This is what I think:
1. For the sake of precedent, we determine a guilty verdict. The verdict should make it clear that it is unwise and almost always unacceptable to issue orders with time limits. We should be very specific about what it is we find fault with in this case, as well as how a violation could have been avoided. The specifics have been well outlined already in a series of posts from various Devs and/or Magistrates.
2. The punishment should be a warning only. The exchange seems to have been between two clearly consenting players, neither of whom took issue with it, and I would prefer not to start bludgeoning players with excessively narrow interpretations of the IRs, especially this one. There is a legitimate case to be made that an overly expansive interpretation of this rule in particular will bog the game down and make players afraid to be Marshals or others in a position to issue orders. It is my feeling that edge cases like this one should be treated lightly and used primarily as opportunities to educate the player base about best practices for issuing orders - actual punishments such as locks should be reserved for truly clear cut violations of the sort that you traditionally hold up as examples for why the rule should exist in the first place.
Edit: In truth, my feeling is that we should leave this one alone. The players involved took no issue, so why are we sticking our noses in it? Someone reported it, true, but I suspect that was done out of principle. However, there seems to be a significant number of Magistrates who feel that it is a violation, which is why I proposed the above.
