| Summary: | Punishing Players for Not Moving within Half A Turn |
| Violation: | Inalienable Rights |
| World: | Dwilight |
| Complainer: | Peter Wen (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=33094) |
| About: | Allomere (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=32022) |
Letter from Allomere de' Striguile (19 hours, 29 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
Marshal Fal'Cie,
Those things which are only monsters decimated an expensive unit of Duke Sarit who was only in my region to help me keep the local pygmees in-line, while chevaliers abandoned Candiels Fields instead of moving to support him, chevaliers in your army. I shouldn't be seeing a marshal making mockery over such an occasion especially when Duke Sarit's unit is a component in the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz of which you command, and of which you are directly responsible.
Now since you find this so amusing I expect to see you on the road to Fields within the hour, with a detachment of your army, to have those monsters cleared by evening tomorow.
I hope I have made myself clear.
Allomere de' Striguile
Knight Hausos At Arms of Aurvandil, Viscount of Zerujil
Letter from Fal'Cie Nachtmahr (18 hours, 23 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
Knight Hausos,
You have left it quite late in the night to be giving orders for a force deployment; may I suggest that in future you keep your recriminations and subsequent orders to a time when Chevaliers can realistically respond to them in full.
As for Arbiter of Justice's Sarit's performance on the battlefield, if you didn't want an expensive force wasted you should have given orders before the event, not many, many hours later, during the night. As for the apparent "Mockery", it can be scarcely be considered so, merely a sardonic reply to Sarit's most un-Chevalier like whining at the realm because she failed in her command against a band of monsters, which certainly isn't the Chevalier spirit of Aurvandil.
You have made yourself clear, and I likewise hope that I have been suitably transparent so as to create an ease of understand between us, and anyone else who has been reading this letter.
Fal'Cie Nachtmahr
Marshal of the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz
Request from Sarit Noyan (1 day, 6 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
I request all those in Candiels Fields move to assist me and my men in Zerujil. There are over 25 monsters to be slain.
Sarit Noyan
Arbiter Of Justice of Aurvandil, Duke of Marquessate Of Evanburg, Margrave of Evanburg
Battle in Zerujil (1 day ago)
(rogue) vs. Aurvandil
Estimated strengths: 20 men vs. 60 men
Sarit Noyan, Arbiter Of Justice of Aurvandil, Duke of Marquessate Of Evanburg, Margrave of Evanburg is spotted reading from the Blessed Book.
Attacker Victory!
Report from Sarit Noyan (23 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
Scribe Note Battle in Zerujil
Nice to see the chevalier spirit, that none of those in Fields came to assist.
Sarit Noyan
Arbiter Of Justice of Aurvandil, Duke of Marquessate Of Evanburg, Margrave of Evanburg
Letter from Fal'Cie Nachtmahr (21 hours, 36 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
But of course Arbiter of Justice, they are only monsters after all.
Fal'Cie Nachtmahr
Marshal of the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz
Letter from Allomere de' Striguile (19 hours, 28 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
Marshal Fal'Cie,
Those things which are only monsters decimated an expensive unit of Duke Sarit who was only in my region to help me keep the local pygmees in-line, while chevaliers abandoned Candiels Fields instead of moving to support him, chevaliers in your army. I shouldn't be seeing a marshal making mockery over such an occasion especially when Duke Sarit's unit is a component in the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz of which you command, and of which you are directly responsible.
Now since you find this so amusing I expect to see you on the road to Fields within the hour, with a detachment of your army, to have those monsters cleared by evening tomorow.
I hope I have made myself clear.
Allomere de' Striguile
Knight Hausos At Arms of Aurvandil, Viscount of Zerujil
Letter from Fal'Cie Nachtmahr (18 hours, 22 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
Knight Hausos,
You have left it quite late in the night to be giving orders for a force deployment; may I suggest that in future you keep your recriminations and subsequent orders to a time when Chevaliers can realistically respond to them in full.
As for Arbiter of Justice's Sarit's performance on the battlefield, if you didn't want an expensive force wasted you should have given orders before the event, not many, many hours later, during the night. As for the apparent "Mockery", it can be scarcely be considered so, merely a sardonic reply to Sarit's most un-Chevalier like whining at the realm because she failed in her command against a band of monsters, which certainly isn't the Chevalier spirit of Aurvandil.
You have made yourself clear, and I likewise hope that I have been suitably transparent so as to create an ease of understand between us, and anyone else who has been reading this letter.
Fal'Cie Nachtmahr
Marshal of the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz
Letter from Allomere de' Striguile (18 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
Marshal Fal'Cie,
Are you seeking to claim that under your command the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz is so diminished it can't respond to orders at times it always has been able to? Have you let our prime army waste and dwindle so that it performs like any other rabble from any other realm, requiring a day's notice before it can even be dragged into the field? Are you really going to publically announce that none of the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz will be able to move with half the night still ahead of them, or that at the other extreme that is would even require many of the Hausos to move to rid the region of monsters? I shouldn't have to give orders to you for such minor events Marshal Fal'Cie because you're supposed to be an experienced commander, but of late it seems you can't even co-ordinate hunting down monsters and then you and you alone act in an unchevalier manner by claiming because you were not ordered to such basic duties you simply can't fulfil them.
