Inalienable Rights Violation

[allanon]

The IR are there to prevent discrimination and penalties being exacted on characters by their superiors as a result of their choice to log in on a regular basis or not. They do not (or should not) exist to protect an entire realm from war because another realm's ruler gave them a deadline. By your (the plaintiff's) definition of the IR, any deadline at all would be a violation as it could potentially infringe upon a player's choice to log in or not, and thus they should sit around for a few months discussing it instead.

[Indirik]

I cannot state for sure how any of the other characters would have done anything but my character would have died to protect his realm from war if given a reasonable chance to do so, just as I believe IC another one of the characters had already stated something very similar in private channels. (My character sent letters with this intention included if it was proven necessary)

So two of the four characters involved would have willingly walked over to Solaria and turned themselves in for execution in order to avoid their realm going to war with Solaria? Out of curiosity, did your character or the other such character, at any time in the four hours you were sending messages yesterday, mention this? Perhaps, saying something like "Arbiter Malus, I would gladly let you execute me in order to avoid war between our realms, if there truly is no other solution to this predicament, but there's no way I do so within the 24 hour time limit you specifried. Please give me a few days to travel to Poryatown, and I will willingly let you lop off my head so our realms may continue to exist in peace and harmony." I mean, if you did, then wow... kudos to you and your character for being so dedicated to maintaining peace in the Lurias. I guess.

The issue in my opinion is not that the consequences are that the ruler be to go to war, but that the character is manipulating an OOC timeline to create IC reasons for going to war. As you clearly stated, and everyone is aware (on an OOC basis, and some IC) that Malus always intended to go to war anyway. But by creating a timeline which is impossible to fulfill on an OOC basis, in order to have IC justification for an action, is ludicrous.

So our characters are not allowed to make impossible demands of others? Even if the characters know that such is impossible? Maybe Malus specifically wanted the demands to be impossible to meet, and concocted the entire demand scenario as nothing more than a stage performance to gain support for his side? (Which, come to think of it, is exactly what you're suggesting he did...)

If Malus had simply declared war without a wait, then he would have far less allies than he does now(and have made many enemies). If Malus declared war with a 3 day wait (thus giving the other side time to actually log on and respond), he would have far less allies than he does now.

This is extremely speculative, and requires you to speak authoritatively on behalf of all these other players. From what I can see, given the fact that pretty much everyone in the Lurias, and most of the people outside the Lurias, knew this war was coming, I can't see how declaring it right away would have lost him any support.

However, by placing a deadline which made it impossible to respond to from an OOC point of view due to players having a real life,

Again, for curiosity's sake, how many of the four accused nobles participated in the discussion in the next 24 hours? Was it actually impossible for any of them to respond?  (Although, how would you, or I, know that it was really impossible for them to respond, unless you know them OOC and they told you they couldn't. A failure to respond IG could simply mean they chose not to respond.) For those who did respond, did any of them state IC that their characters were willing to comply, but could not do so within the timeline specified? If they did, then was the only reason that the demands couldn't be met, maybe with just an extended deadline (no pun intended, really...) , that some of the four characters involved did not get a chance to participate in the discussion?

he has established a justification for war, which as players we know is completely bogus, but our characters can consider legitimate (because a demand wasn't met, etc...)

Can you not claim that his casus belli is illegitimate and unjustified, as he made demands that were impossible to meet? And in doing so, pull support away from him? After all, he's obviously an irrational warmonger who is not at all interested in peace. If he wanted peace he wouldn't be making such ridiculously impossible demands. After all, he didn't even wait out the full 24 hours he said he would. I mean, you *wanted* to comply, right? But it was simply physically impossible to do so. "Abiter Malus set arbitrary and impossible conditions designed to lead both of our realms down the only path that was acceptable to him: Civil war among the Lurias. Etc., etc. ..." Seems to me that maybe such a stance of your own could pull some of his allies away from hi, and bring them to your side. After all, no one wants to side with an irrational, and possibly insane, warmonger.

Thus, Malus has established a war with plenty of support on his side when IC wise this support could never have been found through legitimate IC action.

What do you mean by "legitimate IC action"?

[Dante Silverfire]

Silverfire, make no mistake, this war has been in the works for some time, and all the support Solaria needs has been secured for weeks in advance. If you think that Tybalts message from yesterday meant that he was still undecided, you're sadly mistaken. The ultimatum was little more than a smokescreen to present a justifiable cause for war. All parties involved agreed on the course of action long before yesterday's argument exploded. Also, if you say that Brom would die to protect his realm, have him commit suicide on the spot. Then a quarter of the Malus' demands will have been met, and you'll be a quarter on the way to saving PeL.

I have now received IC evidence that actually supports what you have stated Sacha. However, it seems that even if Brom committed suicide on the spot, and the other 2 as well the war would continue by what you've said.

