"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?"
Sorry, but I can't sit idly by while someone makes a false assumption about my intent, regardless of whether or not it is pertinent to the case. And obviously there is some contention here about what constitutes coercion, which is very likely to affect courthouse cases in the future.
This is important to me, and I'm not even a magistrate. I feel it should be important to you too. At least promise you'll try to continue the discussion elsewhere, because until now I had no idea that coercion could be so loosely and differently interpreted in this game. As a player, it is quite nerve-racking to not know where the lines are.
When it comes to the IRs, you can expect us to consistently interpret them broadly. The lesson that everyone should take from this is to give them a very wide berth.