Are those monsters too much for you? If Duke Sarit's own forces were so lacking in your view then why are you not happily marching out singlehandedly to prove how you could have bested them alone instead of complaining for being duly chastised? Don't make claims you cannot back up yourself, Marshal, or you will swiftly find very great humilation for every single failing you have.
What is clear is that Duke Sarit did not fail in command, for he quite willingly held the field and fought despite the odds. What he expected was support from chevaliers in your army, which falls to you to command, and to which with due dilligence and fortitude on your part we would have seen victory rather than a scattering.
These orders are a punishment for your attitude and your unchevalier conduct. I expect them fulfilled, that is I expect to see you in Fields by morn, and Zerujil by dusk, and for the monsters to be destroyed by that time. If not, you will face further consequences, and they will be dire. March well, Marshal, and do as a commander should.
Allomere de' Striguile
Knight Hausos At Arms of Aurvandil, Viscount of Zerujil
So to make sure I understand:
19:30 ago (6.5 hours before the turn): Allomere says "I expect to see you on the road to Fields within the hour"
18:30 ago (5.5 hours before the turn): Fal'Cie says "You have left it quite late in the night to be giving orders for a force deployment; "
18:00 ago (5 hours before the turn): Allomere says "I expect to see you in Fields by morn"
13:00 ago: The sun comes up for morning turn.
There was an explicit threat of punishment if the entire army did not comply with orders within a specified and very short period of time. That is a violation of the IR.
If you are fined, banned, threatened or otherwise punished for "inactivity", or for not having been online at any specific time or dayMoving out or being in a specific location by a certain time is a normal part of army movements and strategy. The threat of punishment appears to be directed only towards Fal'Cie Nachtmahr instead of the army and is not for being inactive or not online at a specific time or day but for making light of the event and failing to co-ordinate hunting down monsters.
Moving out or being in a specific location by a certain time is a normal part of army movements and strategy. The threat of punishment appears to be directed only towards Fal'Cie Nachtmahr instead of the army and is not for being inactive or not online at a specific time or day but for making light of the event and failing to co-ordinate hunting down monsters.
Inactivity IR is OOC. This sounds IC conflict.
I expect them fulfilled, that is I expect to see you in Fields by morn, and Zerujil by dusk, and for the monsters to be destroyed by that time. If not, you will face further consequences, and they will be dire.
Question for the magistrates, In order for it to be a violation does he have to act on the threat and actually punish or is it a violation just to threaten to punish for inactivity?
Just threatening is enough.
Seems pretty clear to me that Fal'Cie was being ordered to be in a certain place by a certain time, and if he wasn't, he would be punished. Looks like a clear violation to me.
Yes he was, and made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that he could follow those orders. He was ordered to fields, he refused, he was told that if he wasn't in fields by morning he would be punished. This is all an IC dispute and not OOC at all, furthermore the player whom reported this to the magistrates wasn't involved in the events in anyway
Wow, so fining nobles who fail to move with the army is now an IR violation? That is news to me.
As long as it was clearly IC and not some OOC thing, I always thought it was fine.
“There was an explicit threat of punishment if the entire army did not comply with orders within a specified and very short period of time. That is a violation of the IR.”
No there wasn’t, so don’t lie to make out that there was. Actually, Allomere made it quite clear in two letters he didn’t care if two nobles out of the army turned up or if all of them did, just that since Fal’Cie was mocking Sarit for losing against monsters he had better go and see the job done properly, and on his own if need be. “If you have the time to talk about it you have the time to sort it” was the point. Nothing about forcing him to be active, but seeing he was there, active, as usual and saying “Well go do your job as Marshal”. That is not a violation of the SC. The only "punishment" aspect was Allomere rhetorically threatening Fal'Cie as a dressing down.
It is an entirely IC argument between Allomere and Fal’Cie, of which there have been quite a few and neither of us as players have any OOC issues with it. It’s half the fun of the friction between the two of them. Also, there was no punishment given, nor would there have been any “activity punishment”, other than Allomere having a rant at Fal’Cie, which would likely be roleplayed. No fines, nothing.
All in all it’s a bit of fun but as usual someone has decided to take a dump on our party.
Since OOC the player of Fal’Cie has already said this has nothing to do with the Titans or the forum, both parties involved say this report is rubbish. In the actual context of the letters, not edited by the reportee, you’d see that.
“There was an explicit threat of punishment if the entire army did not comply with orders within a specified and very short period of time. That is a violation of the IR.”
No there wasn’t, so don’t lie to make out that there was.
Actually, Allomere made it quite clear in two letters he didn’t care if two nobles out of the army turned up or if all of them did, just that since Fal’Cie was mocking Sarit for losing against monsters he had better go and see the job done properly, and on his own if need be. “If you have the time to talk about it you have the time to sort it” was the point. Nothing about forcing him to be active, but seeing he was there, active, as usual and saying “Well go do your job as Marshal”. That is not a violation of the SC. The only "punishment" aspect was Allomere rhetorically threatening Fal'Cie as a dressing down.
