Punishing Players for Not Moving within Half A Turn

[Anaris]

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".

Yes, Person A is definitely in the wrong. If Person B reports Person A, it is not "gaming the system." It is justice. This is exactly the kind of thing the activity IR is designed to prevent.

Please believe me that this is precisely the intent of the rule. Orders of that form simply should not be given.

[T0mislav]

That example is more then obvious attempt of "gaming the system." duo to Person B is trying to avoid ingame consequences for disobeying supperiors by manipulating with game rules attempting to be protected that way by game operators.

To not mention that in our case it is person C who reported all the thing and that person has zero insight in personal letters between two involved players.
Have anyone even asked allegedly damaged player for his position about the matter?

[Indirik]

It doesn't matter who reported it, or whether either of the players involved feels hurt or their experience lessened by it. at the very least, there could be other players in the realm that see the message who may see this, and think this behavior and play style is acceptable. They may alter their play style to account for IG demands on their RL time. Or they may decide to not play a game that makes these kinds of demands on their schedule and quit.

[Anaris]

That example is more then obvious attempt of "gaming the system." duo to Person B is trying to avoid ingame consequences for disobeying supperiors by manipulating with game rules attempting to be protected that way by game operators.

It doesn't matter what Person B thinks or wants to do at that point. Person A, by giving that order, has already violated the Inalienable Rights. It's not like he as somehow forced or manipulated into doing so by Person B. He did it of his own free will. Reporting someone to the Magistrates or Titans for an actual violation of the IR does not suddenly become "gaming the system" just because you stand to personally gain from their punishment for the violation.

To not mention that in our case it is person C who reported all the thing and that person has zero insight in personal letters between two involved players.
Have anyone even asked allegedly damaged player for his position about the matter?

It doesn't matter. The order that Person A gave violated the IR. What Person B's position is is irrelevant.

[T0mislav]

But is relevant that it is attempt of "gaming the system".

[Anaris]

But is relevant that it is attempt of "gaming the system".

First of all: you have not in any way demonstrated that it is such an attempt. You have stated it as if it were an obvious fact.

Second of all: Even if Person B were attempting to "game the system" by reporting Person A, it would not be relevant. The only thing that would be relevant is whether Person A actually violated the IR.

[T0mislav]

Are you reading my posts at all?
If you do, you would see the proves... but I can gladly repeat some.

Only a fool can say that circumstances are completely insignificant... that is the fact. (If you insist I do can give example that pruves it... ie. if one kills a man, there is great difference between was he planing it, was it accidentally or was it self defense).

Same way, if one orders: "You must be in region X by tomorrow or there will be consequences" it is great difference was he ordered it just like that with intention to intimidate, or was he do it as response on someones express intent to disobey the order.

From the Complaint Text it is obvious that those two players were talking and that player of Fal'Cie did express intent to disobey the order, so in this case player's of Allomere reaction was completely appropriate.

This is complete logical prove that player of Allomere did not violate the rule.
I repeated it several times... contrary, you are constantly repeating the sam sentence that it is not important nothing but the action of player of Allomere what is compleat nonsense (duo to it is of crucial importance why did he acted that way) and you never posted any prove he did violate the rule - all his actions are explained and argumented with proves that he did not.

[Indirik]

Since we've all stated our opinions, why don't we all agree to disagree and let the Magistrates do their thing?

[Anaris]

Only a fool can say that circumstances are completely insignificant... that is the fact. (If you insist I do can give example that pruves it... ie. if one kills a man, there is great difference between was he planing it, was it accidentally or was it self defense).

If I report someone to the police for killing someone else, it makes no difference whether I was completely safe or feared that they would kill me, too, if they were not arrested. The person still killed someone, and still gets to take the punishment for it.

Same way, if one orders: "You must be in region X by tomorrow or there will be consequences" it is great difference was he ordered it just like that with intention to intimidate, or was he do it as response on someones express intent to disobey the order.

No. I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. From the perspective of the Inalienable Rights, there is no difference. Giving the order, in and of itself, violated the activity IR.

From the Complaint Text it is obvious that those two players were talking and that player of Fal'Cie did express intent to disobey the order, so in this case player's of Allomere reaction was completely appropriate.

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.

I repeated it several times... contrary, you are constantly repeating the sam sentence that it is not important nothing but the action of player of Allomere what is compleat nonsense (duo to it is of crucial importance why did he acted that way) and you never posted any prove he did violate the rule - all his actions are explained and argumented with proves that he did not.

It doesn't matter whether you think it's nonsense: that's the way the IR work.

[T0mislav]

If I report someone to the police for killing someone else, it makes no difference whether I was completely safe or feared that they would kill me, too, if they were not arrested. The person still killed someone, and still gets to take the punishment for it.

It would surely be great difference if that person who killed someone was bank security guard who shooted a bank robber preventing robbing of the bank - he would surely not take the punishment for it but a reward.

No. I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. From the perspective of the Inalienable Rights, there is no difference. Giving the order, in and of itself, violated the activity IR.

Inalienable rights have part about prevention of "Playing the system".

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.

Oh? 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 that this statement is complete nonsense?


In the end you again simply stated

that's the way the IR work.

failing to point at any prove for player of Allomere was violated the rule.
It is simply because you do not have any such prove duo to it is more then obvious that there was no rule violations in this case.

[Fury]

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.

[Anaris]

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.

We did go over this earlier in the thread. Giving time frames for orders is fine. Giving an order with both a time frame and an explicit punishment if the order is not carried out in that time is not.

And I think the Titans among us might take umbrage at your insults to them.

[Foundation]

As a side note to the Magistrates, there has been OOC discussions on the realm channel, so if suitable the decision should be at least a realm wide announcement.

[Fury]

And I think the Titans among us might take umbrage at your insults to them.

Not an insult at all. It's what I would personally push for in a closed system.

[Geronus]

Just because the Titans were a closed system doesn't mean that we are operating under different rules. We're not bound to follow their precedents I suppose, but the Titans are charged with upholding the same rules that we are; if we deviate from their precedents, we better have a damn good reason for doing so.

As for your concerns, I think they can be addressed by wording your orders differently. For example, don't say "You must be in Keplerville by x date and time." Instead say, "Move to Keplerville. If you're not there by x date and time, you will miss the battle." Don't use time limits. Just say "Move here now," and if absolutely necessary specify that it is time sensitive if it is in fact time sensitive, then let the players themselves respond to that urgency as they are able to. You don't have to say "Be here by x or else" to effect good movement.