Author Topic: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement  (Read 17280 times)

Penchant

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #15: December 02, 2012, 10:57:07 PM »
@Tom,

Can I add to the IR page what you and Indirik have said for clarification? I would prefer it so that we have this happening much less. (This, as in accusations of breaking IR's by punishing them for IC not doing anything.)
“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
― G.K. Chesterton

Penchant

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #16: December 03, 2012, 12:45:13 AM »
This is a question related to activity but not directly related to Velax's case. So in D'hara we have a Midland Council and a Chairman of the Council. The Midland Council is a message group, so the Chairman position exists only by the players, doesn't exist according to any game mechanic's so no mechanics to stop, Ruler for instance, saying you no longer are chairman. So if the Chairman was asked to do something, didn't do it, says they were busy OOC, not in trouble,  no big deal. So lets say they keep getting asked to do stuff and they consistently aren't getting it done due to OOC business. Let's say its something like order these people to do x, or tell me what you know about y before z so its ready before I need to have the letter sent to someone else. These are time sensitive things that if you don't do in time, you can't do, and the person is consistently not getting them done because they were busy OOC, could the ruler for instance fire them for not doing their job? Or is that a breach of IR's?
“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
― G.K. Chesterton

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #17: December 03, 2012, 01:53:06 AM »
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.

This.

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).

And this.

Nothing protects you from doing nothing for a whole month. And as long as he's not telling you to change classes in order to be able to recruit a unit (only priests and advies cannot recruit), or telling you what kind of unit to recruit, it's fine.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Tom

  • BM Dev Team
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8228
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #18: December 03, 2012, 06:27:24 AM »
@Tom,

Can I add to the IR page what you and Indirik have said for clarification? I would prefer it so that we have this happening much less. (This, as in accusations of breaking IR's by punishing them for IC not doing anything.)

The IR page is locked for a reason. But you can put it on the talk page.

Eldargard

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 499
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #19: December 03, 2012, 10:05:43 AM »
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.

Reading this made me thing the following:

First, A noble can not drain a countries gold. He is given it by being allowed to keep an estate. If he does not earn his keep, have his estate taken away. If his Lord refuses to do so, your beef is with the wrong person. Get the lord replaced. If the Duke will not do so, there are bigger issues here. I am not sure why a ban was needed at all...

Draco Tanos

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
    • Nova Roma
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #20: December 03, 2012, 10:09:44 AM »
Because when his estate gets taken away, he'll likely look towards other methods for income.  Like spying.  Honestly, banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make.  That way when they inevitably join an enemy, when captured in battle they can finally just be executed.

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #21: December 03, 2012, 10:17:09 AM »
Because when his estate gets taken away, he'll likely look towards other methods for income.  Like spying.  Honestly, banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make.  That way when they inevitably join an enemy, when captured in battle they can finally just be executed.

No. A hundred times no. This is exactly the kind of attitude that's the problem.

Because when his estate gets taken away, he'll likely look towards other methods for income.  Like spying.

Really?

If he was only looking for income, you don't think actually managing to please his Lord was the easiest way to do so?

If he really wants to spy, don't you think participating in the army would have been the smart move?

Honestly, banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make.  That way when they inevitably join an enemy

Sure, it's inevitable now that you've banished him. It's your own damn fault though.

when captured in battle they can finally just be executed.

Is that your goal, executing characters you don't deem active enough for your taste? How nice.

After all it's a roleplaying game.

Velax

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • House de Vere
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #22: December 03, 2012, 10:26:23 AM »
Reading this made me thing the following:

First, A noble can not drain a countries gold. He is given it by being allowed to keep an estate. If he does not earn his keep, have his estate taken away. If his Lord refuses to do so, your beef is with the wrong person. Get the lord replaced. If the Duke will not do so, there are bigger issues here. I am not sure why a ban was needed at all...


This thread is about accused IR violations, not about whether you think the ban was IC justified.

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #23: December 03, 2012, 10:30:45 AM »
First, A noble can not drain a countries gold. He is given it by being allowed to keep an estate. If he does not earn his keep, have his estate taken away. If his Lord refuses to do so, your beef is with the wrong person. Get the lord replaced. If the Duke will not do so, there are bigger issues here. I am not sure why a ban was needed at all...

Also, I understand that the estate was indeed taken away long before the ban was issued.
After all it's a roleplaying game.

Draco Tanos

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
    • Nova Roma
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #24: December 03, 2012, 10:33:55 AM »
No. A hundred times no. This is exactly the kind of attitude that's the problem.
What?  People taking gold to shove into family accounts so they can use it on other continents instead of a realm at war that needs every coin for the war effort?
Or wanting to purge those wastes of space?  Because I'd rather see an estate empty and the gold going to a lord that will use it (either directly or by issuing it to other nobles) than someone who sits there and does nothing for the good of the realm.  Not even RP?  Please.

Really?

If he was only looking for income, you don't think actually managing to please his Lord was the easiest way to do so?

