Too much peace too much for Dwilight

[Indirik]

How long ago was this?

Did you send something on red paper and then in the messages say something like "This is not an order"?

Did you send something not on red paper and in the message say something like "This is an order"?

...whoever it was that bolted me (I assume Tom)...

Tom is the only one that can send bolts. Titans can recommend a bolting, but Tom's the only one that can actually do it.

[Velax]

Several years ago, during the "only marshals can issue orders to armies" rule that was later rescinded.

No.

Yes.

[Anaris]

Yes.

Then there was nothing more to the "real situation" that Tom needed to find out.

There was a very clear rule, you broke it, you got bolted. End of story.

[Velax]

Then if the context or situation of the action wasn't important, I suggest you don't bull!@#$ on telling people to find out "what the real situation was". Obviously the real situation wasn't important enough to bother with when a bolt is the first and only response.

[Anaris]

Then if the context or situation of the action wasn't important, I suggest you don't bull!@#$ on telling people to find out "what the real situation was". Obviously the real situation wasn't important enough to bother with when a bolt is the first and only response.

"The real situation", in this case, was not that you sent an order, which is what you said earlier.  It was that you sent a message that was not an order, and tried to claim that it was an order, in direct defiance of a rule Tom had laid down.

Knowing and understanding that much should tell you all you need to know to figure out that you don't need to worry about getting bolted for sending orders.

[Velax]

No, I most certainly sent an order. It just wasn't sent on red paper. In a general sends someone an order, I'd say they shouldn't give a !@#$ what colour paper it arrived on, unless you're saying that anything not sent on red paper can be completely ignored. I'd say the realities of the game contradict you, if so.

Your position here is completely undermined by the fact that the rule I got bolted for was later rescinded. It was a stupid, unnecessary and invasive rule, and the fact it was changed only proves this.

[Chenier]

"The real situation", in this case, was not that you sent an order, which is what you said earlier.  It was that you sent a message that was not an order, and tried to claim that it was an order, in direct defiance of a rule Tom had laid down.

Knowing and understanding that much should tell you all you need to know to figure out that you don't need to worry about getting bolted for sending orders.

My original point was not that I thought we could still get bolted for it, but that I don't see any reason for it to have become any more desirable since then, even if the standards are way more relax.

[Anaris]

No, I most certainly sent an order. It just wasn't sent on red paper. Are you saying that anything not sent on red paper can be completely ignored? I'd say the realities of the game contradict you, if so.

If you sent something that was not on red paper, it was not an order.  It was a letter, a request, a report, or a roleplay.

If you said in the message that it was an order, that was clearly against the rule Tom had created for that time. 

If you did not know that it was against the rule, you must not have been paying attention.

Your position here is completely undermined by the fact that the rule I got bolted for was later rescinded. It was a stupid, unnecessary and invasive rule, and the fact it was changed only proves this.

None of that matters.  The rule was in place when you broke it.  That it was later rescinded because Tom decided that the "everyone can give orders" part of the experiment worked better than the "orders are restricted" part is immaterial to what happened during the time it was in place.

[Anaris]

My original point was not that I thought we could still get bolted for it, but that I don't see any reason for it to have become any more desirable since then, even if the standards are way more relax.

Sorry, I think I lost track of the pronouns in there somewhere

What, exactly, do you think should still be undesirable?

[Velax]

None of that matters.  The rule was in place when you broke it.  That it was later rescinded because Tom decided that the "everyone can give orders" part of the experiment worked better than the "orders are restricted" part is immaterial to what happened during the time it was in place.

So if a government makes a law that jaywalkers will be executed, and that law is later struck down due to its ridiculous unfairness, everyone who was executed during that time should still be considered to have deserved what they got?

[Anaris]

So if a government makes a law that jaywalkers will be executed, and that law is later struck down due to its ridiculous unfairness, everyone who was executed during that time should still be considered to have deserved what they got?

The rule was not "struck down due to its ridiculous unfairness".  It was part of an experiment that Tom was undertaking, to see what method of handling orders would work best.  When he decided that that method wasn't the one to go with, he removed the restrictions on sending orders, and, as part of that, removed the rule.

In this case, since the rule was made quite clear to everyone, and following it would have been quite easy, I consider you to have deserved what you got.

By the way, I also consider myself to have deserved what I got when I got myself locked a couple of years ago for some region lordship/religion founding jiggery-pokery.  I didn't at the time, but later I came to see the logic behind it.  Lest you think I'm just speaking as someone from the other side of the law from you.

[Velax]

Ugh, let me adjust the analogy for you then.

"So if a government makes a law that jaywalkers will be executed, and that law is later struck down for whatever reason, everyone who was executed during that time should still be considered to have deserved what they got?"

Not jaywalking is "quite easy". It shouldn't be a big deal to only cross the street at a designated crossing place. Does that mean people who do jaywalk deserve to be executed simply because the law says so, even after that law is rescinded?

[Anaris]

Ugh, let me adjust the analogy for you then.

And yet, it's still a terrible analogy.

There were good reasons behind the rule you broke, whether or not you agreed with them.  If you can tell me a good reason why someone should be executed for jaywalking, I might reconsider.

...Oh, and unless you caught Tom on a really bad day, I very much doubt that your character died from it.  I'd bet that he just got seriously wounded, lost all his positions, and couldn't be played for a few days.

[Indirik]

If you can tell me a good reason why someone should be executed for jaywalking, I might reconsider.

Jaywalking is a gateway crime. You have to stomp on it quickly and harshly, to prevent the ne'er-do-wells from graduating into much more heinous crimes. Like cutting in line. Or ... *shudder* ... pulling the tags off their mattresses!

[Velax]

Obviously the reasons weren't that good, else the rule wouldn't have been rescinded. And a reason for executing jaywalkers? They cause accidents. Execute jaywalkers and it provides an example to others, potentially preventing future accidents and deaths. Is it a good reason? No, it's a !@#$ing stupid one. But so have many other laws in history been stupid ones, as was the one about generals not being able to issue orders to nobles.

In any case, my original point still stands. Tom didn't give a !@#$ about the context of the action, he just saw his precious rule had been broken - a rule that he later withdrew - and threw a lightning bolt at the culprit without bothering to find out any details.