Inalienable Rights Violation

[Anaris]

Clarify?

An essential part of the prohibition on ordering (or requesting, or whatever) people to do things within a certain (unreasonable) amount of time, or at a certain time of the turn, is that it does not require that any particular person actually have to change what they do in RL to accommodate that.

It is the giving of the order that is prohibited, even before anyone is explicitly inconvenienced by it.

This does not mean, of course, that we do not forbid punishing after the fact for not doing things within a certain (unreasonable) amount of time, or at a certain time of the turn—just that we also punish just for giving the order.

In this case, that means that because the order, and the consequences of not following it, were given up front, if it were possible for this to be an IR violation if someone were unable to log in during the period given, then it would also be an IR violation even if everyone could log in 30 times within the period given.

[Anaris]

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.

This is not in the same category. This is not ordering something that is impossible: this is giving a conditional order that violates the IR, where the condition itself is impossible to fulfill.

See the difference:

"If you do not gain 300 prestige, I will kill you."

"Until you gain 300 prestige, you may not go to a tournament."

The former case is logically equivalent to "I order you to gain 300 prestige", with the punishment for not doing so being death.  This is plainly not against the IR.

The latter case differs only by the change to the consequence, not the condition. It is not the inability to gain 300 prestige that is the problem, it is the order not to go to the tournament.

In the case at hand, it is the condition that is being claimed to violate the IR, not the order, because it is a time-based condition.

• 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.

Here, I'm not sure whether I agree or not.  I'm inclined to say that I agree that this is a violation, but, again, I disagree that it is analogous to the current situation.  I think it's partly because it's so very clearly contrived to be an impossibility that relates to changing class; I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would order such an absurdity in the first place, so I am having trouble constructing (or, therefore, refuting) a parallel between it and...well, anything.

I have seen orders to change class be part of an official diplomatic document, and therefore potentially a partial excuse for war.  However, they were clearly an IR violation, because it simply ordered that all priests of the religion were to become non-priests.

(I would note that I still have some philosophical issues with the way the class IR interacts with priesthood; it could be argued that destroying a religion violates the class IR, because it forces all priests of that religion out of their class. However, obviously it cannot violate their IR, because it is something done by the game, that is not only allowed, but an encouraged part of war.)

• "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.

Yes, it's an IR violation, but like the first example, it's because of the order ("recruit archers, not infantry"), not the condition ("within three days").

"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.

I absolutely agree with this. This is why I am saying that it doesn't matter whether anyone would have sacrificed themselves if they'd logged in in time: either the ultimatum given is always an IR violation, or never an IR violation; what happens after the order is given does not affect its validity.

So, to clarify my point with all this:

No, simply making the IR-violating order an order that is blatantly impossible to be fulfilled IC is not sufficient to make it not an IR violation.

Indeed, I think I would have to say that this category of order is limited to orders that demand that something be done within a certain amount of time, where what is ordered does not violate the IR, and the amount of time is obviously too short for any character receiving the order to carry it out as instructed.

[Geronus]

This is not a violation.

The IR does not exist to shield characters from the IC consequences of inactivity. It exists to shield *players* from being *discriminated* against based on their activity level.

What we have here is not discrimination. Brom is not specifically being punished for inactivity. Even if Silverfire had not logged in during the one day period of the ultimatum, what happened would still not constitute being punished specifically for inactivity. Would his fortunes have perhaps suffered more than they already have as a *result* of his inactivity? Yes, but that doesn't mean this falls under the IR. You are free to play at your own speed, but not free of the consequences of low activity. Should we rewind time and redo a battle because someone failed to log in and therefore missed a crucial order? Should we redo elections because someone failed to log in in time to cast an important vote? Should we punish other players for playing at their speed and not giving someone as much time as he wants to respond to their latest schemes? No, no, and NO.

If you have plans and want them to succeed, you have to put in the effort to make them succeed. The advantage that an adversary derives over you by having a higher activity level is not a violation of your *rights*, it is simply a consequence of your *choice*. And that's the point. The IR exists to ensure that your activity level is always your choice and that whether you choose high or low, you're not discriminated against for that choice. That doesn't mean it is meant to shield you from any and all consequences of inactivity. If you don't log in for a day and a half and in that time a rebellion happens in the realm that you rule, it's your own fault when you log in and find out the rebels have already won and deposed you from your throne.

