RARA: the TD;DR version · 5:49pm Jan 10th, 2018
In case my readers of "Equestria: Civil War" skipped the Act in chapter 7 and just sided against it anyway:
1: the Canterlot panel oversees and approves everything Twilight does.
2: Twilight must talk to the panel before allowing anyone to work with her, and must have their OK to do so.
3: anyone who wants to join Twilight must take a mental health test to qualify.
4: anyone working with Twilight on a mission must report to the panel first.
5: Twilight et al can't go on a mission without the panel reviewing the mission first.
6: a spokesman must go with them on missions, has the final word on what they do, and reports back to the panel.
7: in a state of emergency, ELEMENTS OF HARMONY ONLY.
8: if anyone gets hurt or something gets broken, that pony must be arrested and tried. Twilight and friends can't talk to them while they're in custody.
9: disobey the articles or the panel, and you're on probation. Do anything while under probation, you're under arrest and will be tried.
Now come on. Is that really that bad? And is it really so far-fetched that any of the Mane Six would support it? Come on, guys, accountability is what the story is all about. It's not as if this Act is some kind of tyrannical, despotic order.
Try to see both sides, okay? Thanks.
I've already read chapter 7. I'm still on Twilight's side.
Understandable? Maybe. Enforced properly? Still no. I am still on Twilight’s side and will take my chances with her than a flankhole like Thunderbolt.
Not so much tyrannical, but loaded with red tape and not just loaded, but front-loaded. It seems designed to prevent any action by Twilight & co. until it's already too late. The Equestrian populace have decided they'd rather be killed outright by villains than risk the protection of imperfect heroes. Twilight and her friends have to take a good long look in the mirror and decide whether they really want to stay in the hero business and be punished for trying to help in what limited way they are still allowed to or hang up their metaphorical capes, tell themselves they tried their best, and just move on to take care of themselves and their close loved ones like normal people and hope society will come to it's senses someday.
4771252
The idea is to have their actions okayed by representatives of the people (ponies in this case) in the event of a lapse in judgment. The reason most of Discord's and Starlight's actions were enabled was because they were not held accountable, and were not properly screened for possible mistakes. It may limit them, but not in the way everyone seems to think. It makes sure they can do their jobs without being compromised, so they can continue to do so. They wouldn't be punished simply for acting; they'd be punished for not going through the proper channels.
4771272
In real life, we having something called Good Samaritan laws. If I pull someone from the blazing wreck on the side of the road, throw them in the back of my car, and drive them to the hospital, I have a great deal of legal protection if the person I'm trying to help was injured in the process of me saving their life, so long as I am judged as acting in good faith. The laws exist to encourage and promote the social good of volunteerism at the point where disaster strikes and when time is most critical.
From where I'm standing, I'm seeing the exact opposite from the RARA. Volunteers who risk their lives in a time of crisis are to be treated with suspicion and skepticism. They are begrudgingly allowed to help, but had better have their paperwork filled out and God help them if their performance is not flawless. It's a very bureaucratic and hostile attitude that will make many would-be volunteers shrink back from helping when they are needed most.
Seriously, Article 6 involves having a Political Commissar coming along to jog Twilight's elbow every five seconds, demand that she do stupid things, and then pin the blame on her when things go horribly wrong. That's not just a red flag, that's a red flag on fire. Nobody the Panel assigns to these missions is going to be held to account because that would reflect poorly on the Panel for assigning them in the first place. No committee ever found fault with it's own judgment and the Panel will certainly not be the first. Article Six is enough reason all by itself for Twilight to hand in her crown and tell the Panel to find someone else to be their scapegoat.
Look, I'm not against holding people accountable, even heroes. But accountability is something done after the fact. It's one thing to have Twilight & co. be debriefed and held to account after the crisis is finished. But it's something completely different - and completely untenable - for the Panel to expect to control every emergency from start to finish.
Maybe more to the point, I don't see any possibility of The Panel itself being held to account. The whole purpose of having a Panel to begin with is to reign in those acting without oversight and yet that's precisely what the panel itself is. It's going to say who can be on the team and where can they go and play backseat driver by proxy when they get there, but who debriefs the Panel and passes judgement over it's actions? It's one thing to have a purely judgmental body, but it's another thing when there's a conflict of interest because the judges are also taking part in the very actions that they then judge. In real life, judges are expected to recuse themselves in such situations because of that conflict.
4771368
Look, I don't mean to be a jerk. But every word of that gave the impression of you wanting to take offense to the Act rather than seeing the Act for what it is. You see the Act as a restriction of all good ponies. The Act is supposed to be a watchful eye over supposedly good ponies. They know ponies like Rarity or Fluttershy wouldn't be affected by the Act because they aren't former villains. This Act is meant to keep watch over Twilight's actions over whom she forgives and allows to join her in her cause. Not to discourage good deeds.
