Punishing Players for Not Moving within Half A Turn

[Draco Tanos]

I'll point something out to refute the "OMG HE ORDERED THE ENTIRE ARMY TO MOVE AND WOULD HAVE THEM ALL PUNISHED IF THEY DIDN'T" fallacy:

Now since you find this so amusing I expect to see you on the road to Fields within the hour, with a detachment of your army, to have those monsters cleared by evening tomorow.

Nowhere does their general say to send the entire army, rather they ask for a detachment.  I would personally have viewed it as a "Send the order, get whoever you can down there, so long as YOU are one of those people" for the simple reason that the marshal refused to actually fight in combat.  Considering the marshal continued to reply and essentially say they would not follow the orders, it shows it's not about inactivity but rather about not following orders.

[Ehndras]

I don't see where that even matters. The rules were broken, it doesn't matter what the context was. Someone cannot threaten punishment if someone doesn't join the army and go where you want them to go on a dime. Hell, are people even rightfully allowed to force-conscript Knights to go to battle? I always figured you could join battles <if you want.> rather than <because I said so and I'll revoke your estate privileges if you don't comply.>

[Anaris]

Hell, are people even rightfully allowed to force-conscript Knights to go to battle? I always figured you could join battles <if you want.> rather than <because I said so and I'll revoke your estate privileges if you don't comply.>

This interpretation is officially encouraged, but not mandated.

[Indirik]

@DracoTanos:

Considering the marshal continued to reply and essentially say they would not follow the orders, it shows it's not about inactivity but rather about not following orders.

So it is OK because Fal'cie continued to post after the order was given? And if Fal'cie had *not* posted after that, then it is not OK. Which means that whether or not Allomere violated the IR depends not on what Allomere does, but on what Fal'cie does. So Allomere can't know if he's going to violate the IR when he posts, because he couldn't know if Fal'cie is going to respond? All Fal'cie has to do to get Allomere busted on an IR violation is to shut up and play possum.

How does that make any sense at all?

Whether or not you violate the IR depends absolutely 100% on the actions you take, and not the actions anyone may take, or not take, as a result.

[Ehndras]

I fully agree with that path of logic.

[Draco Tanos]

@DracoTanos:So it is OK because Fal'cie continued to post after the order was given? And if Fal'cie had *not* posted after that, then it is not OK. Which means that whether or not Allomere violated the IR depends not on what Allomere does, but on what Fal'cie does. So Allomere can't know if he's going to violate the IR when he posts, because he couldn't know if Fal'cie is going to respond? All Fal'cie has to do to get Allomere busted on an IR violation is to shut up and play possum.

How does that make any sense at all?

Whether or not you violate the IR depends absolutely 100% on the actions you take, and not the actions anyone may take, or not take, as a result.

So by YOUR logical fallacies, no realm can ever punish anyone for not following orders, no matter how much they are writing to anyone.  Congratulations.  Now knights don't have to follow the orders of the feudal hierarchy.

[Anaris]

So by YOUR logical fallacies, no realm can ever punish anyone for not following orders, no matter how much they are writing to anyone.  Congratulations.  Now knights don't have to follow the orders of the feudal hierarchy.

Don't be silly.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville. Observe that he instead goes to Keplerville. Ban. No problem.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville. Observe that he sits around talking and not going anywhere. Ban. No problem.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville (one region away), and tell him that if he's not there within a turn, he's going to be punished. Violation.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville. Observe that he's not there within a turn. Ban. Violation.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville (one region away), and tell him that if he's not there within a week, he's going to be punished. Probably not a problem.

Do you see the difference? Orders normally carry with them the implication of punishment if they are not followed, but as long as the order does not carry within it an unreasonably short time limit, I can't see a way for the order itself to violate the activity IR. In such a case, only the actual administration of punishment for failing to carry out the order within an unreasonably short time would be a violation of the IR.

[Sacha]

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?

It appears both sides were exchanging letters at the time.

[Ehndras]

That doesn't change the fact that the action itself was rule-breaking.

[Indirik]

It doesn't matter if both sides are exchanging letters. You don't know when you send the suspect message if the other party is still there or not, or if they will see it in time, or if the guy logged out as soon as he sent his last message. Whether or not something breaks the rules has to be judged based on the situation that exists at the time the event occurs.

[Allomere]

But it seems everyone is ignoring the fact that the "punishment" Fal'Cie was going to get, as has already been said, was a good ranting at by Allomere, which has happened before, but which was going to be roleplayed, as a bit of fun, since nothing else was happening worth roleplaying in the realm.  These are two characters who are frictious with each other, have been for quite some time, and often have bouts like this. Now if the social contract suddenly interprets as "you can't have forcible play-offs between characters" then maybe then there'd be a violation. Thankfully this is still a game, or so I'm told, and is being played quite nicely in our realm.

