divinelight @ May 2 2004, 18:30:10 UTC

I'm guessing the elf would be the 'her' that they cannot do without from Lucius' post.

And I always love PS' perspective on things.

onthehillside @ May 2 2004, 18:32:56 UTC

Yeah, I think that the rematch is sort of ridiculous. What's the point? They WON.

I do sort of want to know what j_h was doing when ps caught the snitch the second time. 'Flying stupidly' sounds like some sort of hex.

slinkhard @ May 2 2004, 18:34:30 UTC

Gonna have to c&p a large chunk here:

If Gryffindor had won, everyone would say a rematch was entirely unfair. This is exactly like my first year. We won the House Cup, so Dumbledore had to create imaginary reasons to give the Gryffindors precisely enough points at the last minute to ensure they beat us by a few meagre points. Oh, yes, let's give Longbottom some points for standing up to his friends. I've stood up to Millicent a thousand times, but it's not exactly the sort of thing one awards house points for. Unless, of course, you're awarding them to a Gryffindor. I did quite well at organising my Quidditch team, as everyone can see, so I ought to receive some house points for that.
There wouldn't be a rematch if not for the fact that Slytherin won, that much is obvious. They also waited over twelve hours to tell us, making certain the house had already celebrated. This is absolutely unfair. If they really thought the game was being played too dirtily, why didn't they stop it before I caught the Snitch? I'll tell you why: they were hoping Potter would catch it instead. If he had, then there wouldn't have been a word about anyone playing 'unfairly'.
I haven't even got to the best part. When I'd left the pitch, Granger popped out of nowhere and PUNCHED ME IN THE NOSE. What a disgusting little girl.

A STONE TABLET APPEARS FROM THE MIST.
ENGRAVED UPON IT ARE FOUR LETTERS: WORD.
The bias at Hogwarts summed up there.

tabiji @ May 2 2004, 18:49:13 UTC

You know, ps talks about it so much that you start thinking he's just exaggerating/being melodramatic, but he's got a lot of valid points about this. It's no wonder that he doesn't trust Dumbledore.


Punishment for accidentally outing a Gryffindor: all house points, boatloads of detention, etc.

Punishment for purposely costing a Slytherin permanent loss of a finger: Nothing, right? I don't think Draco ever got in trouble for Goyle's finger.

slinkhard @ May 2 2004, 18:53:47 UTC

Well precisely, and it's the same in Teh Books.

sistermagpie @ May 2 2004, 19:41:40 UTC

The Slytherins are so cracking me up right now, I love them. But then, I was saying the same thing after the House Cup thing first year--standing up to your friends? How often do you suppose any Slytherin does that?! (I'd imagine you'd have to do it every five minutes with Draco alone!)

I note that Hermione is not on the list of people getting detention. That would be the person who wasn't in the game but broke someone's nose after it because Dean paid her to do it. Um, what?

Oh, and why am I so liking Ernie's picture of Draco and Pansy out holding hands and talking? I've no idea what it means, but I loved it.

slinkhard @ May 2 2004, 19:43:47 UTC

It's ok to break people's noses, Magpie, keep up!
(It's not ok to whack them with a cane, though)

sistermagpie @ May 2 2004, 20:03:41 UTC

According to Ernie, Pansy was holding Draco's hand as he whinged about said nose...I'd love to know what he was saying. Earlier he was complaining that the school didn't care when Purebloods got hurt, then yesterday, perhaps the way he sees it, one Mudblood paid another to break a Pureblood's nose. I wonder if there will be any retaliation for that.

wednesday_tea @ May 2 2004, 23:11:44 UTC

That's what has always bugged me in the books. Dumbledore and Co. are all "WE MUST UNITE THE HOUSES, IT IS SO IMPORTANT", but then they go and foster grudges and almost PURPOSELY make the other houses hate Gryffindor. Grr.

slinkhard @ May 3 2004, 11:41:51 UTC

That's because Dumbledore is Teh Evilest Evil That Ever Evilled. *nods wisely*

vassilissa @ May 3 2004, 02:05:25 UTC

Houses in NA:

Hufflepuff: unreasonably paranoid
Slytherin: reasonably paranoid
Ravenclaw: ? (don't appear to engage in groupthink)
Gryffindor: paranoia-neutral (pretty good at piling on the hatred as a group, though)

moonlitpages @ May 2 2004, 18:57:17 UTC

*dies laughing* A house elf. A house elf. All this over a house elf?? Unimpressed, forces of darkness, unimpressed ;-). Here I was envisioning a big dramatic moment with death and pain and dancing in the blood of virgins on an altar of human bones, and on Walpurgis night apparently all the Death Eaters do is sit around in a graveyard drinking wine out of ceramic skulls, spouting obscure poetry on death and evil in drunken Latin, and kicking around the head of a house elf like a hacky-sack. Okay so I'm just being flip. But it is an amusing mental. I'm sure there were plenty of....evil goings on *cough*.

snowballjane @ May 2 2004, 19:14:49 UTC

But - but - but house elves have rights too! /Hermione

ceris @ May 2 2004, 19:28:22 UTC

I have to agree. I was also envisioning virgins, bones and blood! And what do we get - a mangy house elf! I don't care if they do have rights.

I want the death-poetry, the wine-in-skulls, and the house-elf-head football. And Lucius all dressed in black robes, all evil and bad and... Yes - the drunken Latin. Yes. That's right.

I don't ask for much, really :-)

moonlitpages @ May 2 2004, 19:31:58 UTC

I'd be willing to forfeit the black robes.....or any clothes at all for that matter...for the sake of evil-ness, of course. We don't want those designer Evil Robes getting dirty when wine-filled-skulls start flying, now do we? Of course not!

ceris @ May 2 2004, 19:35:42 UTC

Yeah... but... it's more interesting if they (well, Lucius and Draco, anyway) *start* clothed - they could, you know, do an evil strip! Oh God, we're so going to get kicked off this thread for contaminating it!

moonlitpages @ May 2 2004, 19:40:55 UTC

*dies* Yes, but what score would they do the Naked Evil Dance to, I wonder? Perhaps something along the lines of "I'm too evil for my robes..."

I still hold that nothing says evil like a blood-stained birthday suit. ...what?

ceris @ May 2 2004, 19:46:33 UTC

Oh my God, you are killing me. Stop. Desist. Or I will have to write a story about my visuals, and we wouldn't want that, now would we? Lupin and Snape are keeping me busy enough. Ha! I wish!

moonlitpages @ May 2 2004, 19:58:59 UTC

Oh I don't know, I think you owe it to the forces of darkness to depict the Naked Evil Dance in all its glory *smirk*. I wouldn't worry too much about them smiting you, given their track record on researching their victims, they'd probably just get the mum of some other random Nrager instead ;-) (wow, that was callous. I'm going to go contemplate raindrops on roses or something now in attempt to purify my brain)

eponis @ May 2 2004, 20:39:17 UTC

Erm. So apparently I'm one of the few people here who was seriously disturbed by this.

Because, Winky dying on Draco's Special Trial Night? Soooo not a coincidence.

I wonder if, as many have speculated, DE initiation requires the shedding of blood. Ergo Draco had to kill Winky - Winky, who's posted to the journals in the past, who was dear to Narcissa and Remus and Cho. This disturbs me, very deeply, and given that (to all appearances, even if that means nothing) Draco did kill her and did become a DE . . . well. I see this as linked to Draco's handholding with Pansy. They were both oddly defensive - my guess is that they generally weren't that affectionate normally, and didn't like being caught at it, but Draco has to turn to Pansy now; she's his future wife, a good Slytherin, etc., and he has chosen his side.

Nancy? You're right. They are all going to end up evil or dead.