Since OOC the player of Fal’Cie has already said this has nothing to do with the Titans or the forum, both parties involved say this report is rubbish. In the actual context of the letters, not edited by the reportee, you’d see that.
In general, it is best not to threaten consequences for not following orders when ordering a move, as that definitely crosses the line.
If we pick apart the IRs long enough I'm sure we can find a stick to beat Allomere with, but I don't think this case warrants much attention.This rings so true. Kudos to Sacha for his quote that says so much with so little.
If we pick apart the IRs long enough I'm sure we can find a stick to beat Allomere with, but I don't think this case warrants much attention.
I expect them fulfilled, that is I expect to see you in Fields by morn, and Zerujil by dusk, and for the monsters to be destroyed by that time. If not, you will face further consequences, and they will be dire.
So what we're saying is, if the player of the marshal went to bed 1 minute before this message was sent, and failed to move to Zerujil, it would be an IR violation, but since the player of the marshal stayed logged in, it's not an IR violation?
Now since you find this so amusing I expect to see you on the road to Fields within the hour, with a detachment of your army, to have those monsters cleared by evening tomorow.
Hell, are people even rightfully allowed to force-conscript Knights to go to battle? I always figured you could join battles <if you want.> rather than <because I said so and I'll revoke your estate privileges if you don't comply.>
Considering the marshal continued to reply and essentially say they would not follow the orders, it shows it's not about inactivity but rather about not following orders.So it is OK because Fal'cie continued to post after the order was given? And if Fal'cie had *not* posted after that, then it is not OK. Which means that whether or not Allomere violated the IR depends not on what Allomere does, but on what Fal'cie does. So Allomere can't know if he's going to violate the IR when he posts, because he couldn't know if Fal'cie is going to respond? All Fal'cie has to do to get Allomere busted on an IR violation is to shut up and play possum.
@DracoTanos:So it is OK because Fal'cie continued to post after the order was given? And if Fal'cie had *not* posted after that, then it is not OK. Which means that whether or not Allomere violated the IR depends not on what Allomere does, but on what Fal'cie does. So Allomere can't know if he's going to violate the IR when he posts, because he couldn't know if Fal'cie is going to respond? All Fal'cie has to do to get Allomere busted on an IR violation is to shut up and play possum.So by YOUR logical fallacies, no realm can ever punish anyone for not following orders, no matter how much they are writing to anyone. Congratulations. Now knights don't have to follow the orders of the feudal hierarchy.
How does that make any sense at all?
Whether or not you violate the IR depends absolutely 100% on the actions you take, and not the actions anyone may take, or not take, as a result.
So by YOUR logical fallacies, no realm can ever punish anyone for not following orders, no matter how much they are writing to anyone. Congratulations. Now knights don't have to follow the orders of the feudal hierarchy.
So what we're saying is, if the player of the marshal went to bed 1 minute before this message was sent, and failed to move to Zerujil, it would be an IR violation, but since the player of the marshal stayed logged in, it's not an IR violation?
When an order is given, it should be followed at the time it is recieved; e.g. when the player logged on and reads the message,
This IR is poorly implimented and RP limiting as a noble in a position to give orders because it doesn't allow for effective dicipline in an army because every general, marshal, lord, ruler, banker, duke and king has to worry about a scenario where "I issued you an order 3 days ago why havn't you followed it" is answered with "I've been offline for 4 days i'm reporting you to the magistrates for IR violation" or "You're punishing someone for possibly not being online to follow orders i'm reporting you for IR violation" because authority figures do not have the IC tools to check if a player has been offline. Which could be fixed with a simple line of text saying "player last signed in at time" on there profile. Which is a feature available in most games.
I can't see how this is an IR violation and if it is then I can't see how it is feasable to ever safely punish a noble for following orders untill the point where if they wern't online their account would pause.
Don't be silly.
Order someone to go to Splodgeville. Observe that he instead goes to Keplerville. Ban. No problem.
Order someone to go to Splodgeville. Observe that he sits around talking and not going anywhere. Ban. No problem.
Order someone to go to Splodgeville (one region away), and tell him that if he's not there within a turn, he's going to be punished. Violation.
Order someone to go to Splodgeville. Observe that he's not there within a turn. Ban. Violation.
Order someone to go to Splodgeville (one region away), and tell him that if he's not there within a week, he's going to be punished. Probably not a problem.
Do you see the difference? Orders normally carry with them the implication of punishment if they are not followed, but as long as the order does not carry within it an unreasonably short time limit, I can't see a way for the order itself to violate the activity IR. In such a case, only the actual administration of punishment for failing to carry out the order within an unreasonably short time would be a violation of the IR.
I tend to believe that military leaders should avoid creative orders at all costs; by which I mean, give orders that are clearly and conventionally within the purview of normal BM behavior, not rules that lend themselves to hair-splitting like we are presently doing.
But doesn't the earlier critique nullify arguments about knowledge of the other player's activity, namely, if the player had logged off before receiving the order, it would be an IR violation?
Doesn't it seem much wiser for us to say that other players must be assumed to be offline? Should we really allow a few minutes difference in log-in times to change something from a violation to not one? Or is there something more fundamental to the IRs, to BM's lightweight context, to the fact that we don't supply "last activity," information, to the fact that daily log-ins aren't normal, that suggests this kind of order should not be acceptable?
