Summary: | Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class |
Violation: | Choosing your class |
World: | Colonies |
Complainer: | Eric Henson (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=23524) |
About: | Actrial (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=18625) |
If this isn't a rights violation, I don't know what is.
What? To me he is just asking for more nobles capable of commanding a unit. He isn't ordering it or implying repercussion if priests do not class (back) to soldier. I don't think it is forbidden to ask for more soldiers, even if you chose to target only one class to pose that question to.
What? To me he is just asking for more nobles capable of commanding a unit. He isn't ordering it or implying repercussion if priests do not class (back) to soldier. I don't think it is forbidden to ask for more soldiers, even if you chose to target only one class to pose that question to.
Hardly a person in power. Margrave of the capital. Not even duke, not even a council member. Has really no power except from kicking someone from his estate, should he chose to "punish" people not classing back. The inalienable rights say you have the right to choose your class. To me, this message, which was a simple letter - not a order or request - still allows people to remain priest. Just that they happen to need more nobles with a sword. Perhaps the character despises priests and favours warriors?Not a request? He flat out said "I would like to ask...".
Also, this *has* to be acted on. If not, you're opening up a HUGE loophole: All you have to do in order to be able to bypass the IRs is have someone who is "not in a position of power" send the "not an order or request" and you're in the clear.
Sounds like you answered your own question.
But working with "most votes" only, you can get someone declared innocent if 3 people vote for innocence, while 2 call for warning only, 2 for 1-day lock, 2 for 2-day lock, and 2 more for three-day lock (for a total of 8 people calling for guilty against 3 for innocent).Guilty and not guilty is its own vote. After that you would decide he sentence, with those opposed either voting for least punishment or not allowed to vote on sentence (would be decided on a policy basis beforehand.) Also, I suggest not choosing an official policy on which method. In the case of this one I suggest the most votes but if 4 voted for 1 day and 5 voted or 3 day, I would suggest going two days. Also,
4 people voted for a 3-day lock, but 5 people voted for a lesser punishment, for an average of 2,1111 day lock.Statistics can be flipped anyway you want. I could also say that 7 out of nine magistrates believed a punishment of 2-3 days was suitable with a clear majority deciding that 3 days was more suitable and thus is the obvious choice.
Magistrates can vote on their own case which is stupid beyond belief.Egamma is not a magistrate.
No guidelines for punishments.The magistrates are a new system, where precedents are still being worked out. Besides, we aren't trying to create a penal code like lawyers, we're just trying to ensure the game can be fun for everyone.
No requirement for defence.Didn't you get a message alerting you that a case had been filed? The magistrates came to a judgement quickly because of the nature of the case and the clear evidence presented.
I don't believe this is fair at all.
What is more important than IR is the social contract that, "We expect you to play the game as you would play a board game with good friends, and to value fair play above any victory or power." Please ask yourself if this is how you deal with someone who breaks the rules in a board game. If you said yes I don't think you would have good friends so I guess you've never experienced this.
The Magistrate system is not representative of the player base. Perhaps look for trust medals and recruit on an invite basis.
There are no guidelines for punishments. This is a serious oversight.
There is also no guidelines on defence, making the process completely one sided. Sure I could have replied here but there was never clarity on whether it would even be looked at and what the timeframe is on the case voting etc. I suggest that it should be recommended to make a statement in the thread within 3 days and that the magistrates must make a response to that.
I don't believe this is fair at all.
I believe Kai has a point.What do you agree with within Kai's post? The only thing Kai might have a point is setting a minimum trial length so the defendant has time to respond, IMO.
What do you agree with within Kai's post? The only thing Kai might have a point is setting a minimum trial length so the defendant has time to respond, IMO.
All of it.If you think everything Kai said is right, I am pretty sure you didn't read Indirik or Tom's posts.
If you think everything Kai said is right, I am pretty sure you didn't read Indirik or Tom's posts.
If you think everything Kai said is right, I am pretty sure you didn't read Indirik or Tom's posts.
IIRC, T-Rex Messiah has, in the past, expressed his disagreement with significant portions of the IRs and the way they are enforced.
This is correct.