Also, you've been one of the most active participants in not just this discussion, but the ones before as well, so your argument that you have no time to respond to the ultimatum falls a little bit short...

That is not the point. I never claimed that "I" was unable to log on at the time. I claimed that should I not have been able to that things would have gone drastically different than they have, and that due to the time demand put down, I was "required" to stay online for 4-5 hours to try and keep things handled.

However, even though a majority of the Magistrates that have responded already do have a personal stake in the situation at hand and can't be completely unbiased, I have been able to take enough of an idea that my understanding of the IR as well as the whole idea of making demands that seem to me to hinge upon OOC/RL time does not matter. Thus, if this is indeed the correct interpretation of the IR then I drop my case because it would have no basis but I'm saddened either way.

[Indirik]

However, it seems that even if Brom committed suicide on the spot, and the other 2 as well the war would continue by what you've said.

Probably, because that would only be three heads, and Malus demanded four.

I do kind of wonder, though, what Malus would have done if all four of them had volunteered to go to Solaria for trial/execution. Probably died of shock.

[Dante Silverfire]

Probably, because that would only be three heads, and Malus demanded four.

I do kind of wonder, though, what Malus would have done if all four of them had volunteered to go to Solaria for trial/execution. Probably died of shock.

Well the reason I said 3 was because the 4th has left the continent.

[De-Legro]

Well the reason I said 3 was because the 4th has left the continent.

Totally doesn't exclude her. They can always send her head back on a boat.

[Vellos]

This complaint has no validity.

If impossible deadlines combined with threats of war are an IR violation, then the Zuma GM will have another case on his/her hands faster than you can say "Unique Item Hunt."

Indeed, I think that is my main thought here: I can (kind of) see the reasoning behind the complaint. I can follow the logic. And when I try to refut it, I'm finding that the right words just aren't coming.

And yet when I think about applying this rule in the future (or to many past events), it yields insane consequences. So anytime a deadline might threaten someone's RP, it's an IR violation? WTF? Deadlines of various kinds have been part of BM for years (are we old enough to start saying "Decades"?) I have seen several treaties that have stipulated things like, "Declare peace within 1 day" or "Hand over a region within 2 days." Nobody complained. I guess if the ruler were inactive, yeah, it could have resulted in his realm defaulting on the treaty.

Personally, when I saw Malus' message to the rulers, I was psyched. It looks like one of the better-RPed lead-ups to war I've seen in some time.

[De-Legro]

This complaint has no validity.

If impossible deadlines combined with threats of war are an IR violation, then the Zuma GM will have another case on his/her hands faster than you can say "Unique Item Hunt."

Indeed, I think that is my main thought here: I can (kind of) see the reasoning behind the complaint. I can follow the logic. And when I try to refut it, I'm finding that the right words just aren't coming.

And yet when I think about applying this rule in the future (or to many past events), it yields insane consequences. So anytime a deadline might threaten someone's RP, it's an IR violation? WTF? Deadlines of various kinds have been part of BM for years (are we old enough to start saying "Decades"?) I have seen several treaties that have stipulated things like, "Declare peace within 1 day" or "Hand over a region within 2 days." Nobody complained. I guess if the ruler were inactive, yeah, it could have resulted in his realm defaulting on the treaty.

Personally, when I saw Malus' message to the rulers, I was psyched. It looks like one of the better-RPed lead-ups to war I've seen in some time.

The reason this can't stand up to a IR violation is that it is a cycle. IF we require rulers or whomever to place deadlines of a certain length so as not to force others to play at a certain pace, you are in turn forcing the deadline setters to play at a pace not of their choosing. This is why the rule has mostly been interpreted to cover cases like ordering people to move just before turn, or setting a fine because you have decided someone is inactive. Yet if you fine them for failing to meet their duty, which may have been because of inactivity, that has generally been regarded as fine.

[Bedwyr]

This complaint has no validity.

If impossible deadlines combined with threats of war are an IR violation, then the Zuma GM will have another case on his/her hands faster than you can say "Unique Item Hunt."

Indeed, I think that is my main thought here: I can (kind of) see the reasoning behind the complaint. I can follow the logic. And when I try to refut it, I'm finding that the right words just aren't coming.

And yet when I think about applying this rule in the future (or to many past events), it yields insane consequences.

This sums up my opinion.  I can follow Silverfire's logic, and I can't come up with an actual coherent way to refute it aside from pointing to what the consequences would be (although the "it's just as impossible IC as it is OOC" argument is close).

I can think of one thing to add: I believe this would be an IR violation if, after the deadline had passed, someone logged on, sent out an OOC explaining that they had not been on during that day, and that they really would like to turn themselves over now, and Solari refused to accept it.  The difference between this and what actually happened in game is, to me, the difference between a violation and not a violation.

