Seanchan and the AoL

[Knivy]

Not the country, the land. If they claim to serve the light, then they must defend against the shadow.

[Suttree]

Id think they would be responsible for protecting Malkier, if not the political structure at least the land against the blight. I dont remember the specifics, was it they couldnt arrive on time or they sent help too late?

 

Whatever that was, everything Ive seen (other than the few "rouges" like Moir and Cads) from the AS has been to build their own power and the influence of the WT. Since the trolloc wars at least, the goal of the tower has been to guide the world as it sees fit, not to protect the world. Their manipulation of thrones has undoubtedly lead to as many wars. Sometimes it is just best to let things be. The only good they can do as an institution is defense against the shadow. Everything else is balanced out.

 

As to who is considered AS, If you can channel and have risen through the tower, then you are one until you are cast out.

 

They tried to send help, came up short and covered up it up. Pre travelling there is no way they could have gotten a realistic force in time to thwart that DF plot and for the record, no I don't seriously blame the Malkieri king for the actions of DFs against his nation. Any Forsaken and BA have turned away from the light and the WT's mandate to hold the shadow at bay. BA members(just as DFs) are executed when found and it is implicit that AS serve the light. BA are AS in name only.

 

Btw it is the WT mandate to fight the shadow so they should be responsible for defending against the blight. The borderlands send them monetary tributes after all and we know Greens are up patrolling. AS simply do not have the numbers to realistically cover that much ground. Now that travelling has been discovered however they could set up some sort of emergency system with the borderforts.

[XoMeltdownoX]

Hmmm. This thread is all over the place.

 

The WT is not an institution of "goodness." It is an institution made of individuals good, bad or indifferent. It may have been founded to fight the shadow as had been suggested, I am not sure. I think it was founded to save civilization, to save knowledge. Remember the founding was post breaking. More of a neutral principle, like the Wheel. I do not believe as someone said that you must be good if you are AS. What is good anyway? Must you fight the shadow to be an AS? No I do not believe so. To be AS one must pass through the training, the testing and politics. Oh and be able to channel. That is it. The individual could be selfish, down right evil or as pure as Galad.

 

Keeping all that in mind I could never say the WT has done as much harm as good. It has saved humanity at least once, what harm can measure up to that. Ah, destroying humanity? The WT is innocent on that count. So ya, individual members have caused a lot of harm, policies have caused harm, but they SAVED the world guys. All of Suttrees points about them patrolling the Blight, intervening in wars, etc are also quite valid. The foolishness they have created does not really compare with all the "good" things they have done.

 

The BA are AS. And they certainly are the responsibility of the WT. That does not mean the blame for the existence of the BA should be laid at the feet of the AS.

 

The Forsaken are not AS. They renounced the title long ago when being AS meant something other than what it means today.

[shortkut]

All the AS had to do was make a fourth oath to never go over to the dark side or stay true to the light and have the women reswear it a couple of times a year. But, they don't do that. Liandrin was AS. Sorry.

 

Ok these manic repeat posts are not helping. You have have totally lost me in what you are trying to prove. Further what you propose would not have worked and the method has been exposed time and again in various threads. Feel free to go back and look them up if you care to.

 

If Liandrin was a DF who inflitrated the AS she is essentially a double agent. She does not count in working for the light. Just as Verin was not acually working for the shadow. I think you are hung up on a technicality. Are they called AS in name sure, but they serve the DO. It is a matter of allegiance not title.

 

Sorry mate, but I would be shocked if you find a single person who agrees that AS are responsible for the actions of Forsaken and BA. They could have done more to root them out sure. But what you propose has never been accepted anywhere in the fandom. You can post yourself silly all you want, it won't change that fact.

protip: you cannot argue that institution A is responsible for action type 1 but not action type 2 simply because you like the results of action type 1 better. Either they are responsible for every action their members perform or every action is the result of individual members. Arguing anything else, regardless of how many times you repost it, shows you have a flawed understanding of philosophy, debate, and most importantly logic.

[Maleshub]

All the AS had to do was make a fourth oath to never go over to the dark side or stay true to the light and have the women reswear it a couple of times a year. But, they don't do that. Liandrin was AS. Sorry.

 

Ok these manic repeat posts are not helping. You have have totally lost me in what you are trying to prove. Further what you propose would not have worked and the method has been exposed time and again in various threads. Feel free to go back and look them up if you care to.

 

If Liandrin was a DF who inflitrated the AS she is essentially a double agent. She does not count in working for the light. Just as Verin was not acually working for the shadow. I think you are hung up on a technicality. Are they called AS in name sure, but they serve the DO. It is a matter of allegiance not title.

