| Summary: | Threats of reprimand due to playing speed |
| Violation: | Playing at your own speed, timing and activity level |
| World: | Dwilight |
| Complainer: | James Marshall (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=316) |
| About: | Balewin (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=32035) |
"Let me be clear that I'm not going to tolerate any lack of discipline. I will make sure that fines are levied on any noble that actively hampers our efforts in Maraba. There will be no public hangings or raids without express orders. Failure to regularly provide a report on a daily basis will also be considered dereliction of duty and may result in fines, but it will take a lot of time for that to happen."
Besides, it's not because he threatens to fine you that you cannot play at your own speed. You could just pay the fine and play as slowly as you want, or you could come up with some sort of IC excuse. I believe anything will do. Hell, two OOC words saying 'not possible' would probably be enough to earn mercy :)
Letter from Balewin Duckmane (4 hours, 20 minutes ago)
Message sent to all members of the Fissoa Privateers (14 recipients)
Privateers,
We've been gracious enough to give the people of Maraba three opportunities to accept our governance willingly, but they have been stubborn to say the least. Therefore, I am enacting martial law in the region until they learn to behave themselves better.
Lord Periurium will be initiating a takeover in Maraba after sunset. Once that is successful, we will be keeping 1500cs worth of troops in Maraba at all times as a police force. This may seem a high number, but if the Verminators aren't able to keep the rogues at bay we need to have enough troops to disperse them quickly.
Those stationed in Maraba are expected to perform police work. I want a 24 hours presence in the region so that there are no opportunities for insurgency. Lord Ayrl will hold court regularly to judge those rebels that we round up. You must report to me daily on how many hours you spent policing and when half your equipment is damaged.
Those not stationed in Maraba will be on standby in Mangai. The Verminators report a strong risk of invasion from the Palm Sea and we must be prepared.
Let me be clear that I'm not going to tolerate any lack of discipline. I will make sure that fines are levied on any noble that actively hampers our efforts in Maraba. There will be no public hangings or raids without express orders. Failure to regularly provide a report on a daily basis will also be considered dereliction of duty and may result in fines, but it will take a lot of time for that to happen.
I will be giving specific orders for each troop leader soon. If you will not be able to complete the assigned task, inform me privately as soon as possible.
If you have any questions or concerns with this plan, voice them now.
Balewin Duckmane
Viscount of Kamade, Marshal of the Fissoa Privateers
The issue is not clear-cut, imo, because it is a threat that *another* *might* do something, and not an act on itself.This same line of reasoning can be used to argue that it's OK for a duke to say "Don't go to the tournament or the judge will fine you". After all, it's just the duke that's talking, not the judge. The duke can't fine anyone. And the judge hasn't fined anyone. And no one has acted on the threat at all. And besides, they may be lenient on not fine anyone at all. So therefore it's OK, right?
They may be very lenient on how many turns can be missed, and there's no way to know.
"Failure to regularly provide a report on a daily basis will also be considered dereliction of duty"
That line there is enough to warrant at least a stern lecture on the Inalienable Rights.
... and may result in fines, but it will take a lot of time for that to happen.
Why? As above, you need to consider the rest of the sentence:
How should someone in a position of power treat these rights? By acknowledging and moving on. Almost all long-winded texts are just sophisticated attempts to circumvent them. 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. Some of the worst events of both human history and in BattleMaster were done by people with good intentions.
"Failure to regularly provide a report on a daily basis will also be considered dereliction of duty"
That line there is enough to warrant at least a stern lecture on the Inalienable Rights.
Has anyone been punished?That's irrelevant. Punishment or action upon a threat is not required in order for a statement to be considered a violation of the rules. The fact that the threat was given may have caused someone to modify their play patterns to avoid the possibility of punishment.
I think the key phrase in there is "actively hampers". Meaning if you do nothing (because of inactivity or otherwise), you aren't setting out to hamper efforts to take over the region, but you're not aiding them either. From what I gather, fines will be given to those people hanging peasants
That's irrelevant. Punishment or action upon a threat is not required in order for a statement to be considered a violation of the rules. The fact that the threat was given may have caused someone to modify their play patterns to avoid the possibility of punishment.
What I meant is that we don't know if something sterner is in order. Has anyone been punished? Is the player of the judge also backing these instructions up, meaning he would also need such a lecture?
As the offending player I don't have much of a defense. Re-reading the letter, what comes across was not my intention as I certainly do not want to impede on anyone's right.
But I want to speak up to make it clear that I acted on my own without consulting the judge, so any punishment should be levied on myself only.
As the offending player I don't have much of a defense. Re-reading the letter, what comes across was not my intention as I certainly do not want to impede on anyone's right.
But I want to speak up to make it clear that I acted on my own without consulting the judge, so any punishment should be levied on myself only.
Inalienable rights are the rights which every troop leadershas, simply because they are a noble.
If you are fined, banned or otherwise punished for "inactivity", or for not having been online at any specific time or day, the Titans will be very happy to counter...
I think it's nice you speak here to clarify your message. ;)
I'm thinking troop leaders & a noble should be changed to player & human beings. As it stands, only players who can command troops are bestowed with inalienable rights. Players who play priests & adventurers will not be covered otherwise. I can think of many reasons why and how such characters can be punished.While the change is probably fair, the assumption that it doesn't cover priests/etc. is a bit off. This language is a relic of older days, when characters were referred to by the game as "troop leaders" or "TLs". This was not intended to exclude non-troop-leading nobles from the IRs.
It is also clear that an inalienable right on playing at your own speed is judged (and should be judged) to be violated when punishment occurs.Personally, I think you're way off base here. By this argument, you're saying that it's OK for the Judge to declare "If you go to the tournament you will be banned" as long as the judge never actually bans anyone.
In the absence of any punishment there can be no violation. Someone can threaten all they like but it matters not until punishment is meted out.
What IS provided for are what appears to be guidelines on how to act for persons in positions of power. However, taking Titan actions against someone NOT acting within said guidelines is not provided for - not as the wiki document is currently laid out.Sending a message is an action.
In summary, it is in my opinion that due to the way orders would naturally be given out and to take into consideration the inalienable right of playing at your own speed, an IR violation should only be judged to have occurred when and if punishment is meted out (and evidence should be gathered to back any claim that it was due to inactivity) as is laid out in the wiki document.Again, it is natural and IC for a noble to not want other nobles to go to a tournament while the realm is fighting for its life, and to therefore declare that anyone who goes to the tournament is a traitor, and will be kicked out of his estate. Is it therefore not an IR violation if the knight is not really kicked out of his estate?
Firstly:
I'm thinking troop leaders & a noble should be changed to player & human beings. As it stands, only players who can command troops are bestowed with inalienable rights. Players who play priests & adventurers will not be covered otherwise. I can think of many reasons why and how such characters can be punished.
In the absence of any punishment there can be no violation. Someone can threaten all they like but it matters not until punishment is meted out. To act on premeditation is to complicate matters and is in no way provided for in the wiki document.
Very clear IR violation. I appreciate the bit about "will take a long time" but that doesn't change the fact that requiring daily reports is an IR violation.
However, the intent was clearly "we would really like daily reports as they help a lot, but don't worry if you can't provide one for OOC reasons". An official warning message seems in order to make sure that things are worded better seems like the appropriate response in this case.
By this argument, you're saying that it's OK for the Judge to declare "If you go to the tournament you will be banned" as long as the judge never actually bans anyone.Absolutely. Then (provided the Magistrates are contacted) we tell the judge that if someone is banned for that then action will be taken against him/her. Like action for like action. He only said it so Magistrates only give a warning. To remind him/her of the IR if nothing else. Until someone is actually banned let them hash it out IC - a crazy judge or whatever: It's my noble right to attend tournaments!
Sending a message is an action.
The threat is the violation.I'm talking about the IR wiki document not providing for Titan actions against an offender who merely sends a message. The part about contacting the Titans if you're punished is clear. Everything else seems to be guidelines on how to act concerning IRs - sending messages not to go to tournaments, etc. I see I missed the part about how sending [such] messages would "almost certainly [be] in violation of the inalienable right." However, this still stands: If you are fined, banned or otherwise punished for "inactivity", or for not having been online at any specific time or day, the Titans [and likewise the Magistrates] will be very happy to counter. No Titan action is provided for concerning messages that may violate the IR - only on actions that lead to punishments (as far as my reading of the wiki goes). If we Magistrates are of the view that messages (and therefore threats) should lead to Titan action then it should be rephrased as If you are fined, banned, punished or otherwise threatened... I am not of this view, however. As explained above: like action for like action. If they violate someone's IR by punishing them then they should be punished in turn. If not then warn. Which leads to:
Keep in mind that that it is entirely possible for a player to decide they don't want to take the risk, and therefore not go, and thus not be punished...Thus damage is done, even if no punishment is handed out.
That is what we are trying to prevent. That atmosphere. Which is created simply by saying it.This is starting to sound like a tag team ;D.
In the absence of any punishment there can be no violation. Someone can threaten all they like but it matters not until punishment is meted out. To act on premeditation is to complicate matters and is in no way provided for in the wiki document.
Moreover, I believe the orders given read that they were to individually report, not scout reports, but reports of civil work... and I believe the civil work page explicitly discourages public reporting of civil work. Or am I confusing it with some other page?
Public reporting, via realm message, is discouraged. Not reporting via letter to a Marshal, which is what is being discussed here.
Public reporting, via realm message, is discouraged. Not reporting via letter to a Marshal, which is what is being discussed here.The message that the game gives you is this. The important part, as I consider it, is my highlight:
Please don't post this report to the whole realm, even if you see others do it. Many players consider that spam flooding the message channel. The people who should know have been informed by the game automatically.