Anonymous @ May 2 2004, 20:43:41 UTC

pansy is not draco's future wife...lucius forbids it.

eponis @ May 2 2004, 21:02:55 UTC

Do you remember where they've said that?

moonlitpages @ May 2 2004, 21:17:13 UTC

He says it pretty strongly here.

moonlitpages @ May 2 2004, 20:45:02 UTC

Oh, I know. I was just being flip. This is how I deal with disturbing subject matter, don't mind me *cough*. So much woe and angst lately, if I didn't find a way to put an amusing spin on it my head just might explode ;-)

But you're right, I do imagine the house elf might have had something to do with the ritual-- I've always imagined the magic involved in the Dark Mark involves much blood-letting and the death of an innocent in some manner...here I was thinking it would be a Muggle, but a house elf fits the bill surprisingly well, also. Plus, we have the added bonus of Draco working up from killing a seemingly insignificant house elf to more...substantial deeds. Which is a chilling thought. Of course, this is all just my own imagination *shrug*

tabiji @ May 3 2004, 10:21:59 UTC

Told you so!

dr_jekyl @ May 2 2004, 19:05:38 UTC

I think me we got suckered, folks. *g*

la_pensee cracked me up completely with her first comment:

Why Professor Dumbledore would never show favouritism for any of the houses. He would never do anything as absurd as, shall we say, award house points to one of the houses on the day the winner of the House Cup was to be announced and after all the house points had already been tallied.

The Slytherins all now seem to be saying something I've been thinking since the day I finished PS/SS: the Headmaster and Deputy Headmistress have a serious Gryffindor bias.

slinkhard @ May 2 2004, 19:09:27 UTC

Interesting that the two most powerful people at Hogwarts - the Headmaster and Deputy HeadMistress, were both Gryffindors?
Perhaps there should be affirmative action for Slytherins...

dr_jekyl @ May 2 2004, 19:19:15 UTC

Not to mention the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs. They don't even have Snape with his strong pro-Slytherin bias.

slinkhard @ May 2 2004, 19:21:34 UTC

Quite. Overthrow the Gryffindor two!

adrienneblack @ May 2 2004, 21:54:42 UTC

I think that's probably because most of the old Slytherins are off being Death Eaters (and possibly that's just a broad generalisation).

I'm not sure why there aren't Ravenclaws or Hufflepuffs in one of those positions though.

slinkhard @ May 3 2004, 11:43:04 UTC

"I think that's probably because most of the old Slytherins are off being Death Eaters (and possibly that's just a broad generalisation)."

That's just what They want you to believe.
*eyes dart*

bookofjude @ May 4 2004, 06:34:36 UTC

Don't forget that the Potions Master has serious Slytherin bias.

lazy_daze @ May 2 2004, 19:56:20 UTC

Ahaha. So this: Oh, Merlin... my poor, poor Narcissa. What will we do without her? merely referred to a house elf? As in - what will we (me and you, Narcissa) do without her (the house elf)? Well. *deflated*
Players: I hate you. Well, I don't, but. :P

jacay @ May 2 2004, 20:41:20 UTC

I'm still holding onto the notion that Draco is just trying to cover up for whatever happened. But, eh. I suppose SOME things must be taken at face value in NA.

conversant @ May 2 2004, 20:50:23 UTC NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Is this the moment for a pedantic observation? It seems to me that we are in danger of confirming Lucius's argument that deeds are not inherently evil if we react to the news that it was "just" a house elf who died with, "Oh, that's all, then? Whew! No biggie!"

Lucius said, "Deeds are deeds. It is only society's mores that attach a label of "good" or "bad". The deed itself is neutral. Evil isn't doing bad things--the actions themselves cannot be evil. Evil is feeling bad about the actions." I'm not sure what purestblood means with that last sentence, but one of the possibilities is that "society" calls evil those deeds which make us feel badly. For instance, the staff has decided that hexing Sinistra into a skunk and making her fall off her broom is BAD, but has not, so far, declared whether Hermione's attack on Draco is NEUTRAL, BAD or GOOD. That leaves the Slytherins with the reasonable impression that since no one feels particularly awful about ps having his nose broken again, it has been deemed a GOOD deed by a Gryffindor.

