| Summary: | Inalienable Rights Violation |
| Violation: | Activity/Play at one\'s own pace |
| World: | Dwilight |
| Complainer: | TH (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=26113) |
| About: | Malus (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=31496) |
the ironic thing is, he didnt even give us a day.
the intent of the rights, which is to protect players from having to constantly be online in order to play battlemaster without consequences.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. As has been stated, the deadline could have been 1 day or 100 days, it would not matter, since none of the characters would willingly kill themselves to satisfy Malus. They weren't expected to either. It was merely a way to have a casus belli, the actual decision to go to war was made long beforehand.
If Malus had simply declared war without a wait, then he would have far less allies than he does now(and have made many enemies). If Malus declared war with a 3 day wait (thus giving the other side time to actually log on and respond), he would have far less allies than he does now. However, by placing a deadline which made it impossible to respond to from an OOC point of view due to players having a real life, he has established a justification for war, which as players we know is completely bogus, but our characters can consider legitimate (because a demand wasn't met, etc...) Thus, Malus has established a war with plenty of support on his side when IC wise this support could never have been found through legitimate IC action.
I cannot state for sure how any of the other characters would have done anything but my character would have died to protect his realm from war if given a reasonable chance to do so, just as I believe IC another one of the characters had already stated something very similar in private channels. (My character sent letters with this intention included if it was proven necessary)So two of the four characters involved would have willingly walked over to Solaria and turned themselves in for execution in order to avoid their realm going to war with Solaria? Out of curiosity, did your character or the other such character, at any time in the four hours you were sending messages yesterday, mention this? Perhaps, saying something like "Arbiter Malus, I would gladly let you execute me in order to avoid war between our realms, if there truly is no other solution to this predicament, but there's no way I do so within the 24 hour time limit you specifried. Please give me a few days to travel to Poryatown, and I will willingly let you lop off my head so our realms may continue to exist in peace and harmony." I mean, if you did, then wow... kudos to you and your character for being so dedicated to maintaining peace in the Lurias. I guess.
The issue in my opinion is not that the consequences are that the ruler be to go to war, but that the character is manipulating an OOC timeline to create IC reasons for going to war. As you clearly stated, and everyone is aware (on an OOC basis, and some IC) that Malus always intended to go to war anyway. But by creating a timeline which is impossible to fulfill on an OOC basis, in order to have IC justification for an action, is ludicrous.So our characters are not allowed to make impossible demands of others? Even if the characters know that such is impossible? Maybe Malus specifically wanted the demands to be impossible to meet, and concocted the entire demand scenario as nothing more than a stage performance to gain support for his side? (Which, come to think of it, is exactly what you're suggesting he did...)
If Malus had simply declared war without a wait, then he would have far less allies than he does now(and have made many enemies). If Malus declared war with a 3 day wait (thus giving the other side time to actually log on and respond), he would have far less allies than he does now.This is extremely speculative, and requires you to speak authoritatively on behalf of all these other players. From what I can see, given the fact that pretty much everyone in the Lurias, and most of the people outside the Lurias, knew this war was coming, I can't see how declaring it right away would have lost him any support.
However, by placing a deadline which made it impossible to respond to from an OOC point of view due to players having a real life,Again, for curiosity's sake, how many of the four accused nobles participated in the discussion in the next 24 hours? Was it actually impossible for any of them to respond? (Although, how would you, or I, know that it was really impossible for them to respond, unless you know them OOC and they told you they couldn't. A failure to respond IG could simply mean they chose not to respond.) For those who did respond, did any of them state IC that their characters were willing to comply, but could not do so within the timeline specified? If they did, then was the only reason that the demands couldn't be met, maybe with just an extended deadline (no pun intended, really...) , that some of the four characters involved did not get a chance to participate in the discussion?
he has established a justification for war, which as players we know is completely bogus, but our characters can consider legitimate (because a demand wasn't met, etc...)Can you not claim that his casus belli is illegitimate and unjustified, as he made demands that were impossible to meet? And in doing so, pull support away from him? After all, he's obviously an irrational warmonger who is not at all interested in peace. If he wanted peace he wouldn't be making such ridiculously impossible demands. After all, he didn't even wait out the full 24 hours he said he would. I mean, you *wanted* to comply, right? But it was simply physically impossible to do so. "Abiter Malus set arbitrary and impossible conditions designed to lead both of our realms down the only path that was acceptable to him: Civil war among the Lurias. Etc., etc. ..." Seems to me that maybe such a stance of your own could pull some of his allies away from hi, and bring them to your side. After all, no one wants to side with an irrational, and possibly insane, warmonger.
