I can't think of a way that's even possible, though. Even if one turned themselves in, all four wouldn't. And even then: how does one do this, exactly? Ban them, then they sit in the capital voluntarily waiting to be executed?
Has that ever happened before in BM?
I see the situation as being so preposterous from both an IC and OOC perspective that I can't see how anyone ever took it seriously that Malus (or the player of Solari) might have been at all interested in the surrender of the actual persons.
Well seeing as the only thing anyone ever hears IC out of Malus's mouth is that he wants certain characters dead or hates certain characters, IC wise I would quite certainly believe that he was interested in the actual surrender of the persons. That is one reason my character offered to give my life up to Malus in a duel to the death. If he wanted it so badly I'd let him kill me in person. He refused, but that's another thing. My character then sent a message saying he'd give himself over in trial to Luria as a whole and this was also denied. My character then sent a letter to the King of Luria Nova saying he'd gladly give himself up if it stopped war with Pian en Luries. This message wasn't even responded to.
Aside from me the character of Ramiel stated he'd gladly die if it would save his King and realm. The character of Etna moved to another continent, so Malus said only 3 were now needed, but ignored the other attempts.
This sums up my opinion. I can follow Silverfire's logic, and I can't come up with an actual coherent way to refute it aside from pointing to what the consequences would be (although the "it's just as impossible IC as it is OOC" argument is close).
I can think of one thing to add: I believe this would be an IR violation if, after the deadline had passed, someone logged on, sent out an OOC explaining that they had not been on during that day, and that they really would like to turn themselves over now, and Solari refused to accept it. The difference between this and what actually happened in game is, to me, the difference between a violation and not a violation.
This argument though is one that I see having the most validity I guess as a difference between an IR violation and not. I could definitely accept the reasoning being that since that was not what happened that would be a reason for this case to have no basis.
