Punishing Players for Not Moving within Half A Turn

[DamnTaffer]

Just threatening is enough.

Seems pretty clear to me that Fal'Cie was being ordered to be in a certain place by a certain time, and if he wasn't, he would be punished. Looks like a clear violation to me.

Yes he was, and made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that he could follow those orders. He was ordered to fields, he refused, he was told that if he wasn't in fields by morning he would be punished. This is all an IC dispute and not OOC at all, furthermore the player whom reported this to the magistrates wasn't involved in the events in anyway

[Anaris]

Yes he was, and made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that he could follow those orders. He was ordered to fields, he refused, he was told that if he wasn't in fields by morning he would be punished. This is all an IC dispute and not OOC at all, furthermore the player whom reported this to the magistrates wasn't involved in the events in anyway

First of all, I believe that it is at best questionable whether that would be an IR violation.

Second of all, you're ignoring the fact that it was not just Fal'Cie that was being ordered. It was his whole army. That was the "you" that had to all be there in time.

[Perth]

Wow, so fining nobles who fail to move with the army is now an IR violation? That is news to me.

As long as it was clearly IC and not some OOC thing, I always thought it was fine.

[Anaris]

Wow, so fining nobles who fail to move with the army is now an IR violation? That is news to me.

As long as it was clearly IC and not some OOC thing, I always thought it was fine.

If someone's being fined for not logging on often enough, it's not fine, whether it's IC or OOC.

There's a fine line, of course: there are situations where it would be no problem. If, for instance, the noble in question sends messages and takes other actions during the relevant time period, then they're clearly active, and can be punished as you see fit.

[Indirik]

An action does not have to be OOC to be an IR violation. That would be kind of ridiculous, and open up clear loopholes in the IRs. Ordering someone to not go to a tournament is an IC action, but a clear IR violation. Claiming "it was all IC" is not a valid defense for breaking the IRs. Nor is "I did it in response to X".

Also, the fact that the reporter was not one of the players involved is irrelevant. Anyone who observes what they think iis an IR violation should report it.

[Allomere]

“There was an explicit threat of punishment if the entire army did not comply with orders within a specified and very short period of time. That is a violation of the IR.”

No there wasn’t, so don’t lie to make out that there was. Actually, Allomere made it quite clear in two letters he didn’t care if two nobles out of the army turned up or if all of them did, just that since Fal’Cie was mocking Sarit for losing against monsters he had better go and see the job done properly, and on his own if need be. “If you have the time to talk about it you have the time to sort it” was the point. Nothing about forcing him to be active, but seeing he was there, active, as usual and saying “Well go do your job as Marshal”. That is not a violation of the SC. The only "punishment" aspect was Allomere rhetorically threatening Fal'Cie as a dressing down.

It is an entirely IC argument between Allomere and Fal’Cie, of which there have been quite a few and neither of us as players have any OOC issues with it. It’s half the fun of the friction between the two of them. Also, there was no punishment given, nor would there have been any “activity punishment”, other than Allomere having a rant at Fal’Cie, which would likely be roleplayed. No fines, nothing.

All in all it’s a bit of fun but as usual someone has decided to take a dump on our party.

Since OOC the player of Fal’Cie has already said this has nothing to do with the Titans or the forum, both parties involved say this report is rubbish. In the actual context of the letters, not edited by the reportee, you’d see that.

[Geronus]

“There was an explicit threat of punishment if the entire army did not comply with orders within a specified and very short period of time. That is a violation of the IR.”

No there wasn’t, so don’t lie to make out that there was. Actually, Allomere made it quite clear in two letters he didn’t care if two nobles out of the army turned up or if all of them did, just that since Fal’Cie was mocking Sarit for losing against monsters he had better go and see the job done properly, and on his own if need be. “If you have the time to talk about it you have the time to sort it” was the point. Nothing about forcing him to be active, but seeing he was there, active, as usual and saying “Well go do your job as Marshal”. That is not a violation of the SC. The only "punishment" aspect was Allomere rhetorically threatening Fal'Cie as a dressing down.

It is an entirely IC argument between Allomere and Fal’Cie, of which there have been quite a few and neither of us as players have any OOC issues with it. It’s half the fun of the friction between the two of them. Also, there was no punishment given, nor would there have been any “activity punishment”, other than Allomere having a rant at Fal’Cie, which would likely be roleplayed. No fines, nothing.

All in all it’s a bit of fun but as usual someone has decided to take a dump on our party.

