if they locked it down in the event of another outburst from Annie. I imagine also that the air supply would eventually run out and any secondary chemical combustion (as distinct from whatever magical fire Annie produces) would stop, also killing anyone else there. Since there isn't any decompression chamber at the entrance to the dorms, we can assume at that they're at least using normal atmospheric pressure in them, so things wouldn't get out of control too quickly.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Mar 28, 2011 2:11:12 GMT
jayne: Wasn't that part of Coyotes point behind his offer to stay in the forest for the summer, to get her some help? Despite any secondary or teritary or nth level of motives and plans Coyote is sure to have. Yes, I had forgotten about that. She was very tense, had a major meltdown, theoretically got some help dealing with everything and now, she's a giddy kid. Hmmmmm.... Interesting!
|
|