The staff and the Gryffindors have so far done a fine job of reinforcing the Slytherins' belief that morality, judgment, and the application of law are relative and are determined by those in power. I'd urge that we Nragers examine ourselves before we chip in with a bunch of statements that will allow purestblood to boast that we all agree with his rather slippery case for the neutrality of deeds.

eponis @ May 2 2004, 21:06:40 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Thank you. I agree completely.

In many ways, I find this more disturbing. If Lucius had killed, or at least allowed the death of, his wife, it honestly wouldn't be too surprising. But this is likely the first sentient being that Draco has killed, and that's an extremely disturbing path to start down. Narcissa's elf hasn't had much presence in these journals in the last few months, but she used to be a pretty major character - one who interacted with the other characters - and it disturbs me that Remus may be the only one besides Narcissa who's bothered.

ceris @ May 2 2004, 21:18:46 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Of course, you're right. For anyone to kill anything that can think, feel and fear is to start on a path that's hard - probably almost impossible given Draco's bloodline - to veer from. I know I was a little flip about poor Winky before, but that was only because after all the build up, I'd expected something else. But... a life's a life, after all, and destroying it will have marked Draco's soul more obviously than any Dark Mark may show on his body. I hope for his redemption though. But maybe that's a path the players don't want to take.

We must just watch and wait.

Anonymous @ May 2 2004, 21:20:07 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Um, do we have confirmation that DRACO killed the house elf?

eponis @ May 2 2004, 21:24:45 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

No, there's no confirmation yet. Just a guess on my part based on the "coincidence" that she died on the same night that Draco had his "trial," at which he "performed well." But they're not necessarily connected.

a_player @ May 2 2004, 21:29:45 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Thank you! You're brilliant.

--Lucius' player

sistermagpie @ May 2 2004, 22:12:55 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Thank you--I feel like Friday night is just a big a question mark as before and just as sinister. How did the house elf die? We don't even know that, do we? And Draco seems to be having a problem with "snake scent" on his robes...was the house elf fed to a snake?

And btw, do we know this was Winky? I didn't see any confirmation of who it was--I was wondering if it were Dacey and that made me wonder if she could possibly have been some kind of spy, since she was connected to Lupin et al. Whatever happened was a test for Draco...but would it have to be a test of whether he could kill a sentient being? The house elf's death might not have been the point for them.

Draco doesn't seem to be boasting about anything he did well in his entry besides Quidditch. He just says Narcissa's house elf died and that it was "all very alarming" and things happen. So I'm not willing to jump to the idea that Draco was called home to kill a house elf. Her death may have been "collateral dammage."

I also think it's interesting Lucius' wonders if Mudbloods have now resorted to asking for money what they used to give away for free, which Draco himself also suggested with Hermione's being a prostitute. According to Ernie, it was the broken nose Draco was talking about when Pansy was holding his hand. I agree that the handling of Slytherin, even when they do things wrong, ought to be done very carefully. Like it or not students were crowing about the breaking of Lavender's arm as if this were the heighth of bad behavior when Draco did it by accident, and so far nobody's seemed the least bothered by what Hermione did. Not only does this reinforce a slippery morality but I think it would underscore anything Draco might have been taught about Muggleborns coming to get Purebloods.

At the same time, of course, we can't get sucked in too much by the Slytherin's view of fairness. For instance, Draco is correct in saying the cane was his property, but he was still dancing around the fact that he was purposefully tripping people with it, which was wrong too. But still, as creepy as people found Pansy's challenge about whether, had Lavender pushed Draco, he would have just been assumed to have deserved it, this seems to be what's just happened here. Harry broke Draco's nose in a fit of anger, Hermione laid in wait, jumped out and hit him for nothing specific except perhaps his Quidditch game?--unless we're not getting the full story there, but I took that part as true.

ex_lev195 @ May 2 2004, 22:31:27 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

It was Dacey. This makes me sad.

sistermagpie @ May 2 2004, 22:36:33 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Update to just say we do now have confirmation that it was DACEY who was killed.

