Now that this miserable clusterfuck has been established properly as a Tribunal rather than a Court Case as most have assumed, I would like to remind everyone involved in this conversation what the difference is between the two in most lands.
There are typically traditionally two significant differences between administrative tribunals and courts
:
- Administrative tribunals are set up to be less formal, less expensive, and usually a faster way to resolve disputes than by using the traditional court system.
- Tribunal members who make decisions (adjudicators) usually have special knowledge about the topic they are asked to consider. Judges, however, are expected to have general knowledge about many areas of law, not particular expertise about the law in the case they are hearing.
In a tribunal hearing, your case may be heard by one adjudicator sitting alone, or by a panel of several adjudicators if the matter is complicated. These adjudicators have special training and experience to conduct hearings, but they are not judges. But, like a trial in court before a judge, the adjudicators are responsible for conducting fair hearings and making final decisions on the issues. They do this by considering the evidence and applying the legislation, case law, and policies that relate to your case.
Tribunals tend to be a more informal investigation by which it is discovered if there are grounds for formal charges. If there are, it goes to Court for judgement.
Syr Brya Montague, am I correct this far?
In recent hours, a New Set of Rathfallian laws has been put before us. The Old Set was... concerning to say the least, as many of the laws included in it left much to be desired insofar as to reporting or dealing with corruption in most ways, as well as the definition of slander.
Slander or Libel typically may include in most lands the following:
- Imputing that a person committed a crime;
- Imputing that a person is infected with a loathsome communicable disease;
- Imputing that a person is unable or lacks the integrity to perform one’s employment duties;
- Imputing that a person lack ability or otherwise prejudices one in one’s profession; and
- Imputing that a person has engaged in adultery or fornication.
Syr Brya Montague, am I correct thus far?
You must realize that due to what We as the Unbounded ran into last Rathfall Market where we prevented the your Moon from being forcibly crashed into Fortannis, We ran into several instances in which many amongst our number are less than sure that this law will be exercised in Good Faith due to the wording of your former laws, as well as some of the wording of the current. If one is to bring foward any case of corruption, the argument for slander could be levied.
Many have come to me with the concern that this will be a Kill Box situation. It would not be the first time such an instance has happened to myself or many of the others here. I mean no insult, accusation, or injury by this statement, but rather would like to inform you of many of our Anxieties.
I do not wish to come into this situation with hostility either, but due to much of the phrasing used thus far to describe affected parties, as noted by the Sage and Warlord Binar Blooddrinker, has been derogatory in nature many among us are quite frankly concerned. I may be incorrect, but it sounds as if you have already decided for yourself that the Unbounded are guilty. I sincerely hope you've merely phrased your sentiments poorly and would kindly ask that you more carefully consider your words in the future. Emotion and Inflection are difficult to transmit via text alone.
Regardless, we are not flies. You'll have more success with metaphorical honey rather than vinegar.
Sincerely,
Margrave Auryn Fairhorn of Concord
in service to the Princess Vivian Grimlocke, Duchess of Northshire, Wayside