By this argument, you're saying that it's OK for the Judge to declare "If you go to the tournament you will be banned" as long as the judge never actually bans anyone.
Absolutely. Then (provided the Magistrates are contacted) we tell the judge that if someone is banned for that then action will be taken against him/her. Like action for like action. He only said it so Magistrates only give a warning. To remind him/her of the IR if nothing else. Until someone is actually banned let them hash it out IC - a crazy judge or whatever: It's my noble right to attend tournaments!
Sending a message is an action.
The threat is the violation.
I'm talking about the IR wiki document not providing for Titan actions against an offender who merely sends a message. The part about contacting the Titans if you're punished is clear. Everything else seems to be guidelines on how to act concerning IRs - sending messages not to go to tournaments, etc. I see I missed the part about how sending [such] messages would "almost certainly [be] in violation of the inalienable right." However, this still stands:
If you are fined, banned or otherwise punished for "inactivity", or for not having been online at any specific time or day, the Titans [and likewise the Magistrates] will be very happy to counter. No Titan action is provided for concerning messages that may violate the IR -
only on actions that lead to punishments (as far as my reading of the wiki goes).
If we Magistrates are of the view that messages (and therefore threats) should lead to Titan action then it should be rephrased as
If you are fined, banned, punished or otherwise threatened... I am not of this view, however. As explained above: like action for like action. If they violate someone's IR by punishing them then they should be punished in turn. If not then warn
. Which leads to:
Keep in mind that that it is entirely possible for a player to decide they don't want to take the risk, and therefore not go, and thus not be punished...Thus damage is done, even if no punishment is handed out.
That is what we are trying to prevent. That atmosphere. Which is created simply by saying it.
This is starting to sound like a tag team 
.
Nipping something in the bud is too much hand holding. If they know enough that such letters may violate their IR they'll very well know to make a report should they ever be punished. If the offender is benign then a simple reminder will set him/her right and if both parties understand that certain messages may come naturally given the circumstances and within the backdrop of a military hierarchy then all's well. If the offender is merely being a bully then they should learn on their own not to be cowed into feeling threatened by people in power. How would we differentiate a benign offender who is merely roleplaying a medieval Marshal (as he/she is expected to in this game) from a bully? When the bully metes out punishment. That's the best marker in my opinion. If this is adhered to then there would be no need to cry wolf whenever a bark is heard.
It may be good to translate the IRs which are a mixture of OOC and IC into pure IC IRs. This could cut out some of the confusion:
IC IRsThe inalienable rights are:
- Your own personal responsibilities in life come first above any orders/duties given to or expected of you
- Choosing which type of unit to command
- Going to tournaments
- Choosing your class
Orders/Requests/Etc. that violate the above rights may be safely ignored. Should your rights be infringed through punishment you may take it up with the Magistrates.
* I see pausing as redundant as you lose all titles upon pausing and it also comes under 1.