The message that the game gives you is this. The important part, as I consider it, is my highlight:
Pardon my French, but this is pure crapola. That is absolutely NOT acceptable.By this argument, you're saying that it's OK for the Judge to declare "If you go to the tournament you will be banned" as long as the judge never actually bans anyone.Absolutely. Then (provided the Magistrates are contacted) we tell the judge that if someone is banned for that then action will be taken against him/her. Like action for like action. He only said it so Magistrates only give a warning. To remind him/her of the IR if nothing else. Until someone is actually banned let them hash it out IC - a crazy judge or whatever: It's my noble right to attend tournaments!
Why is this important, exactly?Because the game is telling you that the persons concerned with this already know that it was done. It discourages reporting it to *anyone*, not just the entire realm. It just specifically requests that you don't send it to the realm.
The region lord receives a report, yes.As do the judge and ruler.
So you would prefer it if the marshal directs the lord to collect and submit all the reports that he gets, rather than having the marshal direct the individual nobles to submit their reports to him individually?Yes. It is extremely easy for the lord/ruler/judge to compile the complete list of all the work done in the pas however many days with a simple message search.
Even if that's the point you're trying to make, and I'm not sure why it would be, it still leaves both region lord and marshal unaware of how many hours are actually spent working on the region. Knowing that has fairly obvious benefits, and even if it didn't, I'm not sure why you'd chose to make an issue out of asking for it.Personally, I make an issue out of anyone trying to check up on the work I do. If the marshal orders civil work, I do civil work. But I never report that I did it. If they try to force the issue, and make me report how much I did to make sure that I'm doing enough, then I intentionally do the minimum and lie that I did whatever particular number they want to hear. How can they possibly ever know whether or not I'm telling the truth?
Very clear IR violation. I appreciate the bit about "will take a long time" but that doesn't change the fact that requiring daily reports is an IR violation.
However, the intent was clearly "we would really like daily reports as they help a lot, but don't worry if you can't provide one for OOC reasons". An official warning message seems in order to make sure that things are worded better seems like the appropriate response in this case.
I call BS on this.
Regarding the inalienable rights, the "injury" component of standing is considered to have occurred at even the threat, because the threat itself can inhibit someone else's gameplay. No injury is done to the character, but we're not really concerned about the character. IRs ultimately relate to the player.
Moreover, let's be clear on this: we are making public decisions with published rationales. We are establishing the guidelines for behavior.
So you would prefer it if the marshal directs the lord to collect and submit all the reports that he gets, rather than having the marshal direct the individual nobles to submit their reports to him individually?
No, I would prefer that the Marshal stays the hell out of the Lord's business.
And that the Marshal doesn't treat his army like they're all a bunch of insubordinate jerks.
Any Marshal who believes that they have to check up on every single order that they give, unless they have a damn good reason for it—like a several-week-long rash of blatant and obvious insubordination—should be removed from his position and given a stern lecture on playing BattleMaster, not StarCraft.
Then you both agree that the wording should be changed, because what is written does not address everything that is undesirable. The threat alone leads to prejudice, and so should not be allowed. The wording of the IR, however, is specifically meant for seeking justice after being wrongfully persecuted.
Guys, can we stick to the actual issue in this thread? I submit, in case you missed it, that this was an IR violation because of the wording but the intent was clearly not malicious, and thus the proper response is one of this nice official warnings.
If it's necessary to continue debating the maintenance issue, then that can be separated out into its own thread.
The existing wording is fine; maybe another sentence should be added clarifying that even sending messages suggesting the violation of IRs is a violation of said IRs. This seems astonishingly obvious to me, but an extra sentence wouldn't hurt.
However, there is enormous precedent for this in the past, and it won't hurt to do it again. A simply worded public warning should do the trick.
Guys, can we stick to the actual issue in this thread? I submit, in case you missed it, that this was an IR violation because of the wording but the intent was clearly not malicious, and thus the proper response is one of this nice official warnings.
If it's necessary to continue debating the maintenance issue, then that can be separated out into its own thread.
Guys, can we stick to the actual issue in this thread? I submit, in case you missed it, that this was an IR violation because of the wording but the intent was clearly not malicious, and thus the proper response is one of this nice official warnings.
If it's necessary to continue debating the maintenance issue, then that can be separated out into its own thread.
To the Backroom!
I call BS on this.Call it on the IR wiki document then. As is agreed here:
The wording of the IR, however, is specifically meant for seeking justice after being wrongfully persecuted.I'm basing the IR wholly on it. Not on previous Titan judgements (I don't know them) in similar cases where punishments were (presumably) handed out.
Are you seriously saying, Fury, that you think giving the order to report every day should be allowed, but enforcing the order should be prohibited?You may recall that previously only specific people were allowed to give out orders on red parchments to specific people. Ex. Marshals -> armies. Generals -> Marshals. The current IR wiki document dates to this period of time. After this restriction was lifted, everyone can now send out orders to anyone. Would anyone care if a lowly knight gave out orders that impinged on the IR? (He's also not really in a position of power so his actions aren't punishable though it goes against the spirit of the IR). I recall a new knight who sent out orders asking for others to move out now. No one cried IR against him or made a report AFAIK. He was practically ignored. I move that the same approach can be used for persons in power who send out letters that impinge on the IR (I move to use IMPINGE for actions that deserve only a warning and VIOLATE for actions that deserve punishment).
