I think it would be difficult to make a general assumption that any orders that have time frames/limits in them automatically violates the IR. This may have been how Titans have ruled in the past but as it was a closed system I suspect that the best option was to turn everything into a black and white scenario to make rulings easier and justifiable even if there were actually shades of grey.
If orders with time frames/limits violate the IR then the following would be wrong:
Move out
now/
before sunrise/
after sunset.
I feel that there needs to be some allowance as time frames/limits are an essential - and more importantly - a natural part of orders. To artificially excise them from orders creates a mental disconnect and requires greater mental faculties and slips are bound to occur.
As the courtroom system allows and encourages discussion I would say that each case should be judged based on its own merits and to consider context rather than a blanket ruling based on key words.
For further consideration:
These orders are a punishment for your attitude and your unchevalier conduct.
I think it would take no great mental leap to see that the accused is aware of the IR and slipped this sentence in (most likely as an afterthought) as a form of protection should someone cry IR.
I would also prefer to look at what is actually said concerning the IR:
If you are fined, banned, threatened or otherwise punished for "inactivity", or for not having been online at any specific time or day
Inactivity would mean not being online at any time. I see the General's threat more for the Marshal's reluctance in carrying out the orders
rather than not available or present to carry or give out the orders. Herein lies the difference in my mind.
Therefore, I think there is no need for a guilty verdict to make a statement or reminder of the IR. A not guilty verdict can also serve the same purpose.