For the record, even if the defendant is "guilty," the case is so sticky I'm inclined to think a warning would be most appropriate. But I'm just trying to get a feel for how we're dealing with defining the IR in terms of a consistent jurisprudence. It seems a fairly unique circumstance and, like the other two activity cases, seems to be somewhat confounded by specific factors on the ground (in this case, very close actual activity). But I'm inclined to think we should rule that, while that instance it may not have been damaging, something to effect that "Players giving orders should not expect that their recipients are online to receive them," or some such verbiage.
I just have a hard time stomaching the idea that a thing transforms from acceptable to violation by a coincidence of a few minutes. I'm much more comfortable with having a more generalizable ruling.
But it seems everyone is ignoring the fact that the "punishment" Fal'Cie was going to get, as has already been said, was a good ranting at by Allomere, which has happened before, but which was going to be roleplayed, as a bit of fun, since nothing else was happening worth roleplaying in the realm.The severity of the punishment is irrelevant when determining whether or not an IR has been violated. Punishment is punishment. The severity of the punishment may, however, help determine the severity of the response by the Titans/Magistrates.
I think the writing of the letters definitely makes it seem at first glance that this is a violation, however I think the chronological order of the letters is very important. If you make the assumption (which I consider reasonable, even though the other way is also reasonable) that Allomere was only speaking directly to the Marshal, then this is the chronology:The problem, as I see it, is that your scenario assumes that, at the time the message in Step 3 is sent, that the player knows or assumes that the player of Fal'cie will get the message in time to do something about it. At that point in time, you *must* stop and evaluate the situation. Nothing that happens after that point in time has any relevance to whether not the message in Step 3 violates the IR. Otherwise you get into the situation I described before where whether nor not Allomere breaks the IRs depends on whether or not the player of Fal'cie comes back to read the messages and take action. i.e. whether or not Allomere broke an IR depends on what action some other player takes. And that's just silly.
1. Order is issued for the army to move to region X.
2. Marshal responds that he won't be following the orders. (not explicit, but the inference is there)
3. Allomere states that since he has received the orders (Due to having responded), he specifically(not the whole army) should be there or be punished.
How is that an IR violation?
A person clearly demonstrates that they have the OOC capacity to move, and responds IC wise to messages after having received orders, and responds explicitly regarding those orders. They are aware of the orders, they have the chance to move, and it is thus an IC choice how to respond from there. The threat was made specifically against a character who had that IC choice and on an OOC level was clearly able to implement it.
Under that interpretation I cannot see it being an IR violation.
However, if you strike any of the above starting assumptions, then I'd have to say it is an IR violation.
The problem, as I see it, is that your scenario assumes that, at the time the message in Step 3 is sent, that the player knows or assumes that the player of Fal'cie will get the message in time to do something about it. At that point in time, you *must* stop and evaluate the situation. Nothing that happens after that point in time has any relevance to whether not the message in Step 3 violates the IR. Otherwise you get into the situation I described before where whether nor not Allomere breaks the IRs depends on whether or not the player of Fal'cie comes back to read the messages and take action. i.e. whether or not Allomere broke an IR depends on what action some other player takes. And that's just silly.
However, I disagree because I believe that if you state that even though the player will never read the step 3 message, that it doesn't matter. The in-game punishment is based upon the player's actions or non-action at step 2, and the message relating to it is merely stating the obvious course of action that the General would take if the Marshal openly disobeyed orders as an IC choice.
But that's not what was specified in the message in question. It said (paraphrasing and adding emphasis) "if you have not moved to the region I ordered you to by next turn, you will be punished."
Not "I will punish you because you have said you will not move."
This is what I think:
1. For the sake of precedent, we determine a guilty verdict. The verdict should make it clear that it is unwise and almost always unacceptable to issue orders with time limits. We should be very specific about what it is we find fault with in this case, as well as how a violation could have been avoided. The specifics have been well outlined already in a series of posts from various Devs and/or Magistrates.
2. The punishment should be a warning only. The exchange seems to have been between two clearly consenting players, neither of whom took issue with it, and I would prefer not to start bludgeoning players with excessively narrow interpretations of the IRs, especially this one. There is a legitimate case to be made that an overly expansive interpretation of this rule in particular will bog the game down and make players afraid to be Marshals or others in a position to issue orders. It is my feeling that edge cases like this one should be treated lightly and used primarily as opportunities to educate the player base about best practices for issuing orders - actual punishments such as locks should be reserved for truly clear cut violations of the sort that you traditionally hold up as examples for why the rule should exist in the first place.
Precedent 2:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,1068.75.html
"It is never acceptable to order, request, or suggest the violation of Inalienable Rights. This is especially important about the right to play at your own pace. No player should ever be threatened with punishment because they fail to make daily reports. Moreover, it is especially important to note that it is a violation of inalienable rights even if no punishment is given: sending messages that violate Inalienable Rights is a punishable action.
Magistrates voted 8-0 in favor of a warning with no lock as the proper response.