Pardon my French, but this is pure crapola.Darn it, another tag team. ;D
Anyone stating in game anything like: "Ill ban you if you go to the tournament"can be replied with, "You can try" if they KNOW that the punishment on the judge can be greater and their own ban can be reversed. Once again education of the masses of the IR is the solution and I might add that in a game that thrives on conflict too much hand holding might not be the best long term option when enlightenment is so much better. "Oh, yes. Just let the Judge try to ban me. He'll make my day when I turn the tables on him."
"I'll give you 1,000 gold if you don't go to the tournament"If they accept the gold then they can't later cry IR! since they have clearly forfeited their right to go to tournaments. If they don't accept it then they can simply go and ignore the offer. Just say no!
A very important thing to remember: IRs are not IC rights for the character. They are the OOC rights of the player. They are tools intended to protect the fun of the player. That is why you cannot deal with IR violations as an IC conflict.Wherein lies the disharmony in unifying IC actions within an OOC boundary. Hence my suggestion in rewording the IR IC but it's not really important.
So, would your fanatically devoted warrior/hero who is defending his realm's capital in a last-ditch, desperate stand berate and degrade the noble who packs up and leaves to join the tournament being held in 9 days, calling him a coward in 22 different flowery and inventive ways, and promising to duel to the death the family members of everyone so gutless as to join the tournament? Of course he would. Would the Marshal who is frustrated with the apparent failure of the army to do their jobs, demand that the nobles of the army report their progress to him morning, noon and night? Doesn't seem too unreasonable.Sounds most interesting and even more interesting to reply to IC. Once again moving the marker to when punishment is actually carried out maintains a clearly defined boundary of what is acceptable but at the same time opens up more leeway for interesting situations like the above to occur. It's going to be a mighty frustrating game if I have to keep looking over my shoulder at my words or double checking how they're worded. Everyone says things but it's the actions that should count. It should only be against actions like fines and bans etc. that a player can't defend against should official punishment be carried out.
Call it on the IR wiki document then.
I'm basing the IR wholly on it. Not on previous Titan judgements (I don't know them) in similar cases where punishments were (presumably) handed out.
If they accept the gold then they can't later cry IR! since they have clearly forfeited their right to go to tournaments. If they don't accept it then they can simply go and ignore the offer. Just say no!
This is not up for discussion, either. Whatever you may think about it, the very act of telling someone to log in at a certain time or not go to a tournament is a violation, and will remain so.
Call it on the IR wiki document then. As is agreed here:
I'm basing the IR wholly on it. Not on previous Titan judgements (I don't know them) in similar cases where punishments were (presumably) handed out.
You may recall that previously only specific people were allowed to give out orders on red parchments to specific people. Ex. Marshals -> armies. Generals -> Marshals. The current IR wiki document dates to this period of time. After this restriction was lifted, everyone can now send out orders to anyone. Would anyone care if a lowly knight gave out orders that impinged on the IR? (He's also not really in a position of power so his actions aren't punishable though it goes against the spirit of the IR).
I recall a new knight who sent out orders asking for others to move out now. No one cried IR against him or made a report AFAIK. He was practically ignored. I move that the same approach can be used for persons in power who send out letters that impinge on the IR (I move to use IMPINGE for actions that deserve only a warning and VIOLATE for actions that deserve punishment).
Orders without punishments can be safely ignored.
The lowly knight who had no power to punish could be safely ignored. The person in power who has the ability to punish can also be safely ignored UNTIL he/she actually carries out the punishment.No. From the IR page:
It is the education of masses on their IRs that is needed here. If everyone knew their rights and stood up for it there wouldn't need to be anyone not wanting to risk punishment when they KNOW the punishment against the offender is even greater. Newbies will learn in time. Oldies can stand up for them or make a report on their behalf in the meantime. If no one does then you're in a sucky realm ::).
I'm starting to guess that the current 'marker' for Titan action to be taken is when punishment is threatened. Because punishment as explained above can also be implied I'm suggesting that the marker be moved to when punishment is actually meted out. A simple shifting of the marker but clearly defines the impingement from the violation.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, Tim, on the case at hand, I do feel it's worth pointing out that Fury is a Magistrate, and you are not. So actually what Fury thinks about it really does matter and, in this particular court, my understanding is that he's got a wee bit more right to decide what is "up for discussion" than you do.
No, because the rules themselves were written by Tom, and he is a higher authority than all of us put together.
Nowhere on the IR wiki page does it say that only punishing people who exercise their IR is a violation. Nowhere does it even suggest it.It does not. What it does is link IG punishment with Titan action. If it is meant to encompass the whole gamut of situations where even talking about it in a manner that even touches on IR will lead to Titan action then simply add the word threatened to a single line in that text.
