Implied Threats from Powerful People

[^ban^]

Is it...?

Yes, it is.

A suggestion from a position of power is not a suggestion.

[Anaris]

And this rule doesn't even require coercion. The Ruler may not even be involved in a placeholder case—just the original position holder and the placeholder.

[Bendix]

To be fair, I did not suggest anything to anyone. I presented it as an option without giving preference to either side.

[Sacha]

Well, that's the thing, as a ruler speaking to lower ranks, your options become suggestions to them, and your suggestion become orders to them.

[Anaris]

Well, that's the thing, as a ruler speaking to lower ranks, your options become suggestions to them, and your suggestion become orders to them.

Again: this is not an IR case, so the standards followed when dealing with the IR are irrelevant here.

However, it does appear that Bendix is at least partially at fault here.

[Chenier]

Yes, it is.

A suggestion from a position of power is not a suggestion.

He didn't suggest it, though.

And who are we judging here, the duke or the ruler...? What would have been appropriate behavior of the person in question?

[Velax]

Well, that's the thing, as a ruler speaking to lower ranks, your options become suggestions to them...

This doesn't make a lot of sense. If a ruler gives multiple options, which one becomes the suggestion?

[egamma]

"your options become suggestions to them, and your suggestion become orders to them."

This is an illogical theory, at least in this case: if a Ruler gives a Subject two options without expressing an opinion on either option, how is the Subject supposed to know which option the Ruler wants him to pick? For all Artimus could have known, I might have wanted him NOT to give the power back; at no point did I tell him that I would prefer him to step down.

It's basically like the local gang leader saying, "you know, this is a dangerous neighborhood. It would be a real shame if you didn't purchase private security from me and something bad happened to your store."

You know that you are being ordered to buy him off.

Or the Godfather saying, "That Antonio disrespected me and my family."

You know what he really means is for you to go and kill and Antonio.
===


When the king says something, it's not said idly.

[Scarlett]

It's basically like the local gang leader saying, "you know, this is a dangerous neighborhood. It would be a real shame if you didn't purchase private security from me and something bad happened to your store."

I've never bought this argument that assumes everyone who isn't the ruler is dumb or so new that they can't tell the difference. It enables cherry-picking because all you need is one declarative statement by a ruler. It is also unambiguously different than your above example of an outright threat.

Making policy on the assumption that your average player is an idiot will insure that the only people left are idiots.

[Anaris]

I've never bought this argument that assumes everyone who isn't the ruler is dumb or so new that they can't tell the difference. It enables cherry-picking because all you need is one declarative statement by a ruler. It is also unambiguously different than your above example of an outright threat.

Making policy on the assumption that your average player is an idiot will insure that the only people left are idiots.

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm missing something.

Why does someone have to be stupid to recognize an implied threat?

Even if the implication was not intended by the person writing it, the flat textual nature of IG communication means that you can't read nuance, body language, inflection, and so on to try to determine someone's intent. Furthermore, someone unscrupulous could quite easily write in such a way that the threat was never explicit, and point to that in an IR violation case against him, then go on to keep violating IRs by taking the simplest precautions against using language that explicitly violates them.

Thus, we have the rule that when it comes to the IRs, a suggestion or mention of the possibility of logging in just before the turn to perform a late move, staying home from the tournament to help the realm in its time of need, or ditching your archer unit to recruit infantry because everyone knows that only infantry is worth anything, are all just as bad as an explicit order.

None of which has any relevance to this case, because this isn't about a bloody Inalienable Right, so can we please stop the off-topic discussion and keep things on the case at hand?

[Bendix]

"None of which has any relevance to this case, because this isn't about a bloody Inalienable Right, so can we please stop the off-topic discussion and keep things on the case at hand?"

Sorry, but I can't sit idly by while someone makes a false assumption about my intent, regardless of whether or not it is pertinent to the case. And obviously there is some contention here about what constitutes coercion, which is very likely to affect courthouse cases in the future.

This is important to me, and I'm not even a magistrate. I feel it should be important to you too. At least promise you'll try to continue the discussion elsewhere, because until now I had no idea that coercion could be so loosely and differently interpreted in this game. As a player, it is quite nerve-racking to not know where the lines are.