Summary: Punishing Players for Not Moving within Half A Turn Violation: Inalienable Rights World: Dwilight Complainer: Peter Wen (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=33094) About: Allomere (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=32022)
Full Complaint Text:
Letter from Allomere de' Striguile (17 hours, 32 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (53 recipients)
Marshal Fal'Cie,
Are you seeking to claim that under your command the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz is so diminished it can't respond to orders at times it always has been able to? Have you let our prime army waste and dwindle so that it performs like any other rabble from any other realm, requiring a day's notice before it can even be dragged into the field? Are you really going to publically announce that none of the Chevaliers Hausos d'Auziwandilaz will be able to move with half the night still ahead of them...you're supposed to be an experienced commander, but of late it seems you can't even co-ordinate hunting down monsters...These orders are a punishment for your attitude and your unchevalier conduct. I expect them fulfilled, that is I expect to see you in Fields by morn, and Zerujil by dusk, and for the monsters to be destroyed by that time. If not, you will face further consequences, and they will be dire. March well, Marshal, and do as a commander should.
Allomere de' Striguile
Knight Hausos At Arms of Aurvandil, Viscount of Zerujil
If you read the "Complaint Text" closely, regardless that Allomere's letter was sent to entire realm, it was addressed to Fal'Cie. From the content of the letter it seams that they are mutual talking about the matter and from that it is logical to assume that Allomere had stronge baze to be convinced that Fal'Cie will read the letter on time, so, even if the letter sounds like it is braking the rule, duo to Allomere's conviction that Fal'Cie will get the letter on time, it is In-Game matter and is not against the rule (it would be against the rule if Fal'Cie haven't answer anything after the letter and still got punished - but such sittuation HAVEN'T happen).
<snip>
Well... Allomere acted as he acted, but I do believe that his actions wher purely In-Game and that Fal'Cie's primary complaint was not against punishing for beeing inactive (what would be against game rules) but is for Allomere ordered him to attack monsters alone in which attack he would surely lose most of his men so it would cost him greatly - but regardless of its extremity, such order is purely In-Game and is not against game rules.
If you're going to post here, please read the rest of the thread first. If you had done so, you would see that the arguments that "it was all IC" and "if he hadn't responded, then it would have been a violation" have both already been raised and soundly smacked down. The IR do not depend on the actions of anyone except the one violating (or not violating) them, and it does not matter whether it was an entirely IC matter, the IR still apply.
I pointed that duo to Allomere and Fal'Cie were already exchanged several letters that day, Allomere had good reason to asume that Fal'Cie is ON-LINE (or will be on-line to see his orders).
1st case - to simply order someone to be in another region by tomorrow (that is violation of the rule)
2nd case (our case) - to order someone, to whom you are just talking with and who is responding to you, to move and to be in another region by tomorrow (that is surely not violation of the rule, but to report it IS attempt of "gaming the system" to avoid ingame consequences for disobeying direct order from superiors).
See the difference???
Yeah, right... you wish to say that in following talk Person A is violating the rule?
Person A - I order you to move to region X
Person B - I will not move
*Person A - I order you to be there by tomorrow or there will be consequences
I would reather say that Person B is in this case "Gaming the system" if reports person's A letter * as violation of inalienable rights, and if you closely read game rules, you will find a part that mentions that there are mostly no exceptions connected with breaking of inalienable rights, but game operaters will prevent attempts of "Gaming the system".
That example is more then obvious attempt of "gaming the system." duo to Person B is trying to avoid ingame consequences for disobeying supperiors by manipulating with game rules attempting to be protected that way by game operators.
To not mention that in our case it is person C who reported all the thing and that person has zero insight in personal letters between two involved players.
Have anyone even asked allegedly damaged player for his position about the matter?
But is relevant that it is attempt of "gaming the system".
Only a fool can say that circumstances are completely insignificant... that is the fact. (If you insist I do can give example that pruves it... ie. if one kills a man, there is great difference between was he planing it, was it accidentally or was it self defense).
Same way, if one orders: "You must be in region X by tomorrow or there will be consequences" it is great difference was he ordered it just like that with intention to intimidate, or was he do it as response on someones express intent to disobey the order.
From the Complaint Text it is obvious that those two players were talking and that player of Fal'Cie did express intent to disobey the order, so in this case player's of Allomere reaction was completely appropriate.
I repeated it several times... contrary, you are constantly repeating the sam sentence that it is not important nothing but the action of player of Allomere what is compleat nonsense (duo to it is of crucial importance why did he acted that way) and you never posted any prove he did violate the rule - all his actions are explained and argumented with proves that he did not.
If I report someone to the police for killing someone else, it makes no difference whether I was completely safe or feared that they would kill me, too, if they were not arrested. The person still killed someone, and still gets to take the punishment for it.
No. I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. From the perspective of the Inalienable Rights, there is no difference. Giving the order, in and of itself, violated the activity IR.
Whether or not it was (and I disagree that it was), it doesn't matter. If Allomere wanted to punish Fal'Cie for expressing his intent to disobey, he was free to do so. Instead, he chose to send an order to Fal'Cie of a type that is forbidden under the IR.
that's the way the IR work.failing to point at any prove for player of Allomere was violated the rule.
