I've never bought this argument that assumes everyone who isn't the ruler is dumb or so new that they can't tell the difference. It enables cherry-picking because all you need is one declarative statement by a ruler. It is also unambiguously different than your above example of an outright threat.
Making policy on the assumption that your average player is an idiot will insure that the only people left are idiots.
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm missing something.
Why does someone have to be stupid to recognize an implied threat?
Even if the implication was not intended by the person writing it, the flat textual nature of IG communication means that you can't read nuance, body language, inflection, and so on to try to determine someone's intent. Furthermore, someone unscrupulous could quite easily write in such a way that the threat was never explicit, and point to that in an IR violation case against him, then go on to keep violating IRs by taking the simplest precautions against using language that explicitly violates them.
Thus, we have the rule that when it comes to the IRs, a suggestion or mention of the possibility of logging in just before the turn to perform a late move, staying home from the tournament to help the realm in its time of need, or ditching your archer unit to recruit infantry because everyone knows that only infantry is worth anything, are all just as bad as an explicit order.
None of which has any relevance to this case, because this isn't about a bloody Inalienable Right, so can we please stop the off-topic discussion and keep things on the case at hand?