For the second time, there was nothing about nor was there going to be anything about bans.
There was nothing about nor was there going to be anything about fines.

Therein, no "Game" punishment whatsoever related to activity, but to two players consensually enacting the continuing IC fued between their characters.

As it happens, making the move is a single turn action anyway, thanks to Next Destination, so there's no issue about activity seeing as Fal'Cie continued to respond. And even if he hadn't, so what? "Oh, didn't manage to kill the monsters then Fal'Cie, so you are all talk"

Secondary to that, none of the letters sent were orders but threats were made in general conversation, as a bit of spice, as a prelude to some intended roleplay.

There is absolutely no case to be made against characters being either unreasonably demanding or purposefully harsh to each other as Allomere and Fal'Cie often are. If Allomere had said "March to Evanburg and back within the day, and if you don't I'll have you flogged" the fact that that isnt even possible as far as activity and turns are concerned is irrelevant, it is meant to demonstrate how much the two don't get on so much so they're both unreasonable to one another. No where was there "If you don't actually move I'll actually totally have you banned, k", nor any suggestion, implication or any other thing similar anyone would like to misconstrue the situation to be.

The fact Allomere expected Fal'Cie to be in Candiels Fields and then Zerujil is because he expects him to follow orders ; Which Is What Any General Expects. He doesn't expect them NOT to be followed. "We're moving to attack! ... but don't take my word on it". Does that mean just because his expectations aren't so he's going to punish the character on a point of player activity? No. Does it mean he's going to reprimand the marshal for not doing his job which is perfectly valid IC regardless of the player's OOC activity? Yes.

The issue is not about activity of the army, or Fal'Cie, or anyone in the realm. It is a General slapping a somewhat difficult Marshal into line with a bit of "You bore me, go kill yourself please", a bit of realm banter as a prelude to some roleplay. Roleplay which so far has never happened thanks to this.

Go the community.

Have fun debating this non point for those of you who wish to. I won't be commenting again.

[Dante Silverfire]

I think the writing of the letters definitely makes it seem at first glance that this is a violation, however I think the chronological order of the letters is very important. If you make the assumption (which I consider reasonable, even though the other way is also reasonable) that Allomere was only speaking directly to the Marshal, then this is the chronology:

1. Order is issued for the army to move to region X.
2. Marshal responds that he won't be following the orders. (not explicit, but the inference is there)
3. Allomere states that since he has received the orders (Due to having responded), he specifically(not the whole army) should be there or be punished.

How is that an IR violation?

A person clearly demonstrates that they have the OOC capacity to move, and responds IC wise to messages after having received orders, and responds explicitly regarding those orders. They are aware of the orders, they have the chance to move, and it is thus an IC choice how to respond from there. The threat was made specifically against a character who had that IC choice and on an OOC level was clearly able to implement it.

Under that interpretation I cannot see it being an IR violation.

However, if you strike any of the above starting assumptions, then I'd have to say it is an IR violation.

[Vellos]

I am not sure how I feel about this.

But I think most of the discussion up to now has been off-base. It should have started like this:

Precedent 1:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,1850.60.html
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."

Precedent 2:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,1068.75.html

"It is never acceptable to order, request, or suggest the violation of Inalienable Rights. This is especially important about the right to play at your own pace. No player should ever be threatened with punishment because they fail to make daily reports. Moreover, it is especially important to note that it is a violation of inalienable rights even if no punishment is given: sending messages that violate Inalienable Rights is a punishable action.

Given that no punishments were actually handed out, and given that the player of Balewin clearly had no malicious intent, and given that the player of Balewin evidently understands that he overstepped his bounds, the Magistrates will only give a warning this time."

Magistrates voted 8-0 in favor of a warning with no lock as the proper response.

---

Now the debate is: what is this case "more like." The Malus case, where the demand was intentionally impossible, but the ruling states that specific time demands are not sufficient for IR violations, or the Playing speed case, where mere threats related to some fairly peripheral IR concepts were sufficient.

THAT is the debate we should be having, rather than starting fresh every time.

[DamnTaffer]

Allomere issued an order, Fal'cie replied that he would not follow it, Allomere responded that if he didn't follow the order he would be punished.

When an order is given, it should be followed at the time it is recieved; e.g. when the player logged on and reads the message, Fal'cie has responded saying that he will not follow the order on the basis that the rest of the army wont be able to move with him, THEY WERE NOT ORDERED TO. Only Fal'cie was ordered too, Allomere replied that if he does not follow the orders by morning, he will be punished. This is doing nothing more than stating the obvious. Without the message where Allomere orders Fal'cie to move before morning the chain of events would be exactly the same:

With the message:

-Fal'cie insults Sarit
-Allomere sends Fal'cie into battle
-Fal'cie refuses
-Allomere informs him that unless he follows the orders immediately he will be punished
-Morning happens. Even if Fal'cie doesn't log in after sending his refusal, he has recieved and actively disobayed an order which he is both IC and OOC able to follow and from the fact that he has been ordered and has refused, should expect to be punished.

