Inalienable Rights Violation

[Indirik]

...the activity IR itself is, oddly enough, the one that's got the most contextual leeway.

Yeah, I think you're right. The other ones are pretty clear and straightforward. And when someone points out how they were broken, most people can pretty much agree that it was indeed a violation. The Activity one has always been the biggest point of contention for a lot of people. It's really the only one that is subjective in its interpretation/application.

(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 I would actually expect such an order to be met with IC ridicule and be quickly rescinded, rather than being reported as an IR violation.)

Well, yeah, that was a pretty silly example. The only reason I can think of giving such an order would be that you intentionally wanted to give someone an order they were guaranteed to not be able to follow. But there are many other non-IR-infringing ways to do that.

But, hey, rules-lawyering can often lead you into such ridiculous examples.

[Vellos]

But, hey, rules-lawyering can often lead you into such ridiculous examples.

Hence why I'm inclined to think there's probably a simpler answer. Probably something based on a reference to received understanding of the IRs? Our previous case dealing with the activity IR unfortunately does not offer much guidance here, as far as I can tell. Wish it did.

[Bedwyr]

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.

That's not what I was attempting to say.  What I meant to say was this.

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.

At times, the game demands that you move quickly.  Battles, food movements, diplomacy, etc.  You can and should set deadlines on things (move the food before tomorrow, or our capital starves and I'll fine you all to hell).  But, if someone comes back and say "I was out for the weekend hanging out with my best friend from high school, I'll shoot out an RP about my character being sick for a few days", then the IR means the punishment should be reversed.

[Geronus]

Yes, this IR has always been one enormous gray area. Hopefully cases like this will allow us to build up some precedent.

[Tom]

Oh dear.

I hope nobody enjoys the rules-mongering and endless discussion of what should really be a very simple point.

[De-Legro]

Oh dear.

I hope nobody enjoys the rules-mongering and endless discussion of what should really be a very simple point.

People always do enjoy it if they feel they can twist a rule and opinion in their favour.

[Fury]

For now, in this part of the courtroom, I will say:

• Was there a player-created contrivance that compelled a response within a given time?
• Is the intent of the 1st IR to maintain a lightweight game that does not put off casual players?
• On war declarations without warning - wars are part and parcel of the game and is to be expected by the players. Would anyone claim they infringe on the 1st IR?

[egamma]

These players are in separate realms, correct?

Let's explore how cross-realm violations of the IR's occur.

Knight of Keplerstan orders King of Evilstani to not attend the tournament. IR violation, or death wish?

King of Evilstani orders Knight of Keplerstan to become a priest of Evilism or war will be declared on Keplerstan. IR violation, or war-mongering? (Let's assume this is not part of surrender terms)

====
Are these rights violations, or interesting IC interactions?

[Indirik]

First: This theoretical discussion has already gone well past the point where it contributes to the case at hand. It should almost certainly be moved onto the General Discussion board.

Second: There are no exceptions to the Inalienable Rights. They are explicitly OOC tools, as is made clear on the wiki page. Since they are OOC rights of players, IC conditions or situations (realm affiliation, character rank, character class, religious following, etc.) can have no bearing on whether or not something is a violation.

[Vellos]

Though if the King of Evilstani demands that someone  in Keplerstan become a priest of Evilism, or else war will be declared, I wouldn't see any problem, personally. A specific noble: problem. Demanding that a realm furnish a priest (guaranteeing orthodoxy maybe? propping up a religion?) seems like an interesting RP demand I'd like to see sometime.

[Indirik]

Interesting twist. But I still think that this could probably be a violation. You are still infringing on the rights of the players to choose their own class, and even giving threats of punishment of someone does not comply.

Perhaps a better wording may be something like: "Keplerstan must always count a priest of Evilism among the ranks of its nobility."

[Sacha]

That doesn't really make much difference though. Both ways of wording have the same meaning: one of you is gonna have to be a priest of Evilism.

[Indirik]

No. The second example allows you to get someone who is already a priest to join your realm. Yes, changing class is one way to make that happen, but is not required, or even mentioned. Vellos' way of stating it requires that someone change class.

[Vellos]

Ah, yes, so it could be worded as, in grandiose treaty-lingo:

A. "If it should ever come to pass that Keplerstan is without any priest of Evilism among its nobles, war shall commence again with Evilstan."

But not as:

B. "Unless a Keplerian noble shall become a priest, war shall commence again with Evilstani."

In A, Keplerstan could reply, "None of our nobles desire to become a priest. We will abide by your treaty, but the priest must come from Evilstan."

If Evilstan has no priest to send either... then that's a horribly convoluted system. But if they have a priest and decline to send it, but go to war anyways over that clause of the treaty, then it is probably an IR violation (as they are clearly demanding a class change). But Evilstan could reply: "Okay, we'll send one of ours."

So Keplerstan will suffer some IC consequences for the IC decisions of its nobles to not become a priest (i.e. a spy from Evilstan among them), but were not at any point coerced, either individually or collectively, to make any class changes.

To clarify, the treaty could be stated formally as:
"Evilstan demands that there always be a priest of Evilism in Kepler. Evilstan is indifferent concerning how this should come to pass. Evilstan will accept a class-change of a Keplerian noble. Evilstan will accept the redeployment of one of its own priests. Evilstan will accept the immigration of a priest from a third-party realm to Keplerstan."

I would see that as perfectly fine.

[egamma]

Okay, back to the actual complaint. I actually went and read the http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights page again. I suggest you all do the same.

It says:

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.

and the actual letter was:

Letter from Malus Solari   (16 hours, 26 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in "Halls of Luria" (32 recipients)

The following nobles are hereby named enemies of House Solari, the nobility of Solaria, and aggressors against free peoples everywhere.  Each of them owes Solaria a debt of honor to be repaid in blood.  There will be no negotiating the price, no adjustment of the terms.  Failure to repay the debt will only result in my having to collect it.  They have one day.

So, using the right as it is listed on the wiki as a checklist, let's see what he said.

Did Malus...demand that the nobles change their playing speed?
Did Malus...demand a certain timing?
Did Malus...demand a certain activity level?
Did Malus...demand that the nobles log in at a certain time?

If the answer is 'yes' to any of those, then it's an IR violation.
If it's a 'no' to all four, then it's not an IR violation.