Threats of reprimand due to playing speed

[Tom]

The proper way to write the order--if it must be given at all-- would be to say "send me reports of the civil work you do, when you do it".

Agreed, that is also a very simple and elegant way of solving the issue with no IR violation.

[Fury]

There is no such distinction with the Inalienable Rights.

No, there isn't - not in it's current form. Impinging and violation are merely my proposals to standardize between giving a warning and giving a punishment and this would necessitate a rewriting of the IR.

However, as you have pointed out:

You have either broken the IR, which requires punishment, or you have not, and no such punishment is warranted. There is no such thing as "encroaching on its borders". That's weasel-wording, and rules lawyering.

If Balewin is considered to have violated the IR through mere threats then punishment must be given and Magistrates have the option to lock an account for between 1 to 3 days and locking is the only option we have. A warning is NOT a punishment.

This is relevant because right now, that seems to be the consensus - to give a warning to Balewin.

The wording in the IR leaves no leeway:

• The inalienable rights are defended with extreme prejudice.
• Absolutely no violations of inalienable rights will be tolerated, no matter how minor or inconsequential.
• Absolutely no interpretations will turn a violation into a non-violation.
• Absolutely no "I didn't mean it" apologies will prevent the punishment

Re-reading the letter, what comes across was not my intention as I certainly do not want to impede on anyone's right.

Whether he didn't mean it or it was not his intention to doesn't matter. It CANNOT prevent the punishment. Which means we would be wrong to only give a warning and while the form of punishment is not prescribed in the IR punishment must certainly be an action.

Sending a message is an action.

And no - sending a (warning) message is NOT an action.

Do my fellow magistrates see the problem now?

This is not truly possible with the Inalienable Rights. They are OOC rights, not IC rights. Nobles don't have a right to "play at their own pace". Players do. And the rights are directed at the players.

Oh, yes they are.

• 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.
• Choosing which type of unit to command
• Going to tournaments
• Pausing your character(s) because you have a real life to attend to
• Choosing your class

Out of 5 IRs only 2 are OOC. The other 3 are IC. And thus, to repeat:
Therein lies the disharmony in unifying IC actions within an OOC boundary. 1 and 4 can be translated into IC but whether they are phrased IC or OOC isn't important. They are still limitations put into place in the game on the players who are controlling characters. And punishing the player directly affects their characters as well.

However, my point is: offenders send out IC messages IG that can impinge/violate a player's IR. By rephrasing the IR IC it puts the IR limitations IC and therefore into perspective. And instead of trying to remember that they can't order players to play at a certain speed or activity level, they now know that they cannot order their knights (characters) to move out when they aren't ready to because in their minds they are ordering characters (as they naturally should) through their letters rather than players because players don't exist IG. As sometimes we're really into the game and our focus is so on the game and the atmosphere and we want to be a strict marshal or such and because it's an ORDER we naturally want to make it SOUND like an order and to ensure they're carried out we would probably naturally threaten punishment. Rather than being a wimp marshal whom I would laugh off IG if he went around appending, "but like anytime you're ready to, of course" to every message - just in case it was misconstrued. 

"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, so please contact them with information.". So the Titan/Magistrates only come in after the punishment, not before, according to this.

Right, so if we're only giving a warning to Balewin then there's no violation of the IR. If there is then we have to give a punishment.

A point I would like to make, the game in and of itself violates IR by autopausing those who do not login after a certain amount of time.

Interesting. If for example, if the game takes away your lordship after 5 days of not logging in would it then also be wrong for a Marshal to ask a Judge to fine a knight for not moving out after 5 days or would that still be an IR violation, eh?

[Morningstar]

The fine line here is that IC it is totally ok to require regulary reporting-in, though personally I would object IC that I'm a noble, not a soldier and if the general thinks he can command me around instead of being thankful I lend my troops to his war, he can try winning it by himself. But that's not the matter here.

