Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement

[Velax]

I'm posting this here because a person has OOC accused me of violating the Inalienable Rights, which I do not believe I have. I'm heartily sick of people thinking the IRs allow them to do whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want with no consequences, so I'm asking for opinions / a judgement on this.

My character - we'll call him Peter - is the ruler of realm X. Another character - let's say, John - has been in the realm for 57 days. During that time, John has done little beyond sitting in the capital. John has not recruited a unit, nor sent any messages to the realm, nor engaged with the realm at all. Peter has never seen John move out of the capital. Peter has sent multiple messages to John, asking him what his intentions are, asking him if he's going to actually engage with the realm, etc. John has not responded.

Eventually Peter had John banned, giving the following explanation:

More specifically, "John" has been banned for doing nothing but sitting in the capital for the last two months, draining X's gold. He has refused to recruit a unit, refused to respond to any messages and refused to contribute anything whatsoever to this realm. We do not tolerate such behavior.

A different player (not the player of Peter or John) then sent an OOC message stating this broke two Inalienable Rights:

"sitting in the capital for the last two months," -> activity is protected under inalienable rights.

"He has refused to recruit a unit," -> unit recruitment + class are also protected under inalienable rights.

"refused to respond to any messages and refused to contribute anything whatsoever to this realm." ->

How much someone contributes is both a matter of opinion, and also arguably connected to activity, and therefore protected under inalienable rights.

I would like some sort of judgement on this, please, as I am tired of these sorts of messages from people who do not understand the IRs properly.

[Draco Tanos]

Though not a magistrate, I've seen people banished for the same (and gladly cheered it on as well).  In Westmoor, we had a similar problem with the Principe Family (excuse was training to become an infiltrator, but because they never participated in the army lacked the H/P to do so).  Gold moochers aren't really appreciated in general.

[Indirik]

From what has been posted here, there is absolutely nothing in this related to the IR.

The IR for activity protects how often you play, and when you play. You can play once a day, once every 7 days, or 9 times a day. You can log in an hour before the turn, 5 minutes after the turn, or use a random number generator to calculate how many milliseconds after 0400 GMT you will log in. The IR does NOT protect you from having to face the consequences of whatever actions you take, or do not take, when you play.

[vonGenf]

What was your character's rationale for banning this character from your realm? That's really what the IRs are about. The right to remain inactive does not mean you are protected from the action of other characters.

[Penchant]

What was your character's rationale for banning this character from your realm? That's really what the IRs are about. The right to remain inactive does not mean you are protected from the action of other characters.

It's his first quote.

From what has been posted here, there is absolutely nothing in this related to the IR.

The IR for activity protects how often you play, and when you play. You can play once a day, once every 7 days, or 9 times a day. You can log in an hour before the turn, 5 minutes after the turn, or use a random number generator to calculate how many milliseconds after 0400 GMT you will log in. The IR does NOT protect you from having to face the consequences of whatever actions you take, or do not take, when you play.

That's I thought to but when I went to the IR page on the wiki I couldn't find it, so do you know where that is said?

[vonGenf]

It's his first quote.

Was there a war going on where all hands were needed, but he refused to contribute?

Was he assigned to an army by his Lord, but refused to follow the marshal's orders?

Or was he "tested" because the ruler of the realm checks the capital region page for people who sit in it and tests them to be able to weed out the inactives?

Because if it's the latter, it's against the spirit of the IR.

[Velax]

Was there a war going on where all hands were needed, but he refused to contribute?

Yes. If "not responding in any way" can be deemed a refusal.

Was he assigned to an army by his Lord, but refused to follow the marshal's orders?

He was asked if he wanted to join an army, but never responded.

He was given multiple chances to engage with the realm and do something, but did nothing. For two months. He was sent repeated messages and ignored them all.

[Indirik]

That's I thought to but when I went to the IR page on the wiki I couldn't find it, so do you know where that is said?

The wiki simply states the IRs, and does not give much amplification or extrapolation. The IR for activity states:

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.

Nowhere does it say "You can do anything you want, or even do nothing at all if you don't want to, and suffer no consequences as a result."

You are responsible for everything you do, and everything you don't do, as well. So long as efforts are made to compensate and allow for players who are not as active, then there should be no problems. Giving someone multiple chances over the course of two months to even respond to a letter from the king sure sounds to me like  more than enough reason to ban the guy.

[egamma]

"He has refused to recruit a unit," -> unit recruitment + class are also protected under inalienable rights.

If the banned noble was a priest, then it would be an IR violation to order him to recruit a unit. Otherwise, it is perfectly fine to order someone to recruit "A" unit, as long as you don't tell them to recruit infantry or archers or half-orc bards (Outer Tilog players, I want you to create a recruitment center called the half-orc bards).

[vonGenf]

Yes. If "not responding in any way" can be deemed a refusal.

Good. And, yes, it can.

[Penchant]

The wiki simply states the IRs, and does not give much amplification or extrapolation. The IR for activity states:Nowhere does it say "You can do anything you want, or even do nothing at all if you don't want to, and suffer no consequences as a result."

You are responsible for everything you do, and everything you don't do, as well. So long as efforts are made to compensate and allow for players who are not as active, then there should be no problems. Giving someone multiple chances over the course of two months to even respond to a letter from the king sure sounds to me like  more than enough reason to ban the guy.

Your right, it doesn't say  "You can do anything you want, or even do nothing at all if you don't want to, and suffer no consequences as a result." But it does say "The basic rule is: Just shut up and stay 100 feet away from any and all inalienable rights, no matter how well-meaning you are. " So without the clarification people assume it. Is there anything wrong with me throwing what you said on the page for clarification?

[Indirik]

I generally don't like editing the IR pages.

[Penchant]

I generally don't like editing the IR pages.

Which is why I am asking specifically. It seems to me like a common misconception because it says of the whole "The basic rule is: Just shut up and stay 100 feet away from any and all inalienable rights, no matter how well-meaning you are. " Which makes it seem like something like punishing people for " or even do nothing at all if you don't want to, and suffer no consequences as a result" is a violation due to that whole stay 100 feet away.

[Tom]

From what you posted, that's a perfectly acceptable ban. The only reason I'm a bit cautious is because the story might sound differently from the other perspective, but assuming that everything you wrote is fact, there is nothing wrong with that ban at all.

The IRs are OOC fun-preservation tools. But you can still assume that the other person is playing the game. "Don't ban for inactivity" does not mean you can never ban anyone for not doing anything. It just means you have to make sure that the reason is not OOC inactivity.

People seem to think that IC inactivity also is protected, but it isn't.

[Vellos]

Assuming you really have tried to contact him and he really isn't responding– sure, ban him for disobeying orders. Because that's what he did. If you banned him for not moving right before a late turn move or something that's a big no-no. But banning because he's sat around for 57 days despite multiple attempts to get him moving, i.e. he's disobeying orders he read, not just so inactive he hasn't seen them yet, then ban away.