 

Sorry mate, but I would be shocked if you find a single person who agrees that AS are responsible for the actions of Forsaken and BA. They could have done more to root them out sure. But what you propose has never been accepted anywhere in the fandom. You can post yourself silly all you want, it won't change that fact.

protip: you cannot argue that institution A is responsible for action type 1 but not action type 2 simply because you like the results of action type 1 better. Either they are responsible for every action their members perform or every action is the result of individual members. Arguing anything else, regardless of how many times you repost it, shows you have a flawed understanding of philosophy, debate, and most importantly logic.

 

It seems like the discussion is about "betrayal," a very negative human trait that is present in all societies and institutions. Is an institution where a member or few are traitors responsible for their betrayal? It is if it encourages it. But I don't read the WT encouraging the Black Ajah. On the contrary, they were trying to fight it. How inept they were in their fight is another story.

 

The same can be said of any number of traitors in, say, the US military. Do these traitors make the whole US military institution responsible for their betrayal and actions?

[Suttree]

protip: you cannot argue that institution A is responsible for action type 1 but not action type 2 simply because you like the results of action type 1 better. Either they are responsible for every action their members perform or every action is the result of individual members. Arguing anything else, regardless of how many times you repost it, shows you have a flawed understanding of philosophy, debate, and most importantly logic.

 

Protip? Bwhahah. Ok this isn't this first time you have jumped into a thread to focus on me and not the topic. I didnt argue what you are stating above and certainly not for the reasons given. You are missing the point entirely and I thank you not to presume to speak for me.

 

As others have mentioned in this thread Forsaken and BA cease to be AS once they swear to the DO. They have joined a "new institution" and sworn new oaths(literally). Now if you can show me once where I have done what you claim for the actions of "AS" I will debate with you. Until then you are merely trolling and given the way you frequently spin things I am starting to think it is purposeful.

[thisguy]

Actually, doing nothing for years when you think your members have gone evil is not being responsible for your members. So, either you're responsible for them or your not. Truth.

 

Plus, LoC - The 6 AS on their way to Rand are lead by the leader of the Red Ajah, the only woman that Elaida will listen to. She happens to be BA and she happens to say something about how everyone must bend their will to the AS, etc, etc. She has the Amyrilin's ear. Elaida may not be BA but she seems to think that this sort of thinking is just fine.

[thisguy]

Here's a good little bit showing that good or bad, the AS is not really much of a uniform body:

 

"There was so much subterfuge here in Salidar. Not just Birgitte, and Moghedien. One of the oaths kept an Aes Sedai from lying, but what was not spoken of did not have to be lied over. Moiraine had known how to weave a cloak of invisibility, maybe the same trick they learned from Moghedien; Nynaeve had seen Moiraine do it once, before Nynaeve knew anything of the Power. No one else in Salidar had known, though. Or admitted to it, anyway. Birgitte had confirmed what Elayne had begun to suspect. Most Aes Sedai, maybe all, kept back at least part of what they learned; most had their own secret tricks. Those might become common knowledge taught to novices or Accepted, if enough Aes Sedai learned them - or they might die with the Aes Sedai. Two or three times she thought she had seen a glimmer in someone's eyes when she demonstrated something. Carenna had leaped onto the eavesdropping trick with suspicious quickness. But it was hardly the sort of accusation an Accepted could make against Aes Sedai."

- LoC, Bottom of Pg 20 - Top of 21

 

 

This shows that they're not uniform. This also shows that they care more for self than for a unified front against the Shadow. You can also see that they're decrease in power does not only have to do with the actual decrease in OP that most AS can wield but has to do with the Fact that they're for themselves, generally, more than they are for the Tower and its fight against the DO. They'd rather die with their knowledge than share what they know to disrupt the bad guys. Add to that, Siuane Sanche. Definitely portrayed as a good guy but stilled and stripped of office for trying to help the Dragon Reborn. Then Elaida and her people Kill other Aes Sedai and Warders to take over. Elaida who listens to the head of the Red Ajah who is BA and believes the world must bend to the AS, not that the AS should help the world.

 

Edit: Also, add the fact that they suspected the BA had infiltrated for years and, yet, had done nothing about it at all. Egwene, when she becomes Amyrilin, makes all AS swear they are not DF/BA on the oath rod. Simple solution. Even if it is flawed, she tried.

 

As someone said above, a crooked cop is still a cop.

 

They are a mixed bag. The only thing that really keeps most of them together is that the Tower's where they trained their power, and their prestige and power (beyond the OP) comes from their Aes Sedai titles.

[Wool-headed lummox]

The Aes Sedai needed to replace the obsolete Oath not to make power-wrought weapons with an oath never to reswear the oaths, unless in the presence and with the formal approval of the Amyrlin and a number of Sitters and members of her own Ajah as witnesses. Of course, it's a moot point now.

