Apologies for weighing in, but this strikes me as rather similar to the Malus Solari case. My understanding of the events is (and I do apologize for reiterating):
1) General issues order (move out by dawn) (presumably for a half-day move?)
2) Marshal refuses order (don't wanna)
3) General reiterates order, threatening punishment if original order is not followed (do it or else)
In this instance, the order is given and it is demonstrated that the marshal has received it, since he gave response, so there should be no violation in points 1 and 2 (whereas if the Marshal had not received it and had been punished it would be a violation). In that case, whatever sort of punishment the Judge doled out would be appropriate because the Marshal has refused an order that he received from his General. I don't think that the General offering to relent if the order is carried out anyway (which is another way you could read the message) should be construed as an IR violation. It seems to me that the argument is being made that if he had just decreed punishment after-the-fact for refusing orders then it would be okay, but offering to relent if the order is carried out in the original (and acknowledged) time frame is not okay; this makes very little sense to me. Also, from the Solari case:
I've said it before, I will say it again:
Deadlines are fine by me.
Allowing other people to play at their pace does not mean that time isn't a factor. Obviously, it is. Turns still run, things still happen. Allowing people to play at their pace when it comes to time-sensitive things means two things:
if you need to work with deadlines, schedules, etc. - make them reasonable and do not use points in time, but timespans - "meet me in X in two hours" is a stupid way, you force the other player to be online at a specific time, one that may be in the middle of the night in their real-world location. But "I'll be in X after sunset, meet me there" is perfectly ok. You're simply stating a fact. Now if you have pressing matters, you can add "I will wait at most a day" - that is perfectly ok. The IR applies to you, too. The other player can not force you to play at his speed, either. If you want to move on with the action, you can. You totally can. If that means the other guy misses out on becoming a region lord, getting a unique item or whatever - that is not an IR violation! The IRs do not entitle you to anything.
be ready to reverse your actions - this goes especially for punishments. If you punish someone for not being in X at a given time and it later turns out that he simply didn't log in - undo the punishment. OOC causes should not lead to IC punishment.
But, in all reality, when someone is writing more than two sentences on why something is or isn't an IR violation, he is most likely trying to lawyer you and is just as likely wrong. All the real IR violations I have encountered in over 10 years were very obvious on first glance and could be explained in one sentence.
My understanding from the Solari case was that it is an IR violation IF the player (Marshal in this case) does not log on AND any punishment is not reversed. This differs from the Tournament IR (you don't even mention it), the Pausing IR (I don't think I've ever seen this come up), and the Unit and Class IR (incentives are fine, commands are not); this is because when trying to get an army to march together sometimes you need to issue deadlines like "move out tonight," or "arrive in the morning". At least, that's been my understanding of the IRs.
