"None of which has any relevance to this case, because this isn't about a bloody Inalienable Right, so can we please stop the off-topic discussion and keep things on the case at hand?"
Sorry, but I can't sit idly by while someone makes a false assumption about my intent, regardless of whether or not it is pertinent to the case. And obviously there is some contention here about what constitutes coercion, which is very likely to affect courthouse cases in the future.
This is important to me, and I'm not even a magistrate. I feel it should be important to you too. At least promise you'll try to continue the discussion elsewhere, because until now I had no idea that coercion could be so loosely and differently interpreted in this game. As a player, it is quite nerve-racking to not know where the lines are.
If you want to continue discussing this topic, you are more than welcome to start a new thread on another board. This board is specifically for discussion of active Magistrate cases, and this thread is specifically for discussion of the placeholder case at hand. The philosophy behind the "suggestion == order" provision of the Inalienable Rights is not relevant here.
But this is a forum, without any restrictions on topic creation in most of its boards. You are not only welcome but encouraged to create topics to discuss anything you want, we just ask that you do so in the appropriate place.
