I don't know what facts have been established. They've changed. And then my intelligence gets questioned. And then I bowed out, of the discussion with you specifically, but this topic generally. Only when some others had commented did I come back in. I forgot my own rule to not specifically engage you again.
The law, both modern and common law, uses trials to establish facts that are testable and provable, and measured against some standard that defines whether those facts merit a determination of legal or illegal (guilty or innocent) if you prefer.
It is not illegal for me to acquire an AC, surreptitiously or otherwise. The issue is one of testing it, is that scrying or no. Certainly, list out the facts as you see them. I've asked at least twice (I think more like three) previously, Ben has asked once. Put some names to the magi involved, and let's get this party started.
In this example, what secrets were revealed or what harm is done?
You have to show the intent was malicious. Where is his malicious intent? Where is the harm done? Are you able to show these things? (Using InCo to learn the image or face of the source of a hair is not going to reveal any secrets, legal affairs, or cause harm-- not in any way I can determine. If you feel it will, please explain.)
That's the defense; if there is no malicious intent or harm which can be proven, then it's a trivial case, and the Praeco tells you to go be an adult and solve it appropriately. If it's particularly public or you're an extremely respected member of the Tribunal, the Praeco may personally tell the accused to cease and desist.
As the accuser, you have to show me the intent! Show Imaginary Praeco that Creepy Hair Collector intends to do something terrible, or you are wasting the precious time of the Praeco and the Tribunal, where we have important things to discuss.
Err... the sample magus is scrying. Blatantly doing so, in fact. He could get a slap in the wrist, or he could be torched to death. Both would be valid responses for his actions. He is not only in posession of ACs, he is actually using them to cast spells. Intellego spells on other magi, none the less, so he is scrying.
Note, that the canonical intellego spell mentioned in this thread is not cast on the other magi, but on the AC to the other magi. Additionally, it does not touch or ping the other magi's resistance.
So, we, just like any Tribunal have different understandings of what scrying is. Perhaps we should define it, at least in layman's terms, if not in terms of Lex Hermetica.
Here is my definition, scrying is using magic to view at a distance, greater than sight, another person through any medium.
Here's a lay definition of scrying that might be useful.
By those standards, testing an AC is in no way scrying.
How is he blatantly scrying? He is using an InCo effect to see the image of the source of the AC. At no point does he see the current location of the source of the AC, nor see what that source is doing.
HoH:TL, page 72: The Whole from Part R: T, D: Conc, T: Ind, InCo 20
This spell does not target the subject, it only probes the arcane connection itself....This spell gives the caster a mental image of the subject's essential nature.
In this example, what secrets were revealed or what harm is done?
You have to show the intent was malicious. Where is his malicious intent? Where is the harm done? Are you able to show these things?
Using InCo to learn the image or face of the source of a hair is not going to reveal any secrets, legal affairs, or cause harm-- not in any way I can determine. If you feel it will, please explain.
I feel the point becomes that this is illegal, but depending on intent may not be enforced- which is where I think assigning a quaesetor to investigate intent would be an appropriate response,after all surepticious collection of arcane connections has such obvious potential for hostile action it could not be simply ignored. Checking to cateloge and throw out the ACs for magi is very different from building up a network of ACs for ReMe spells targeted at your fellow members...
I think the point you're missing is that whether or not it is illegal depends on the definition of scrying. It's clearly not using magic to peer into the (legal) affairs of a magus. You (and Xavi and dwightmarsh) have a definition of scrying that seems to include this, and so we have a difference of opinion about what is scrying. I've tried to define scrying so that we can better understand where each side is coming from.
I can foresee that some Tribunals might have a definition of scrying that precludes checking an AC, it's not wrong, but you still have to have a definition of scrying that says doing this is scrying. Based on the lay definition, it isn't scrying.
When you're using this as a test case to prove that this is scrying, you have to do a bit more than say it is scrying.
My point is that generally a tribunal isn't going to be checking a dictionary (which doesn't exist at this point in time) for a definition of scrying, they will be responding with both emotion and logic to the case presented. The idea of skating on technicalities when every mage in the room is going to be at minimum very nervous about what you are doing isn't likely to happen.