[Vardar]

All the AS had to do was make a fourth oath to never go over to the dark side or stay true to the light and have the women reswear it a couple of times a year. But, they don't do that. Liandrin was AS. Sorry.

 

Ok these manic repeat posts are not helping. You have have totally lost me in what you are trying to prove. Further what you propose would not have worked and the method has been exposed time and again in various threads. Feel free to go back and look them up if you care to.

 

If Liandrin was a DF who inflitrated the AS she is essentially a double agent. She does not count in working for the light. Just as Verin was not acually working for the shadow. I think you are hung up on a technicality. Are they called AS in name sure, but they serve the DO. It is a matter of allegiance not title.

 

Sorry mate, but I would be shocked if you find a single person who agrees that AS are responsible for the actions of Forsaken and BA. They could have done more to root them out sure. But what you propose has never been accepted anywhere in the fandom. You can post yourself silly all you want, it won't change that fact.

protip: you cannot argue that institution A is responsible for action type 1 but not action type 2 simply because you like the results of action type 1 better. Either they are responsible for every action their members perform or every action is the result of individual members. Arguing anything else, regardless of how many times you repost it, shows you have a flawed understanding of philosophy, debate, and most importantly logic.

 

It seems like the discussion is about "betrayal," a very negative human trait that is present in all societies and institutions. Is an institution where a member or few are traitors responsible for their betrayal? It is if it encourages it. But I don't read the WT encouraging the Black Ajah. On the contrary, they were trying to fight it. How inept they were in their fight is another story.

 

The same can be said of any number of traitors in, say, the US military. Do these traitors make the whole US military institution responsible for their betrayal and actions?

 

Well, pre-Eggy their actions encouraged the existence of the BA. The way they encouraged secrecy, wouldn't delve too deep into it's members doings, refused to even admit the BA could exist. Those are HUGE ways to encourage evil. Why do you think the Military and police forces keep careful tabs on it's members? Because they know they're responsible for their actions.

[Vardar]

protip: you cannot argue that institution A is responsible for action type 1 but not action type 2 simply because you like the results of action type 1 better. Either they are responsible for every action their members perform or every action is the result of individual members. Arguing anything else, regardless of how many times you repost it, shows you have a flawed understanding of philosophy, debate, and most importantly logic.

 

Protip? Bwhahah. Ok this isn't this first time you have jumped into a thread to focus on me and not the topic. I didnt argue what you are stating above and certainly not for the reasons given. You are missing the point entirely and I thank you not to presume to speak for me.

 

As others have mentioned in this thread Forsaken and BA cease to be AS once they swear to the DO. They have joined a "new institution" and sworn new oaths(literally). Now if you can show me once where I have done what you claim for the actions of "AS" I will debate with you. Until then you are merely trolling and given the way you frequently spin things I am starting to think it is purposeful.

 

 

But how does the bolded part affect the responsiblity of the insitution they still live, work in and who trained/equipped them?

 

the Forsaken, yes that is true, without a doubt. But the BA? No. Until recently, they were still at the tower. You're claiming the tower has no responsiblilty to know which members are abusing it's power? (Even if they swear new oaths, the tower doesn't know that).

 

Again, are you saying if you train, equip and give power to people, once they go rogue, any responsibility for those people you had is absolved?

 

Because that wouldn't hold up in any court of law.

 

Your honor, yea they went rogue, we didn't monitor them at all, didn't even question their own doings, but once they go rogue, we're not going to stop them, and you can't make us...

[Treebeard]

The individual AS and Ajahs have a responsibility for the BA (And that to just a degree ( how much , i don't know and don´t care)) because they can if they think and not let their arogans hinder them stop them. and foremost warn all the AS that there is such a thing as BA ( if i remember correctly dose not all AS believe or know of the existent of the BA) . BUT the WT as an institution can´t be responsible for the blacks because the blacks are members of a organisation that contradict all what the WT stands for. It´s like blaming any political party for what a member says or how it acts.

[Vardar]

The individual AS and Ajahs have a responsibility for the BA (And that to just a degree ( how much , i don't know and don´t care)) because they can if they think and not let their arogans hinder them stop them. and foremost warn all the AS that there is such a thing as BA ( if i remember correctly dose not all AS believe or know of the existent of the BA) . BUT the WT as an institution can´t be responsible for the blacks because the blacks are members of a organisation that contradict all what the WT stands for. It´s like blaming any political party for what a member says or how it acts.

 

But we do that. You have to hold them accountable.

[shortkut]

protip: you cannot argue that institution A is responsible for action type 1 but not action type 2 simply because you like the results of action type 1 better. Either they are responsible for every action their members perform or every action is the result of individual members. Arguing anything else, regardless of how many times you repost it, shows you have a flawed understanding of philosophy, debate, and most importantly logic.

