Punishing Players for Not Moving within Half A Turn

[Dante Silverfire]

I tend to believe that military leaders should avoid creative orders at all costs; by which I mean, give orders that are clearly and conventionally within the purview of normal BM behavior, not rules that lend themselves to hair-splitting like we are presently doing.

I agree with this, but what we think as to how military leaders should give orders, and what is an IR violation when giving orders are two completely different things.

As far as the previous cases, in general this case is not like either of them. The first case regarding Malus explictly stated a punishment for a time sensitive issue that was impossible to perform regardless of OOC activity. This case cannot be connected to that one simply because the requested action IS able to be performed, not only in an OOC sense but an IC sense as well. In addition, the players involved were both online at the time and sent messages explicitly regarding disobeying the orders.

While I don't believe the 2nd case applies here, it is much more applicable than the first. The player clearly issued a stated punishment for failure to follow a stated action. The reason I think the judgement in the 2nd case does not apply is simply that the player proved that their not following the order was due to an IC reason not an OOC one. They had both the capability to follow the order, and determined independently not to. Also, since the punishment statement was issued after the player had chosen not to follow the orders, I think it is not an IR violation.

[Vellos]

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.

[Dante Silverfire]

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.

If the punishment had been indicated when the order was first given I'd agree that it was an IR violation. But that isn't the case.

The events were:

1. Order is given
2. Order is refused
3. Order is reiterated specifically to the person who refused, stating that if they haven't moved to the region ( but chose to say they refused the order) then they will be punished.

Take out all the verbage and that's what happened.

If the punishment was stated in #1, its an IR violation regardless of whether the order is ever refused or even responded to. But with the way things went, I can't see it.

[Indirik]

But it seems everyone is ignoring the fact that the "punishment" Fal'Cie was going to get, as has already been said, was a good ranting at by Allomere, which has happened before, but which was going to be roleplayed, as a bit of fun, since nothing else was happening worth roleplaying in the realm.

The severity of the punishment is irrelevant when determining whether or not an IR has been violated. Punishment is punishment. The severity of the punishment may, however, help determine the severity of the response by the Titans/Magistrates.

I think the writing of the letters definitely makes it seem at first glance that this is a violation, however I think the chronological order of the letters is very important. If you make the assumption (which I consider reasonable, even though the other way is also reasonable) that Allomere was only speaking directly to the Marshal, then this is the chronology:

1. Order is issued for the army to move to region X.
2. Marshal responds that he won't be following the orders. (not explicit, but the inference is there)
3. Allomere states that since he has received the orders (Due to having responded), he specifically(not the whole army) should be there or be punished.

How is that an IR violation?

A person clearly demonstrates that they have the OOC capacity to move, and responds IC wise to messages after having received orders, and responds explicitly regarding those orders. They are aware of the orders, they have the chance to move, and it is thus an IC choice how to respond from there. The threat was made specifically against a character who had that IC choice and on an OOC level was clearly able to implement it.

Under that interpretation I cannot see it being an IR violation.

However, if you strike any of the above starting assumptions, then I'd have to say it is an IR violation.

The problem, as I see it, is that your scenario assumes that, at the time the message in Step 3 is sent, that the player knows or assumes that the player of Fal'cie will get the message in time to do something about it. At that point in time, you *must* stop and evaluate the situation. Nothing that happens after that point in time has any relevance to whether not the message in Step 3 violates the IR. Otherwise you get into the situation I described before where whether nor not Allomere breaks the IRs depends on whether or not the player of Fal'cie comes back to read the messages and take action. i.e. whether or not Allomere broke an IR depends on what action some other player takes. And that's just silly.

[Dante Silverfire]

The problem, as I see it, is that your scenario assumes that, at the time the message in Step 3 is sent, that the player knows or assumes that the player of Fal'cie will get the message in time to do something about it. At that point in time, you *must* stop and evaluate the situation. Nothing that happens after that point in time has any relevance to whether not the message in Step 3 violates the IR. Otherwise you get into the situation I described before where whether nor not Allomere breaks the IRs depends on whether or not the player of Fal'cie comes back to read the messages and take action. i.e. whether or not Allomere broke an IR depends on what action some other player takes. And that's just silly.

I agree and disagree. I agree that we must evaluate the situation completely based upon the entire situation stopping at the point the message is sent in step 3. We cannot assume that the player will read it before the turn change, and for best evaluation we must assume they never get that message.

