Threats of reprimand due to playing speed

[Chenier]

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.

Punishment means the judge is just as guilty. No punishment *might* mean the judge had nothing to do with this.

It is relevant.

[lorduck]

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.

[Indirik]

It is not relevant to this case. If the judge acted upon it, then that would be a separate case against the judge.

[Shizzle]

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.

They're not gonna bolt you just yet, I think.

[Fleugs]

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.

I think it's nice you speak here to clarify your message. 

[Fury]

Cool. Looks like this is going to be the current hot thread now  . On to business.

Firstly:

Inalienable rights are the rights which every troop leaders has, simply because they are a noble.

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.

It is clear further down the Inalienable Rights wiki page that it is the player who has the IR regardless of what character is played.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Note: Titan actions against persons NOT in positions of power do not appear to be covered. Ex. Knights setting their estates to idle to indirectly kick out their inactive lord and force an election.

What needs to be considered is that it is totally NATURAL to ask for scout reports on a daily basis. No general or marshal would in their right mind ask for reports "whenever you can". The whole of the said Marshal's threats of reprimand against dereliction of duty is also natural given the circumstances and within the backdrop of a military hierarchy.

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.

[lorduck]

I think it's nice you speak here to clarify your message. 

I'm happy to clarify what my intentions were if that will aid in the decision making process, but I don't know if my intentions are relevant.  I wrote a letter that obviously could be interpreted in a way that might violate the IR, and so this body should decide which interpretation is more appropriate.  The letter itself should be the evidence and my testimony could turn this into everyone telling me how I should have written the letter, which is an exercise in editing, which I will make sure to be better at if the magistrate does decide to lightning bolt me.

[Indirik]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. Or, in this case, for the player to decide he doesn't want to risk punishment, and therefore change his plans, or his play style, to make the daily reports as he is ordered. Thus damage is done, even if no punishment is handed out.

[Anaris]

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.

Yeah, "troop leader" is archaic BM terminology, and should certainly be changed.  (I was even talking about this with Shizzle on IRC just now!)

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.

Nope.  The threat is the violation.

Read the page.  Understand what it says.

Someone in a position of power saying, "Do this or else!" even if the "else" is not specified or even explicitly stated—that is, even if it's just stated as "Do this!"—is creating an atmosphere where the people they have power over feel threatened.  They don't have to punish anyone. They don't have to even say that they will.  Simply giving an instruction that violates the Inalienable Rights creates that atmosphere.

That is what we are trying to prevent. That atmosphere.  Which is created simply by saying it.

[Bedwyr]

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.

[Huntsmaster]

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 guess my question then is how a Marshal should tell their army to submit scout/unit/work reports in a way that both 1) doesn't even appear to violate IR and 2) doesn't come across as wishy-washy IC (i.e. "And please pass along scout reports if you can, since we're in a war and all"). I know when I'm a lowly TL in an army, I don't like feeling like my Marshal and General are taking us on a day trip to the fair. When I'm a Marshal, I don't like feeling like I have to beg for reports.

[Bedwyr]

You don't threaten punishments for failing to provide daily reports.  That's the issue.  Saying "we need reports every day if we're going to win this" isn't the same thing as "if you don't send a report every day that's dereliction of duty and you might get punished".

[Fury]

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 .
Nipping something in the bud is too much hand holding. If they know enough that such letters may violate their IR they'll very well know to make a report should they ever be punished. If the offender is benign then a simple reminder will set him/her right and if both parties understand that certain messages may come naturally given the circumstances and within the backdrop of a military hierarchy then all's well. If the offender is merely being a bully then they should learn on their own not to be cowed into feeling threatened by people in power. How would we differentiate a benign offender who is merely roleplaying a medieval Marshal (as he/she is expected to in this game) from a bully? When the bully metes out punishment. That's the best marker in my opinion. If this is adhered to then there would be no need to cry wolf whenever a bark is heard. 

It may be good to translate the IRs which are a mixture of OOC and IC into pure IC IRs. This could cut out some of the confusion:

IC IRs

The inalienable rights are:

• Your own personal responsibilities in life come first above any orders/duties given to or expected of you
• Choosing which type of unit to command
• Going to tournaments
• Choosing your class

Orders/Requests/Etc. that violate the above rights may be safely ignored. Should your rights be infringed through punishment you may take it up with the Magistrates.

* I see pausing as redundant as you lose all titles upon pausing and it also comes under 1.

[Vellos]

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.

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.

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? So it's fine to order someone to change classes, but you just can't fine them when they refuse? It's fine to order someone not to go to a tournament, but it's not okay if you ban them for it?

Even a request is a violation. The IRs must. not. be. touched. Ever. When a tournament is announced in the middle of a war, you smile and say "Well, isn't that nice, I hope everybody has a wonderful time at it!"

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?

Whatever the case, I must concur with many others and say that this is an obvious IR violation. It is also obviously without malicious intent, and did comparatively little harm, and so should probably be responded to with one of those nice yellow warnings.

[Huntsmaster]

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.