 

Protip? Bwhahah. Ok this isn't this first time you have jumped into a thread to focus on me and not the topic. I didnt argue what you are stating above and certainly not for the reasons given. You are missing the point entirely and I thank you not to presume to speak for me.

 

As others have mentioned in this thread Forsaken and BA cease to be AS once they swear to the DO. They have joined a "new institution" and sworn new oaths(literally). Now if you can show me once where I have done what you claim for the actions of "AS" I will debate with you. Until then you are merely trolling and given the way you frequently spin things I am starting to think it is purposeful.

i never mentioned the forsaken. i purposefully did not lean one way or the other interms of siding with you or everyone else on whether the tower is responsible for the BA because i couldn't give a flying f*ck what anyone thinks on the topic. to the rest of the world and tower, the BA are AS. even after they are caught, people think of them as darkfriend AS (some might also think the opposite, can't recall). if individuals doing evil acts do not represent the institution, then individuals doing good acts do not represent the institution, only individuals. on the contrary, if the good acts reflect positively on the institution then the bad acts reflect negatively. any philosophy101 or simple google search would tell you that.

 

call me a troll if you want to, but it does not change the fact that you are wrong in the way you are arguing and repeating it ad nauseum will not change it. i had to be condescending because i wanted it simple so you would understand it. obviously i had to spell it out more because you either still didn't understand or just decided to go "na na can't hear you. not listening." if you act like a child and i respond to you like you are a child, does that make me a troll? (decide for yourself if that was a real question or a philosophical one)

[Suttree]

...

 

What is this obsession with me mate? Not sure why you are pretending I am the only one arguing this point because multiple other posters have agreed with me. You are focusing on one very literal definition and not seeing the overall issue.

 

I have politely asked you to leave off the personnel attacks in multiple threads. It really comes across as unbelievably sad and small.

[Mr Ares]

protip: you cannot argue that institution A is responsible for action type 1 but not action type 2 simply because you like the results of action type 1 better. Either they are responsible for every action their members perform or every action is the result of individual members. Arguing anything else, regardless of how many times you repost it, shows you have a flawed understanding of philosophy, debate, and most importantly logic.

 

Protip? Bwhahah. Ok this isn't this first time you have jumped into a thread to focus on me and not the topic. I didnt argue what you are stating above and certainly not for the reasons given. You are missing the point entirely and I thank you not to presume to speak for me.

 

As others have mentioned in this thread Forsaken and BA cease to be AS once they swear to the DO. They have joined a "new institution" and sworn new oaths(literally). Now if you can show me once where I have done what you claim for the actions of "AS" I will debate with you. Until then you are merely trolling and given the way you frequently spin things I am starting to think it is purposeful.

i never mentioned the forsaken. i purposefully did not lean one way or the other interms of siding with you or everyone else on whether the tower is responsible for the BA because i couldn't give a flying f*ck what anyone thinks on the topic. to the rest of the world and tower, the BA are AS. even after they are caught, people think of them as darkfriend AS (some might also think the opposite, can't recall). if individuals doing evil acts do not represent the institution, then individuals doing good acts do not represent the institution, only individuals. on the contrary, if the good acts reflect positively on the institution then the bad acts reflect negatively. any philosophy101 or simple google search would tell you that.

 

call me a troll if you want to, but it does not change the fact that you are wrong in the way you are arguing and repeating it ad nauseum will not change it. i had to be condescending because i wanted it simple so you would understand it. obviously i had to spell it out more because you either still didn't understand or just decided to go "na na can't hear you. not listening." if you act like a child and i respond to you like you are a child, does that make me a troll? (decide for yourself if that was a real question or a philosophical one)

What Suttree is arguing is that the BA are not AS. By swearing to the Shadow, they cease to be AS from that day forth (if you swore before becoming AS, you were never AS to begin with). The WT is not to blame for the actions of non-AS, even if they appear to be AS, and even if those actions are good or bad. The argument you put forth is thus flawed. The actions of individuals who do not belong to the institution do not reflect on the institution. Granted, BA might appear to be AS. By the same token, any woman could put on a shawl and a ring and call herself AS. The WT could not claim credit for any good she did, nor accept blame for any bad she did.

[thisguy]

protip: you cannot argue that institution A is responsible for action type 1 but not action type 2 simply because you like the results of action type 1 better. Either they are responsible for every action their members perform or every action is the result of individual members. Arguing anything else, regardless of how many times you repost it, shows you have a flawed understanding of philosophy, debate, and most importantly logic.

 

Protip? Bwhahah. Ok this isn't this first time you have jumped into a thread to focus on me and not the topic. I didnt argue what you are stating above and certainly not for the reasons given. You are missing the point entirely and I thank you not to presume to speak for me.