There's nothing about a "flawless performance" being required. There is nothing about the accompanying panel member demanding anything, and there's nothing about scapegoating Twilight when things go wrong. It's about holding Twilight and her friends accountable if things go wrong because of them.
The Act is equal parts accountability and safety. You assume it's strictly the former without taking the latter into account. Enough ponies have been hurt because of villains like Starlight, and the Act is not only meant to keep reformed villains in line, but to maximize safety in case they step out of it. No risks. No reckless forgiveness. No putting the fate of Equestria directly into the hooves of someone who threatened it in the first place.
The reason the panel is composed of Canterlot nobility is that they are the closest thing to politicians in Equestria without getting straight to the Princesses. The princesses oversee them (as they selected them to begin with, Article 1), so there are still checks and balances. The whole purpose of the panel is to reduce the risk of a relapse of evil behavior and maximize safety. Not to be a tyrannical, imposing, restrictive force preventing Twilight from saving the world. They merely give the okay, and make judgments they feel Twilight is unfit to make alone. Not unfit to make altogether, mind you. There can't be any conflict when they have no personal stake in the situation. That's why they were put in place. Celestia and Luna may have chosen them, but their role in this is only to make sure the panel does nothing illegal. The panel only makes sure Twilight does nothing stupid, not to make sure she does nothing at all.
If you felt that should have been made clearer in the Act, I am more than willing to make those additions. But to call out something that's not there disrespects me, the story, and the readers. I don't want to be mean about this, but a majority of dislikes on that story came from people who chose to read it all wrong, and hated it for what they saw rather than what was actually there.
4771874
I'm sure it's written with the best of intentions, but I have to read it as it is written because that's how laws work. Nothing in those articles mentions forgiveness. Nothing in those articles mentions former villains. Nothing in those articles mentions oversight of the panel. You say it is "meant" to this and it's "purpose" is to do that and so-and-so "wouldn't be affected", but none of those things matter if they aren't written down. It's anyone's guess what the writer's intentions are; ultimately the rules have to be followed as they are written. I'm not objecting to the Act as a concept, I'm objecting to the actual rules listed in the Act and how things tend to work in real life.
Let me actually go back and modify the Act a bit to make it tolerable:
I gave the Panel a blacklist. All the scary villain-types that everyone's so worried about can go on there. Anyone new that turns up in a likewise fashion also goes there.
I loosened up the original 5 and 6. Now if Equestria is burning down in the middle of the night, Twilight can go put it out without having to spend hours tracking down the Panel members so that they can convene and give her permission first. I also made the observer/spokesman position optional so that the Panel doesn't have to send a representative if they don't want to and Twilight doesn't have to wait for one if they didn't put one on standby.
I split the Panel's oversight powers. They still have the power to jog Twilight's elbow mid-mission, but now if they do that, they don't get to judge her afterwards. That should eliminate the conflict of interest / scapegoating issue. The same body of people really shouldn't be doing both executive work and judicial work at the same time. That leads to trouble.
4771942
This is exactly what I'm talking about--people forcing their own views onto my story.
Well, unfortunately, these laws are not for you to write. I'm tired of everyone forcing their own views onto a story they didn't write. This is my story, and it won't go anyone's way but mine. If that makes me a horrible person, then fine. If it means more dislikes, then fine. But I won't change my vision for the sake of views. This is how the Act was written, and this is how it will be implemented, and this is how it will be interpreted by the characters.
This is meant to screen Twilight's friends, make sure they are capable and stable, and watch them in case they are not. That's all. No blacklists (otherwise no one would be able to work with her), no exceptions to the blacklist (because then what's the point?), and o overcomplication of a simple matter with legal jargon. It's a story, not a real-life contract. This is about realistic consequences, not dull and convoluted legalese that slows down the story and makes everything sound nicer and friendlier than it really is. This is not a Terms and Conditions box to be checked at their leisure. This is the government putting its foot down. And the way it is is the way it will play out. End of story.
4771955
Sorry if you feel that way. Personally, I don’t care how the laws are presented or the meaning behind them. I mean no disrespect to you in any way by that, because you are the one who is making the story, it is just I have picked my side. Ultimately in the original film I sided with Cap because it was the right thing to do, and I still side with Twilight because it is the right thing to do, and the bad attitude that most seem to have on the opposing side doesn’t help either. What I am really waiting for is the big moment where both sides come to a head and clash with each other.
But do not take me siding against the act as an insult to you for making it, I respect you for making this crossover to begin with. I still wait for this to be updated, it I continue to support the side I think is right.
4772051
I'm sticking with Twilight as well. I'm actually surprised to see that the other side is getting away with a lot of things that no one else is calling them out on. Why hasn't anyone told Thunderbolt that he's going too far?
People are still arguing over this? Can't we just sit back and let LightningSword write his story in peace and then argue over the grey and grey morality of the story once its completed?