Since OOC the player of Fal’Cie has already said this has nothing to do with the Titans or the forum, both parties involved say this report is rubbish. In the actual context of the letters, not edited by the reportee, you’d see that.

What appears to be a full exchange of the letters was posted by a Dev after the report was made. If you believe it is slanted or otherwise incomplete, I invite you to share whatever you believe to be missing, but as of right now I think we have enough.

Despite his attitude, I'm inclined to agree with Allomere. The one person that he is clearly expecting to move (or else) was also clearly active and available, as evidenced by the replies he made to Allomere's orders. If he decided not to follow them after that, I think a fine or other consequences are within reason.

That said, it's skirting the line. The orders were directed at Fal'Cie, not at the army at large, so I don't think that you can argue that the order would also apply to everyone else, but it's perilously close. In general, it is best not to threaten consequences for not following orders when ordering a move, as that definitely crosses the line. The only reason I'm inclined to let it go is because the targeted player was clearly available and participating in the exchange.

[Anaris]

“There was an explicit threat of punishment if the entire army did not comply with orders within a specified and very short period of time. That is a violation of the IR.”

No there wasn’t, so don’t lie to make out that there was.

First of all, I don't appreciate being called a liar. To me, that was exactly what the message reported said, and I don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation. If I'm mistaken, tell me I'm mistaken, but do not call me a liar without a hell of a lot more evidence than this.

Actually, Allomere made it quite clear in two letters he didn’t care if two nobles out of the army turned up or if all of them did, just that since Fal’Cie was mocking Sarit for losing against monsters he had better go and see the job done properly, and on his own if need be. “If you have the time to talk about it you have the time to sort it” was the point. Nothing about forcing him to be active, but seeing he was there, active, as usual and saying “Well go do your job as Marshal”. That is not a violation of the SC. The only "punishment" aspect was Allomere rhetorically threatening Fal'Cie as a dressing down.

Then please provide copies of these messages, so we can judge them ourselves.

Since OOC the player of Fal’Cie has already said this has nothing to do with the Titans or the forum, both parties involved say this report is rubbish. In the actual context of the letters, not edited by the reportee, you’d see that.

Actually, it doesn't matter if the person being ordered and the person giving the order agree that there was no IR violation. They're both perfectly capable of being wrong. As soon as it's reported to the Titans or the Magistrates, it's up to them to decide, not anyone else.

[Anaris]

In general, it is best not to threaten consequences for not following orders when ordering a move, as that definitely crosses the line.

I would refine that slightly to "it is best not to threaten consequences for not following orders within a certain period of time". Ordering someone to go to Splodgeville and including, "and if you don't go there you'll be left out of the realmwide horseshoes game" isn't a problem, in and of itself. It's only if you put a limit on the time such that they could only achieve it by logging in every turn (or even almost every turn) that the punishment becomes a violation.

[Sacha]

My initial thought is that this is little more than an in-character dispute. The reported letter to me reads as a general telling a marshal to pull his army together and get moving, and from the look of things, both parties were reading and responding to letters at the time, so this is not someone getting blindsided when not around and therefor I fail to see how anyone was punished or threatened for OOC inactivity.

If we pick apart the IRs long enough I'm sure we can find a stick to beat Allomere with, but I don't think this case warrants much attention.

[Fury]

If we pick apart the IRs long enough I'm sure we can find a stick to beat Allomere with, but I don't think this case warrants much attention.

This rings so true. Kudos to Sacha for his quote that says so much with so little.

[Geronus]

If we pick apart the IRs long enough I'm sure we can find a stick to beat Allomere with, but I don't think this case warrants much attention.

Agreed.

[egamma]

I expect them fulfilled, that is I expect to see you in Fields by morn, and Zerujil by dusk, and for the monsters to be destroyed by that time. If not, you will face further consequences, and they will be dire.

So what we're saying is, if the player of the marshal went to bed 1 minute before this message was sent, and failed to move to Zerujil, it would be an IR violation, but since the player of the marshal stayed logged in, it's not an IR violation?

[Anaris]

So what we're saying is, if the player of the marshal went to bed 1 minute before this message was sent, and failed to move to Zerujil, it would be an IR violation, but since the player of the marshal stayed logged in, it's not an IR violation?

This is why I maintain that it is an IR violation. It is a threat of punishment for inaction within a sub-turn timeframe.

[James]

You also have the issue that, although it may have been perfectly well understood between those two players, it could be misinterpreted by others (as apparently it has been) and make them think they are likely to have the same punishments if they were to miss a turn.

I agree it is a violation.