 

As others have mentioned in this thread Forsaken and BA cease to be AS once they swear to the DO. They have joined a "new institution" and sworn new oaths(literally). Now if you can show me once where I have done what you claim for the actions of "AS" I will debate with you. Until then you are merely trolling and given the way you frequently spin things I am starting to think it is purposeful.

i never mentioned the forsaken. i purposefully did not lean one way or the other interms of siding with you or everyone else on whether the tower is responsible for the BA because i couldn't give a flying f*ck what anyone thinks on the topic. to the rest of the world and tower, the BA are AS. even after they are caught, people think of them as darkfriend AS (some might also think the opposite, can't recall). if individuals doing evil acts do not represent the institution, then individuals doing good acts do not represent the institution, only individuals. on the contrary, if the good acts reflect positively on the institution then the bad acts reflect negatively. any philosophy101 or simple google search would tell you that.

 

call me a troll if you want to, but it does not change the fact that you are wrong in the way you are arguing and repeating it ad nauseum will not change it. i had to be condescending because i wanted it simple so you would understand it. obviously i had to spell it out more because you either still didn't understand or just decided to go "na na can't hear you. not listening." if you act like a child and i respond to you like you are a child, does that make me a troll? (decide for yourself if that was a real question or a philosophical one)

What Suttree is arguing is that the BA are not AS. By swearing to the Shadow, they cease to be AS from that day forth (if you swore before becoming AS, you were never AS to begin with). The WT is not to blame for the actions of non-AS, even if they appear to be AS, and even if those actions are good or bad. The argument you put forth is thus flawed. The actions of individuals who do not belong to the institution do not reflect on the institution. Granted, BA might appear to be AS. By the same token, any woman could put on a shawl and a ring and call herself AS. The WT could not claim credit for any good she did, nor accept blame for any bad she did.

Here's the big sticking point - they are accountable for their actions. They do nothing to root out or discover BA within their ranks even though they've suspected them being there. They've trained darkfriends to become Aes Sedai. They allow these women to use the power and clout of the tower. The point about them taking other oaths only proves that they are DFs, it doesn't stop them from being in every other way AS. They where the ring, they use the power of the Tower for their own needs, the more powerful of them order around the less powerful AS, Alviarin is the Keeper and she's a DF. The head of the Red Ajah is a BA. How are they not AS? In all ways they are to the entire world, including other AS the interact with. Any other woman who put on the stole would just be out and out lying. They were never trained by the AS, the AS would never back them up.

US soldiers take an oath to uphold the Constitution against enemies, foreign or domestic. If they, themselves, become the enemy, they must first be tried and then get a DD before they're no longer considered soldiers. IF an AS commits a crime that the Tower would still them for, they are AS until tried and stilled.

To the entire world they are AS. And, as I've already said, the Tower has done nothing to stop them even though they've suspected for years and years. They are completely the responsibility of the Tower. The AS cannot, or should not, go around telling others how to run their lives or kingdoms if they cannot control the women in their ranks. Not only cannot, do not even try.

[Vardar]

What Suttree is arguing is that the BA are not AS. By swearing to the Shadow, they cease to be AS from that day forth (if you swore before becoming AS, you were never AS to begin with). The WT is not to blame for the actions of non-AS, even if they appear to be AS, and even if those actions are good or bad. The argument you put forth is thus flawed. The actions of individuals who do not belong to the institution do not reflect on the institution. Granted, BA might appear to be AS. By the same token, any woman could put on a shawl and a ring and call herself AS. The WT could not claim credit for any good she did, nor accept blame for any bad she did.

 

And short is claiming that argument is flawed. If they train these women, equip these women, and refuse to monitor these women, who is to blame? I believe the original point was, the WT should be held responsible for the flawed practices that allowed the BA to grow and flourish. Now we're arguing that is an AS does something negative, suddenly they're no longer AS. Or if an AS joins the group, and gets all the benefits, while being a double agent, that they're suddenly not held accountable?

 

Using your own, flawed, analogy, why do you think the WT hunts down women who pretend to be AS? Because they want to boost their numbers? Because they want the power they hold? No. Because they don't want their good name tarnished. You think it's just so simple as saying, "Well those women were tossed out, so we don't claim responsibility for them?"

 

Let's try this. I think this was what short was getting at. When are the WT responsible for the actions of it's members? Only when something positive is done? Only when the members are still in the tower? When are they absolved of that responsibility? Once the BA comes out and says, HEY, i'M BA? By your statement above, any action Liadrian did, even when the Tower didn't know she was a covert agent, is not the tower's responsibility.