If he really wants to spy, don't you think participating in the army would have been the smart move?
It's an example, yes.  And one I've not only seen happen, but I've had people take advantage of.  Greed is a motivator when people don't think they're getting what they want.

Why should he please his lord when just sitting there gets him his gold.  And he can keep retaking the estate too.  Or just wait until right before taxes to do so.  Lords cannot prohibit people from taking estates back.

You're under the impression that moochers are always smart.  They are not. On the contrary, when Westmoor was warring the Saxons in Fontan, we fed the moochers we had with false info...  Which Fontan attempted to use.   But yes, eventually we got tired of having to be too careful of what we said.  They were banished after continually refusing to follow orders to recruit units or march towards the front.  I've seen people banished from other realms for less and far more quickly.  But we're a tolerant lot that gets tired of our tolerance being abused. :)
The only plus side is that many of them ended up being gold sponges in Nivemus and Fontan.  I DID warn Nivemus about them though.

Sure, it's inevitable now that you've banished him. It's your own damn fault though.
No, they can go to allied realms.  Or neutral realms.  However, if a banishment is what it takes to give them a kick in the pants to actually play the game?  It's a banishment well deserved.

Is that your goal, executing characters you don't deem active enough for your taste? How nice.
Nope, my goal is to execute people with no loyalties to their lords, their ruler, or anyone but themselves.  At least PRETEND to have loyalties.  But that pretending would require actually doing something other than sitting there and acquiring gold.

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #25: December 03, 2012, 10:42:48 AM »
What?  People taking gold to shove into family accounts so they can use it on other continents instead of a realm at war that needs every coin for the war effort?

Again, if they take your gold away, then you are justified in making them your enemies. Once you stopped giving them your gold, however, why do you care?

Or wanting to purge those wastes of space?

Space is not a finite ressource in BM, and intentionally so.

Because I'd rather see an estate empty and the gold going to a lord that will use it (either directly or by issuing it to other nobles) than someone who sits there and does nothing for the good of the realm.  Not even RP?  Please. (...)

Why should he please his lord when just sitting there gets him his gold.  And he can keep retaking the estate too.  Or just wait until right before taxes to do so.  Lords cannot prohibit people from taking estates back.

Sure. If that happens. We are specifically talking about inactive people. People who are actively working against you or someone else in your realm? Go ahead and ban 'em.

You're under the impression that moochers are always smart.  They are not. On the contrary, when Westmoor was warring the Saxons in Fontan, we fed the moochers we had with false info...  Which Fontan attempted to use.   But yes, eventually we got tired of having to be too careful of what we said.  They were banished after continually refusing to follow orders to recruit units or march towards the front.  I've seen people banished from other realms for less and far more quickly.  But we're a tolerant lot that gets tired of our tolerance being abused. :)

So you thought these people were spies, you fed them false information, you saw your enemies use that information, but then you banned them because they refused to recruit a unit? Why on earth did you not banish them for, you know, being spies?
After all it's a roleplaying game.

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #26: December 03, 2012, 12:54:26 PM »
You are making something out of nothing. It is not required to have a good reason to ban someone, as long as the ban doesn't fall into the "banned you, but really had nothing to do with you" category. It is much less required to investigate or provide any kind of proof for banning someone.

Besides, if someone is staying in the capital, despite having been cut his income, ain't many reasons for him to bother continue doing that other than spying. Why even bother with an investigation? Perfectly legitimate, regardless of how you may or may not like the reasoning used and the logic behind it.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Eldargard

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 499
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #27: December 03, 2012, 01:05:55 PM »
I agree that it is perfectly OK to Ban in such scenarios, and that the exact wording of the reason is not terribly important. Just expressing my thoughts based on what I read here. It seems obvious that the character was doing nothing that was requested and just sitting in the capitol. The fact that he was "draining the realm of gold' suggested that the most basic form of punishment, being kicked by his lord, was not attempted. It is just a matter of personal taste, but i would have preferred to try that before banning the insubordinate bastard (calling the character names, not the player).

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #28: December 03, 2012, 01:38:14 PM »
Besides, if someone is staying in the capital, despite having been cut his income, ain't many reasons for him to bother continue doing that other than spying. Why even bother with an investigation? Perfectly legitimate, regardless of how you may or may not like the reasoning used and the logic behind it.

Of course you don't need an investigation to accuse someone of being a spy. I've never seen anyone violating the IRs for falsely accusing someone of being a spy either. That doesn't make it right to ban people for inactivity and then justify this by saying that they could have been spies.

What Draco Tanos is saying is basically that inactive characters should be banned because they could be spies. Well, guess what? Active characters can also be spies.
After all it's a roleplaying game.

egamma

  • Guest
Re: Request for an Inalienable Rights judgement
« Reply #29: December 03, 2012, 06:12:28 PM »
vonGenf, a judge can ban someone because they always ban someone on the first of the month. Get over it.