Threats of reprimand due to playing speed

[Vellos]

Public reporting, via realm message, is discouraged. Not reporting via letter to a Marshal, which is what is being discussed here.

Meh, still doesn't change that issuing the order to regularly report like that is an IR violation anyway.

[Indirik]

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.

[Huntsmaster]

The message that the game gives you is this. The important part, as I consider it, is my highlight:

Why is this important, exactly? The region lord receives a report, yes. 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? 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.

[Indirik]

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!

Pardon my French, but this is pure crapola. That is absolutely NOT acceptable.

Anyone stating in game anything like: "Ill ban you if you go to the tournament", "Don't go to the tournament", "Please don't go to the tournament", "I'll give you 1,000 gold if you don't go to the tournament" or "Going to the tournament is honoring the government of Evilstani, and anyone who does is a traitor to Keplerstan" are all clear and obvious IR violations. Several versions of these, including one similar to that last example, have been punished by the Titans.

I will grant part of your statement only so far as to say that the severity of the punishment should be commensurate with the scaope of the offense, and the experience level of the player. A newbie warrior.student who says something like "Why would anyone want to abandon their realm in a time of need to go to the tournament?" may deserve a public warning. (Any violation of the IR is severe enough to deserve a public warning, IMNSHO.) But an experienced player who's judge character says "I don't care if it's your noble right to go to a tournament, I'll ban you the instant you leave for the tournament." should certainly be removed from his position and probably bolted to boot.

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. They have no application to IC behavior, and often forbid the character from doing exactly what the player thinks the character should do. They must be handled OOC as a player-player interaction by the Titans/Magistrates.

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.

But we as players have to take the IRs into account, and NOT have our characters do that. We have to restrain the actions of our characters in ways that may seem contrary their natures. Because the IRs are OOC rules. They cannot, as a general rule, be adequately explained or handled IC.

[Indirik]

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?

[Shenron]

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 agree 100% brotha

[Chenier]

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.

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.

[Anaris]

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.

[Chenier]

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.

Marshals will know when troops move. They will know after battles who followed the settings. They can check on your troop numbers to see if you recruited, on your readiness rating to see if you repaired, etc. They can know if you followed almost every order, *except* for maintenance tasks. And since civil work is boring, and you want everyone who can do it to do it so that the army may leave the target region as soon as possible, it's quite reasonable that these marshals would like to know who is actually carrying out this order.

If a whole army is stationed to stabilize a new region, then no, it's not the lord's business, as odds are there aren't even any lords for it. It *is* the marshal's business, because he must likely stabilize that region before he can move on to his next assignment.

Indirik quoted that "The people who should know have been informed by the game automatically". I completely disagree with this. I haven't seen judges perform the roles of Chief Bureaucrat since many, many years. Since the estates, they are a dying breed. And the ruler? Why the hell would he care? It actually bothers me that I get as a ruler these messages. Region maintenance isn't the ruler's duty, it's useless spam to him. Those who should know are the lord of the target region and the knight's marshal (or his general if he is not in an army, maybe). *Then* the people who should know would truly have been alerted.

Region maintenance is not something only for a lone noble or two to go around. It most definitely concerns armies, and therefore their marshal. Especially since regions are much harder to stabilize than they once were. He should not expect his orders to be 100% followed by 100% of the people 100% of the time, but he should be able to check up on maintenance just the same as for everything else. And it is sometimes actually helpful for him to know the actual results that everyone is having. Such as looting and foraging reports can be useful for things other than just knowing who is obeying.

[Vellos]

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.

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.

[Bedwyr]

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.

[Chenier]

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.

Agreed.

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.

Previous judgments confirm this. But for people who land in the position for the first time and who have never heard of previous judgements...?

[Huntsmaster]

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.

Agreed, especially so since Chénier already gave the exact rebuttal to Indirik that I was about to, except with prettier and harder-to-misunderstand words.

[Vellos]

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.

I submit that most of us are agreed on this but we have never worked out the mechanics of how these cases go, so we have no way to know when or how exactly to establish our formal judgment. I submit that I suggested we do this an entire month ago.

To the Backroom!

[Shizzle]

To the Backroom!

Ieww.

Also, if you're going to 'revive' the IR, making them once again clear to all, maybe you could add a link in the game? Afaik, it's only on the Wiki now.