Punishing Players for Not Moving within Half A Turn

[Anaris]

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.

You have misunderstood.

The charge is not for punishing an inactive player.  The charge is violating the activity IR, which includes ordering people to be active at certain times, regardless of whether any explicit punishment was actually meted out.

[T0mislav]

You have misunderstood.

The charge is not for punishing an inactive player.  The charge is violating the activity IR, which includes ordering people to be active at certain times, regardless of whether any explicit punishment was actually meted out.

From the Complaint Text it is obvious that they both were on line and talking... so it was not ordering people to be active at certain times (what definitly is violation of IR) but was ordering to someone who is on just talking to you to order his unit to move (that can not be violation of IR).
Surely, if that person disconets in a meantime and the one who ordered continue insisting on his order and threatening, then it would be violation of IR - but that haven't happen in this case.

[Geronus]

From the Complaint Text it is obvious that they both were on line and talking... so it was not ordering people to be active at certain times (what definitly is violation of IR) but was ordering to someone who is on just talking to you to order his unit to move (that can not be violation of IR).
Surely, if that person disconets in a meantime and the one who ordered continue insisting on his order and threatening, then it would be violation of IR - but that haven't happen in this case.

You are reiterating arguments that have already been made. The argument against this is that Allomere could have no way of knowing that Fal'Cie was still online when he issued the order, even though he'd been active recently, even minutes before.

At this point I think that further debate is probably not going to serve much purpose beyond reiterating arguments that have already been made. A thread has been started in the backroom, wherein I will make an effort to distill the cases for and against with what I can glean from this thread. Please feel free to continue discussing. The Magistrates will begin their own deliberations and if something new and relevant is brought up here we will take it into account.

[T0mislav]

The argument against this is that Allomere could have no way of knowing that Fal'Cie was still online when he issued the order, even though he'd been active recently, even minutes before.

It is truth... but those who are making decidion about is Allomere guilty for violating IR should also have on mind tha people get in character while playing the game, and sometime it is really difficult when you are forced to balance between what you want to say and ooc forma you have to sattisfy to not violate any rule.

To explain:
If person A states: I order you to go to X.
*Person B: I will disobey.
**Person A natural reaction (if person A is superior to person B) is to say: You will be punished if you disobey.

It is easy to criticize from this point, but at the time when person A wrote letter **, person A was already iritated by the reaction of person B (person A is only a human, not a mashine) so it can easily forget the fact that person B could simply disconect after writing the letter * (especially if person A enjoed the game and got in charracter).

Duo to that, it would be unfair to judge person A simply by his action, but all circumstances that led person A to state the forbiden sentence should be included.

[Indirik]

especially when in the end noone was punished..

Just to be clear, whether or not anyone was punished is irrelevant. No punishment is required in order for something to be an IR violation. Simply telling, or even asking, someone to do something can be against the IR. In fact, even if you specifically state that it is completely voluntary and there will be no punishment, it can still be an IR violation.

"Hey everyone, please don't go to the tournament, we would like evryone to be here in case the enemy attacks. If you do go, it's no big deal, and we're not going to punish anyone or anything. But please don't go."  <--- still an IR violation....

[T0mislav]

Just to be clear, whether or not anyone was punished is irrelevant. No punishment is required in order for something to be an IR violation.

It looks like some of you are searching specific words to coment and are missing entire point of all was spoken.
Have you even read the text I wrote, or you simply quck passed trough it to find key word to comment it with memorised slogan?... from your post I would say the second.

[T0mislav]

To repeat the point again:

Violation of IR in this case includes that there was order about when someone has to be online.
What actually happened is that it is ordered to player who was online to move his army under the threat that he will be punished duo to he stated he will not move.

- now some ppl here are trying to manipulate the situation that the one who sent the order could not know that the other one is still on line so he was not suposed to send order in that form constantly repeating that it is irrelevant was he punished or not, but they are forgeting that exacctly duo to the one who sent the order could not know is the other one on line it is of crucial importance have punishment been commited (the one who sent the order sent it assuming that the other one is still online, and when he realized that he cna not prove that the other one got the order punishmant was not commited - CASE CLOSED)

BOOHOO! The secont one received one useles order... what shell we do - star a trial against one who sent it... COOL! but NOT COOL!!!

