A verdict has been reached, and IG enforcement actions have been made. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict was:
"In this case, we find the player of Allomere to be in violation of the Activity IR.
The right to inactivity is, historically, the most strictly enforced IR of all of them. Any order, or request from a position of authority, which punishes a character in any way is a violation of this IR. The severity of the punishment, or even the actuality, is irrelevant: threat of punishment alone is enough for a player to be considered as having crossed the line because in making a threat -- even an implied one -- a player is forced to weigh their activity in the game against the order. It is this -- forcing a player to weigh their activity, for any reason -- which is considered to be entirely out of line for one player to force on another. The fact that the other player was online and sending messages shortly before the order was delivered is irrelevant; it could not be known that the other player would still be online when the order was sent.
As a guide to the community, it is worth noting that orders should be written without the presumption of other players logging in at a specific time, or that other players log in every day or every turn. Players should be wary of writing orders that are very narrowly timestamped, and remember to stay away from the IRs, which are sacrosanct and strictly enforced. If this makes rigid enforcement of military hierarchy difficult or some "elite" armies difficult to manage, so be it. Intent does not matter, nor does the actuality of punishment versus only a threat. There are plenty of ways to word orders in such a way as to leave them open ended but still effective without specifying both a timeframe and consequences for being late, even implied consequences. The Magistrates decline to make a strict definition of exactly what a reasonable timeframe for orders may be; rather our intention is to offer a warning and guidance for future cases.
At the same time, the Magistrates recognize that the present case did have some extenuating circumstances, very much like the previous case involving threats of punishment. The players had knowledge of each others' activities and clear IC basis, and, most importantly, no evident harm was done. Thus, while the Magistrates rule that the accused is guilty of an IR violation, we are extending only a warning at this time, and hope that the player in question will exercise more caution in the future as regards the activity of other players."
Magistrates voted 5-3 in favor of the verdict.
This thread is locked. If you wish to continue debating the issue, it can be done elsewhere. If you have questions for the Magistrates, please take it to the Q&A forum.