These orders are a punishment for your attitude and your unchevalier conduct.I think it would take no great mental leap to see that the accused is aware of the IR and slipped this sentence in (most likely as an afterthought) as a form of protection should someone cry IR.
If you are fined, banned, threatened or otherwise punished for "inactivity", or for not having been online at any specific time or dayInactivity would mean not being online at any time. I see the General's threat more for the Marshal's reluctance in carrying out the orders rather than not available or present to carry or give out the orders. Herein lies the difference in my mind.
I think it would be difficult to make a general assumption that any orders that have time frames/limits in them automatically violates the IR. This may have been how Titans have ruled in the past but as it was a closed system I suspect that the best option was to turn everything into a black and white scenario to make rulings easier and justifiable even if there were actually shades of grey.
If orders with time frames/limits violate the IR then the following would be wrong:
Move out now/before sunrise/after sunset.
I feel that there needs to be some allowance as time frames/limits are an essential - and more importantly - a natural part of orders. To artificially excise them from orders creates a mental disconnect and requires greater mental faculties and slips are bound to occur.
And I think the Titans among us might take umbrage at your insults to them.
Whether or not it was (and I disagree that it was), it doesn't matter. If Allomere wanted to punish Fal'Cie for expressing his intent to disobey, he was free to do so. Instead, he chose to send an order to Fal'Cie of a type that is forbidden under the IR.
Not an insult at all. It's what I would personally push for in a closed system.Then you would be doing it wrong.
Just because the Titans were a closed system doesn't mean that we are operating under different rules. We're not bound to follow their precedents I suppose, but the Titans are charged with upholding the same rules that we are; if we deviate from their precedents, we better have a damn good reason for doing so.How could you tell? Titans decisions are not publicized beyond, at most, the realm affected. Nor are they a matter of public record. That is, IMO, one of the deficiencies of the Titans system.
Yeah, right... you wish to say that in following talk Person A is violating the rule?
Person A - I order you to move to region X
Person B - I will not move
*Person A - I order you to be there by tomorrow or there will be consequences
What person A should have done is, after person B said "I will not move", is fine/ban them. If they'd done that then there would not be an issue, the problem is the fact that they then gave orders with threats of punishments based on a time constraint.
Again, do you want to say that if Allomere punished (fine/ban) Fal'Cie for expressing his intent to disobey, then it would be OK... but to give him the final chance to reconsider (reminding him that he will be fined/baned if he realy disobey) - that was the violation of the rule?
How could you tell? Titans decisions are not publicized beyond, at most, the realm affected. Nor are they a matter of public record. That is, IMO, one of the deficiencies of the Titans system.
Then you would be doing it wrong.And I would cheerfully disagree. You should of course open a separate thread on this if there is more to be said.
What person A should have done is, after person B said "I will not move", is fine/ban them. If they'd done that then there would not be an issue, the problem is the fact that they then gave orders with threats of punishments based on a time constraint.Except that the General cannot fine or even remove anyone from the army. All he can do is threaten and without a time constraint there would be no cut-off point to judge if orders were followed. Nor did the Marshal actually say he wouldn't obey. He only conveyed reluctance in carrying out the orders because the General gave orders late in the turn but giving orders late in no way prevents anyone from passing out the orders. The orders the Marshal would then give out would simply be late too. The Marshal would of course be expected to be there as they were having a conversation. It would be a natural order of thought. Having to include escape clauses/wording so as not to run foul of the IR would be cumbersome and possibly make the General look weak-willed. Context needs to be considered in this case.
I see the General's threat more for the Marshal's reluctance in carrying out the orders rather than not available or present to carry or give out the orders. Herein lies the difference in my mind.
As a side note to the Magistrates, there has been OOC discussions on the realm channel, so if suitable the decision should be at least a realm wide announcement.Last I heard, public warnings were still broken but someone can always copy paste the verdict.
Last I heard, public warnings were still broken but someone can always copy paste the verdict.
Would the following chain of events have been acceptable:
Person A - I order you to move to region X
Person B - I will not move
Person A - Fine, then I will ask that you are replaced as marshal as of tomorrow by somebody who can do the job.
It seems to me it should - you face consequences for disobeying orders. But of course the sub-text is that the marshal has that one last chance. Surely we don't want to punish people for making this explicit?
If Allomere had instead simply reiterated the order, and added, "and if you don't, there will be consequences," that would have been fine.
The problem is, he said, "and if you don't by tonight, there will be consequences." That's not fine.
You're acting like there's only one possible way for Allomere to have given Fal'Cie one last chance. It's simply not true.
But this is trial about have he violated Inalienable Rights - and duo to the matter of the trial the essential point is in the fact that his intention was not to punish someone for inactivity (what would be violating of the rule) but to give the last chance to reconsider to one who expressed intention to disobey the order (what is not violation of the rule).
Those who created rules had intention to protect players from beeing punished for inactivity, not from beeing punished for disobeying rules and especially not to punish players for giving secon chance simply because of hot tempered expressing. Dont you think so?
Similarly, all that matters here is that Allomere ordered Fal'Cie to move within a certain amount of time, with a threat of punishment if he failed to do so.