BOOHOO!!! he did not have to send him order: "Be there by sunrise or I will punish you further" but he had to send him a report: "You will be baned from the realm by morning, imprisoned by the afternoon and hanged by eavning duo to treason commited by saying that you will disobay the order." - Such state of devalopment whold be much more acceptable and completely by the book... Right?

What are we talking about on the 7 pages?

[Geronus]

Duo to that, it would be unfair to judge person A simply by his action, but all circumstances that led person A to state the forbiden sentence should be included.

Not really. If you read those quotes that egamma posted earlier (which are all by Tom himself by the way) they make it pretty explicit that there are NO extenuating circumstances when it comes to the IRs.

I doubt we're actually going to lock Allomere's account for this even if we do find him to be technically in violation. We will most likely use this as an opportunity to educate via a warning instead.

[Foundation]

T0mislav,

Now that you have a more complete understanding of the IR, you can help in ensuring the same standard is upheld in all realms on all islands, including the Colonies.

Of course, in a new topic, as it is beyond the scope of this case.

[T0mislav]

Just to recapitulate...

- This is both individual and a team game.
- Point of IR is to protect individual part of the game, but not to sabotage team part.
- IR "Playing at your own speed, timing and activity level, i.e. logging in as often or seldom as you like, at whatever times you like." is here to protect individual player from ingame orders that can affect his real life.
a) if supperior orders: "move to region X (which is one turn distanced) within a week or you will take consequences" - such order is not affecting anyones real life duo to even if one who get the order do not log in for over a week, his charracter that got the order will be auto-paused anyway after five days of inactivity,
b) if supperior orders:" move to region X (which is one turn distanced) by tomorrow or you will take consequences" - such order affects real life of player of charracter who got such order duo to it implicates that he has to log in before the turn changes.
Duo to nature of IR, option a) is not violating it, but option b) is violating it.
- Duo to in praxis it is hard to prove someones intention it is common practice that any kind of ordering formed: "move from X to Y by tomorrow or you will take consequences" is violation of IR - well this is the huge lapse in the interpretation of IR duo to such interpretation is
a) giving a lot of space for "playing the system",
b) allowing to make conclusions about the situation based simply on events ignoring circumstances - what is logicaly completely wrong,
c) putting the player of charracter who is giving the order to inferior position,
d) sabotaging entire team segment of the game,
e) sabotaging player's getting in charracter and entire roleplay segment of the game
Shortly to say, NOT IR, but such interpretation of IR is not only tottaly unfair but can also completely ruining the game (I can explain it closely in some other thread if needed)

Taking the stated interpretation as valid, there is no doubt that player of Allomere did state the sentence:

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.

The part:

and Zerujil by dusk

could be interpreted as violation of IR.... but it have to be considered that there is ingame option "Set the next destination".

I do hope that those who are making decidions will closly examine my words about the lapse in common practice that simple stating some words is automatically declaring as violation of IR and will do something to change that practice to something more fair what will protect all players and the game, not only few allowing them to harm majority and entire game.

[egamma]

Offtopic posts will not be tolerated. They have been moved to here:

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2665.0.html

Please review the rules:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,819.0.html

Specifically:

All replies need to follow these rules, or they will be moderated:
remain strictly on topic. Information relevant to the actual case only. This goes especially for speculations, hypotheticals, variations - discussing of the this could be... if... kind are unwanted. We have a specific case before us and will decide that case, nothing else.
be positive and friendly. Don't insult or troll.
add new information. Repeating a point does not increase its truth value.

[Chenier]

Just to be clear, whether or not anyone was punished is irrelevant. No punishment is required in order for something to be an IR violation. Simply telling, or even asking, someone to do something can be against the IR. In fact, even if you specifically state that it is completely voluntary and there will be no punishment, it can still be an IR violation.