 

That just sounds absurd! So who's responsibility is it to stop them? If their actions are directly tied too, or in this case, directly causing the existence of these women, how are they not to blame. They refused to police their own forces, what group with power that you can name that refused to adequetly police it's own forces, and won't be held accountable for the actions of it's members just because they go rogue. Please name one (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being totally serious, I'm really interested to know what gave you this idea that it was ok)

[Suttree]

What Suttree is arguing is that the BA are not AS. By swearing to the Shadow, they cease to be AS from that day forth (if you swore before becoming AS, you were never AS to begin with). The WT is not to blame for the actions of non-AS, even if they appear to be AS, and even if those actions are good or bad. The argument you put forth is thus flawed. The actions of individuals who do not belong to the institution do not reflect on the institution. Granted, BA might appear to be AS. By the same token, any woman could put on a shawl and a ring and call herself AS. The WT could not claim credit for any good she did, nor accept blame for any bad she did.

 

And short is claiming that argument is flawed. If they train these women, equip these women, and refuse to monitor these women, who is to blame? I believe the original point was, the WT should be held responsible for the flawed practices that allowed the BA to grow and flourish. Now we're arguing that is an AS does something negative, suddenly they're no longer AS. Or if an AS joins the group, and gets all the benefits, while being a double agent, that they're suddenly not held accountable?

 

Using your own, flawed, analogy, why do you think the WT hunts down women who pretend to be AS? Because they want to boost their numbers? Because they want the power they hold? No. Because they don't want their good name tarnished. You think it's just so simple as saying, "Well those women were tossed out, so we don't claim responsibility for them?"

 

Let's try this. I think this was what short was getting at. When are the WT responsible for the actions of it's members? Only when something positive is done? Only when the members are still in the tower? When are they absolved of that responsibility? Once the BA comes out and says, HEY, i'M BA? By your statement above, any action Liadrian did, even when the Tower didn't know she was a covert agent, is not the tower's responsibility.

 

That just sounds absurd! So who's responsibility is it to stop them? If their actions are directly tied too, or in this case, directly causing the existence of these women, how are they not to blame. They refused to police their own forces, what group with power that you can name that refused to adequetly police it's own forces, and won't be held accountable for the actions of it's members just because they go rogue. Please name one (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being totally serious, I'm really interested to know what gave you this idea that it was ok)

 

No one has argued that the culture allowing the BA to grow isn't flawed. That has never been in dispute. Look at it this way though. If a foreign agent with goals counter to that of the CIA infiltrates the organization and then assassinates someone, you do not say well he was a CIA agent. The CIA is evil because they killed someone. They were not and never were actually a member of that organization. They were secretly working at a counter goal the entire time. You can not call what the BA does "going rogue". They are a seperate distinct organization, with it's own oaths and rules, working at counter purposes.

[Vardar]

No one has argued that the culture allowing the BA to grow isn't flawed. That has never been in dispute. Look at it this way though. If a foreign agent with goals counter to that of the CIA infiltrates the organization and then assassinates someone, you do not say well he was a CIA agent. The CIA is evil because they killed someone. They were not and never were actually a member of that organization. They were secretly working at a counter goal the entire time. You can not call what the BA does "going rogue". They are a seperate distinct organization, with it's own oaths and rules, working at counter purposes.

 

Ok, using your example, who is responsible to track and stop that double agent? The CIA!

 

Going rogue is closer than your analogy because thw tower is completly responsible for the traning and equipping of these sisters. In any double agent analogy you can think of, the agent is pre-trained. Now, did Liadrin have extensive pre-training pre-tower? If she did, and no one noticed, that's really odd, and even more of a slight against their policing practices.

 

I guess it comes down to what we're arguing. You admit the WT has a culture that allows the BA to grow and flourish. But you're saying they're not to be held responsible for the actions of the BA. What does held responsible mean to you?

 

I'm guessing this is where the disconnect is

[Suttree]

...

 

All along I have said they could do more and their culture is flawed. The fact is they weren't even truly aware of the existence of the BA until recently. Once they where sisters like Cads(she was on the verge of rotting them out) and Verin worked against them. You can't say AS are evil and to blame for BA actions because they were unsuccessful in doing so.

 

What AS are not responsible for is a seperate and distinct organization that Ishy started. AS swear under the light and have a mandate to fight the Shdaow. Forsaken and BA swear seperate oaths and have a totally seperate mandate. You can not call that going "rogue".

 

@thiguy

 

Are you seriously trying to say Alviarin had Elaida's ear and she was going along with her because she thought it was a good idea? She had blackmailed her and was using force to make her do things against her will.

 

Also you do realize Siuan's deposing was legally not valid correct? Even though Elaida thought she was in the right the BA were pulling the strings. They had forced the forced the search to go underground in the first place. In addition they arranged the vote so a bare minimum of sitters was present and a BA member cast the deciding vote. The whole things on those grounds was not legal.

[Vardar]

...