However, I disagree because I believe that if you state that even though the player will never read the step 3 message, that it doesn't matter. The in-game punishment is based upon the player's actions or non-action at step 2, and the message relating to it is merely stating the obvious course of action that the General would take if the Marshal openly disobeyed orders as an IC choice. With that in mind, the step 3 only has the function of re-stating the obvious and would be just as relevant for that letter to have been sent after the turn change, stating that the Marshal would be punished because he chose to openly disobey orders, not because of lack of activity but because of an IC choice not to.

[Anaris]

However, I disagree because I believe that if you state that even though the player will never read the step 3 message, that it doesn't matter. The in-game punishment is based upon the player's actions or non-action at step 2, and the message relating to it is merely stating the obvious course of action that the General would take if the Marshal openly disobeyed orders as an IC choice.

But that's not what was specified in the message in question. It said (paraphrasing and adding emphasis) "if you have not moved to the region I ordered you to by next turn, you will be punished."

Not "I will punish you because you have said you will not move."

[Geronus]

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.

[Dante Silverfire]

But that's not what was specified in the message in question. It said (paraphrasing and adding emphasis) "if you have not moved to the region I ordered you to by next turn, you will be punished."

Not "I will punish you because you have said you will not move."

Correct. But I don't see that as anything differently.

THe punishment is not because they said they will not move. But that they didn't move AND said that they wouldn't move. It is only punishable because they said they woudln't move.

[Vellos]

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.

+1

[Gustav Kuriga]

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.

Magistrates voted 8-0 in favor of a warning with no lock as the proper response.

Just would like to point out that the "sending messages that violate Inalienable Rights is a punishable action" thing should get some attention. You cannot threaten with punishment for not following orders in time.

[T0mislav]

Summary:	Punishing Players for Not Moving within Half A Turn
Violation:	Inalienable Rights
World:	Dwilight
Complainer:	Peter Wen
About:	Allomere

Full Complaint Text:
Letter from Allomere de' Striguile   (17 hours, 32 minutes ago)
 
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
 
Marshal Fal'Cie,
 

 
Are you seeking to claim that under your command the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz is so diminished it can't respond to orders at times it always has been able to? Have you let our prime army waste and dwindle so that it performs like any other rabble from any other realm, requiring a day's notice before it can even be dragged into the field? Are you really going to publically announce that none of the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz will be able to move with half the night still ahead of them...you're supposed to be an experienced commander, but of late it seems you can't even co-ordinate hunting down monsters...These orders are a punishment for your attitude and your unchevalier conduct. I expect them fulfilled, that is I expect to see you in Fields by morn, and Zerujil by dusk, and for the monsters to be destroyed by that time. If not, you will face further consequences, and they will be dire. March well, Marshal, and do as a commander should.
 
Allomere de' Striguile
 
Knight Hausos At Arms of Aurvandil, Viscount of Zerujil

If you read the "Complaint Text" closely, regardless that Allomere's letter was sent to entire realm, it was addressed to Fal'Cie. From the content of the letter it seams that they are mutual talking about the matter and from that it is logical to assume that Allomere had stronge baze to be convinced that Fal'Cie will read the letter on time, so, even if the letter sounds like it is braking the rule, duo to Allomere's conviction that Fal'Cie will get the letter on time, it is In-Game matter and is not against the rule (it would be against the rule if Fal'Cie haven't answer anything after the letter and still got punished - but such sittuation HAVEN'T happen).

Further from the content of the letter can be read that Allomere is punishing Fal'Cie for (as Marshal of the army) not beeing able to coordinate attack on monsters and the punishment is to attack them alone under the threat that if he fail to commit the punishment he will be punished further. Player activity is protected by the game rules and allows to players to log in whenewer they want, but that fact does not exclude the fact that realm can not function properly without functional chain of command - I have to aggree that Allomere maybe did act too aggressive but as player who played Monarch and General of the realm for a long time I do can understan frustration when those who are top in chain of command stop executing orders - in this matter Allomere simply had to ask Fal'Cie to step down from the position of Marshal or to ask sponsor of the army to replace him for beeing unfit for the job.

Well... Allomere acted as he acted, but I do believe that his actions wher purely In-Game and that Fal'Cie's primary complaint was not against punishing for beeing inactive (what would be against game rules) but is for Allomere ordered him to attack monsters alone in which attack he would surely lose most of his men so it would cost him greatly - but regardless of its extremity, such order is purely In-Game and is not against game rules.