Have you seen the cases presented as Tribunal decisions in the books? They are all based on technicalities. My point is that the definition of scrying is absolutely the central thrust of our discussion. You're basically trying this case at Tribunal to enshrine the view that testing an AC for who it targets is scrying. At which time, looking beyond the creepy magus, 20 members of a Mystery Cult stand and say no, because we are in possession of ACs to various magi as a term of their membership in the Mystery Cult, and testing these is necessary for some purpose which they will not divulge, since they are a mystery cult. The members of the Order present in the Tribunal will not always share one magus's view that something you see clearly as a crime is a crime.
Magi get nervous for lots of reasons, and there are sometimes reasons they shouldn't get nervous. For example, in a game I'm involved in we're playing in the Normandy Tribunal, where raiding is commonplace. Long story short, we're trying to rescue an unclaimed apprentice (Gift, Arts not opened, that we know of) and spirit him away from another covenant. We planned a raid designed to disable, but not kill magi and grogs. My character got nice and charred with a Pilum of Fire. My character was not nervous about the raid, since raiding is common place and magi are not supposed to be attacked in that manner. The Code/Oath of Hermes is absolutely clear, though, "I will not slay nor attempt to slay any member of the Order, except in justly executed and formally declared Wizards’ War." The magus involved had a flaming wall of thorns blocking his path, had his parma pinged with a CrAu effect caused his grogs to start wretching. Saw my character suddenly appear naked next to the apprentice and grab him off the horse, and he decided to attack with a Pilum of Fire, easily overcoming my magic resistance, since he's just past gauntlet and is a Corpus specialist, with an Ignem score of 1 for a whopping MR of 6 versus Ignem. I wasn't nervous about the raid, because I expected the same non-lethal responses from him. He obviously chose otherwise. Hopefully the Lex Hermetica is on my character's side...
So you would impugn a fellow magus' reputation with a quaesitor investigation based on nothing more than finding the accused gathering hair in a common room? As opposed to exercising your right to certamen, or even just asking him what he's doing? This is someone who lives with your character. Your characters likely see each other regularly...
He was gathering hair in a common room of the covenant in the middle of the day. That's hardly surreptitious.
If you want surreptitious, you transform a songbird into a human who resembles a member of the covenant, use ReMe to force the transformed creature acquire what you want, hide the ACs someplace where you can get them later without being seen, and then feed the bird to a familiar while you test the ACs in your sanctum. You don't go out where anyone can see you and scoop up some hairs in plain sight and cast InCo spells on them in front of everyone unless you're a bumbling villain of the worst incompetence.
Publicly calling the magus, a magus you live with, an oathbreaking traitor who just hasn't been caught yet seems...brash. That is what you're calling the accused, or at the very least, that's what it looks like you're calling him. That's not going to do much for your reputation.
Uhhhhh, no, they're not checking a dictionary. They're going to check the records of the Tribunal rulings and reference their copies of the Peripheral Code. They will weigh the evidence presented by the accuser ("I saw him picking up hair and casting!") against the reputation of the accused (A member in good standing of his house? A contributing member of the covenant? Has he violated the Code before?) and the circumstances of the event (In the middle of the day? In front of everyone?). They will look at what has been considered scrying in previous rulings and what contemporary opinion considers scrying to be. They will probably consider the reputation of the accuser (Have you made outlandish claims before? Have you violated the Code yourself? Do you stand to gain something if the accused is found guilty?) They will weigh all this and then consider:
"What secrets were revealed or what harm has been done?"
And then they'll decide if any action or investigation or debate is necessary.
If a magus used spells to conceal his identity in a situation where it doesn't break the code (like, among non-magi), such a spell may reveal that he wasn't who he's supposed to be.
This may be a side-effect, with the perpetrator reveals secrets of another magus than his intended target: The perpetrator searched for an AC to magus A, but, through his research, found out that one of the persons present was not who he was supposed to be, but was in fact Magus B.
And if Magus B is a quaesitor investigating the extend of code violations by Magus A, or if Magus B is in a Wizard's war versus Magus A and was trying to get close to stab him...
Certainly. And this is part of the situational consideration the Imaginary Praeco would have to make based on the presented evidence. I'm not sure his identity counts as a "magical secret," but it might, depending on the Mystery Cult.
But these are narrow enough circumstances that this is why it's simply not a crime to have an unknown AC in your possession and figure out where it's from.
Okay, I brought this issue to this thread because the idea that you could just casually pick up discarded hairs and test them willy nilly with no fear of repercussion seemed just too convenient, I am satisfied with what I have seen here, namely that technically it might be considered scrying but that unless there are some unexpected circumstances it would probably not make it to tribunal, but is far more likely to result in other actions being taken.