Skidbladnir: Fair or Harshly Contrived?

So in my first Livestream, I had a debate with a few others over a certain episode. For those who don't know, I have a dislike for the Code Lyoko episode Skidbladnir. In fact, it's my least favorite episode. The problem I have with this episode is the main plot point. I feel that it's unrealistically harsh and only serves as a contrived plot device. Despite this, I've seen this episode pop up on a lot of people's favorite episode lists. While I'm respectful towards people's opinions, I feel that they should also take a second look at the episode as well as another fan's analysis. I'm not one to debate ethics on a forum meant only for episode discussion, but it's still about the episode and it really does bother me. Now first, let me bring up some points about this episode.

1: Jeremie and Aelita were doing nothing remotely wrong. I understand there's a reason for that rule (i.e. to keep them from doing anything sexual), but that reason wasn't being violated, hence the punishment shouldn't have been that harsh. A verbal warning would've sufficed.

2: This is middle school, not college; these precautions shouldn't even exist. I don't know much about intimacy in France, but I doubt that two thirteen-year-olds of opposite genders are just as likely to 'do it' as would two college students of the opposite gender. Also, what if the student was gay or bisexual and lives too far away to be a day student?

3: Schools tend to make judgements of students' behavior based on grades and test scores (That's how college applications work. Plus, we were shown that the Kadic faculty does exactly that in 'Nobody in Particular'). Therefore, even someone as dense as Jim would be assuming that Jeremie and Aelita would do nothing wrong.

Now before you get on me about how wrong I am, here's some things I should add in response to the most common messages I got on the Livestream.

1). 'Of course it's a fair punishment.' Okay, how about something to back that up. You can't just say that and nothing else. It's the same as saying 'I'm right because I'm right'.

2). 'Middle school kids their age have 'done it' before. I know because that what kids in my middle school talked about.' Yes, but that's just a few situations and doesn't necessarily reflect the average middle school student let alone valedictorian-level students. Besides, unless you're talking about France, I have no choice but to assume cultural bias in your argument.

3). 'Doesn't matter. They broke a rule.' I understand that. What I'm saying is that the punishment does not fit the crime. If you need me to explain why, please look at the points I made above.

4). 'Students should not be given the benefit of the doubt.' If they've done nothing remotely wrong, they've done nothing remotely wrong; there's no 'benefit of the doubt' about it. Also, as a school principal, you should be hearing your students out before you issue the punishment. Otherwise, people would be getting suspended left and right for doing things that weren't their fault, which is why I'm calling it unrealistically harsh (Yes, I know that wasn't the case in this episode, but it's the principle that matters). You know what it's called when you decide not to hear a student out? Zero tolerance. A highly controversial, outdated and ineffective form of punishment that is still under high scrutiny.

5). 'It ruins the reputation of the school'. OMG. Two students made a petty offense and did nothing wrong out of it. Our reputation is ruined.

6). 'Genius or not, you don't get special treatment.' I am in no way advocating special treatment. In fact, I'm completely against it. The point i was trying to make in #3 was that it would be commonly assumed that students like them would be doing nothing wrong despite the relatively minor violation and thus be given a more lenient punishment.

7). 'He wasn't assuming anything. He saw her out of her dorm and in the opposite gender's dorm. That's all that matters.' Again, I get that. I completely understand. What I don't understand is why he assumed that they were doing something relatively bad when he saw them doing nothing of the sort. Especially when it's common knowledge to think 'Oh, Jeremie and Aelita would never do that. They don't look like they're doing that. So no harm done.' Of course when I mean 'that', I mean actually doing sexual stuff or related.

. 'The rule isn't 'Don't have sex', it's 'Don't be in the other gender's dorms after curfew.'' When you enforce a rule, it's because of your reason for enforcing it, not because of the specific text. Saying that you shouldn't be in opposite dorms after curfew already makes the implication that it's made to prevent consensual sex/rape/etc. It's like the rule 'Turn off your cellphones.' Does that mean you can turn on your computer or iPod? After all, the rules don't say anything about that. The answer is no. When you say 'Turn off your cellphones', it already makes the implication that other electronics aren't allowed because they're equally distracting.

9). 'Suna. Just drop it. Nobody's going to agree with you.' If you're one of those people who had this debate with me on Monday's Livestream, let me just say that this isn't directed specifically towards you. It's directed towards the others on this forum as well; if I wanted it to be for you, I'd talk to you over PM. Also, you don't know that. Besides, the point isn't whether or not others will agree with me, it's about why people defend this episode and the harsh and contrived plot point it centers around.

You're welcome to point out any flaws in my reasoning of those points. That way, I get a better idea of what you mean.

Again, I fully respect the opinions that others have of this episode. I just felt like pointing out my main complaint in an attempt to discuss it with others. With that being said, why do you think that this is even somewhat reasonable?

It was a reasonable punishment because they disobeyed the rule; what they were doing whilst they disobeyed the rule is irrelevant.