Yes, Allomere did ordered Fal'Cie to move within a certain amount of time, with a threat of punishment if he failed to do so.
But, from the Complaint Text it is clere that two of them were talking, so both of them were on-line... and the fact is that noone is actually punished.
Now, tell me whatever you want, but it is complete nonsence to have trial against someone under the charge for punishing inactive player when the other side was on line - especially when in the end noone was punished... even the Complaint Text was sent by the third person.
We try to make the rules very basic and very strict, in order to prevent people from "gaming the system". That means that there are usually no exceptions.
The basic rule is: Just shut up and stay 100 feet away from any and all inalienable rights, no matter how well-meaning you are.
The inalienable rights are defended with extreme prejudice. There's one simple reason for that: The second they were opened up to discussion, interpretation, exceptions, borderline cases, etc. the lawyer-weasels and others who get a thrill out of gaming the system would invade like locusts.
Absolutely no violations of inalienable rights will be tolerated, no matter how minor or inconsequential. Absolutely no interpretations will turn a violation into a non-violation. Absolutely no "I didn't mean it" apologies will prevent the punishment - if you are the guilty party, consider it a lesson for next time and a reassurance that you yourself will be equally aggressively defended should someone else attack your inalienable rights.
The absolute harshest punishments are reserved for those who try to "weasel around" the rights, by using standard lawyer-speech, creative interpretations or such tools. Obvious attempts of this kind do lead to immediate account terminations with no prior warning.
Yes, Allomere did ordered Fal'Cie to move within a certain amount of time, with a threat of punishment if he failed to do so.
But, from the Complaint Text it is clere that two of them were talking, so both of them were on-line... and the fact is that noone is actually punished.
Now, tell me whatever you want, but it is complete nonsence to have trial against someone under the charge for punishing inactive player when the other side was on line - especially when in the end noone was punished... even the Complaint Text was sent by the third person.
You have misunderstood.
The charge is not for punishing an inactive player. The charge is violating the activity IR, which includes ordering people to be active at certain times, regardless of whether any explicit punishment was actually meted out.
From the Complaint Text it is obvious that they both were on line and talking... so it was not ordering people to be active at certain times (what definitly is violation of IR) but was ordering to someone who is on just talking to you to order his unit to move (that can not be violation of IR).
Surely, if that person disconets in a meantime and the one who ordered continue insisting on his order and threatening, then it would be violation of IR - but that haven't happen in this case.
The argument against this is that Allomere could have no way of knowing that Fal'Cie was still online when he issued the order, even though he'd been active recently, even minutes before.
especially when in the end noone was punished..
Just to be clear, whether or not anyone was punished is irrelevant. No punishment is required in order for something to be an IR violation.
Duo to that, it would be unfair to judge person A simply by his action, but all circumstances that led person A to state the forbiden sentence should be included.
I expect to see you in Fields by morn, and Zerujil by dusk, and for the monsters to be destroyed by that time. If not, you will face further consequences, and they will be dire. March well, Marshal, and do as a commander should.
and Zerujil by duskcould be interpreted as violation of IR.... but it have to be considered that there is ingame option "Set the next destination".
All replies need to follow these rules, or they will be moderated:
remain strictly on topic. Information relevant to the actual case only. This goes especially for speculations, hypotheticals, variations - discussing of the this could be... if... kind are unwanted. We have a specific case before us and will decide that case, nothing else.
be positive and friendly. Don't insult or troll.
add new information. Repeating a point does not increase its truth value.
Just to be clear, whether or not anyone was punished is irrelevant. No punishment is required in order for something to be an IR violation. Simply telling, or even asking, someone to do something can be against the IR. In fact, even if you specifically state that it is completely voluntary and there will be no punishment, it can still be an IR violation.
"Hey everyone, please don't go to the tournament, we would like evryone to be here in case the enemy attacks. If you do go, it's no big deal, and we're not going to punish anyone or anything. But please don't go." <--- still an IR violation....
To me, punishment (or lack of) and given justification can help contextualize the events to see what was meant by the original threat. Because if the player sending the order was dead convinced that the recipient would read the message before turn change, then I don't consider the situation to be at all the same as if he wrote it to a random guy who didn't write a message in hours and whom he doesn't know OOC to be able to log in soon.
To me, punishment (or lack of) and given justification can help contextualize the events to see what was meant by the original threat. Because if the player sending the order was dead convinced that the recipient would read the message before turn change, then I don't consider the situation to be at all the same as if he wrote it to a random guy who didn't write a message in hours and whom he doesn't know OOC to be able to log in soon.It doesn't matter if the two guys exchanging messages are playing hot-seat on the same computer. It's still an IR violation.
It doesn't matter if the two guys exchanging messages are playing hot-seat on the same computer. It's still an IR violation.A public warning can be done without convicting him as guilty since the only way a public warning will be done is if a player sends an OOC message either way. The message could say, in the this particular case the defendant, (his character name), was voted innocent due to special circumstances but he also has been told to be more careful in his orders to prevent this from happening again.
