Accusation of "gold hoarding"

[Lychaon]

Hi all,

It's been already 71 days since a character is in Barca, and although he's never been very talkative, he performed the tasks that were ordered to do and sometimes spoke publicly.

However, from several months on he lost his unit (due to neglecting in payment I think) and has not recruited a new one although he was asked for it. It has not been a case of mere inactivity, since we have noticed he has been moving around. In a certain moment he decided to take an estate without consent, and he was asked to give reasons and motivations for that; after a couple of warns he was kicked out of the region. He then moved to another region and took an estate again.

The Ruler has requested back again to give an explanation for this behaviour and recruit a unit but silence has been again his sole reply. A little while before I sent him an ultimatum as Judge, warning him that if he keeps on neglecting these requests "severe measures" will be taken against his actions.

I think this is a clear case of "gold hoarding", the character was investigated by the Ruler and he carries 180 gold coins plus today's tax collection. Would be banishment justified if he fails to reply within a period of 2-3 days?

Thanks.

[Anaris]

He's clearly not inactive, and you're not banning him for being a certain class or going to tournaments.

Personally, I'd focus on the "refused to reply, disrespected authority," line of problems in the ban reason, as it's more SMA, but there's no inalienable right to hoard gold.

[Vellos]

Identify his stubborn silence, refusal to reply, insubordination, as the issue. Clearly they re in fact issues.

[Solari]

I'm not sure that this has anything to do with 'gold hoarding' as you describe it, but I definitely think it's a justified IC ban.

[Penchant]

I'm not sure that this has anything to do with 'gold hoarding' as you describe it, but I definitely think it's a justified IC ban.

Yeah 180 gold is pretty low for gold hoarding, especially with no unit.

[Draco Tanos]

Well, they keep kicking him out of his estates, so that's likely why it's so low.  It's obvious he's TRYING to horde gold though.

[Chenier]

Well, they keep kicking him out of his estates, so that's likely why it's so low.  It's obvious he's TRYING to horde gold though.

Also, hoarders usually send the gold to their family coffers, they don't just pile it on hand.

[Draco Tanos]

Depends how many trips to the bank he has to make if he jumps from one estate to another because he keeps getting booted out.

[Geronus]

A ban under these circumstances is fine, so long as it is not explicitly about activity. Refusal to reply to requests or orders is sufficient grounds, especially given evidence of other activity.

[Lychaon]

I checked his family page and it surprised me to see it hasn't got a lot of gold. I guess it's because of what Draco Tanos says, since he's been for a long time a non-landed Noble. I guess I'll give him a couple of days or so to reply to the last warn and then he'll get banned for his refusal to reply to requests or orders, as Geronous says.

Thank you for your replies!

[vonGenf]

In a certain moment he decided to take an estate without consent, and he was asked to give reasons and motivations for that; after a couple of warns he was kicked out of the region. He then moved to another region and took an estate again.

The Ruler has requested back again to give an explanation for this behaviour and recruit a unit but silence has been again his sole reply. A little while before I sent him an ultimatum as Judge, warning him that if he keeps on neglecting these requests "severe measures" will be taken against his actions.

These are clearly ban-worthy actions. They are also entirely IC. Why wouldn't you act on these IC reasons, instead of the inactivity-related "refusal to reply"?

[Tom]

You have reasons that have nothing to do with him logging in or not. It's as simple as that.

[Penchant]

These are clearly ban-worthy actions. They are also entirely IC. Why wouldn't you act on these IC reasons, instead of the inactivity-related "refusal to reply"?

That is the refusal to reply. All of that is, we gave him a chance to explain, and he refused to reply.

[vonGenf]

That is the refusal to reply. All of that is, we gave him a chance to explain, and he refused to reply.

He's done something wrong. You gave him a chance to explain, and he did not. So ban him because he's done something wrong.

Why would you ignore the wrong thing he's done and proceed to ban him for refusal to reply? That is going out of your way to make certain you are as close as possible to a IR violation.

The character has violated the law of your realm. He has actively disregarded a direct order. Not responding does not make him immune from suffering the consequences of his actions.

[Gustav Kuriga]

A refusal to reply when they know he's been active. That's close to an IR violation, in fact that's textbook for avoiding one.