 

All along I have said they could do more and their culture is flawed. The fact is they weren't even truly aware of the existence of the BA until recently. What they are not responsible for is a seperate and distinct organization that Ishy started. AS swear under the light and have a mandate to fight the Shdaow. Forsaken and BA swear seperate oaths and have a totally seperate mandate. You can not call that going "rogue".

 

I call it going rogue because they train and equip them. Without the Tower, what would these BA have? They give the ability to wreak the havoc, so aren't they responsible to ensure it doesn't happen? And if it does happen, to stop it?

[Suttree]

...

 

All along I have said they could do more and their culture is flawed. The fact is they weren't even truly aware of the existence of the BA until recently. What they are not responsible for is a seperate and distinct organization that Ishy started. AS swear under the light and have a mandate to fight the Shdaow. Forsaken and BA swear seperate oaths and have a totally seperate mandate. You can not call that going "rogue".

 

I call it going rogue because they train and equip them. Without the Tower, what would these BA have? They give the ability to wreak the havoc, so aren't they responsible to ensure it doesn't happen? And if it does happen, to stop it?

 

Which sister like Cads and Verin did once they became aware of their existence. Further they were ultimately successful in stopping it. The WT was targeted by Ishy precisely because the opportunity of power available. From the BA's inception they have had seperate oaths and goals that run counter to the mandate of the WT. They have literally abandoned any connection to the WT at that point.That is the only distinction I have been making from the start. They are a totally seperate institution and the DO is responsible for their actions.

[Vardar]

...

 

All along I have said they could do more and their culture is flawed. The fact is they weren't even truly aware of the existence of the BA until recently. What they are not responsible for is a seperate and distinct organization that Ishy started. AS swear under the light and have a mandate to fight the Shdaow. Forsaken and BA swear seperate oaths and have a totally seperate mandate. You can not call that going "rogue".

 

I call it going rogue because they train and equip them. Without the Tower, what would these BA have? They give the ability to wreak the havoc, so aren't they responsible to ensure it doesn't happen? And if it does happen, to stop it?

 

Which sister like Cads and Verin did once they became aware of their existence. Further they were ultimately successful in stopping it. The WT was targeted by Ishy precisely because the opportunity of power available. From the BA's inception they have had seperate oaths and goals that run counter to the mandate of the WT. That is the only distinction I have been making from the start. They are a totally seperate institution and the DO is responsible for their actions.

 

There's the disconnect.

 

We're using responsible differently.

 

You're using it as Responsible for, or the mastermind behind.

I'm using it as Responsible for, will be held accountable for the actions of.

 

As in, the DO caused the mess, but the WT has to clean up the mess.

 

I'm not saying that the WT is the mastermind behind the BA (I don't think anyone is saying that) what I (and others) am saying is the WT has a responsibility to police it's persons, and when someone whom they have empowered goes off, they are responsible for stopping them.

 

Do you agree with the above?

[Mr Ares]

protip: you cannot argue that institution A is responsible for action type 1 but not action type 2 simply because you like the results of action type 1 better. Either they are responsible for every action their members perform or every action is the result of individual members. Arguing anything else, regardless of how many times you repost it, shows you have a flawed understanding of philosophy, debate, and most importantly logic.

 

Protip? Bwhahah. Ok this isn't this first time you have jumped into a thread to focus on me and not the topic. I didnt argue what you are stating above and certainly not for the reasons given. You are missing the point entirely and I thank you not to presume to speak for me.

 

As others have mentioned in this thread Forsaken and BA cease to be AS once they swear to the DO. They have joined a "new institution" and sworn new oaths(literally). Now if you can show me once where I have done what you claim for the actions of "AS" I will debate with you. Until then you are merely trolling and given the way you frequently spin things I am starting to think it is purposeful.

i never mentioned the forsaken. i purposefully did not lean one way or the other interms of siding with you or everyone else on whether the tower is responsible for the BA because i couldn't give a flying f*ck what anyone thinks on the topic. to the rest of the world and tower, the BA are AS. even after they are caught, people think of them as darkfriend AS (some might also think the opposite, can't recall). if individuals doing evil acts do not represent the institution, then individuals doing good acts do not represent the institution, only individuals. on the contrary, if the good acts reflect positively on the institution then the bad acts reflect negatively. any philosophy101 or simple google search would tell you that.

 

call me a troll if you want to, but it does not change the fact that you are wrong in the way you are arguing and repeating it ad nauseum will not change it. i had to be condescending because i wanted it simple so you would understand it. obviously i had to spell it out more because you either still didn't understand or just decided to go "na na can't hear you. not listening." if you act like a child and i respond to you like you are a child, does that make me a troll? (decide for yourself if that was a real question or a philosophical one)

What Suttree is arguing is that the BA are not AS. By swearing to the Shadow, they cease to be AS from that day forth (if you swore before becoming AS, you were never AS to begin with). The WT is not to blame for the actions of non-AS, even if they appear to be AS, and even if those actions are good or bad. The argument you put forth is thus flawed. The actions of individuals who do not belong to the institution do not reflect on the institution. Granted, BA might appear to be AS. By the same token, any woman could put on a shawl and a ring and call herself AS. The WT could not claim credit for any good she did, nor accept blame for any bad she did.