[Tom]

My take:

Deadlines are fine with me, if they are reasonable. That means it's a case-by-case decision. Asking someone to speak up within a day is a reasonable demand if the matter is urgent for whatever reason (including RP reasons). And let's keep in mind the goal and purpose of it all: Fun.

If someone says "deadline 1 day" and I'm away over the weekend, and he fines me, and I come back and say "ey, sorry, I was away over the weekend, here's the answer you wanted:", I expect him to lift the fine. If he doesn't, I might have an IR violation there. But the IR case comes into existence upon his refusal to accept my OOC activity, not upon his issuing the fine. Otherwise, we would force people into waiting forever for others to respond.

People should be able to play the game at their speed - that includes the people who want to move the action forward. IRs should not force them to wait more than a reasonable time.

[Anaris]

If someone says "deadline 1 day" and I'm away over the weekend, and he fines me, and I come back and say "ey, sorry, I was away over the weekend, here's the answer you wanted:", I expect him to lift the fine.

Except that fines cannot be lifted.

[Indirik]

This is not in the same category. This is not ordering something that is impossible: this is giving a conditional order that violates the IR, where the condition itself is impossible to fulfill.

Probably. It was just the fist thing that popped into my head. The tournament rule being one of the most common examples and all...

Here, I'm not sure whether I agree or not.  I'm inclined to say that I agree that this is a violation, but, again, I disagree that it is analogous to the current situation.  I think it's partly because it's so very clearly contrived to be an impossibility that relates to changing class; I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would order such an absurdity in the first place, so I am having trouble constructing (or, therefore, refuting) a parallel between it and...well, anything.

I wasn't really trying to make analogous examples. Just giving random examples of how I think you could give orders that were technically impossible, but still violate an IR.

(I would note that I still have some philosophical issues with the way the class IR interacts with priesthood; it could be argued that destroying a religion violates the class IR, because it forces all priests of that religion out of their class. However, obviously it cannot violate their IR, because it is something done by the game, that is not only allowed, but an encouraged part of war.)

I didn't think destroying a religion kicked the members out of the priest class. I thought they stayed priest, but just didn't belong to a religion anymore.

Yes, it's an IR violation, but like the first example, it's because of the order ("recruit archers, not infantry"), not the condition ("within three days").

The entire order, as a whole, is impossible to fulfill. If you extract all the context and conditions out of *this* example, and then say it violates the IRs, then you need to do that for each and every case as well. That includes the case at hand. Applying the same deconstruction to the case at hand that you applied to this example, you end up with essentially the same thing: 1) "Do X" and 2) "...within Y hours". In my example, the "Do X" part is the alleged violation. In the case at hand, it's the "...within Y hours" part that is the alleged violation.

I don't see how you can say that it's OK to tell someone that the IR-infringing condition of "...within Y hours" is OK if the impossibility of the "Do X" part makes the whole impossible, but that it's bad to tell someone to "Do X" even though the impossibility of the "...within Y hours" part makes the whole impossible.

[Anaris]

I don't see how you can say that it's OK to tell someone that the IR-infringing condition of "...within Y hours" is OK if the impossibility of the "Do X" part makes the whole impossible, but that it's bad to tell someone to "Do X" even though the impossibility of the "...within Y hours" part makes the whole impossible.

I...don't think that's what I'm saying.  However, I'm having a bit of a hard time parsing this sentence.

I'm saying that if the "within Y hours" is the only part that is infringing, and it's plainly impossible from an IC perspective, it's (almost certainly) not a violation.

[squirrel]

This case also hinges on the definition of punishment. A fine or ban is a hardship on a specific character that prevents him from doing things in the game. A war puts no special hardship on any one character. It's hard to argue how war is even a punishment considering it's the whole point of the game.

[Indirik]

This case also hinges on the definition of punishment.

Punishment, or threat of punishment, is not required for something to be an IR violation.

[Indirik]

However, I'm having a bit of a hard time parsing this sentence.

In simpler terms, I think, both the example have two components: A request to do something (Part A) and a time limit (Part B). In my example, A (the request) is the infringing part, and in the case, B (the time limit) is the infringing part.

