Are Inalienable Rights Modified

[Dante Silverfire]

Of course, I do the same. That does not make it ok for your ruler character to say it out loud, which I've also seen.

Granted.

[Vellos]

This looks like a GREAT case for the Magistrates!

Gotta build up a portfolio of precedent, dontchya know?

[vonGenf]

This looks like a GREAT case for the Magistrates!

Recent things I've seen violate the ten-foot-pole rule by approaching five foot away, but are not magistrate worthy. Let's say it's a culture that needs to change, not just a specific message. Mentioning the word "activity" is to be avoided but is not worth a case all by itself.

I've seen real, actual violations (e.g. "You can only be general if you can post orders half an hour after turn change") in the past and reported them to the Titans, with disappointing results. Hopefully the magistrates will be better. I'll keep an eye open.

[Chenier]

This looks like a GREAT case for the Magistrates!

Gotta build up a portfolio of precedent, dontchya know?

We haven't seen any of the messages in question, just one guy's interpretation of them. And as many have said, it's pretty normal and reasonnable that more active people get the bigger share of the rewards, doing it the other way around's a great way for stagnation.

[Stue (DC)]

as far as i see the matter turned in wide unfocused discussion, thought i did receive specific response among others.

if i come upon reference to activity in one realm, I would possibly report it to the bodies, or would wait to see whether there is repeated habit or not.

however, if i notice that in 3 realms, repeatedly, than it clearly leads to conclusion that such things became game-wide habit.

[Stue (DC)]

No way. Issuing an order that says Move to Region X: "next turn" or "in the morning" or "in a full day" are all pretty common orders, and there is no way it is against the rules. Literally the only other way you could issue an order then would be say something like "Move to Region X Whenever You Feel Like It." And that's just silly.

What you CAN'T do is explicitly punish someone because they "didn't log in." But punishing a NOBLE for not following ORDERS is fine. At least as far as I am aware.

i have to disagree with this, almost completely. for as long as i play, referring to log-in activity was punishable, being said explicitly or implicitly (when implication is clear). so that was never ever just simple issue of wording.

the same way "move to region x in one day" is in my opinion clearly against inalienable rights. you can state like "move to region x as soon as possible" or "attempt to move to region x in one day", which is not just change of words but gives complete understanding that commanders desire that they nobles move to region x in specific day, but yet they are giving clear freedom to those who cannot do it.

when you say "move to region x in one day" that means that everyone who does not move in one day can be penalized, and knowing that log-in activity is largest possible reason for all delays, that is direct clash against inalienable rights.

some time ago we  developed the whole process on how to separate "good" from "bad" army nobles based on their timely participation in battles, but that was never related to delay on one specific battle. that also meant say 30-40% non-responsiveness, but as that was similar on all battle sides, it rarely influenced general war issues.

i would be surprised to see such justification attempts for something that was deemed clear for years, but when i see number of council members who undoubtedly show ignorance over very basic game issues and present it realm-wide, nothing surprises me much any more.

maybe it would be better if initial question was "is the process of upholding game rules and policies still in place"...

[Anaris]

when you say "move to region x in one day" that means that everyone who does not move in one day can be penalized, and knowing that log-in activity is largest possible reason for all delays, that is direct clash against inalienable rights.

No, sorry; that's not how 99% of people mean it, and that's not how it's taken.

What it means is, "The plan for the army is to be in region X on day Y, as opposed to earlier or later." There's really no better way to communicate this via orders than, "Move to Region X now!" or "Move to Region X starting Thursday night!"

If people start being fined or banned (or otherwise punished) for not moving exactly when ordered, that's when you can report them for IR violations. Until then, you just need to accept that this is the way military orders pretty much have to be given out if you want to have a military that actually functions.

[Penchant]

No, sorry; that's not how 99% of people mean it, and that's not how it's taken.

What it means is, "The plan for the army is to be in region X on day Y, as opposed to earlier or later." There's really no better way to communicate this via orders than, "Move to Region X now!" or "Move to Region X starting Thursday night!"

If people start being fined or banned (or otherwise punished) for not moving exactly when ordered, that's when you can report them for IR violations. Until then, you just need to accept that this is the way military orders pretty much have to be given out if you want to have a military that actually functions.

+1, ordering "Move to Region X tomorrow!" is perfectly acceptable, but if someone doesn't follow order because they couldn't get online, it is unacceptable to punish them for that.

[Chenier]

Marshals need to keep things simple. "Now", "in a day", "in 5 turns", and other such time references are fine, and normal, else most people would be confused and the marshal would need to be much more active to repeat and clarify all of his orders all of the time.