Now, we know stuff about Dacey, and why would Narcissa have offered her up as some kind of test to see if Draco could kill her? As cold as it sounds--it seems to me that if nothing elese, Narcissa thought she was a good house elf and I doubt she would part with that so easily when there would be other house elves who would do for a sacrifice. Narcissa has shown concern for her before as well, though she could also get distracted and forget about her.

I just can't imagine Dacey being killed as a lab rat. Could Dacey have been protecting Narcissa in some way? Narcissa said she was going to play her part that night. Could Dacey have leapt in to protect someone else? Or objected to something? Anything could have happened. All we know is that Dacey is dead and there was the smell of snake in the air. Lucius has hinted he was protecting those he loved, MB has hinted there was a meeting going on. Oh, and Narcissa fell off her broom either before or after the events of that night.

conversant @ May 2 2004, 22:39:35 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Still don't know what the bleedin' heck is goin' on, do we? Though, I must say that I love the way little details are cropping up here and there in asides on several threads. This is the NA I love!!

sistermagpie @ May 2 2004, 22:46:32 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

LOL--I know, all I can do is repost what we know as if I've come up with something when I haven't!

_cosmic_dancer @ May 2 2004, 22:43:38 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Isn't the name of her new House Elf the same name of that friend of hers that died? It sounds familiar.

ex_lev195 @ May 2 2004, 22:45:26 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Yeah, Kiki Leavenshire. (Er, screwed up the last name, but you get the idea.)

sistermagpie @ May 2 2004, 22:59:42 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

OH MY GOD look at Lucius' latest post!!!! He's totally mocking Molly Weasley!

ex_lev195 @ May 2 2004, 23:13:05 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

...and the Lucius hate comes back to me in full force. That man is so frigging frustrating.

ex_lev195 @ May 2 2004, 23:15:48 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Wow, looks like Narcissa isn't taking it well. Perhaps it was a jab at both her and Molly.

black_dog @ May 2 2004, 23:19:58 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Still -- to run with conversant's point a bit -- why is Dacey's life worth any less than George's? I doubt Lucius is actually trying to make the equivalence, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were trying to draw out an indignant reaction to the comparison, which he could then point to and laugh at as racist and hypocritical.

sistermagpie @ May 3 2004, 00:06:40 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

Well, I think what's cruel about Lucius' post isn't that he's putting Dacey's life on level with George's because I agree it is on the same level. It's in his mocking Molly's post when he doesn't feel the same way, and also acting like her relationship with George is the same as his with Dacey's.

But I agree about the reaction he's probably trying to elicit.

lazy_daze @ May 3 2004, 08:38:14 UTC Re: NA is teaching us a lesson in morality

*feels suitably abashed* I do, actully, totally agree, once I, you know, stop to think :)

between_names @ Deleted Deleted

Deleted

ex_lev195 @ May 2 2004, 21:53:01 UTC

Snake scent? What the hell?

nabiki @ May 2 2004, 22:02:15 UTC

Yeah that pretty much summed up my reaction.

I've eaten snake before though. tastes like chicken!

So, then...Chicken scent?

ex_lev195 @ May 2 2004, 22:11:21 UTC

I can only think of Nagini. ...she was around in GoF, wasn't she?

oconel @ May 3 2004, 07:15:19 UTC

That's my bet

akutenshi2007 @ May 3 2004, 02:35:25 UTC

I don't know if its been said yet but I think Dacey got eaten by a snake.

Anonymous @ May 2 2004, 23:57:22 UTC

Oh, please. I'm just rolling my eyes at all of the people complaining that there wouldn't be a rematch if Gryffindor won.

