We are again returning to your previous statement:
Whether or not it was (and I disagree that it was), it doesn't matter. If Allomere wanted to punish Fal'Cie for expressing his intent to disobey, he was free to do so. Instead, he chose to send an order to Fal'Cie of a type that is forbidden under the IR.
So again... do you want to say that if Allomere punished Fal'Cie for expressing his intent to disobey, then it would be OK... but to give him the final chance to reconsider - that was the violation of the rule.
Don't you see how ridiculous it sounds?
I am sure that intention of game operators who made the rules was to prevent punishing players for inactivity, not to allow destroying spirit of the game by "playing the rules".
To explain why did I say "destroying spirit of the game":
- if one is playing ingame General and if one of his subordinate express that he will not follow the order, player of the General is automaticaly compromised:
a) his character would repeat the order saying that there will be punishment for disobaying the order,
b) but in case it is about moving this turn, he has to think how to formulate sentence "you will be punished for disobey" dou to disobay in this case is "to move this turn" and it is against the rules to say "you will be punished for not moving this turn" (
game operators surely did not want to prevent order "to move this turn" but they wanted to prevent punishing players for inactivity)
There is no way that those who created the rule wanted to allow backdor to avoid ingame punishmat to those who want to disobey ingame orders.
It is obvious from Complaint Text that Allomere did not have intention to punish Fal'Cie for inactivity but for willingly disobeying orders. And do not repeat that regardless of his intentions he did say that he will punish Fal'Cie if he do not move this turn - it is complete nonsense and is starting to sound like a broken record.