The existing wording is fine; maybe another sentence should be added clarifying that even sending messages suggesting the violation of IRs is a violation of said IRs.No need for a sentence when a single word will do it.
This is not up for discussion, either.IIRC the creation of this courthouse is due to the unhappiness over the perceived arbitrary Titan judgements in the past and a lack of possible discussion over the issue. Certainly it is up for discussion and not just by the Magistrates but by everyone. Then the Magistrates will make a judgement with perhaps some clarification.
What part of "inalienable" do you not understand?The part where you can find an alien in able?
No noble can forfeit their right to go to tournaments.
It is an inalienable right, which means it is yours no matter what. Someone offers you gold not to go to the tournament? Take the gold and go anyway. Or take the gold and report them anyway. You have not given up any rights.Edward VIII's right to rule was his inalienable right as the successor to the throne until he voluntarily renounced the throne. If you accept the gold I would take it as you having voluntarily given up your right to complain about your IR being violated. Unless we are condoning OOC nastiness in accepting the gold and then making a report? I would not but apparently standards do differ.
...Though he's obviously wrong in this case.I would like to remind my fellow Magistrates that this is now not just the forum but the courthouse and proper decorum should be observed and making a judgement call when no vote has yet been conducted is improper and even then the correct term would be differ rather than wrong. As for casting of aspersions - pure impropriety.
I think that's a stupid distinction, and one you've invented to try and cover what is obviously a losing position.
Oh and, by the way:Glad we're using the same Thesaurus. It makes it easier to point out the note in that link:
http://thesaurus.com/browse/impinge
Impinge and violate are synonyms.
Giving orders to move "next turn" is fundamentally differentNo it's not. It also necessitates a certain pace of play which goes against playing at your own speed, timing and activity level.
Requests or orders from a position of power have implicit punishments.Which is what I said and why would it be a problem to WAIT until IG punishment has occured before making a report? Wouldn't it be in the better interests of the victim to wait and then:
You should tremble in fear at the idea of accidentally violating an IR.You should not. Unless you were violating it on purpose.
It is also [1]not how Tom as decided Battlemaster should be run. [2]New players should not have to stand up for their IRs. [3]Old players should not have to constantly police each other for IR violations. That's the point of the Titans, and now the Magistrates. You think there's a violation, you toss it up here, we decide: [4]our job is not to scrap the very system within which we act. Our job is to enforce it.[1] We are talking about the IR and that wiki document needs to be clarified and condensed, leaving out extraneous detail or putting it in another page under "How to Act" perhaps.
No. It isn't about punishment. It's about Inalienable Rights.I am talking about 'markers' to simplify matters. And to move it a bit further then where it is now to let official punishment be perhaps more justified and deserving. And has been said, there is no reason not to wait until IG punishment has actually been meted out.
You know you'll find? The Magistrates disagree.No, we do not - not yet, and to say so is a misrepresentation.
We believe that requiring daily reporting of civil work with a threat of punishment for failure is an issue deserving of a warning.
We believe that giving orders to move with the army is not.
You've proposed a massive education plan, entirely new terminology for types of IR violations, rewriting of the IRs themselves, and a fundamental revision of how their meaning has always been interpreted by previous BM authorities.A simple link to the IR wiki page IG as requested by Shizzle should be enough awareness as long as it's clear when official punishment/warning will occur. Impinge and violate would simply define warnings and punishment. The Titan link is still in-game. Let's see how the courthouse works out.
Do you actually have anything to say about the case itself?I do and have already but to summarize:
No, because the rules themselves were written by Tom, and he is a higher authority than all of us put together.I have no problem with enforcing the IR the way it is envisioned by Tom but until it is clarified whether threats alone is enough for a Magistrate to take action I will continue to provide my views. I have also no problem with being replaced as a Magistrate at any time for any reason or even none at all.
In reference to the IR I take it to mean to impinge is to touch the surface of the IR or to encroach upon its borders where a warning is sufficient to alert the offender to back off lest he/she moves in too far or at least have them understand where they are headed whereas a violation gives the idea that someone has gone too far.There is no such distinction with the Inalienable Rights. You have either broken the IR, which requires punishment, or you have not, and no such punishment is warranted. There is no such thing as "encroaching on its borders". That's weasel-wording, and rules lawyering.
Edward VIII's right to rule was his inalienable right as the successor to the throne until he voluntarily renounced the throne. If you accept the gold I would take it as you having voluntarily given up your right to complain about your IR being violated. Unless we are condoning OOC nastiness in accepting the gold and then making a report? I would not but apparently standards do differ.
I'm here as well. The last thing I ever want to see is people being encouraged to mix IC and OOC actions and motivation any more than they already do.I tend to agree. IMO, Anaris' scenario of accepting the bribe and then reporting the player is OOC underhanded.
Though to be perfectly fair, I've never been a big fan of the IR, as written. I've always been more of the opinion that Loren has- you have a perceived right violated in the game? Deal with it in the game.This is not truly possible with the Inalienable Rights. They are OOC rights, not IC rights. Nobles don't have a right to "play at their own pace". Players do. And the rights are directed at the players.
