Crusader Kings III

[Valmy]

First, I am not sure why you think there is a conflict between a lawyer zealously guarding the interests of their client and acting within the rules.  But here is a pro tip, if you run across a lawyer who believes there is such a conflict, get rid of them asap and find another lawyer, they will likely be disbarred or harm you, or both.

Many of the examples you have used having nothing to do with being dishonest when playing the game (except messing with footballs).  I still don't understand why you admire that.

Interesting how you suddenly shift from good sportsmanship the spirit of the game to acting strictly within the rules suddenly when lawyering is mentioned  Oh when I see lawyers operate in my job they don't act outside the rules...they are just incredibly dishonest about how they present the facts in their clients favor and put on ridiculous acts to try to manipulate me, the expert witness. And then in the next case they just as dishonestly present different facts, sometimes even taking a completely opposite position as before. Because it is what their client needs, but not really in the spirit of producing the most just and fair outcome for all.

Are there rules against acting to try to draw a call? Are there rules against having somebody trying to read the lips of the other coach on the sideline to try to figure out what they are doing? No. But they certainly are not good sportsmanship or within the spirit of the game. But how silly is it that coaches have to cover up their mouths so guys on the other sideline aren't reading their lips?

And I don't admire it, I certainly would never do any of those things, I just kind of admire the crazy mentality that leads people to do it. It is kind of tied to the same mentality that gets people to the top of their sports in the first place. That these athletes really care that much. I am not sure how better I can present that. I don't ask you to agree with me, just understand where I am coming from. And I am not being totally serious dude, it is just something that I find entertaining.

Valmy, eventually you should teach your kid that blatant cheating is not an achievement. :p

Oh I do.  I think it is just a maturity thing, he will come around. It is kind of cute I think.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure how I shifted. 

I am not sure about what kind of inference you are making here.

[grumbler]

I am not sure how I shifted. 

I am not sure about what kind of inference you are making here.

Valmy was saying that a lawyer who acted in accordance with the spirit of the laws (i.e. according to what the laws were intended to accomplish, as opposed to what they actually accomplish with their wording) would risk disbarment because zealous representation of your client means serving the interests of your client even if you think that the makers of the law really didn't want your client to get away with it.

Probably financial/tax advisors are a more clear example of this.  They are trained to look for loopholes which, by definition, violate the spirit of the law.

[jimmy olsen]

Thanks, Tim, for making this all happen. I'm guessing this isn't the traffic you wanted in the CK3 thread.

Unlike some people, I'm not a thread policer, so I don't mind.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure how I shifted. 

I am not sure about what kind of inference you are making here.

Valmy was saying that a lawyer who acted in accordance with the spirit of the laws (i.e. according to what the laws were intended to accomplish, as opposed to what they actually accomplish with their wording) would risk disbarment because zealous representation of your client means serving the interests of your client even if you think that the makers of the law really didn't want your client to get away with it.

Probably financial/tax advisors are a more clear example of this.  They are trained to look for loopholes which, by definition, violate the spirit of the law.

Right and I responded by saying that a lawyer who does not do that is a lot more likely to be disbarred or cause harm to their client or both.  Finding loopholes in the tax code is not outside the spirit of the law.  It is in fact what the Courts say is entirely appropriate.  The taxing authority has the burden, not the taxpayer.

[garbon]

Thanks, Tim, for making this all happen. I'm guessing this isn't the traffic you wanted in the CK3 thread.

Unlike some people, I'm not a thread policer, so I don't mind.

Dude, you united several very different posters on the thought that your AAR was misplaced. Not sure why you'd be a jackass about it.

But thanks to your shenanigans, we get treated instead to thin skinned Valmy facing down always right CC on a completely unrelated topic.

[Josquius]

My son loves paradox games by the way. He is always telling me about his latest bloody conquest.

But I know he saves the game, loads the game up as the country he declared war on, and immediately surrenders to himself.

I am working on trying to get him to appreciate the joy of losing on Ironman.

I remember I was the same on civ 2 back in the day.
Didn't get cheats ruined the game. Think it comes with time.

Though one thing I remember doing was building a custom map with enemy civs locked on one square tundra to enjoy just building.

[grumbler]

I am not sure how I shifted. 

I am not sure about what kind of inference you are making here.

Valmy was saying that a lawyer who acted in accordance with the spirit of the laws (i.e. according to what the laws were intended to accomplish, as opposed to what they actually accomplish with their wording) would risk disbarment because zealous representation of your client means serving the interests of your client even if you think that the makers of the law really didn't want your client to get away with it.

Probably financial/tax advisors are a more clear example of this.  They are trained to look for loopholes which, by definition, violate the spirit of the law.