Another example: The Lyoko warriors skipped class to save the world, but they still skipped class, so by the school's reasoning they deserved to be punished.

Duh.

Soul Jelly wrote:It was a reasonable punishment because they disobeyed the rule; what they were doing whilst they disobeyed the rule is irrelevant.

Another example: The Lyoko warriors skipped class to save the world, but they still skipped class, so by the school's reasoning they deserved to be punished.

Duh.

They broke a rule, yes, but the punishment did not fit the crime. They were sitting at his desk doing nothing remotely wrong, how does that warrant an afternoon of detention? Also, truancy and being in the opposite-gender's dorm are two different things. One involves the unlawful passing of legally required education, as in you could actually go to jail for it. The other is based entirely on ethics.

Like I said before, if they were actually having sex or something like that (which is the ENTIRE POINT of the rule), then I could see why it would be reasonable. But it doesn't work in this case because they were doing nothing wrong. Again, the punishment must fit the crime.

For example: Someone was chewing gum in school and they got suspended for it. By your logic, it would be reasonable ONLY because the rule was broken, am I right?

If this was on the show, I don't even remember this coming up.

Regardless, from what I gather it was them being together in the middle of the night.

I am in agreement with Soul in this case. An afternoon of detention is pretty good considering what kind of record the LWs probably have at Kadic by this point.

Atlas wrote:If this was on the show, I don't even remember this coming up.

Regardless, from what I gather it was them being together in the middle of the night.

I am in agreement with Soul in this case. An afternoon of detention is pretty good considering what kind of record the LWs probably have at Kadic by this point.

But if they weren't doing anything wrong, they weren't doing anything wrong. Sure, they were together and they disobeyed a rule, but seeing as they did nothing actually bad, I fail to see the rationale behind the punishment. They were doing nothing illegal like truancy or bringing a knife to class, nor were they doing anything potentially harmful like rape or bringing an animal to school.

Again, if I were chewing gum during class and got suspended for two days for that, that would be reasonable? Because it's just as harmful as what they did.

Sure, they were together and they disobeyed a rule.....

Break a rule -> Get punished. Pretty simple.

They were sitting together in the middle of the night in their pajamas. Jim reasoned, logically so, that they were up to no good and had already caught them redhanded breaking school rules.

There was no accident here. They knew the school rules and knowingly broke them.

As I said before, an afternoon of detention is pretty light all things considered.

Atlas wrote:

Sure, they were together and they disobeyed a rule.....

Break a rule -> Get punished. Pretty simple.

They were sitting together in the middle of the night in their pajamas. Jim reasoned, logically so, that they were up to no good and had already caught them redhanded breaking school rules.

There was no accident here. They knew the school rules and knowingly broke them.

As I said before, an afternoon of detention is pretty light all things considered.

Commit a petty offense -> Get a punishment DESERVING of the crime. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I understand that a rule was broken, but you seem to be failing to grasp the concept of the punishment must fit the crime. Pointlessness of the rule aside (at least in middle school), what they did wasn't worth an afternoon of detention; they did relatively nothing. What they did was just as bad as chewing gum in class. Actually, it was less severe because it's not like they were distracting an entire classroom environment. I'm no expert on school rules, but I know that chewing gum in class doesn't get you an afternoon of detention.

If you have a super strict teacher, it does.

What I think Atlas and Soul are trying to say that even though they weren't doing anything "bad", the fact that they were knowingly breaking a (quite stressed) rule was an act of defiance, which is punishable at my school by a referral to the discipline office and usually results in either some kind of suspension or work detail (i.e. picking up trash, scraping gum off chairs, etc). Just as Jeremie using his laptop to communicate with Yumi during detention was an act of defiance because there's no outside communication allowed when you're in detention. And also how in 73 Replika, Aelita deliberately lying for Odd was also an act of defiance, one in which she got caught and 4 hours of detention. By doing those things, it was as if they were all saying, "We know the rules, but we're above following them." The studying excuse afterwards was like icing on the cake: justifying their wrongdoings. Which does not bode well for them when the principal gets involved.

Therefore, they were not being punished because they were together; they were punished for their open defiance to the rules.

Snickie wrote:If you have a super strict teacher, it does.

What I think Atlas and Soul are trying to say that even though they weren't doing anything "bad", the fact that they were knowingly breaking a (quite stressed) rule was an act of defiance, which is punishable at my school by a referral to the discipline office and usually results in either some kind of suspension or work detail (i.e. picking up trash, scraping gum off chairs, etc). Just as Jeremie using his laptop to communicate with Yumi during detention was an act of defiance because there's no outside communication allowed when you're in detention. And also how in 73 Replika, Aelita deliberately lying for Odd was also an act of defiance, one in which she got caught and 4 hours of detention. By doing those things, it was as if they were all saying, "We know the rules, but we're above following them." The studying excuse afterwards was like icing on the cake: justifying their wrongdoings. Which does not bode well for them when the principal gets involved.