People need to be encouraged to deal with things inside the mechanics unless there's a clear, repeated violation because Joe Dirtbag needs to find a new game to play. We shouldn't be enabling people to go tattle to big brother just because their feelings get hurt. Screw being PC. Titan/Magistrate complaints should be a last resort, not a first option.When it comes to IR and Social Contract violations, I strongly disagree.
If the accidental/incidental infractions were dealt with in the game, I think the players/characters would police themselves.I'm all for IG conflict resolution, wherever possible. But only for IG/IC conflicts. IRs are NOT IC rules. They should not be resolved IC. They should be handled as swiftly as possible in an OOC manner. It's the player that needs correcting, not the character.
I'm all for IG conflict resolution, wherever possible. But only for IG/IC conflicts. IRs are NOT IC rules. They should not be resolved IC. They should be handled as swiftly as possible in an OOC manner. It's the player that needs correcting, not the character.
How should someone in a position of power treat these rights? By acknowledging and moving on. Almost all long-winded texts are just sophisticated attempts to circumvent them. 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. Some of the worst events of both human history and in BattleMaster were done by people with good intentions.
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.
Indeed. As then you risk that player having a clique of OOC friends who will back him no matter what against anyone else, even if they realize what he's doing isn't right (which they may not even).
The proper way to write the order--if it must be given at all-- would be to say "send me reports of the civil work you do, when you do it".
There is no such distinction with the Inalienable Rights.
You have either broken the IR, which requires punishment, or you have not, and no such punishment is warranted. There is no such thing as "encroaching on its borders". That's weasel-wording, and rules lawyering.
Re-reading the letter, what comes across was not my intention as I certainly do not want to impede on anyone's right.Whether he didn't mean it or it was not his intention to doesn't matter. It CANNOT prevent the punishment. Which means we would be wrong to only give a warning and while the form of punishment is not prescribed in the IR punishment must certainly be an action.
Sending a message is an action.And no - sending a (warning) message is NOT an action.
This is not truly possible with the Inalienable Rights. They are OOC rights, not IC rights. Nobles don't have a right to "play at their own pace". Players do. And the rights are directed at the players.Oh, yes they are.
"If you are fined, banned or otherwise punished for "inactivity", or for not having been online at any specific time or day, the Titans will be very happy to counter, so please contact them with information.". So the Titan/Magistrates only come in after the punishment, not before, according to this.Right, so if we're only giving a warning to Balewin then there's no violation of the IR. If there is then we have to give a punishment.
A point I would like to make, the game in and of itself violates IR by autopausing those who do not login after a certain amount of time.Interesting. If for example, if the game takes away your lordship after 5 days of not logging in would it then also be wrong for a Marshal to ask a Judge to fine a knight for not moving out after 5 days or would that still be an IR violation, eh?
The fine line here is that IC it is totally ok to require regulary reporting-in, though personally I would object IC that I'm a noble, not a soldier and if the general thinks he can command me around instead of being thankful I lend my troops to his war, he can try winning it by himself. But that's not the matter here.
Out of 5 IRs only 2 are OOC. The other 3 are IC.
Out of 5 IRs only 2 are OOC. The other 3 are IC. And thus, to repeat:
Strictly speaking, yes. However, they are IRs for OOC reasons. Or in other words: A noble does not have the right to go to a tournament. His king could very well say "If I see you there, off with your head on your return". But a player has the right to attend a tournament, because for many players that is the only way they will ever get to socialize with other players from far away realms.
Same with the class and the type of unit. Again, purely IC, a king could tell you to become a diplomat right now, because he needs one and you happen to be there. He would dress it up nicely as a promotion and thank you for the great service you do the crown, bla bla bla - and only the careful observer would notice that nowhere in all that were you asked your opinion.
But a player of the game can choose which parts of the game he wants to experience, and class and unit type are the most important decisions that change the game experience (aside from choosing your realm, but we can't really make that an IR, because it would be hell to merge an IR to choose your realm with IC bans, etc.).
So while the rights refer to IC activities, the rights themselves are entirely OOC. They don't have an IC justification.
Same with the class and the type of unit. Again, purely IC, a king could tell you to become a diplomat right now, because he needs one and you happen to be there. He would dress it up nicely as a promotion and thank you for the great service you do the crown, bla bla bla - and only the careful observer would notice that nowhere in all that were you asked your opinion.
But a player of the game can choose which parts of the game he wants to experience, and class and unit type are the most important decisions that change the game experience (aside from choosing your realm, but we can't really make that an IR, because it would be hell to merge an IR to choose your realm with IC bans, etc.).
If Balewin is considered to have violated the IR through mere threats then punishment must be given and Magistrates have the option to lock an account for between 1 to 3 days and locking is the only option we have. A warning is NOT a punishment.A warning is indeed a "punishment". It is a confirmation that a rule was broken, a chastisement, and a reminder to not do so again.
