Punishing Players for Not Moving within Half A Turn

[T0mislav]

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.

[Indirik]

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

Then you would be doing it wrong.

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.

How could you tell? Titans decisions are not publicized beyond, at most, the realm affected. Nor are they a matter of public record. That is, IMO, one of the deficiencies of the Titans system.

[James]

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

What person A should have done is, after person B said "I will not move", is fine/ban them.  If they'd done that then there would not be an issue, the problem is the fact that they then gave orders with threats of punishments based on a time constraint.

[T0mislav]

What person A should have done is, after person B said "I will not move", is fine/ban them.  If they'd done that then there would not be an issue, the problem is the fact that they then gave orders with threats of punishments based on a time constraint.

Again, do you want to say that if Allomere punished (fine/ban) Fal'Cie for expressing his intent to disobey, then it would be OK... but to give him the final chance to reconsider (reminding him that he will be fined/baned if he realy disobey) - that was the violation of the rule?
That is completely ridiculous... don't you think so?... there is no way such interpretation of the rule was on mind of those who created it.

I am starting to feel like a parrot...

[Anaris]

Again, do you want to say that if Allomere punished (fine/ban) Fal'Cie for expressing his intent to disobey, then it would be OK... but to give him the final chance to reconsider (reminding him that he will be fined/baned if he realy disobey) - that was the violation of the rule?

If Allomere had instead simply reiterated the order, and added, "and if you don't, there will be consequences," that would have been fine.

The problem is, he said, "and if you don't by tonight, there will be consequences." That's not fine.

You're acting like there's only one possible way for Allomere to have given Fal'Cie one last chance. It's simply not true.

[Geronus]

How could you tell? Titans decisions are not publicized beyond, at most, the realm affected. Nor are they a matter of public record. That is, IMO, one of the deficiencies of the Titans system.

Nonetheless, the Devs seem to be pretty familiar with Titan decisions. I wouldn't be even a little surprised to learn that some of the current Devs and/or Magistrates were or are Titans.

[Fury]

Then you would be doing it wrong.

And I would cheerfully disagree. You should of course open a separate thread on this if there is more to be said.

What person A should have done is, after person B said "I will not move", is fine/ban them.  If they'd done that then there would not be an issue, the problem is the fact that they then gave orders with threats of punishments based on a time constraint.

Except that the General cannot fine or even remove anyone from the army. All he can do is threaten and without a time constraint there would be no cut-off point to judge if orders were followed. Nor did the Marshal actually say he wouldn't obey. He only conveyed reluctance in carrying out the orders because the General gave orders late in the turn but giving orders late in no way prevents anyone from passing out the orders. The orders the Marshal would then give out would simply be late too. The Marshal would of course be expected to be there as they were having a conversation. It would be a natural order of thought. Having to include escape clauses/wording so as not to run foul of the IR would be cumbersome and possibly make the General look weak-willed. Context needs to be considered in this case.

And to reiterate:

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.

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.

Last I heard, public warnings were still broken but someone can always copy paste the verdict.

[Anaris]

Last I heard, public warnings were still broken but someone can always copy paste the verdict.

Yes, unfortunately, due to the way the Magistrate system was originally set up it's not trivial to fix that.

[vonGenf]

Would the following chain of events have been acceptable:


Person A - I order you to move to region X
Person B - I will not move
Person A - Fine, then I will ask that you are replaced as marshal as of tomorrow by somebody who can do the job.

It seems to me it should - you face consequences for disobeying orders. But of course the sub-text is that the marshal has that one last chance. Surely we don't want to punish people for making this explicit?

[Anaris]

Would the following chain of events have been acceptable:


Person A - I order you to move to region X
Person B - I will not move
Person A - Fine, then I will ask that you are replaced as marshal as of tomorrow by somebody who can do the job.

It seems to me it should - you face consequences for disobeying orders. But of course the sub-text is that the marshal has that one last chance. Surely we don't want to punish people for making this explicit?

Again, this is no problem, and neither is the general case of saying, "You will do it, or you will be punished!"

The problem is that Allomere specified a particular time frame in which it had to be done, which was unreasonably short.

[T0mislav]

If Allomere had instead simply reiterated the order, and added, "and if you don't, there will be consequences," that would have been fine.

The problem is, he said, "and if you don't by tonight, there will be consequences." That's not fine.