Thus, Malus has established a war with plenty of support on his side when IC wise this support could never have been found through legitimate IC action.What do you mean by "legitimate IC action"?
Silverfire, make no mistake, this war has been in the works for some time, and all the support Solaria needs has been secured for weeks in advance. If you think that Tybalts message from yesterday meant that he was still undecided, you're sadly mistaken. The ultimatum was little more than a smokescreen to present a justifiable cause for war. All parties involved agreed on the course of action long before yesterday's argument exploded. Also, if you say that Brom would die to protect his realm, have him commit suicide on the spot. Then a quarter of the Malus' demands will have been met, and you'll be a quarter on the way to saving PeL.
Also, you've been one of the most active participants in not just this discussion, but the ones before as well, so your argument that you have no time to respond to the ultimatum falls a little bit short...
However, it seems that even if Brom committed suicide on the spot, and the other 2 as well the war would continue by what you've said.Probably, because that would only be three heads, and Malus demanded four. :P
Probably, because that would only be three heads, and Malus demanded four. :P
I do kind of wonder, though, what Malus would have done if all four of them had volunteered to go to Solaria for trial/execution. Probably died of shock. :D
Well the reason I said 3 was because the 4th has left the continent.
This complaint has no validity.
If impossible deadlines combined with threats of war are an IR violation, then the Zuma GM will have another case on his/her hands faster than you can say "Unique Item Hunt."
Indeed, I think that is my main thought here: I can (kind of) see the reasoning behind the complaint. I can follow the logic. And when I try to refut it, I'm finding that the right words just aren't coming.
And yet when I think about applying this rule in the future (or to many past events), it yields insane consequences. So anytime a deadline might threaten someone's RP, it's an IR violation? WTF? Deadlines of various kinds have been part of BM for years (are we old enough to start saying "Decades"?) I have seen several treaties that have stipulated things like, "Declare peace within 1 day" or "Hand over a region within 2 days." Nobody complained. I guess if the ruler were inactive, yeah, it could have resulted in his realm defaulting on the treaty.
Personally, when I saw Malus' message to the rulers, I was psyched. It looks like one of the better-RPed lead-ups to war I've seen in some time.
This complaint has no validity.
If impossible deadlines combined with threats of war are an IR violation, then the Zuma GM will have another case on his/her hands faster than you can say "Unique Item Hunt."
Indeed, I think that is my main thought here: I can (kind of) see the reasoning behind the complaint. I can follow the logic. And when I try to refut it, I'm finding that the right words just aren't coming.
And yet when I think about applying this rule in the future (or to many past events), it yields insane consequences.
I can think of one thing to add: I believe this would be an IR violation if, after the deadline had passed, someone logged on, sent out an OOC explaining that they had not been on during that day, and that they really would like to turn themselves over now, and Solari refused to accept it. The difference between this and what actually happened in game is, to me, the difference between a violation and not a violation.
And even then: how does one do this, exactly? Ban them, then they sit in the capital voluntarily waiting to be executed?
I can't think of a way that's even possible, though. Even if one turned themselves in, all four wouldn't. And even then: how does one do this, exactly? Ban them, then they sit in the capital voluntarily waiting to be executed?
Has that ever happened before in BM?
I see the situation as being so preposterous from both an IC and OOC perspective that I can't see how anyone ever took it seriously that Malus (or the player of Solari) might have been at all interested in the surrender of the actual persons.
This sums up my opinion. I can follow Silverfire's logic, and I can't come up with an actual coherent way to refute it aside from pointing to what the consequences would be (although the "it's just as impossible IC as it is OOC" argument is close).
I can think of one thing to add: I believe this would be an IR violation if, after the deadline had passed, someone logged on, sent out an OOC explaining that they had not been on during that day, and that they really would like to turn themselves over now, and Solari refused to accept it. The difference between this and what actually happened in game is, to me, the difference between a violation and not a violation.