The IRs protect not just the individual player being sent the message, but *all* the players. Letting it slide without comment because you think the other guy may have been on line at the time, and thus got the message in plenty of time to act, let's the realm know that it's OK to send messages like that. Everyone in the realm, including the newb who just joined three days ago, knows that they are expected to be online 24/7 in case something like that happens again. And they may never say anything about it because they don't want to rock the boat. Or because "That guy's a hard-ass, and I don't want to get slapped down". Or because at this point in time they can be online when required. And these players can't be expected to read these forums and analyze 27-page argument about IRs, and log-in times, and all the other back-and-forth garbage we have here to figure out that this stuff is not allowed. (Or maybe it is allowed, since quite a few people here seem to think that this sort of thing is OK.) You can't let it slide at all. When something breaks the rules, it has to be addressed, and the player breaking the rules,and probably the entire realm, need to be told that this stuff is not OK. Do you have to lock him for three days to get the message across? Or toss him out of office in this case? Probably not. But you at least need to send a public warning to let them realm know that you just can't do this.
I've said it before, I will say it again:
Deadlines are fine by me.
Allowing other people to play at their pace does not mean that time isn't a factor. Obviously, it is. Turns still run, things still happen. Allowing people to play at their pace when it comes to time-sensitive things means two things:
if you need to work with deadlines, schedules, etc. - make them reasonable and do not use points in time, but timespans - "meet me in X in two hours" is a stupid way, you force the other player to be online at a specific time, one that may be in the middle of the night in their real-world location. But "I'll be in X after sunset, meet me there" is perfectly ok. You're simply stating a fact. Now if you have pressing matters, you can add "I will wait at most a day" - that is perfectly ok. The IR applies to you, too. The other player can not force you to play at his speed, either. If you want to move on with the action, you can. You totally can. If that means the other guy misses out on becoming a region lord, getting a unique item or whatever - that is not an IR violation! The IRs do not entitle you to anything.
be ready to reverse your actions - this goes especially for punishments. If you punish someone for not being in X at a given time and it later turns out that he simply didn't log in - undo the punishment. OOC causes should not lead to IC punishment.
But, in all reality, when someone is writing more than two sentences on why something is or isn't an IR violation, he is most likely trying to lawyer you and is just as likely wrong. All the real IR violations I have encountered in over 10 years were very obvious on first glance and could be explained in one sentence.
That sounds to me like the difference between a clear violation of the IR, and a wanton violation of the IR.
It doesn't matter if the two guys exchanging messages are playing hot-seat on the same computer. It's still an IR violation.
The IRs protect not just the individual player being sent the message, but *all* the players. Letting it slide without comment because you think the other guy may have been on line at the time, and thus got the message in plenty of time to act, let's the realm know that it's OK to send messages like that. Everyone in the realm, including the newb who just joined three days ago, knows that they are expected to be online 24/7 in case something like that happens again. And they may never say anything about it because they don't want to rock the boat. Or because "That guy's a hard-ass, and I don't want to get slapped down". Or because at this point in time they can be online when required. And these players can't be expected to read these forums and analyze 27-page argument about IRs, and log-in times, and all the other back-and-forth garbage we have here to figure out that this stuff is not allowed. (Or maybe it is allowed, since quite a few people here seem to think that this sort of thing is OK.) You can't let it slide at all. When something breaks the rules, it has to be addressed, and the player breaking the rules,and probably the entire realm, need to be told that this stuff is not OK. Do you have to lock him for three days to get the message across? Or toss him out of office in this case? Probably not. But you at least need to send a public warning to let them realm know that you just can't do this.
A threat depends on intent. Sometimes, things can sound like a threat, when they really weren't meant to be one. If a non-native english speaker tried to warn someone that a forest fire was approaching his house, he could awkwardly warn him by phone "if you don't leave your house now, you will burn to death". Out of context, this sounds a lot like a threat. But with context, would you still consider it as such?
snip all that
You don't even have to threaten punishment. You can even explicitly say there will be no punishment, and it can still be a violation.Please give an example of this.
Underlined part referes on orders that Marshal has to move alone to attack the monsters.Punishing for not cooridinating the army is fine, but if they weren't online to be able to cooridinate, any punishment must be undone, otherwise Tom wouldn't have said this:
It is clerely stated that those orders are punishment - and that executed punishment was punishing Marshal for not beeing online to organize attack on monsters what is direct violation of IR.
be ready to reverse your actions - this goes especially for punishments. If you punish someone for not being in X at a given time and it later turns out that he simply didn't log in - undo the punishment. OOC causes should not lead to IC punishment.So unless the player states he was not online to be able to cooridinate the army, punishing for it is perfectly fine.
Please give an example of this.
Please give an example of this.
Punishing for not cooridinating the army is fine- not if not enaugh thime was given
So unless the player states he was not online to be able to cooridinate the army, punishing for it is perfectly fine.
- not if not enaugh thime was givenAs long as you don't act like the whole army needs to be there, as in a few stragglers are ok, I don't see b as a violation of the IR now if the marshal says he wasn't online in time to effectively have the army move he shouldn't be punished.
a) "Bring your army to region x in 5 days" - can be fined if disobeyed
b) "Bring your army to region x by tomorrow or you will be fined" = violation of IR
- player (Marshal) did state that he got the order to organize movement of army he command to late to be able to organize it properlyPlease share the message showing this.