[Anaris]

If you read the "Complaint Text" closely, regardless that Allomere's letter was sent to entire realm, it was addressed to Fal'Cie. From the content of the letter it seams that they are mutual talking about the matter and from that it is logical to assume that Allomere had stronge baze to be convinced that Fal'Cie will read the letter on time, so, even if the letter sounds like it is braking the rule, duo to Allomere's conviction that Fal'Cie will get the letter on time, it is In-Game matter and is not against the rule (it would be against the rule if Fal'Cie haven't answer anything after the letter and still got punished - but such sittuation HAVEN'T happen).

<snip>

Well... Allomere acted as he acted, but I do believe that his actions wher purely In-Game and that Fal'Cie's primary complaint was not against punishing for beeing inactive (what would be against game rules) but is for Allomere ordered him to attack monsters alone in which attack he would surely lose most of his men so it would cost him greatly - but regardless of its extremity, such order is purely In-Game and is not against game rules.

If you're going to post here, please read the rest of the thread first. If you had done so, you would see that the arguments that "it was all IC" and "if he hadn't responded, then it would have been a violation" have both already been raised and soundly smacked down. The IR do not depend on the actions of anyone except the one violating (or not violating) them, and it does not matter whether it was an entirely IC matter, the IR still apply.

[T0mislav]

If you're going to post here, please read the rest of the thread first. If you had done so, you would see that the arguments that "it was all IC" and "if he hadn't responded, then it would have been a violation" have both already been raised and soundly smacked down. The IR do not depend on the actions of anyone except the one violating (or not violating) them, and it does not matter whether it was an entirely IC matter, the IR still apply.

Anaris, I red all posts and arguments I gave are nor already rised, so also not smacked down... read again if you have to, but I will also closely explain.

Arguments that were rised and that are smacked down are including part of the rule that it is no matter is someone threatening or is realizing his threat connected with punishing for any kind of inactivity.

I pointed that duo to Allomere and Fal'Cie were already exchanged several letters that day, Allomere had good reason to asume that Fal'Cie is ON-LINE (or will be on-line to see his orders).
1st case - to simply order someone to be in another region by tomorrow threatening with punishment for disobey to move (that is violation of the rule)
2nd case (our case) - to order someone, to whom you are just talking with and who is responding to you and who already implicated that he will disobey the order, to move and to be in another region by tomorrow stating that there will be punishment for disobey (that is surely not violation of the rule, but to report it IS attempt of "gaming the system" to avoid ingame consequences for disobeying direct order from superiors).

See the difference???

[Anaris]

I pointed that duo to Allomere and Fal'Cie were already exchanged several letters that day, Allomere had good reason to asume that Fal'Cie is ON-LINE (or will be on-line to see his orders).

That doesn't matter. Even if he had good reason to assume it, Fal'Cie's player might have been suddenly called away and not been able to get online again for a day and a half.

1st case - to simply order someone to be in another region by tomorrow (that is violation of the rule)
2nd case (our case) - to order someone, to whom you are just talking with and who is responding to you, to move and to be in another region by tomorrow (that is surely not violation of the rule, but to report it IS attempt of "gaming the system" to avoid ingame consequences for disobeying direct order from superiors).

See the difference???

There is no difference from the perspective of the IR. You cannot make those kinds of assumptions.

Furthermore, as you should have already been able to tell from the other posts in the thread (and even from the initial report), Fal'Cie's player is not the one who reported this.

[T0mislav]

Yeah, right... you wish to say that in following talk Person A is violating the rule?

Person A - I order you to move to region X
Person B - I will not move
*Person A - I order you to be there by tomorrow or there will be consequences

I would reather say that Person B is in this case "Gaming the system" if reports person's A letter * as violation of  inalienable rights, and if you closely read game rules, you will find a part that mentions that there are mostly no exceptions connected with breaking of inalienable rights, but game operaters will prevent attempts of "Gaming the system".

Especially in case that one who reported player of Allomere is not player of Fal'Cie, those who are making decidion about is player of Allomere guilty for violation of inalienable rights should have on mind that intention of one who reported player of Allomere must not be so honorable to help pure unprotected wictim, but could also be simply to sabotage player of Allomere.