I am not sure how I feel about this.
But I think most of the discussion up to now has been off-base. It should have started like this:
Precedent 1:http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,1850.60.htmlThe Magistrates have ruled 4-1:
"The Magistrates are unable to identify any IR violation. Players have a right to be free from discrimination based on activity, but this is not a case of activity-based discrimination. Furthermore, to interpret a time specification as inherently an IR violation would require a serious departure from most already existing understandings of the IRs. As such, the Magistrates find the player of Malus Solari not guilty of any IR violation."
Precedent 2:http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,1068.75.html"It is never acceptable to order, request, or suggest the violation of Inalienable Rights. This is especially important about the right to play at your own pace. No player should ever be threatened with punishment because they fail to make daily reports. Moreover, it is especially important to note that it is a violation of inalienable rights even if no punishment is given: sending messages that violate Inalienable Rights is a punishable action.
Given that no punishments were actually handed out, and given that the player of Balewin clearly had no malicious intent, and given that the player of Balewin evidently understands that he overstepped his bounds, the Magistrates will only give a warning this time."
Magistrates voted 8-0 in favor of a warning with no lock as the proper response.
---
Now the debate is: what is this case "more like." The Malus case, where the demand was intentionally impossible, but the ruling states that specific time demands are not sufficient for IR violations, or the Playing speed case, where mere threats related to some fairly peripheral IR concepts were sufficient.
THAT is the debate we should be having, rather than starting fresh every time.