You are saying that violating Part B is not really an infringement if it is impossible to do Part A within the timeframe given in Part B.

So would it not follow that violating Part A is not really an infringement if it is impossible to do Part A within the timeframe given Part B?


I suppose that this is however, more of a generic debate on the nature of the IRs themselves, and not really pertinent to the case. I'm not trying to lead this back around into a claim that this case does infringe on the IRs. It's just a theoretical debate, really.

[vonGenf]

Punishment, or threat of punishment, is not required for something to be an IR violation.

It's not in the sense that an ominous "or else....." is also not allowed. However, certainly, it is allowed to talk about things that may fail in the IR?

Just to take an example, a general cannot say "You cannot go to the tournament." He also cannot say "I would prefer if you didn't go to the tournament, even though I'm not ordering you not to." However, I thought it should be perfectly fine to say "If many people go to the tournament, then we will postpone the war declaration."

As a more extreme example, "move to region A before the night or I will fine you" is not in the same category as "move to region A or your troops will get slaughtered". The second is just unavoidable.

[Anaris]

In simpler terms, I think, both the example have two components: A request to do something (Part A) and a time limit (Part B). In my example, A (the request) is the infringing part, and in the case, B (the time limit) is the infringing part.

You are saying that violating Part B is not really an infringement if it is impossible to do Part A within the timeframe given in Part B.

So would it not follow that violating Part A is not really an infringement if it is impossible to do Part A within the timeframe given Part B?

No.  Two reasons:

1) In my view, the infringement is only negated if it is the infringing part that is clearly impossible IC—that is, ordering you to recruit archers within 1 week when the capital is 8 days away is still a violation, because you are still being ordered to recruit archers.

2) I cannot construct a reasonable example where an order would be given that would normally violate an IR besides the activity IR, but is, in fact, impossible for plainly IC reasons; therefore, I can only see Part B as even mattering.

[Vellos]

In this case, that means that because the order, and the consequences of not following it, were given up front, if it were possible for this to be an IR violation if someone were unable to log in during the period given, then it would also be an IR violation even if everyone could log in 30 times within the period given.

Ah, makes sense.

[Indirik]

1) In my view, the infringement is only negated if it is the infringing part that is clearly impossible IC—that is, ordering you to recruit archers within 1 week when the capital is 8 days away is still a violation, because you are still being ordered to recruit archers.

What if the realm has no archery RCs? In that case, the infringing part is clearly impossible IC. So should it be negated?

[Anaris]

What if the realm has no archery RCs? In that case, the infringing part is clearly impossible IC. So should it be negated?

Hm. I'd have to say no.  And I think it's because the activity IR itself is, oddly enough, the one that's got the most contextual leeway.

The other IR—nobles are free to go to tournaments, choose their class, and choose their unit type without interference from people with power over them—are pretty clear-cut. If someone has violated one, it's very rare that you need to know any context to be sure about it.

With the activity IR, there are huge swaths of territory where it's either not at all clear, without context, whether the IR has been violated—and some where, though a strict reading of the IR would lead one to conclude that a violation had taken place, it actually has not.

For instance, almost all movement and attack orders have either an explicit or implicit time involved. However, they are all permitted—it is only prohibited to punish someone for failing to move on a strict schedule.

A great deal of diplomatic discussion—and especially treaties and ultimatums—rely on timing, as well.  We can certainly stipulate that the 5000 gold tribute be delivered within a month. We can demand that your armies be removed from Azzal by tomorrow at sunset, or we will consider it an act of war.

Because of all this, I think that an order (demand, suggestion, unsubtle hint, etc) that someone do something within a specified amount of time, when that is plainly impossible from an IC standpoint, should be considered to be an instance where the activity IR has not been violated—while orders that violate other IRs, but are plainly impossible, should probably be considered still to be violations.

(Although I still cannot construct a reasonable instance of such an order. The example you give speaks more to me of its giver's stupidity than anything else, as I would expect anyone in a position of power in a realm ought to know what troop types are available to them. I would actually expect such an order to be met with IC ridicule and be quickly rescinded, rather than being reported as an IR violation.)