I can think of one thing to add: I believe this would be an IR violation if, after the deadline had passed, someone logged on, sent out an OOC explaining that they had not been on during that day, and that they really would like to turn themselves over now, and Solari refused to accept it. The difference between this and what actually happened in game is, to me, the difference between a violation and not a violation.
I continue to hold that this does not violate the IR precisely because it is as impossible IC as it is unfair OOC. However, if it could have been an IR violation if someone had been unable to log in in the appropriate period, then it would, of necessity, have been an IR violation even if they had all logged in and refused.
...this does not violate the IR precisely because it is as impossible IC...I disagree that giving an order that is impossible to be followed IC prevents it from being an IR violation.
Clarify?
I disagree that giving an order that is impossible to be followed IC prevents it from being an IR violation.
- "I forbid you to attend tournaments until you have achieved 300 prestige." Something that is patently impossible under current game mechanics, yet still an IR violation.
- Ordering someone to go to a region that does not contain a temple and while there change class to priest. Again, impossible due to game mechanics, and something that our characters would know is impossible, yet still a violation.
- "Go back to the capital that is four regions away, drop your unit of infantry, recruit archers, and get back here in three days." Is an IR violation, even though it is technically impossible to do, since it would take four days to march there and back.
"Absolutely no interpretations will turn a violation into a non-violation." There is no escape clause in the IRs that allows them to be circumvented or avoided by stating the violation in such a way that it is technically impossible to comply with.
If someone says "deadline 1 day" and I'm away over the weekend, and he fines me, and I come back and say "ey, sorry, I was away over the weekend, here's the answer you wanted:", I expect him to lift the fine.
This is not in the same category. This is not ordering something that is impossible: this is giving a conditional order that violates the IR, where the condition itself is impossible to fulfill.Probably. It was just the fist thing that popped into my head. The tournament rule being one of the most common examples and all...
Here, I'm not sure whether I agree or not. I'm inclined to say that I agree that this is a violation, but, again, I disagree that it is analogous to the current situation. I think it's partly because it's so very clearly contrived to be an impossibility that relates to changing class; I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would order such an absurdity in the first place, so I am having trouble constructing (or, therefore, refuting) a parallel between it and...well, anything.I wasn't really trying to make analogous examples. Just giving random examples of how I think you could give orders that were technically impossible, but still violate an IR.
(I would note that I still have some philosophical issues with the way the class IR interacts with priesthood; it could be argued that destroying a religion violates the class IR, because it forces all priests of that religion out of their class. However, obviously it cannot violate their IR, because it is something done by the game, that is not only allowed, but an encouraged part of war.)I didn't think destroying a religion kicked the members out of the priest class. I thought they stayed priest, but just didn't belong to a religion anymore.
Yes, it's an IR violation, but like the first example, it's because of the order ("recruit archers, not infantry"), not the condition ("within three days").The entire order, as a whole, is impossible to fulfill. If you extract all the context and conditions out of *this* example, and then say it violates the IRs, then you need to do that for each and every case as well. That includes the case at hand. Applying the same deconstruction to the case at hand that you applied to this example, you end up with essentially the same thing: 1) "Do X" and 2) "...within Y hours". In my example, the "Do X" part is the alleged violation. In the case at hand, it's the "...within Y hours" part that is the alleged violation.
I don't see how you can say that it's OK to tell someone that the IR-infringing condition of "...within Y hours" is OK if the impossibility of the "Do X" part makes the whole impossible, but that it's bad to tell someone to "Do X" even though the impossibility of the "...within Y hours" part makes the whole impossible.
This case also hinges on the definition of punishment.Punishment, or threat of punishment, is not required for something to be an IR violation.
However, I'm having a bit of a hard time parsing this sentence.In simpler terms, I think, both the example have two components: A request to do something (Part A) and a time limit (Part B). In my example, A (the request) is the infringing part, and in the case, B (the time limit) is the infringing part.
Punishment, or threat of punishment, is not required for something to be an IR violation.
In simpler terms, I think, both the example have two components: A request to do something (Part A) and a time limit (Part B). In my example, A (the request) is the infringing part, and in the case, B (the time limit) is the infringing part.