"Hey everyone, please don't go to the tournament, we would like evryone to be here in case the enemy attacks. If you do go, it's no big deal, and we're not going to punish anyone or anything. But please don't go."  <--- still an IR violation....

Generally, sure. I agree, in principle.

Acting or not on a threat does not make a threat okay.

However, it's not clear what kind of threat this was... I did not read up on everything yet, but it sounded more like his threat was not targeting activity (i.e. if you don't log in within the next hours), but rather behavior (i.e. if you don't do as I say).

To me, punishment (or lack of) and given justification can help contextualize the events to see what was meant by the original threat. Because if the player sending the order was dead convinced that the recipient would read the message before turn change, then I don't consider the situation to be at all the same as if he wrote it to a random guy who didn't write a message in hours and whom he doesn't know OOC to be able to log in soon.

[Anaris]

To me, punishment (or lack of) and given justification can help contextualize the events to see what was meant by the original threat. Because if the player sending the order was dead convinced that the recipient would read the message before turn change, then I don't consider the situation to be at all the same as if he wrote it to a random guy who didn't write a message in hours and whom he doesn't know OOC to be able to log in soon.

That sounds to me like the difference between a clear violation of the IR, and a wanton violation of the IR.

[Indirik]

To me, punishment (or lack of) and given justification can help contextualize the events to see what was meant by the original threat. Because if the player sending the order was dead convinced that the recipient would read the message before turn change, then I don't consider the situation to be at all the same as if he wrote it to a random guy who didn't write a message in hours and whom he doesn't know OOC to be able to log in soon.

It doesn't matter if the two guys exchanging messages are playing hot-seat on the same computer. It's still an IR violation.

The IRs protect not just the individual player being sent the message, but *all* the players. Letting it slide without comment because you think the other guy may have been on line at the time, and thus got the message in plenty of time to act, let's the realm know that it's OK to send messages like that. Everyone in the realm, including the newb who just joined three days ago, knows that they are expected to be online 24/7 in case something like that happens again. And they may never say anything about it because they don't want to rock the boat. Or because "That guy's a hard-ass, and I don't want to get slapped down". Or because at this point in time they can be online when required. And these players can't be expected to read these forums and analyze 27-page argument about IRs, and log-in times, and all the other back-and-forth garbage we have here to figure out that this stuff is not allowed. (Or maybe it is allowed, since quite a few people here seem to think that this sort of thing is OK.) You can't let it slide at all. When something breaks the rules, it has to be addressed, and the player breaking the rules,and probably the entire realm, need to be told that this stuff is not OK. Do you have to lock him for three days to get the message across? Or toss him out of office in this case? Probably not. But you at least need to send a public warning to let them realm know that you just can't do this.

[Penchant]

It doesn't matter if the two guys exchanging messages are playing hot-seat on the same computer. It's still an IR violation.

The IRs protect not just the individual player being sent the message, but *all* the players. Letting it slide without comment because you think the other guy may have been on line at the time, and thus got the message in plenty of time to act, let's the realm know that it's OK to send messages like that. Everyone in the realm, including the newb who just joined three days ago, knows that they are expected to be online 24/7 in case something like that happens again. And they may never say anything about it because they don't want to rock the boat. Or because "That guy's a hard-ass, and I don't want to get slapped down". Or because at this point in time they can be online when required. And these players can't be expected to read these forums and analyze 27-page argument about IRs, and log-in times, and all the other back-and-forth garbage we have here to figure out that this stuff is not allowed. (Or maybe it is allowed, since quite a few people here seem to think that this sort of thing is OK.) You can't let it slide at all. When something breaks the rules, it has to be addressed, and the player breaking the rules,and probably the entire realm, need to be told that this stuff is not OK. Do you have to lock him for three days to get the message across? Or toss him out of office in this case? Probably not. But you at least need to send a public warning to let them realm know that you just can't do this.

A public warning can be done without convicting him as guilty since the only way a public warning will be done is if a player sends an OOC message either way. The message could say, in the this particular case the defendant, (his character name), was voted innocent due to special circumstances but he also has been told to be more careful in his orders to prevent this from happening again.