Right and I responded by saying that a lawyer who does not do that is a lot more likely to be disbarred or cause harm to their client or both.  Finding loopholes in the tax code is not outside the spirit of the law.  It is in fact what the Courts say is entirely appropriate.  The taxing authority has the burden, not the taxpayer.

I see what the problem is, here:  US English and Canadian English have different meanings for "spirit f the law" and "loophole."

In US English, "spirit of the law" is "the aim or purpose of a law when it was written" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the%20spirit%20of%20the%20law and thus, unlike Canada, is not determined by the courts.  In the US, what the courts determine (and what you are calling "the spirit of the law") is referred to as "the letter of the law."  The lawmakers determine the spirit of the law.

Also, in the US, a "loophole" in this context is "an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole.   In Canada, if your post is correct, a loophole is what the law intended, according to the courts.  In the US, a loophole is not what the law intended.

So, that's why you and Valmy are at loggerheads:  you are speaking the same words, but in different languages.  My advice is to abandon the topic until you can agree with Valmy as to which language you are going to communicate in.

[The Minsky Moment]

In America legislation is drafted by lobbyists, revised into incomprehensibility by congressional staffers, rubber stamped by members of Congress, and signed by the President.  Legislation is then taken by administrative agencies who write the rules that actually control most conduct, again with the involvement of industry lobbyists. The rules usually bear some relationship to the underlying legislation, some more, some less.  The courts are there to render opinions on various pieces of those rules or legislation on an ad hoc basis.

The spirit of the laws is handled by Montesquieu, but he's dead.  And not even American.

[The Brain]

In America legislation is drafted by lobbyists, revised into incomprehensibility by congressional staffers, rubber stamped by members of Congress, and signed by the President.  Legislation is then taken by administrative agencies who write the rules that actually control most conduct, again with the involvement of industry lobbyists. The rules usually bear some relationship to the underlying legislation, some more, some less.  The courts are there to render opinions on various pieces of those rules or legislation on an ad hoc basis.

The spirit of the laws is handled by Montesquieu, but he's dead.  And not even American.

Can other countries adopt that process?

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure how I shifted. 

I am not sure about what kind of inference you are making here.

Valmy was saying that a lawyer who acted in accordance with the spirit of the laws (i.e. according to what the laws were intended to accomplish, as opposed to what they actually accomplish with their wording) would risk disbarment because zealous representation of your client means serving the interests of your client even if you think that the makers of the law really didn't want your client to get away with it.

Probably financial/tax advisors are a more clear example of this.  They are trained to look for loopholes which, by definition, violate the spirit of the law.

Right and I responded by saying that a lawyer who does not do that is a lot more likely to be disbarred or cause harm to their client or both.  Finding loopholes in the tax code is not outside the spirit of the law.  It is in fact what the Courts say is entirely appropriate.  The taxing authority has the burden, not the taxpayer.

I see what the problem is, here:  US English and Canadian English have different meanings for "spirit f the law" and "loophole."

In US English, "spirit of the law" is "the aim or purpose of a law when it was written" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the%20spirit%20of%20the%20law and thus, unlike Canada, is not determined by the courts.  In the US, what the courts determine (and what you are calling "the spirit of the law") is referred to as "the letter of the law."  The lawmakers determine the spirit of the law.

Also, in the US, a "loophole" in this context is "an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole.   In Canada, if your post is correct, a loophole is what the law intended, according to the courts.  In the US, a loophole is not what the law intended.

So, that's why you and Valmy are at loggerheads:  you are speaking the same words, but in different languages.  My advice is to abandon the topic until you can agree with Valmy as to which language you are going to communicate in.

Rather than go down a semantic rabbit hole.  There does indeed appear to be a difference between American and Canadian cultural values and particularly where it applies to lawyers.  The things Valmy suggested an American lawyer would do or risk being disbarred would certainly get a Canadian lawyer disbarred.

[Jacob]

Can you designate your heir as a Buddhist in CKIII right out of the gate, or is that feature only in CKII?

[jimmy olsen]

Started a new game as the Count of Syracuse because I had to get my hard drive replaced.

This is my first game in the 867 start for CK3, I've always preferred the 1066 date in all CK games. My first character died relatively early, but my second guy has crowned himself Despot of Sicily. It's like 907ish IIRC.

So, there's an independent neighboring duchy of Benevento ruled by a Lombard Catholic. IIRC, all three counties are within the dejure Kingdom of Sicily. Why don't I have any CBs on this guy? Is there an innovation I need for that? If so, that's ludicrous.

EDIT: Ugh, looked it up. I can't even get a CB for a county until the Emperor chooses to research this one.

https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Casus_belli

[garbon]

My wife considers my wife a threat...

[The Brain]

Doesn't seem weird that obvious insanity in her husband will make her uncomfortable.