Therefore, they were not being punished because they were together; they were punished for their open defiance to the rules.

Doesn't matter if it was just defiance, it still should fit the crime. You don't expel someone from school for having a cell phone out and say 'Well you were being defiant. Of course we can punish you however we want.' The police doesn't throw a loiterer in prison for five years and justify it by saying the loiterer was being defiant. You have to make the punishment fair and fitting of the crime and you have to give a reason why your punishment is fitting.

Then let me try asking a different question. If an afternoon of detention is deemed "too harsh" of a punishment, what would you propose is an appropriate punishment? The only thing I can think of off hand is a dragging into the principal's office to get lectured for a couple hours, but even that is essentially just a slap on the wrist and doesn't really have any consequence to them besides having both parties waste their time.

Another point I'd like to add is that you shouldn't be equating chewing gum to them disobeying curfew. They are separate crimes, and I can understand the school enforcing its curfew harder than the gum chewing considering the former could lead to a whole lot of other troubles started by not being where you should have been at that time. Chewing gum doesn't have the possibility of getting cops involved.

In other words, having a person missing from their dorm when the sun comes up causes concern which, if they don't turn up soon, will usually lead to getting parents involved and a search started. Chewing gum might get you a detention after class if you are a repeat offender, but otherwise is seen as mostly harmless in comparison.

One last time, the punishment is pretty light considering they knew the rules, knew they were breaking them, and most likely offered no good explanation for why they did so.

Atlas wrote:Then let me try asking a different question. If an afternoon of detention is deemed "too harsh" of a punishment, what would you propose is an appropriate punishment? The only thing I can think of off hand is a dragging into the principal's office to get lectured for a couple hours, but even that is essentially just a slap on the wrist and doesn't really have any consequence to them besides having both parties waste their time.

Another point I'd like to add is that you shouldn't be equating chewing gum to them disobeying curfew. They are separate crimes, and I can understand the school enforcing its curfew harder than the gum chewing considering the former could lead to a whole lot of other troubles started by not being where you should have been at that time. Chewing gum doesn't have the possibility of getting cops involved.

In other words, having a person missing from their dorm when the sun comes up causes concern which, if they don't turn up soon, will usually lead to getting parents involved and a search started. Chewing gum might get you a detention after class if you are a repeat offender, but otherwise is seen as mostly harmless in comparison.

One last time, the punishment is pretty light considering they knew the rules, knew they were breaking them, and most likely offered no good explanation for why they did so.

Given the circumstances, I'd say 'just studying' is a fair enough excuse for a response of 'just don't do it again'. But I digress.

If it were me, I'd say a verbal warning would suffice. Unless intimacy was involved, which it wasn't in this case, then in that case a harsher punishment would be just. Also, it's not like anyone reported her missing. He just happened to find her out of her dorm and doing no harm. If she were actually outside of the school and not in the vicinity, then I could see where that situation would fit. But she wasn't, she was still in the building. Also, it's not like they inspect the dorms every morning when the sun comes up to see if everyone's in place (at least to my knowledge). Unless you mean not in their dorm before the sun comes up, in which case I can sorta see your point. Plus if it was that big of a deal, the principal would've said more than just 'ignoring the ethical values of the school' or whatever. But that's probably just bad writing.

Again, punishment should not have to be determined by the offenders' prior knowledge of the rules. It's to be determined by the severity of the crime and nothing more.

So you suggest that the school just waits around until something actually happens?

You compared this to a cellphone rule. Just because the rule is no cellphones doesn't mean you can turn on your computer or your ipod, but it also means that you can't turn on your cellphone. This rule is don't be in each other's dormitories, and regardless what it means or implies outside that, it means you can't be in eachother's dormitories.

Also, the idea that grades always correlate with any activities (illegal, immoral, or not) is false.

SeeMeInTheShadows wrote:So you suggest that the school just waits around until something actually happens?

You compared this to a cellphone rule. Just because the rule is no cellphones doesn't mean you can turn on your computer or your ipod, but it also means that you can't turn on your cellphone. This rule is don't be in each other's dormitories, and regardless what it means or implies outside that, it means you can't be in eachother's dormitories.

Also, the idea that grades always correlate with any activities (illegal, immoral, or not) is false.

/
Of course. That's how the system of crime and punishment works.

My point is the text of any rule is written under an implication of what could be done if the rule is broken. Always has been since the founding of law and ethics, always will. Since that implication wasn't violated, the text should not have to be upheld.

And yes it often does. Why do you think colleges turn down many willing applicants who have bad grades but are still smart? I didn't say there WAS, I said that schools TEND to make that assumption. Just because you don't think there's a correlation, does not mean the rest of the school does. Besides this was shown that Kadic DOES do this in 'Nobody in Particular', when they said Jeremie is an all-around good student based on his grades and how Ulrich is a lazy good-for-nothing based on his grades and nothing else.