This. Absolutely 100% this. If an OOC reason is given for breaking an IC order, and the player in question still pushes the issue that is when it becomes an IR violation.

Things don't have to be made OOC just because you don't like what the other person said.

[Morningstar]

Out of 5 IRs only 2 are OOC. The other 3 are IC.

These 3 IC ones are the ones I have issues with, and the ones I think can and should be handled in-game, not out.

[Tom]

Out of 5 IRs only 2 are OOC. The other 3 are IC. And thus, to repeat:

Strictly speaking, yes. However, they are IRs for OOC reasons. Or in other words: A noble does not have the right to go to a tournament. His king could very well say "If I see you there, off with your head on your return". But a player has the right to attend a tournament, because for many players that is the only way they will ever get to socialize with other players from far away realms.

Same with the class and the type of unit. Again, purely IC, a king could tell you to become a diplomat right now, because he needs one and you happen to be there. He would dress it up nicely as a promotion and thank you for the great service you do the crown, bla bla bla - and only the careful observer would notice that nowhere in all that were you asked your opinion.
But a player of the game can choose which parts of the game he wants to experience, and class and unit type are the most important decisions that change the game experience (aside from choosing your realm, but we can't really make that an IR, because it would be hell to merge an IR to choose your realm with IC bans, etc.).

So while the rights refer to IC activities, the rights themselves are entirely OOC. They don't have an IC justification.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Strictly speaking, yes. However, they are IRs for OOC reasons. Or in other words: A noble does not have the right to go to a tournament. His king could very well say "If I see you there, off with your head on your return". But a player has the right to attend a tournament, because for many players that is the only way they will ever get to socialize with other players from far away realms.

Same with the class and the type of unit. Again, purely IC, a king could tell you to become a diplomat right now, because he needs one and you happen to be there. He would dress it up nicely as a promotion and thank you for the great service you do the crown, bla bla bla - and only the careful observer would notice that nowhere in all that were you asked your opinion.
But a player of the game can choose which parts of the game he wants to experience, and class and unit type are the most important decisions that change the game experience (aside from choosing your realm, but we can't really make that an IR, because it would be hell to merge an IR to choose your realm with IC bans, etc.).

So while the rights refer to IC activities, the rights themselves are entirely OOC. They don't have an IC justification.

Thank you for explaining the reasoning for this seeming contradiction.

[Morningstar]

Same with the class and the type of unit. Again, purely IC, a king could tell you to become a diplomat right now, because he needs one and you happen to be there. He would dress it up nicely as a promotion and thank you for the great service you do the crown, bla bla bla - and only the careful observer would notice that nowhere in all that were you asked your opinion.
But a player of the game can choose which parts of the game he wants to experience, and class and unit type are the most important decisions that change the game experience (aside from choosing your realm, but we can't really make that an IR, because it would be hell to merge an IR to choose your realm with IC bans, etc.).

I respect all that. But nowhere in there is the player forced to do these things- the threats/punishments are on the character. He always has an IC option to defy the order. If that means taking a fine or a ban, great, good for RP. Suck it up and move on with honor or acquiesce and dishonor your family name. But nobody's threatening harm to his account or his honor/prestige/fame or his RL mother.  That's why I don't get what makes them player rights.

Am I just dense here? I don't want to beat a dead horse if I'm the only one stuck on this. Like I said, I respect and support the IRs, simply because it's what you've dictated as best for the game.  And I'll continue to do so.

[Indirik]

If Balewin is considered to have violated the IR through mere threats then punishment must be given and Magistrates have the option to lock an account for between 1 to 3 days and locking is the only option we have. A warning is NOT a punishment.

A warning is indeed a "punishment". It is a confirmation that a rule was broken, a chastisement, and a reminder to not do so again.

Unless you are saying that the Magistrates cannot issue warnings. i.e. if the only options the Magistrate interface will let you choose are between a one day lock and a three day lock. If warnings and reprimands are not an option, I consider that a deficiency in the powers that the Magistrates have.