The wording in the IR leaves no leeway:No, it does not allow any leeway in determining what is and is not a violation. There are no ameliorating circumstances or "justifiable violations". Which is what that list you quoted talks about.
Whether he didn't mean it or it was not his intention to doesn't matter. It CANNOT prevent the punishment. Which means we would be wrong to only give a warning and while the form of punishment is not prescribed in the IR punishment must certainly be an action.You are implying here that aggressive enforcement needs to include aggressive punishment. That is not the case. You can aggressively enforce the rules by not allowing rationalizations, extenuating circumstances, intent, and other such explanations for why some particular violation was not really a violation. By not allowing those types of things to distract from whether or not what was said is a violation. It does not require that any punishments dealt out are also aggressive and harsh.
And no - sending a (warning) message is NOT an action.It most certainly is. Why else would you have the option to send one? After all, if the ruler was not broken, then why do you need a reprimand/warning? Keep in mind that the IRs don't allow "wiggle room". Either you broke the rule, or you didn't. And if you didn't break an IR, then nothing needs to be done. Including sending a message. Because how ridiculous would it be to send someone a private reprimand, or a public warning, and then in that reprimand/warning, tell them that they didn't do anything wrong?
A warning is indeed a "punishment". It is a confirmation that a rule was broken, a chastisement, and a reminder to not do so again.Not language-wise. Punishment requires a penalty. A warning is to give notice.
Unless you are saying that the Magistrates cannot issue warnings. i.e. if the only options the Magistrate interface will let you choose are between a one day lock and a three day lock.I am saying language-wise. Apparently, the interface provides for "no lock" as a punishment as well.
You are implying here that aggressive enforcement needs to include aggressive punishment... It does not require that any punishments dealt out are also aggressive and harsh.This implies it: The inalienable rights are defended with extreme prejudice. Extreme prejudice - originally used in military ops with the word terminate as in terminate with extreme prejudice as a euphemism for execution. I'd hardly call that a warning - unless the warning's meant for other players? ::) Coupled with immediate account terminations with no prior warning? I'd say it implies it all right.
A noble does not have the right to go to a tournament. His king could very well say "If I see you there, off with your head on your return". But a player has the right to attend a tournament, because for many players that is the only way they will ever get to socialize with other players from far away realms.So as neither the king nor the player of the king can stop the noble or the player of the noble from going to the tournament the IR would not be violated? Because they got to go to the tournament after all? And if they got banned or fined they can STILL go to the next tournament because there is no way anyone can be blocked IG from going to a tournament? And if a player wants to exercise his right to go to a tournament no ban or fine will ever stop him? As to the argument of changing his playing patterns, well he can't have his cake and eat it too?
But nowhere in there is the player forced to do these things- the threats/punishments are on the character. He always has an IC option to defy the order. If that means taking a fine or a ban, great, good for RP. Suck it up and move on with honor or acquiesce and dishonor your family name. But nobody's threatening harm to his account or his honor/prestige/fame or his RL mother.
Oh god, the "evil" ooc cliques. They're everywhere, you have to watch out for them or they'll get you! Give me a break. I'm more worried about the IC cliques than the OOC ones. I might just start calling the Cagilan Empire the Cagilan Hegemony just to represent one such IC clique. You even poke Tara, Coria, or CE, and you have the whole shebang gangbanging your sorry ass. I'd much rather fight against my OOC friends than form an unstoppable superalliance with my friends. They make good competition. But this is talking of threats of reprimand due to playing speed, so I will move on to that.
I respect all that. But nowhere in there is the player forced to do these things- the threats/punishments are on the character. He always has an IC option to defy the order. If that means taking a fine or a ban, great, good for RP. Suck it up and move on with honor or acquiesce and dishonor your family name. But nobody's threatening harm to his account or his honor/prestige/fame or his RL mother. That's why I don't get what makes them player rights.
Not language-wise. Punishment requires a penalty. A warning is to give notice.This is rules lawyering and wordsmithing. Neither is applicable. The IRs are intended to support the atmosphere and spirit of the game. And since the game is not about metagaming, ruleslawyering, or weasel-wording, none of them apply to us. Thankfully.
Apparently, the interface provides for "no lock" as a punishment as well.Oh look. I was right after all. Surprise!
This implies it: The inalienable rights are defended with extreme prejudice.I snipped the irrelevant parts. RL euphemisms for assassinations have no place in the IRs. We're not lawyers, government officials, and other such people who are too squeamish to talk about what we're really doing.
And if someone gets punished for standing up for his IR he can always move to another realm?Sorry, but I'd hate to play in a game where standing up for your rights means you get to quit.
So as neither the king nor the player of the king can stop the noble or the player of the noble from going to the tournament the IR would not be violated?Oh, so you'r opinion is that since no one can stop you from going to the tournament, that it's impossible to break the IR about going to tournaments?
I feel we are deviating from the issue at hand.