Here's the big sticking point - they are accountable for their actions. They do nothing to root out or discover BA within their ranks even though they've suspected them being there. They've trained darkfriends to become Aes Sedai. They allow these women to use the power and clout of the tower. The point about them taking other oaths only proves that they are DFs, it doesn't stop them from being in every other way AS. They where the ring, they use the power of the Tower for their own needs, the more powerful of them order around the less powerful AS, Alviarin is the Keeper and she's a DF. The head of the Red Ajah is a BA. How are they not AS? In all ways they are to the entire world, including other AS the interact with. Any other woman who put on the stole would just be out and out lying. They were never trained by the AS, the AS would never back them up.

US soldiers take an oath to uphold the Constitution against enemies, foreign or domestic. If they, themselves, become the enemy, they must first be tried and then get a DD before they're no longer considered soldiers. IF an AS commits a crime that the Tower would still them for, they are AS until tried and stilled.

To the entire world they are AS. And, as I've already said, the Tower has done nothing to stop them even though they've suspected for years and years. They are completely the responsibility of the Tower. The AS cannot, or should not, go around telling others how to run their lives or kingdoms if they cannot control the women in their ranks. Not only cannot, do not even try.

If one commits a crime, one is a criminal from the time the crime is committed, not from the time one is convicted. Even if one is never convicted, never even suspected, one is still a criminal. When an AS is stripped of stole and staff, that is when she is formally acknowledged as no longer being part of the order. It doesn't mean that she did not forfeit the right to call herself AS before then, even if she did so unbeknownst to the AS order. When the church excommunicates someone, the excommunication is caused by the action, whether or not the church issues a formal acknowledgement of one being excommunicated. By joining the Shadow, they have forfeited the right to be called AS. They have, in effect, resigned as AS, even though they haven't announced it. As Egwene said, a vote from a BA sitter is not valid.

 

What Suttree is arguing is that the BA are not AS. By swearing to the Shadow, they cease to be AS from that day forth (if you swore before becoming AS, you were never AS to begin with). The WT is not to blame for the actions of non-AS, even if they appear to be AS, and even if those actions are good or bad. The argument you put forth is thus flawed. The actions of individuals who do not belong to the institution do not reflect on the institution. Granted, BA might appear to be AS. By the same token, any woman could put on a shawl and a ring and call herself AS. The WT could not claim credit for any good she did, nor accept blame for any bad she did.

 

And short is claiming that argument is flawed. If they train these women, equip these women, and refuse to monitor these women, who is to blame? I believe the original point was, the WT should be held responsible for the flawed practices that allowed the BA to grow and flourish. Now we're arguing that is an AS does something negative, suddenly they're no longer AS. Or if an AS joins the group, and gets all the benefits, while being a double agent, that they're suddenly not held accountable?

What shortkut put forward was the notion that Suttree was claiming the AS got credit for the good the WT did, but not the bad. I was disagreeing with that notion - the good and bad done by the WT as an organisation are both the responsibility of the WT as an organisation. BA are not a part of that organisation, therefore the WT gets no credit for their good nor blame for their bad - they might have responsibility, but not blame. Yes, there are deficiencies in the WT's policing of those that call themselves AS. Elaida is not Black. The WT could claim credit for the good she did, but must also accept blame for the bad she did. Alviarin is Black. The WT can claim no credit for any good she might have done in her time, but nor are they to blame for the bad she did, except insofar as she was acting under the orders of the WT. Suttree is not trying to claim the AS only get credit for the good stuff, which is what shortkut tried to present his position as. He is claiming that they do not get the blame for BA - they can still take the blame for bad choices made by the WT itself. That is a rather more reasonable position. Evil done by the WT belongs to the WT, evil done by the BA belongs to the BA. The WT, as a failed institution, might not have done enough to police their own organisation, and in doing so allowed to BA to take root there. They are not to blame for the BA's actions, they are responsible for trying to root them out.

 

Let's try this. I think this was what short was getting at. When are the WT responsible for the actions of it's members? Only when something positive is done? Only when the members are still in the tower? When are they absolved of that responsibility? Once the BA comes out and says, HEY, i'M BA? By your statement above, any action Liadrian did, even when the Tower didn't know she was a covert agent, is not the tower's responsibility.

The problem with what short was getting at it that it did not address the point made that BA are not a part of the organisation. They are not members of the WT. A better question would be when are they responsible for the actions of their former members, but that was not one shortkut asked.