There is no such distinction with the Inalienable Rights.
No, there isn't - not in it's current form. Impinging and violation are merely my proposals to standardize between giving a warning and giving a punishment and this would necessitate a rewriting of the IR.
However, as you have pointed out:
You have either broken the IR, which requires punishment, or you have not, and no such punishment is warranted. There is no such thing as "encroaching on its borders". That's weasel-wording, and rules lawyering.
If Balewin is considered to have violated the IR through mere threats then punishment must be given and Magistrates have the option to lock an account for between 1 to 3 days and locking is the only option we have. A warning is NOT a punishment.
This is relevant because right now, that seems to be the consensus - to give a warning to Balewin.The wording in the IR leaves no leeway:
- The inalienable rights are defended with extreme prejudice.
- Absolutely no violations of inalienable rights will be tolerated, no matter how minor or inconsequential.
- Absolutely no interpretations will turn a violation into a non-violation.
- Absolutely no "I didn't mean it" apologies will prevent the punishment
Re-reading the letter, what comes across was not my intention as I certainly do not want to impede on anyone's right.
Whether he didn't mean it or it was not his intention to doesn't matter. It CANNOT prevent the punishment. Which means we would be wrong to only give a warning and while the form of punishment is not prescribed in the IR punishment must certainly be an action.
Sending a message is an action.
And no - sending a (warning) message is NOT an action.
Do my fellow magistrates see the problem now? This is not truly possible with the Inalienable Rights. They are OOC rights, not IC rights. Nobles don't have a right to "play at their own pace". Players do. And the rights are directed at the players.
Oh, yes they are.
- Playing at your own speed, timing and activity level, i.e. logging in as often or seldom as you like, at whatever times you like.
- Choosing which type of unit to command
- Going to tournaments
- Pausing your character(s) because you have a real life to attend to
- Choosing your class
Out of 5 IRs only 2 are OOC. The other
3 are IC. And thus, to repeat:
Therein lies the disharmony in unifying IC actions within an OOC boundary. 1 and 4 can be translated into IC but whether they are phrased IC or OOC isn't important. They are still limitations put into place in the game on the players who are controlling characters. And punishing the player directly affects their characters as well.
However, my point is: offenders send out IC messages IG that can impinge/violate a player's IR. By rephrasing the IR IC it puts the IR limitations IC and therefore into perspective. And instead of trying to remember that they can't order players to play at a certain speed or activity level, they now know that they cannot order their knights (characters) to move out when they aren't ready to because in their minds they are ordering characters (as they naturally should) through their letters rather than players because players don't exist IG. As sometimes we're really into the game and our focus is so on the game and the atmosphere and we want to be a strict marshal or such and because it's an ORDER we naturally want to make it SOUND like an order and to ensure they're carried out we would probably naturally threaten punishment. Rather than being a wimp marshal whom I would laugh off IG if he went around appending, "but like anytime you're ready to, of course" to every message - just in case it was misconstrued.
"If you are fined, banned or otherwise punished for "inactivity", or for not having been online at any specific time or day, the Titans will be very happy to counter, so please contact them with information.". So the Titan/Magistrates only come in after the punishment, not before, according to this.
Right, so if we're only giving a warning to Balewin then there's no violation of the IR. If there is then we have to give a punishment.
A point I would like to make, the game in and of itself violates IR by autopausing those who do not login after a certain amount of time.
Interesting. If for example, if the game takes away your lordship after 5 days of not logging in would it then also be wrong for a Marshal to ask a Judge to fine a knight for not moving out after 5 days or would that still be an IR violation, eh?