You are saying that violating Part B is not really an infringement if it is impossible to do Part A within the timeframe given in Part B.
So would it not follow that violating Part A is not really an infringement if it is impossible to do Part A within the timeframe given Part B?
In this case, that means that because the order, and the consequences of not following it, were given up front, if it were possible for this to be an IR violation if someone were unable to log in during the period given, then it would also be an IR violation even if everyone could log in 30 times within the period given.
1) In my view, the infringement is only negated if it is the infringing part that is clearly impossible IC—that is, ordering you to recruit archers within 1 week when the capital is 8 days away is still a violation, because you are still being ordered to recruit archers.What if the realm has no archery RCs? In that case, the infringing part is clearly impossible IC. So should it be negated?
What if the realm has no archery RCs? In that case, the infringing part is clearly impossible IC. So should it be negated?
...the activity IR itself is, oddly enough, the one that's got the most contextual leeway.Yeah, I think you're right. The other ones are pretty clear and straightforward. And when someone points out how they were broken, most people can pretty much agree that it was indeed a violation. The Activity one has always been the biggest point of contention for a lot of people. It's really the only one that is subjective in its interpretation/application.
(Although I still cannot construct a reasonable instance of such an order. The example you give speaks more to me of its giver's stupidity than anything else, as I would expect anyone in a position of power in a realm ought to know what troop types are available to them. I would actually expect such an order to be met with IC ridicule and be quickly rescinded, rather than being reported as an IR violation.)Well, yeah, that was a pretty silly example. The only reason I can think of giving such an order would be that you intentionally wanted to give someone an order they were guaranteed to not be able to follow. But there are many other non-IR-infringing ways to do that.
But, hey, rules-lawyering can often lead you into such ridiculous examples. :D
I disagree with this.
Specifically, I disagree that an order given being an IR violation can ever depend upon whether someone was actually active at a given time.
If someone says "deadline 1 day" and I'm away over the weekend, and he fines me, and I come back and say "ey, sorry, I was away over the weekend, here's the answer you wanted:", I expect him to lift the fine. If he doesn't, I might have an IR violation there. But the IR case comes into existence upon his refusal to accept my OOC activity, not upon his issuing the fine. Otherwise, we would force people into waiting forever for others to respond.
People should be able to play the game at their speed - that includes the people who want to move the action forward. IRs should not force them to wait more than a reasonable time.
Oh dear.
I hope nobody enjoys the rules-mongering and endless discussion of what should really be a very simple point.
Playing at your own speed, timing and activity level, i.e. logging in as often or seldom as you like, at whatever times you like.
Letter from Malus Solari (16 hours, 26 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in "Halls of Luria" (32 recipients)
The following nobles are hereby named enemies of House Solari, the nobility of Solaria, and aggressors against free peoples everywhere. Each of them owes Solaria a debt of honor to be repaid in blood. There will be no negotiating the price, no adjustment of the terms. Failure to repay the debt will only result in my having to collect it. They have one day.
Letter from Malus Solari (16 hours, 26 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in"Halls of Luria"the realm (32 recipients)
The following nobles are hereby namedenemies of House Solari, the nobility of Solaria, and aggressors against free peoples everywheredeserters of the army. Each of them owes Solaria adebt of honorfine to be repaid inbloodgold. There will be no negotiating the price, no adjustment of the terms. Failure to repay the debt will only result in my having to collect it. They have one day.
Would this hypothetical situation be different?
The RPs have to fit the IRs and not the other way around. The issues that arise for me are: deadlines and compulsion.
Can we make cancelling fines a feature request, then? I'm sure more than one judge has wished that has had that capability; I can think of one time that I issued a fine, that I probably would have reversed a week or two later.
- 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.
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.
To me, he's instead complaining that he was compelled to respond because of the deadline, which is stupid. That's a fancier way of saying "I am not in control of my own actions". People can play BM at whatever pace they wish. Brom was going to die, whether the ultimatum was one day or thirty. Less than an hour after the ultimatum was given, he refused to comply.
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: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.
- 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.
I believe his objection in this case wasn't personal, so much as "hm, this struck me wrong".