The wording in the IR leaves no leeway:

No, it does not allow any leeway in determining what is and is not a violation. There are no ameliorating circumstances or "justifiable violations". Which is what that list you quoted talks about.

Whether he didn't mean it or it was not his intention to doesn't matter. It CANNOT prevent the punishment. Which means we would be wrong to only give a warning and while the form of punishment is not prescribed in the IR punishment must certainly be an action.

You are implying here that aggressive enforcement needs to include aggressive punishment. That is not the case. You can aggressively enforce the rules by not allowing rationalizations, extenuating circumstances, intent, and other such explanations for why some particular violation was not really a violation. By not allowing those types of things to distract from whether or not what was said is a violation. It does not require that any punishments dealt out are also aggressive and harsh.

And no - sending a (warning) message is NOT an action.

It most certainly is. Why else would you have the option to send one? After all, if the ruler was not broken, then why do you need a reprimand/warning? Keep in mind that the IRs don't allow "wiggle room". Either you broke the rule, or you didn't. And if you didn't break an IR, then nothing needs to be done. Including sending a message. Because how ridiculous would it be to send someone a private reprimand, or a public warning, and then in that reprimand/warning, tell them that they didn't do anything wrong?

[Fury]

A warning is indeed a "punishment". It is a confirmation that a rule was broken, a chastisement, and a reminder to not do so again.

Not language-wise. Punishment requires a penalty. A warning is to give notice.

Unless you are saying that the Magistrates cannot issue warnings. i.e. if the only options the Magistrate interface will let you choose are between a one day lock and a three day lock.

I am saying language-wise. Apparently, the interface provides for "no lock" as a punishment as well.

You are implying here that aggressive enforcement needs to include aggressive punishment... It does not require that any punishments dealt out are also aggressive and harsh.

This implies it: The inalienable rights are defended with extreme prejudice. Extreme prejudice - originally used in military ops with the word terminate as in terminate with extreme prejudice as a euphemism for execution. I'd hardly call that a warning - unless the warning's meant for other players?  Coupled with immediate account terminations with no prior warning? I'd say it implies it all right.

Morningstar, you're not beating a dead horse. Or at least I'm moving the tail. And if someone gets punished for standing up for his IR he can always move to another realm? Considering that Playing where you want is NOT an IR? And how easy it is to ban or fine someone for any number of made-up reason by saying so when the real reason is actually related to IR? Problematic.

A noble does not have the right to go to a tournament. His king could very well say "If I see you there, off with your head on your return". But a player has the right to attend a tournament, because for many players that is the only way they will ever get to socialize with other players from far away realms.

So as neither the king nor the player of the king can stop the noble or the player of the noble from going to the tournament the IR would not be violated? Because they got to go to the tournament after all? And if they got banned or fined they can STILL go to the next tournament because there is no way anyone can be blocked IG from going to a tournament? And if a player wants to exercise his right to go to a tournament no ban or fine will ever stop him? As to the argument of changing his playing patterns, well he can't have his cake and eat it too?

So, in this case if the knight doesn't do as the Marshal says (even though he's a noble and the marshal should be grateful for the noble supporting the army with his troops but then there's the matter of the "orders" on red parchment which implies they must be followed?) then what Morningstar says:

But nowhere in there is the player forced to do these things- the threats/punishments are on the character. He always has an IC option to defy the order. If that means taking a fine or a ban, great, good for RP. Suck it up and move on with honor or acquiesce and dishonor your family name. But nobody's threatening harm to his account or his honor/prestige/fame or his RL mother.

