Author Topic: Inalienable Rights Violation  (Read 27111 times)

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #60: January 21, 2012, 03:00:51 AM »
Not quite.

I would say no to all four. The only one that seems borderline is "timing," but, IMHO, that's referring to things like the old practice of ordering late-turn moves, etc.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Fury

  • Guest
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #61: January 21, 2012, 10:17:43 AM »
Would this hypothetical situation be different?

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

The following nobles are hereby named enemies of House Solari, the nobility of Solaria, and aggressors against free peoples everywhere deserters of the army.  Each of them owes Solaria a debt of honor fine to be repaid in blood gold.  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.

The RPs have to fit the IRs and not the other way around. The issues that arise for me are: deadlines and compulsion.


Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #62: January 21, 2012, 11:56:24 AM »
That would be laughable.

There's no way he could possibly know if they paid the fine within one day, unless he demanded the gold be sent directly to him.

And again, as several have said: if one of them logged in after, say, 31 hours, and said, "Um, yeah, weekend, wasn't on" then RPed contrition and sent the gold, yeah, we'd generally expect him to be "let off," as if he had logged on within the 24 hours.

We can change it another way to see this:

"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 thirty seconds."

Is this an IR violation? IMHO, no. It's obviously been structured so that it will not be fulfilled.

Honestly, I would regard 3 days as worse, from a player's perspective: it makes you feel like you really could have done something, and extends your pain over 3 days.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Sacha

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
    • View Profile
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #63: January 21, 2012, 03:15:52 PM »
Would this hypothetical situation be different?

The RPs have to fit the IRs and not the other way around. The issues that arise for me are: deadlines and compulsion.

And if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a cart. That is not what happened, so why bring it up as a hypothetical situation? You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Solari

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
    • View Profile
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #64: January 21, 2012, 03:24:12 PM »
Where does one draw the line at "no deadlines, for any reason" without significantly impacting the quality of the game for everyone?  Originally, the player that filed the complaint was arguing that he wasn't being given enough time.  Time for what?  He wasn't going to comply with the demand—none of them were, for that matter—and he sent maaaany letters in between the time the ultimatum was issued and when the complaint was filed.  All of the individuals so named were active.

To me, he's instead complaining that he was compelled to respond because of the deadline, which is stupid.  That's a fancier way of saying "I am not in control of my own actions".  People can play BM at whatever pace they wish.  Brom was going to die, whether the ultimatum was one day or thirty.  Less than an hour after the ultimatum was given, he refused to comply. 

What am I missing, then, that this is even an issue?  Should magistrates really be encouraging players to lie in order to avoid triggering some silly "no timeline" rule?  Can you imagine a crappier way to play BM?

Tom

  • BM Dev Team
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8228
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #65: January 21, 2012, 03:34:49 PM »
I've said it before, I will say it again:

Deadlines are fine by me.

Allowing other people to play at their pace does not mean that time isn't a factor. Obviously, it is. Turns still run, things still happen. Allowing people to play at their pace when it comes to time-sensitive things means two things:
  • if you need to work with deadlines, schedules, etc. - make them reasonable and do not use points in time, but timespans - "meet me in X in two hours" is a stupid way, you force the other player to be online at a specific time, one that may be in the middle of the night in their real-world location. But "I'll be in X after sunset, meet me there" is perfectly ok. You're simply stating a fact. Now if you have pressing matters, you can add "I will wait at most a day" - that is perfectly ok. The IR applies to you, too. The other player can not force you to play at his speed, either. If you want to move on with the action, you can. You totally can. If that means the other guy misses out on becoming a region lord, getting a unique item or whatever - that is not an IR violation! The IRs do not entitle you to anything.
  • be ready to reverse your actions - this goes especially for punishments. If you punish someone for not being in X at a given time and it later turns out that he simply didn't log in - undo the punishment. OOC causes should not lead to IC punishment.
But, in all reality, when someone is writing more than two sentences on why something is or isn't an IR violation, he is most likely trying to lawyer you and is just as likely wrong. All the real IR violations I have encountered in over 10 years were very obvious on first glance and could be explained in one sentence.