[Vellos]

I can think of one thing to add: I believe this would be an IR violation if, after the deadline had passed, someone logged on, sent out an OOC explaining that they had not been on during that day, and that they really would like to turn themselves over now, and Solari refused to accept it.  The difference between this and what actually happened in game is, to me, the difference between a violation and not a violation.

I can't think of a way that's even possible, though. Even if one turned themselves in, all four wouldn't. And even then: how does one do this, exactly? Ban them, then they sit in the capital voluntarily waiting to be executed?

Has that ever happened before in BM?

I see the situation as being so preposterous from both an IC and OOC perspective that I can't see how anyone ever took it seriously that Malus (or the player of Solari) might have been at all interested in the surrender of the actual persons.

[^ban^]

And even then: how does one do this, exactly? Ban them, then they sit in the capital voluntarily waiting to be executed?

A narrative roleplay followed by character deletion.

[Dante Silverfire]

I can't think of a way that's even possible, though. Even if one turned themselves in, all four wouldn't. And even then: how does one do this, exactly? Ban them, then they sit in the capital voluntarily waiting to be executed?

Has that ever happened before in BM?

I see the situation as being so preposterous from both an IC and OOC perspective that I can't see how anyone ever took it seriously that Malus (or the player of Solari) might have been at all interested in the surrender of the actual persons.

Well seeing as the only thing anyone ever hears IC out of Malus's mouth is that he wants certain characters dead or hates certain characters, IC wise I would quite certainly believe that he was interested in the actual surrender of the persons. That is one reason my character offered to give my life up to Malus in a duel to the death. If he wanted it so badly I'd let him kill me in person. He refused, but that's another thing. My character then sent a message saying he'd give himself over in trial to Luria as a whole and this was also denied. My character then sent a letter to the King of Luria Nova saying he'd gladly give himself up if it stopped war with Pian en Luries. This message wasn't even responded to.

Aside from me the character of Ramiel stated he'd gladly die if it would save his King and realm. The character of Etna moved to another continent, so Malus said only 3 were now needed, but ignored the other attempts.

This sums up my opinion.  I can follow Silverfire's logic, and I can't come up with an actual coherent way to refute it aside from pointing to what the consequences would be (although the "it's just as impossible IC as it is OOC" argument is close).

I can think of one thing to add: I believe this would be an IR violation if, after the deadline had passed, someone logged on, sent out an OOC explaining that they had not been on during that day, and that they really would like to turn themselves over now, and Solari refused to accept it.  The difference between this and what actually happened in game is, to me, the difference between a violation and not a violation.

This argument though is one that I see having the most validity I guess as a difference between an IR violation and not. I could definitely accept the reasoning being that since that was not what happened that would be a reason for this case to have no basis.

[Anaris]

I can think of one thing to add: I believe this would be an IR violation if, after the deadline had passed, someone logged on, sent out an OOC explaining that they had not been on during that day, and that they really would like to turn themselves over now, and Solari refused to accept it.  The difference between this and what actually happened in game is, to me, the difference between a violation and not a violation.

I disagree with this.

Specifically, I disagree that an order given being an IR violation can ever depend upon whether someone was actually active at a given time.

A punishment for not doing X, Y, or Z within a certain amount of time can be an IR violation if the person in question was inactive during that time, but an order given either violates the IR when it is given, or it does not.

I continue to hold that this does not violate the IR precisely because it is as impossible IC as it is unfair OOC. However, if it could have been an IR violation if someone had been unable to log in in the appropriate period, then it would, of necessity, have been an IR violation even if they had all logged in and refused.

[Vellos]

I continue to hold that this does not violate the IR precisely because it is as impossible IC as it is unfair OOC. However, if it could have been an IR violation if someone had been unable to log in in the appropriate period, then it would, of necessity, have been an IR violation even if they had all logged in and refused.

Clarify?

[Indirik]

...this does not violate the IR precisely because it is as impossible IC...

I disagree that giving an order that is impossible to be followed IC prevents it from being an IR violation.

• "I forbid you to attend tournaments until you have achieved 300 prestige." Something that is patently impossible under current game mechanics, yet still an IR violation.
• Ordering someone to go to a region that does not contain a temple and while there change class to priest. Again, impossible due to game mechanics, and something that our characters would know is impossible, yet still a violation.
• "Go back to the capital that is four regions away, drop your unit of infantry, recruit archers, and get back here in three days." Is an IR violation, even though it is technically impossible to do, since it would take four days to march there and back.

"Absolutely no interpretations will turn a violation into a non-violation." There is no escape clause in the IRs that allows them to be circumvented or avoided by stating the violation in such a way that it is technically impossible to comply with.