Without the message:

-Fal'cie insults Sarit
-Allomere sends Fal'cie into battle
-Fal'cie refuses
-Morning happens. Even if Fal'cie doesn't log in after sending his refusal, he still has IC chosen to disobey orders for IC reasons and has the OOC capability to follow them, as shown by his IC response.

In both chains of events, the Judge and General should not have to worry about IR violation in punishing Fal'cie because there is no OOC reason why Fal'cie should not follow the orders, having taken to OOC into account they should now respond with appropreate IC. Which is that a General should expect an order to be followed either immediately or at a specified time specified by the order in this case it is immediately and again since Fal'cie has made it clear that he will not be following the order IC there is no reason why he can't follow the order OOC.

If Fal'cie hadn't signed in to send that letter and there was the posibility that OOC was getting in the way of his gameplay, then perhaps Allomere should consider not punishing based on those concerns. However, this is another problem entirely if a noble recieving an order doesn't want to follow them without reprocussion, they can pretend to be offline, by not playing there character and then call IR violation because as far as I know there is no way to check if a player has been online.

This IR is poorly implimented and RP limiting as a noble in a position to give orders because it doesn't allow for effective dicipline in an army because every general, marshal, lord, ruler, banker, duke and king has to worry about a scenario where "I issued you an order 3 days ago why havn't you followed it" is answered with "I've been offline for 4 days i'm reporting you to the magistrates for IR violation" or "You're punishing someone for possibly not being online to follow orders i'm reporting you for IR violation" because authority figures do not have the IC tools to check if a player has been offline. Which could be fixed with a simple line of text saying "player last signed in at time" on there profile. Which is a feature available in most games.

I can't see how this is an IR violation and if it is then I can't see how it is feasable to ever safely punish a noble for following orders untill the point where if they wern't online their account would pause.

[Vellos]

When an order is given, it should be followed at the time it is recieved; e.g. when the player logged on and reads the message,

I disagree with this premise. Many times I have logged on, received an order, and logged off; then logged on sometime later in the day and followed the order. Play at your own pace.

However, I will note something: I am INCLINED to think that, had he been banned or fined for his mouthy insolence, that would be totally fine. The problem is being ordered to move to another region IMMEDIATELY as a punishment, with a threat of additional punishment. I tend to believe that military leaders should avoid creative orders at all costs; by which I mean, give orders that are clearly and conventionally within the purview of normal BM behavior, not rules that lend themselves to hair-splitting like we are presently doing.

Again, I'm not sure yet how I think about this case, but I would love to hear some people comment on how it falls in relation to the other cases.

On a sidenote:

This IR is poorly implimented and RP limiting as a noble in a position to give orders because it doesn't allow for effective dicipline in an army because every general, marshal, lord, ruler, banker, duke and king has to worry about a scenario where "I issued you an order 3 days ago why havn't you followed it" is answered with "I've been offline for 4 days i'm reporting you to the magistrates for IR violation" or "You're punishing someone for possibly not being online to follow orders i'm reporting you for IR violation" because authority figures do not have the IC tools to check if a player has been offline. Which could be fixed with a simple line of text saying "player last signed in at time" on there profile. Which is a feature available in most games.

Typically, insulting the law under which a person is being judged is not considered "best practice" in the courtroom. You're welcome to think it's a dumb IR. But it exists because BM is a lightweight game that is openly hostile to the gaming culture in many other games, where frequent logins are the norm. Go look at the player charts: the majority of BM's active players don't even log in every day, let alone every turn. That's normal. Needing things done "this turn": that's abnormal.

And if you want the IR changed, take it up with Tom, not the Magistrates in the middle of a case.

I can't see how this is an IR violation and if it is then I can't see how it is feasable to ever safely punish a noble for following orders untill the point where if they wern't online their account would pause.

Don't be silly.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville. Observe that he instead goes to Keplerville. Ban. No problem.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville. Observe that he sits around talking and not going anywhere. Ban. No problem.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville (one region away), and tell him that if he's not there within a turn, he's going to be punished. Violation.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville. Observe that he's not there within a turn. Ban. Violation.

Order someone to go to Splodgeville (one region away), and tell him that if he's not there within a week, he's going to be punished. Probably not a problem.

Do you see the difference? Orders normally carry with them the implication of punishment if they are not followed, but as long as the order does not carry within it an unreasonably short time limit, I can't see a way for the order itself to violate the activity IR. In such a case, only the actual administration of punishment for failing to carry out the order within an unreasonably short time would be a violation of the IR.

I'll add to Tim's: don't come in with the assumption that waiting for the autopause is some kind of game-destroying experience. It's normal.