No, the rule is scry upon them or peer into their affairs.
No, it really doesn't. It provides information about X, with perhaps the exception that if Y is dead, then it might not work at all. It tells you absolutely nothing about Y.
Sure, there's no disputing that people would be uncomfortable with this possibility or even lack of legal recourse. Lack of legal recourse about certain problems happens all the time in real life, why wouldn't it in the game world? Of course, there's no way for the target of the AC to know that an AC has been collected, either, is there? Which brings me to my point that if a magus has possession of an AC to another magus, there is still no crime that is provable, unless you make owning an AC to another magus a crime, unless there's some explicit agreement to the contrary.
Answering this point:
Is it scrying or is it using magic to peer into another magus's affairs; my opinion is that it is using magic to peer into affairs. The clause in the Code has two conditions and either can fulfill it. Usually, in the forums, people just say scrying, but they are not the same activities, and might be describing invisibility to spy on a magus. Being invisible is using magic to peer into affairs. Scrying has a different definition, and it probably needs a legal definition. Am I splitting hairs? Sure. No doubt. But in my opinion scrying gives you specific information about a specific person, by the use of magic, usually at a distance.
You keep assuming that the Ars Magica legal system is like a modern system where it is a simple matter of arguing logic and applying the written law. If following someone invisibly, or simply hanging out invisible inside a covenant is considered scrying, which is far less direct than testing Arcane connections, then why wouldn't this be? The point of a tribunal trial is to allow interpretation of the law, which you continue to assert would not happen.
Additionally you should check out a few more real life cases over time, from the trial of Socrates to the West Mempis 3 to see how he law might be applied a bit outside the lines from time to time. I don't even see this being outside the lines given the case history p14 ArM core:
No, I'm not. There are literally centuries of common law that have made just as nuanced distinctions as what I've described here. Call the section the scrying clause, if you will, but it has two conditions which determine what is a violation of the clause. The first is scrying. The second is using magic to peer into affairs with magic.
I'm asserting that it isn't scrying, but using magic to peer into a magus's affairs. Keep in mind, if the second part of the clause was unimportant, it wouldn't be int he Oath, and it would just be defined as part of scrying.
In addition, what you just quoted can be construed to make my point, too, as the Intellego magic was never used on a magus, but on an AC, which is separate from the magus.
But, let's give up on my argument, and go to your position.
Magus A has possession of an AC to Magus B. Magus A doesn't acknowledge how he came by it when asked, he doesn't return it when asked by Magus B. Magus B thinks Magus A had to cast Intellego magics on the AC to determine who it targeted. Make that case.
So far you are the only one who seems to think it is not a crime, and your arguments make me think of a mustachio twirling villain with a high priced attorney...
Or John Adams defending British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. But, despite your comments about me making my argument(s) personal, you seem to go there first.
In this I was speaking of the tone and content of your arguments, which is not personal, simply a characterization. Personal would be something along the lines of
which is a characterization of me rather than of the points I am making.
And the only support you can drag up wasn't really support simply someone saying it may technically be legal but would still be pressed to tribunal, which at the time you were claiming it would not even get there.
FYI I have been assuming your arguments in this case have been from the perspective of the (potential) offender, they certainly seem in character for such a person, so I would say that while I feel repulsed by the arguments I am also appreciative of the roleplaying...
My characterization didn't compare you to cartoon villain, now, did it?
IMO, I don't think it would make it to Tribunal. I still don't think it's scrying. If the rest of the troupe doesn't think it's scrying, then it doesn't make it to Tribunal. If I'm the SG, I'd only change my mind if there is consensus of every other player that my determination or ruling is incorrect.
Well, there is something to that, as I've been leaning towards Tytalus characters of late. And even my Tremere that I've played the most frequently is of a Tytalus bent, since his paternal grandfather is a Tytalus magus, and his apprenticeship with his domina has been full of conflict.
Going back to reset. How about you develop this as an actual case more fully? It's not entirely believable that the magus would be seen casting these spells in public. If casting these types of spells is scrying then the magus would know it, and he wouldn't do it publicly. Such an issue has hurdles to overcome, namely knowing that these spells were cast, being able to prove it, and not infer that his collecting the ACs was later confirmed by magic, because inference is not proof.
He was spotted by a servant making arcane gestures over the hairs, and will neither confirm nor deny that he was testing them as arcane connections. An InVi spell cast upon a cat known to snatch leftovers from the dining hall revealed that it had recently had an intelligo spell cast upon it, and it was suggested it's hairs may have been tested as a potential arcane connection.
Cats drop lots of hair
there is virtually no reason for a magus to target a non-pet cat for an intelligo spell
therefore the fact the cat has been subject to an intelligo spell strongly implies (but is not direct divination) that someone has been testing hairs for an arcane connection.
Implication and inferrence are not really enough to get a court case through. Even in less modern systems, you did need some evidence to make a case. What is the issue before the Tribunal? It's all based on inference and innuendo? As I said before, this doesn't get past a Presiding Quaesitor without more evidence.
There was also a witness as you might recall.
And again you are defending a hypothetical as if it were somehow you who was going to be penalized. In essence you have already conceded the main point, that the action is illegal, and have descended into "But how will you prove anything?" Except that in the same way tribunals are not fact finding bodies, neither is this hypothetical an issue of roleplaying out the entire scenario of discovery and capture- it is to present a hypothetical case for people's opinions. Maybe the tribunal will "request" the magi accede to a spell for truth detection, maybe they will throw it out, there are a thousand variables in real cases that could be brought up in any case, and different tribunal's will handle it differently. Your need to constantly force this into "but I can get away with it" eschews the question of this thread, which is "is it a crime?" being able to get away with murder, which happens regularly, does not mean that murder is not a crime, nor does it mean that police will let you walk on murder and wish you a nice day if they don't have an ironclad case. Wen you break rules someone will pursue justice, and they may or may not succeed in getting it. As mentioned before, even with "rumor and innuendo" you could be facing multiple wizard wars, and in the course of a declared wizard war you can be scryed upon and your deeds may well be uncovered.
Please don't say what I'm doing when I've done nothing of the sort. I'm playing Devil's Advocate and accepting your premise that determining the target of an AC is an act of scrying.
Indeed they are not, which is why it goes before a Presiding Quaesitor with an advocate and a prosecutor. The only facts presented: a magi was collecting ACs, and he cast a spell on cat hairs.
No, look at the OP. If it was a simple listing of all of the crimes possible under the code, that would be relatively banal. How do you prove the crime of scrying is just as important to the process, again, based on the OP.
And that doesn't eschew the purpose of this thread?
You provided a proposed crime, I provided a counter argument that it is not a crime. And you proposed a crime, not a case. We went round and round on it, with neither convincing the other. Finally, I asked that you construct a case at which point you decided that I was in fact conceding the/your main point. It's a pretty weak argument to suggest that by asking you to construct the case of the crime you propose that I'm conceding the issue that it is a crime. Consider that this is a case before tribunal to determine as to whether this is actually a crime, because that's what happens at Tribunals. Facts are presented, based on the hearing before the Presiding Quaesitor, and the Tribunal determines whether the facts fit a crime. Tribunal is essentially a rulemaking body, and they establish new law, extend the PC, or determine what actions are a violation of the Code.
From what we know, this is not strictly a crime but bringing the incident to Tribunal would more than likely cause enough controversy for some Tribunals to make it one.
But the two of you are never going to convince one another. Could we please move along now?
No, just two of us. Which is probably very similar to how it would play out in a Tribunal, IMO.
Well, there is a difference of opinion as to whether silveroak's position is a crime or not. He believes it is a crime. I'm asking how the crime gets proved and the case made ready for Tribunal. It's a potential case presented based on supposition and allegation. The scrying clause is a vague law because it doesn't define what scrying actually is, and modern life has just as many if not more of these vague laws available. There's even a book written about the concept, called Three Felonies a Day, where the author posits that the average American commits 3 felonies per day on average, entirely unwittingly.
Going back to the idea that we are arguing in character, silveroak is proposing that determining the target of an AC is scrying, and I'm arguing against it being scrying, and the Tribunal would have to vote as to whether the facts presented in the case constitute scrying. In a less sophisticated frontier Tribunal (Hibernia, Levant, maybe Stonehenge), it very well may not be scrying, because if you're careless enough to allow someone to come into an AC, well, you're not a worthy magus. In a Tribunal with a lot of Tytalus magi (Normandy), it may not be scrying. In a very conservative tribunal, such as the Rhine or Greater Alps, it could very well be scrying. And it might even come up for a vote at Grand Tribunal.
Interpretation of the Hermetic code follows voting, and is subject to public image. Consider the first time someone went about a covenant invisibly, and this is one of the examples given in the book- they would probably argued that it was not actually using magic to scry, it wasn't even an intelligo spell. However in this situation, creepy stalkerish behavior that involves magic will pretty much always get voted as illegal