[Anaris]

"None of which has any relevance to this case, because this isn't about a bloody Inalienable Right, so can we please stop the off-topic discussion and keep things on the case at hand?"

Sorry, but I can't sit idly by while someone makes a false assumption about my intent, regardless of whether or not it is pertinent to the case. And obviously there is some contention here about what constitutes coercion, which is very likely to affect courthouse cases in the future.

This is important to me, and I'm not even a magistrate. I feel it should be important to you too. At least promise you'll try to continue the discussion elsewhere, because until now I had no idea that coercion could be so loosely and differently interpreted in this game. As a player, it is quite nerve-racking to not know where the lines are.

If you want to continue discussing this topic, you are more than welcome to start a new thread on another board. This board is specifically for discussion of active Magistrate cases, and this thread is specifically for discussion of the placeholder case at hand. The philosophy behind the "suggestion == order" provision of the Inalienable Rights is not relevant here.

But this is a forum, without any restrictions on topic creation in most of its boards. You are not only welcome but encouraged to create topics to discuss anything you want, we just ask that you do so in the appropriate place.

[Scarlett]

Why does someone have to be stupid to recognize an implied threat?

Someone has to be stupid not to recognize an implied threat, or conversely, to be unable to tell the difference between an implied threat and a statement or offer from someone in authority.

If the sheriff tells you 'a little contribution to the police athletic league would go a long way toward making sure that your shop has a patrolman around after dark,' that's an implied threat.

If the sheriff tells you 'we have apples and bananas, you can have either one' you would have to be very dim, insecure, or else very ignorant to imagine that there was a threat. I'll gladly go so far as to say someone brand new to the game might fall into the later category because hey, who knows how sheriffs work in this town, but when dealing with lords or Dukes I don't think that applies.

Your argument here is a classical nanny authority appeal: 'People with any authority will always abuse it, so I who have maximum authority must intervene.' I'm hardly Bendix's biggest fan but this whole thread is pointless busybodies. Either your game caters to adults or it doesn't. If it does, protect them with IR and leave it there.

The entire placeholder problem and the hamfisted rule which applies to it are creations of the game (of the devs, that is) designed to arbitrarily force turnover when the game has no possible way of knowing the context. The result, of course, is that people in authority just do less of whatever it is that might cost them their title, further incentivizing stagnant seat-warmers in power. There is certainly no IC reason why somebody being injured for a week or two or captured would lose a title; at worst they'd have a regent step in and maybe muck things up for them. Otherwise, this whole business is just you guys making work for yourselves in the name of protecting ... who exactly?

[Scarlett]

Here's a constructive idea:

You know how you appoint a steward for your region to do stuff while you're not there?

What if every title had something like this, but with the catch that, when you are out of action - in jail, seriously injured - your steward/2nd banana got all the buttons typically reserved for you?

Fer instance, the Emperor of Arcaea was critically injured in a duel the other day. He didn't lose his position (even though the ruler of Ohnar West did for being in jail for only a couple days while the Emperor is still injured) but what if somebody else got to press all the Emperor buttons until he returned? They wouldn't be the Emperor, they'd just be the person with access to diplomatic relations, crown taxes, and treaties until the Emperor comes around. Then you lose access to things.

- moar scheming
- no silly 'sorry you're not the Duke anymore, we locked you in a hole for 48 hours'
- spread the power around to more people (ostensibly the whole point of the current system anyway)

[Geronus]

"None of which has any relevance to this case, because this isn't about a bloody Inalienable Right, so can we please stop the off-topic discussion and keep things on the case at hand?"

Sorry, but I can't sit idly by while someone makes a false assumption about my intent, regardless of whether or not it is pertinent to the case. And obviously there is some contention here about what constitutes coercion, which is very likely to affect courthouse cases in the future.

This is important to me, and I'm not even a magistrate. I feel it should be important to you too. At least promise you'll try to continue the discussion elsewhere, because until now I had no idea that coercion could be so loosely and differently interpreted in this game. As a player, it is quite nerve-racking to not know where the lines are.

When it comes to the IRs, you can expect us to consistently interpret them broadly. The lesson that everyone should take from this is to give them a very wide berth.