Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class

[BattleMaster Server]

Summary:	Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Violation:	Choosing your class
World:	Colonies
Complainer:	Eric Henson
About:	Actrial

Full Complaint Text:
Letter from Actrial Erendegard   (11 hours, 44 minutes ago)

Message sent to everyone in your realm (25 recipients)

I would like to ask priests to become a soldier again because we need every noble possible.

Actrial Erendegard

Margrave of Oritolon

[egamma]

If this isn't a rights violation, I don't know what is.

[Indirik]

This should be the posterchild for rapid resolution.

[Chenier]

If this isn't a rights violation, I don't know what is.

Let the voting begin?

[Fleugs]

What? To me he is just asking for more nobles capable of commanding a unit. He isn't ordering it or implying repercussion if priests do not class (back) to soldier. I don't think it is forbidden to ask for more soldiers, even if you chose to target only one class to pose that question to.

[Chenier]

What? To me he is just asking for more nobles capable of commanding a unit. He isn't ordering it or implying repercussion if priests do not class (back) to soldier. I don't think it is forbidden to ask for more soldiers, even if you chose to target only one class to pose that question to.

There's a huge difference between "we need more soldiers" and "we need less priests". The request is essentially the latter.

[Geronus]

What? To me he is just asking for more nobles capable of commanding a unit. He isn't ordering it or implying repercussion if priests do not class (back) to soldier. I don't think it is forbidden to ask for more soldiers, even if you chose to target only one class to pose that question to.

A request from a person in power is considered the same thing as an order for the purpose of the IRs. It doesn't matter whether there's an explicit "or else" attached to the request or not. It is still a violation of the IRs.

For anyone reading this thread, the best policy when it comes to the class and unit type IRs is to stay far, far away from them. There are no grey areas or extenuating circumstances. Any request, no matter how innocent it seems, that directly suggests that someone change to a certain class or recruit a certain type of unit is guaranteed to result in punishment if it is reported.

[Fleugs]

Hardly a person in power. Margrave of the capital. Not even duke, not even a council member. Has really no power except from kicking someone from his estate, should he chose to "punish" people not classing back. The inalienable rights say you have the right to choose your class. To me, this message, which was a simple letter - not a order or request - still allows people to remain priest. Just that they happen to need more nobles with a sword. Perhaps the character despises priests and favours warriors?

I understand that the argument is to stay as far away from the inalienable rights as you can, but it would be shortsighted to punish or be done with this sort of case as a clear violation. What would be a clear violation would be an order, or, if you want, check my family history. You can find it there twice.

Someone just has to point out to this player that priests have merit too. As long as he does not impose or threaten with punishment on priests refusing to become warrior he has not explicitly violated the inalienable rights. The "evidence" for this case is really weak, based on a one-sentence letter.

[Alpha]

I would agree that this action would be an obvious abuse of power if he had actually held a position of authority. A Margrave doesn't, by the nature of his position, hold any great power. The situation might be different if he consistently issues orders that are followed, and I don't know if that is the case or not.

[Indirik]

Hardly a person in power. Margrave of the capital. Not even duke, not even a council member. Has really no power except from kicking someone from his estate, should he chose to "punish" people not classing back. The inalienable rights say you have the right to choose your class. To me, this message, which was a simple letter - not a order or request - still allows people to remain priest. Just that they happen to need more nobles with a sword. Perhaps the character despises priests and favours warriors?

Not a request? He flat out said "I would like to ask...".

Also, this *has* to be acted on. If not, you're opening up a HUGE loophole: All you have to do in order to be able to bypass the IRs is have someone who is "not in a position of power" send the "not an order or request" and you're in the clear.

But just because this is a clear violation doesn't mean the guy has to be bolted and locked for three days. A one-day lock and public reminder of the IRs should be fine.

[Geronus]

Ahem. There are no grey areas or extenuating circumstances.

"When it comes to inalienable rights, "requests" are the same as orders."

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Inalienable

Do not, under any circumstances, ever order, ask, or suggest that a specific player or players change class or recruit a specific unit type. Since the message in question clearly violated that precept, there is nothing to discuss.

[Chenier]

As Geronus said. It doesn't need to be labelled as an order, nothing needs to be threatened as a consequence. This has been established for a very long time.

[Dante Silverfire]

Also, this *has* to be acted on. If not, you're opening up a HUGE loophole: All you have to do in order to be able to bypass the IRs is have someone who is "not in a position of power" send the "not an order or request" and you're in the clear.

I think this is the key point.

This is a VERY CLEAR violation. I see absolutely no defense for this not violating the IR's in any way. He requested that someone change class. For the purposes of IR's requests are the same as orders.

Since the IR's are violated they need to be enforced. His position is irrelevant. Even if he was just a knight it'd be a violation and should be acted upon.

I don't think a harsh punishment is necessary perhaps but the IR's are there to protect players. Protecting the players needs to be the primary motivation of the Magistrates in this case and every case. Not ruling this as a violation means that players in this case are harmed, and it opens up harm for all future ones.

[Vellos]

A verdict has been reached, and necessary IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict was:

"The Magistrates find that the player of Actrial did violate the Inalienable Rights in requesting that nobles change class away from the priest class. There are no grey areas or extenuating circumstances. When it comes to inalienable rights, "requests" are the same as orders.

Magistrates voted 9-0 in favor of the guilty verdict, with 1 in favor of a warning, 1 in favor of a 1-day lock, 3 in favor of a 2-day lock, and 4 in favor of a 3-day lock. A 3-day lock has been applied."

This thread will remain open for questions for a brief period.

[Chenier]

When we decide a verdict, do we go with the most popular one, or an average?

4 people voted for a 3-day lock, but 5 people voted for a lesser punishment, for an average of 2,1111 day lock.