[Chenier]

Oh god, the "evil" ooc cliques. They're everywhere, you have to watch out for them or they'll get you! Give me a break. I'm more worried about the IC cliques than the OOC ones. I might just start calling the Cagilan Empire the Cagilan Hegemony just to represent one such IC clique. You even poke Tara, Coria, or CE, and you have the whole shebang gangbanging your sorry ass. I'd much rather fight against my OOC friends than form an unstoppable superalliance with my friends. They make good competition. But this is talking of threats of reprimand due to playing speed, so I will move on to that.

I din't say evil. But groups of OOC friends are more inclined to be more leniant with each other, because they know (or consider) each other not to be bad people. Long-time IC cliques do form OOC cliques, imo, because after a while you not only get used to playing with a certain character, but the player behind the character as well.

In no way did I mean only OOC clans of egoistical powermongers were the only ones capable of doing the described behavior.

[Hyral]

I respect all that. But nowhere in there is the player forced to do these things- the threats/punishments are on the character. He always has an IC option to defy the order. If that means taking a fine or a ban, great, good for RP. Suck it up and move on with honor or acquiesce and dishonor your family name. But nobody's threatening harm to his account or his honor/prestige/fame or his RL mother.  That's why I don't get what makes them player rights.

I'm not an authority here, but wouldn't it be something like: It's the right of the player to not have his character told to switch to a certain class/told to recruit a certain unit type/told not to go to a tournament....so s/he can experience the game fully and as s/he chooses without threat of reprisal.

[Indirik]

Not language-wise. Punishment requires a penalty. A warning is to give notice.

This is rules lawyering and wordsmithing. Neither is applicable. The IRs are intended to support the atmosphere and spirit of the game. And since the game is not about metagaming, ruleslawyering, or weasel-wording, none of them apply to us. Thankfully.

If your definition of "punishment" does not include private reprimands and public warnings, then I suggest that you redefine "punishment" to include them.

Apparently, the interface provides for "no lock" as a punishment as well.

Oh look. I was right after all. Surprise!

This implies it: The inalienable rights are defended with extreme prejudice.

I snipped the irrelevant parts. RL euphemisms for assassinations have no place in the IRs. We're not lawyers, government officials, and other such people who are too squeamish to talk about what we're really doing.

And if someone gets punished for standing up for his IR he can always move to another realm?

Sorry, but I'd hate to play in a game where standing up for your rights means you get to quit.

So as neither the king nor the player of the king can stop the noble or the player of the noble from going to the tournament the IR would not be violated?

Oh, so you'r opinion is that since no one can stop you from going to the tournament, that it's impossible to break the IR about going to tournaments?

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.

I'd suggest that instead of trying to figure out what the definition of "is" is, that you step back, reread what people are telling you, and then restart your analysis from the beginning. 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.

[Bedwyr]

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, and 2. 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...Which is not how you want them to work.

[Chenier]

I feel we are deviating from the issue at hand.

However, 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. It has been stated in the past that it was acceptable for people to encourage certain unit types by handing out money for those who wanted some, as long as it did not restrict the other people's capacity to recruit. Giving gold for someone not to go to a tournament does not reduce the others' ability to attend, nor does it in any way make the act of going any harder. 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.

This example had been presented a few times, so I wanted to voice my disapproval of that stance. Tom has, again and again over theyears, stated that people were being absurdly extremist when making similar claims to oppose measures, actions, or messages that touch an IR topic (such as recruitment or activity) when they do not present prejudice of any kind to anyone.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I feel we are deviating from the issue at hand.

However, 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. It has been stated in the past that it was acceptable for people to encourage certain unit types by handing out money for those who wanted some, as long as it did not restrict the other people's capacity to recruit. Giving gold for someone not to go to a tournament does not reduce the others' ability to attend, nor does it in any way make the act of going any harder. 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.

This example had been presented a few times, so I wanted to voice my disapproval of that stance. Tom has, again and again over theyears, stated that people were being absurdly extremist when making similar claims to oppose measures, actions, or messages that touch an IR topic (such as recruitment or activity) when they do not present prejudice of any kind to anyone.

Ah, the voice of reason. I support this statement.