But doesn't the earlier critique nullify arguments about knowledge of the other player's activity, namely, if the player had logged off before receiving the order, it would be an IR violation?
Doesn't it seem much wiser for us to say that other players must be assumed to be offline? Should we really allow a few minutes difference in log-in times to change something from a violation to not one? Or is there something more fundamental to the IRs, to BM's lightweight context, to the fact that we don't supply "last activity," information, to the fact that daily log-ins aren't normal, that suggests this kind of order should not be acceptable?
For the record, even if the defendant is "guilty," the case is so sticky I'm inclined to think a warning would be most appropriate. But I'm just trying to get a feel for how we're dealing with defining the IR in terms of a consistent jurisprudence. It seems a fairly unique circumstance and, like the other two activity cases, seems to be somewhat confounded by specific factors on the ground (in this case, very close actual activity). But I'm inclined to think we should rule that, while that instance it may not have been damaging, something to effect that "Players giving orders should not expect that their recipients are online to receive them," or some such verbiage.
I just have a hard time stomaching the idea that a thing transforms from acceptable to violation by a coincidence of a few minutes. I'm much more comfortable with having a more generalizable ruling.