Why shouldn't there be a rematch? People were throwing hexes. What about last year's match (http://www.livejournal.com/users/knight_to_h3/11502.html) when Ron handed Harry the snitch? They said that that didn't count. So, no, I don't think if Gryffindor won they wouldn't have not called a rematch. If Gryffindor is the house that gets favoritism, then Slytherins get the cake for being full of whiners.

magickslash @ May 3 2004, 04:44:20 UTC

Hear, hear.

slinkhard @ May 3 2004, 16:40:41 UTC

Huh? Last year there were fouls, but presumably, since Gryffindor won, there was no rematch.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to express?...
I think I'd whine if I attended a school with such blatant prejudice and favoritism!

Anonymous @ May 4 2004, 17:52:36 UTC

Last year there were fouls, but presumably, since Gryffindor won, there was no rematch.

Since you seemed to have skipped over what I was referring to in Ron's post, let my put it here for you: "then I flew quickly to Harry and gave the Snitch to him but for some STUPID reason they said it wasn't counted so we had to start the game over."

Ron gave the snitch to Harry, but that was considered an unfair win so they game restarted. An unfair Gryffindor win.

I think I'd whine if I attended a school with such blatant prejudice and favoritism

Well, I don't think that there is blatant prejudice and favoritism. I'm saying that the Slytherins are always calling foul when there isn't one. Prejudice and favoritism? That's an incredibly fanon idea, but that's a different topic. There should be a rematch because both sides were cheating. I think it would be the same if Gryffindor won, as evidenced by them restarting last year's match. Maybe they should have restarted the game right away, but I could see why they all needed to discuss it.

And that's about it. Old news, really.

sistermagpie @ May 4 2004, 18:23:07 UTC

Maybe they should have restarted the game right away, but I could see why they all needed to discuss it.

That's the trouble. It's not a question of restarting--this game already had that when Draco tried to catch the Snitch using the Summoning Charm and it didn't count either.

I agree the game should not count given everybody was cheating--it really wasn't Quidditch, it was more of a team duel. But the faculty had five hours where people were doing this to say, "Okay, let's call this off and start again." Or confiscate wands. By letting it go on they seemed to be saying it was okay. There's no reason they couldn't have discussed this while they were watching the game, particularly after the referees had been taken out.

The problem is they let a winner be called, waited 12 hours after a victory party they took it back-the Gryffindors would have been annoyed at that too, probably we would have gotten much caps-posting from Ron saying that Slytherin whining was to blame (and they do whine--they're never going to give up anything to Gryffindor gracefully). Either way once somebody was declared a winner in this game both teams were probably going to end up feeling robbed. This wasn't a fair match but it was a seriously played match on both sides.

This particular group of Slytherins is naturally going to flash back to the last victory that was taken away after the fact by the faculty, the House Cup first year. Once Dumbledore decides to add on ten points for standing up to one's friends in private after the votes have been tallied--just enough for Gryffindor to win so that the Slytherin victory can be dramatically taken away--he pretty much gave up any chance of passing for impartial. So by waiting until the game was over and Slytherin declared a winner of course they laid themselves open to the Slytherins truly believing that they'd wanted to see who "won" before they decided the whole thing was invalid. This is what all the Slytherins have been concentrating on. Underneath the normal sulkiness at not winning, they probably really do believe there's no victory that couldn't be taken away from them.

slinkhard @ May 4 2004, 19:19:58 UTC

That's an incredibly fanon idea

How is it fanon to suggest there is a bias at Hogwarts? If you don't like fanon, why comment on an RPG board, anyway?
There's plenty of canon evidence for a bias at Hogwarts.

"I'm saying that the Slytherins are always calling foul when there isn't one."

But there WAS a Gryffindor foul last year, hence why the game was replayed.
And the Gryffindors have admitted foulling this year. I don't see any denials from them on any points made by the Slytherins.

Anonymous @ May 4 2004, 21:45:00 UTC

I didn't mean foul as in a Quidditch foul. I meant foul as in a conspiracy.

slinkhard @ May 4 2004, 21:47:43 UTC

Oh! That makes much more sense, thanks!

Well, yup, our Slyths are a little paranoid, but hey, if Dumbledore and Co weren't proven to have a bias, they wouldn't need to be on their guard constantly.