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
AFAIK this courthouse was initiated to let the process be transparent and give a chance for all views to be heard. And for this to happen the basic premise may be questioned. If it's strong enough it'll stand on its own, yes? Also next time it may not be me who will argue the other side. The accused in this case has pretty much said he doesn't have much of a defence. If he did or he had someone with more understanding, would we be prepared not just to counter but to hear out their defence and to see if there is any merit? Or are we to simply pound them into submission?
Tom's game, Tom's rules, I've no problem there. But I don't know how Tom wants the IRs to work as I'm not drawing on past Dlist or actual Titan case files. For this case, he's agreed that "threatened" should be added to the IR page so that's fine (it's missing a comma, btw Bedwyr).
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.
On the Magistrate interface:
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.
*****
But for this case:I think as we have mostly arrived at a conclusion we can commence voting and moving towards a resolution?
No need to mind the extra discussions if we've more or less made up our minds.