You're acting like there's only one possible way for Allomere to have given Fal'Cie one last chance. It's simply not true.

No, I am not sayint that it is one possible way for Allomere to have given Fal'Cie one last chance... naturaly that there were many diferent ways he could do it.
But this is trial about have he violated Inalienable Rights - and duo to the matter of the trial the essential point is in the fact that his intention was not to punish someone for inactivity (what would be violating of the rule) but to give the last chance to reconsider to one who expressed intention to disobey the order (what is not violation of the rule).
Those who created rules had intention to protect players from beeing punished for inactivity, not from beeing punished for disobeying rules and especially not to punish players for giving secon chance simply because of hot tempered expressing. Dont you think so?

[Anaris]

But this is trial about have he violated Inalienable Rights - and duo to the matter of the trial the essential point is in the fact that his intention was not to punish someone for inactivity (what would be violating of the rule) but to give the last chance to reconsider to one who expressed intention to disobey the order (what is not violation of the rule).
Those who created rules had intention to protect players from beeing punished for inactivity, not from beeing punished for disobeying rules and especially not to punish players for giving secon chance simply because of hot tempered expressing. Dont you think so?

The Inalienable Rights do not discriminate based on intent. It doesn't matter, for instance, if you order people not to go to the tournament because 60k CS of enemy armies are approaching your capital and your realm is going to die if they leave, or you order people not to go to the tournament because you want to keep them from meeting people from other realms in a peaceful setting. The fact that you ordered them not to go to the tournament is all that matters.

Similarly, all that matters here is that Allomere ordered Fal'Cie to move within a certain amount of time, with a threat of punishment if he failed to do so.

T0mislav, I've been here since before the Inalienable Rights were written, and I've worked closely with Tom and the Titans for years: I do know what the purpose of the Inalienable Rights is and how they interact with the intent of the accused.

[T0mislav]

Similarly, all that matters here is that Allomere ordered Fal'Cie to move within a certain amount of time, with a threat of punishment if he failed to do so.

Yes, Allomere did ordered Fal'Cie to move within a certain amount of time, with a threat of punishment if he failed to do so.
But, from the Complaint Text it is clere that two of them were talking, so both of them were on-line... and the fact is that noone is actually punished.
Now, tell me whatever you want, but it is complete nonsence to have trial against someone under the charge for punishing inactive player when the other side was on line - especially when in the end noone was punished... even the Complaint Text was sent by the third person.

[Zakilevo]

Yes, Allomere did ordered Fal'Cie to move within a certain amount of time, with a threat of punishment if he failed to do so.
But, from the Complaint Text it is clere that two of them were talking, so both of them were on-line... and the fact is that noone is actually punished.
Now, tell me whatever you want, but it is complete nonsence to have trial against someone under the charge for punishing inactive player when the other side was on line - especially when in the end noone was punished... even the Complaint Text was sent by the third person.

Uhh just threatening the inactive person to be active is enough to violate the IR....

[egamma]

T0mislav, you should read the Rights page more closely: http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Inalienable_Rights

Let me pull some quotes for you:

We try to make the rules very basic and very strict, in order to prevent people from "gaming the system". That means that there are usually no exceptions.

This means that we favor an interpretation that protects the rights, rather than one that shrinks them.

The basic rule is: Just shut up and stay 100 feet away from any and all inalienable rights, no matter how well-meaning you are.

I think that this is the contention, right here--the defendant has not stayed away from the IR.

The inalienable rights are defended with extreme prejudice. There's one simple reason for that: The second they were opened up to discussion, interpretation, exceptions, borderline cases, etc. the lawyer-weasels and others who get a thrill out of gaming the system would invade like locusts.
Absolutely no violations of inalienable rights will be tolerated, no matter how minor or inconsequential. Absolutely no interpretations will turn a violation into a non-violation. Absolutely no "I didn't mean it" apologies will prevent the punishment - if you are the guilty party, consider it a lesson for next time and a reassurance that you yourself will be equally aggressively defended should someone else attack your inalienable rights.
The absolute harshest punishments are reserved for those who try to "weasel around" the rights, by using standard lawyer-speech, creative interpretations or such tools. Obvious attempts of this kind do lead to immediate account terminations with no prior warning.

That's pretty clear, isn't it?