However, I would still like to state that I disagree that offering gold to someone for him not to go to a tournament should be considered a violation. It has been stated in the past that it was acceptable for people to encourage certain unit types by handing out money for those who wanted some, as long as it did not restrict the other people's capacity to recruit. Giving gold for someone not to go to a tournament does not reduce the others' ability to attend, nor does it in any way make the act of going any harder. Instead of trying to punish a player to dissuade a certain action, it's rather giving him incentives to pursue alternate actions without hindering his ability to do the undesired action or otherwise limit his choices. I see nothing wrong with this.
This example had been presented a few times, so I wanted to voice my disapproval of that stance. Tom has, again and again over theyears, stated that people were being absurdly extremist when making similar claims to oppose measures, actions, or messages that touch an IR topic (such as recruitment or activity) when they do not present prejudice of any kind to anyone.
However, I would still like to state that I disagree that offering gold to someone for him not to go to a tournament should be considered a violation.You may be right. I was probably going a little overboard on that one. I suppose it would depend on how it was done.
question is what happens if someone took the dole and did something else. like recruit cav instead of archers, etc.Then you know they're a liar. Call them out on it, and then don't give them any more.
This is rules lawyering and wordsmithing.Ever wonder why treaties and other documents of importance need to be couched in precise terminology leaving no loopholes as far as possible? The IR is clear on what the IRs are. It is 100% clear you cannot violate them. 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. BUT, does the IR give any clue about when to give a warning and when to lock an account? Does it? Or when exactly one is deemed to have violated the IR? Or when no punishment is threatened but implied would it be a violation? Or should it be left to the discretion of the Titans/Magistrates? Because it seems this is where the unhappiness over IR rulings are.
Fury: You are currently arguing over the basic premise of the Inalienable Rights. While that may, in theory, be a valid argument, it is 1. Not the purpose of the Magistrates, and I'm getting increasingly leery about having a Magistrate who wants to argue the premise of the IR's. Pretty much immaterial, as none of us get to make that decision. Tom's game, Tom's rules, and he's been very, very clear on how he wants the IR's to work
If your definition of "punishment" does not include private reprimands and public warnings, then I suggest that you redefine "punishment" to include them.Does redefining a faulty definition make it right? ::) The IR document isn't a divine piece of work. If certain parts of it aren't right it should be corrected not defended.
Oh look. I was right after all. Surprise!Congratulations! ::)
Sorry, but I'd hate to play in a game where standing up for your rights means you get to quit.You can quit or you can move to another realm and since:
for many players that [the tournament] is the only way they will ever get to socialize with other players from far away realms.you now get to socialize in other realms when you get banned for going to the tournament which is the sole purpose of IR no. 3? Not to mention that the banning realm is losing a knight probably to their enemies?
I'm sorry, but every message you post only illustrates more and more that you simply don't understand the nature and purpose of the IRs. All you're doing is rules lawyering to try and defend your indefensible position.No need to be sorry if you don't really mean it. And since banning someone for going to the tournament ACTUALLY helps someone to socialize with other players from far away realms does my reasoning fall under your "understand[ing] the nature and purpose of [at least one of] the IRs"? Because playing where you want ISN'T an IR which can mean you can't have your cake (going to the tournament) and eating it too (staying in the realm if the judge bans you for doing so)?
And this time, stop trying to interpret the rules by piecing together the literal definition of each individual word on the page. Focus instead on the purpose, intent, and philosophy of the rules as a complete whole.People don't like to get punished or warned (neither in public or private) and if they even see or don't see something in the IR page that shows or doesn't show why they deserve or don't deserve action taken against them then I don't think telling them to Focus! is going to cut it with them.
I would still like to state that I disagree that offering gold to someone for him not to go to a tournament should be considered a violation... Instead of trying to punish a player to dissuade a certain action, it's rather giving him incentives to pursue alternate actions without hindering his ability to do the undesired action or otherwise limit his choices. I see nothing wrong with this.See, while the IRs are clear, interpreting how they're violated may vary. You can't tell someone not to go but you can (as long as you also) give them incentives not to go? But if mere threats are an IR violation then shouldn't incentives also be? As they are violating the IRs but from the other side of the coin? Carrot and stick - they both achieve the same purpose.
And no - sending a (warning) message is NOT an action.
I respect all that. But nowhere in there is the player forced to do these things- the threats/punishments are on the character. He always has an IC option to defy the order. If that means taking a fine or a ban, great, good for RP. Suck it up and move on with honor or acquiesce and dishonor your family name. But nobody's threatening harm to his account or his honor/prestige/fame or his RL mother. That's why I don't get what makes them player rights.
Am I just dense here? I don't want to beat a dead horse if I'm the only one stuck on this. Like I said, I respect and support the IRs, simply because it's what you've dictated as best for the game. And I'll continue to do so.
Fury: You are currently arguing over the basic premise of the Inalienable Rights. While that may, in theory, be a valid argument, it is 1. Not the purpose of the Magistrates, and I'm getting increasingly leery about having a Magistrate who wants to argue the premise of the IR's,