Fury

  • Guest
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #66: January 21, 2012, 08:02:41 PM »
The hypothetical situation is not for discussion but to provide a more familiar situation where an IR violation is usually seen to have occurred. The principle would still remain the same in both situations - not just the deadline but the compulsion that comes with it. That was the point.

We are, however, guided as always.

egamma

  • Guest
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #67: January 21, 2012, 09:19:54 PM »
   
  • be ready to reverse your actions - this goes especially for punishments. If you punish someone for not being in X at a given time and it later turns out that he simply didn't log in - undo the punishment.
Can we make cancelling fines a feature request, then? I'm sure more than one judge has wished that has had that capability; I can think of one time that I issued a fine, that I probably would have reversed a week or two later.

Geronus

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2332
  • Dum dee dum dee dum
    • View Profile
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #68: January 22, 2012, 01:35:55 AM »
All the real IR violations I have encountered in over 10 years were very obvious on first glance and could be explained in one sentence.

Thank you. This is my point. People are trying to read WAY too far into definitions of "reasonable", "unreasonable" and "compel" in this case.

Bedwyr

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1762
  • House Bedwyr
    • View Profile
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #69: January 22, 2012, 08:07:06 AM »
To me, he's instead complaining that he was compelled to respond because of the deadline, which is stupid.  That's a fancier way of saying "I am not in control of my own actions".  People can play BM at whatever pace they wish.  Brom was going to die, whether the ultimatum was one day or thirty.  Less than an hour after the ultimatum was given, he refused to comply. 

I believe his objection in this case wasn't personal, so much as "hm, this struck me wrong".
I've said it before, I will say it again:

Deadlines are fine by me.

Allowing other people to play at their pace does not mean that time isn't a factor. Obviously, it is. Turns still run, things still happen. Allowing people to play at their pace when it comes to time-sensitive things means two things:
  • if you need to work with deadlines, schedules, etc. - make them reasonable and do not use points in time, but timespans - "meet me in X in two hours" is a stupid way, you force the other player to be online at a specific time, one that may be in the middle of the night in their real-world location. But "I'll be in X after sunset, meet me there" is perfectly ok. You're simply stating a fact. Now if you have pressing matters, you can add "I will wait at most a day" - that is perfectly ok. The IR applies to you, too. The other player can not force you to play at his speed, either. If you want to move on with the action, you can. You totally can. If that means the other guy misses out on becoming a region lord, getting a unique item or whatever - that is not an IR violation! The IRs do not entitle you to anything.
  • be ready to reverse your actions - this goes especially for punishments. If you punish someone for not being in X at a given time and it later turns out that he simply didn't log in - undo the punishment. OOC causes should not lead to IC punishment.
But, in all reality, when someone is writing more than two sentences on why something is or isn't an IR violation, he is most likely trying to lawyer you and is just as likely wrong. All the real IR violations I have encountered in over 10 years were very obvious on first glance and could be explained in one sentence.

This has always been my understanding.  So long as this is made clear to the players and Titans, I think that pretty neatly lays the issue to rest.  Fines for not marching with the army and missing a key battle?  Acceptable, unless the player comes back and says "hey, I didn't log on", in which case you reverse it.  Etc and so on.
"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here!"

Dante Silverfire

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1786
  • Merlin (AT), Brom(DWI), Proslyn(DWI)
    • View Profile
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #70: January 22, 2012, 11:45:53 AM »
I believe his objection in this case wasn't personal, so much as "hm, this struck me wrong".


^This^
"This is the face of the man who has worked long and hard for the good of the people without caring much for any of them."

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Inalienable Rights Violation
« Reply #71: January 23, 2012, 04:49:00 AM »
The Magistrates have ruled 4-1:

"The Magistrates are unable to identify any IR violation. Players have a right to be free from discrimination based on activity, but this is not a case of activity-based discrimination. Furthermore, to interpret a time specification as inherently an IR violation would require a serious departure from most already existing understandings of the IRs. As such, the Magistrates find the player of Malus Solari not guilty of any IR violation."
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner