Updated IR Comments

[Tom]

I've updated the IR page on the wiki to include this statement:

Personal vs. Generic

Note that the IRs are meant to protect individual players. Generic requests or commentary aimed at nobody in particular is usually not a matter of IRs. Someone saying that activity in the realm is fairly low or that the army could use some more archers is not breaking any IRs.
As with all things, this is not a 100% rule. Someone saying "nobody should attend the next tournament" is violating the IR, because while he is not using any names, his comment is directed at everyone, and by that at individual players. The difference between "we could use more archers" and "everyone recruit archers" is that in the first case, nobody is pressured to do anything unless he wants to. You can agree to the statement without having to act on it. You cannot in the second case.

We have recently seen people cherry-picking messages out-of-context in attempts to abuse the Titan system as a way to punish their in-game rivals. This rule is intended to clarify our intentions and make it more difficult to create IR abuses out of generic comments, which was never the intention of the IRs.

At the same time, we are now cracking down on abusive Titan reports.

[Penchant]

A general we need archers is fine, but is telling one noble we need archers fine?

[Tom]

It depends on the details. That text is just explanation. The IR is that you have the right to recruit any unit type you want. Judgement is made on whether or not you break that rule, not whether or not some interpretation of some additional explanation can be interpreted this way or that.

[Logar]

I have always tried to tread carefully with regards to this rule. Is the following request acceptable?

Myself and Lord ***** require 2 volunteers with a unit to partake in a campaign to rid of the beasts in the West. A unit of archers is preferable to mininise losses, however choice of unit type is left to your own discretion.
Please submit your application as soon as possible. We will likely move out this time tomorrow.

I didnt reject any aplications based on a nobles unit type

[Anaris]

I have always tried to tread carefully with regards to this rule. Is the following request acceptable?

That would be just fine—and even only accepting nobles with archer units should be fine with something like this, I believe. Asking for volunteers for a specific mission and choosing based on what unit type they have—because one unit type actually fits the mission parameters better than others—should never be a problem.

[Dishman]

I wonder if it offends the principle to switch players' characters into different armies because of their troop decision. Most circumstances probably wouldn't be a problem, but I could see it cause problems in the right circumstances. 

[Indirik]

The answer to that is, as you have noted: "It depends".

Say, for example, that you want everyone in the army to recruit either infantry or archers. Therefore you assign everyone who recruits MI to an army with orders to sit in the capital and do nothing. This would be a manner of excluding that player from actually participating and playing the game, merely for exercising his IR to choose his unit type.

If, however, a noble in a cavalry-only army ditched his cavalry and recruited infantry, moving him to your regular battle army would not be an issue.

This type of exclusionary behavior could be extended to just about any of the IRs. Assigning everyone who goes to a tournament to that "sit in the capital" army could also be an IR violation. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this actually happen, though.

[Ketchum]

A general we need archers is fine, but is telling one noble we need archers fine?

Do read this forum post link below I opened up at Questions and Answer there earlier when I have same question. When a noble asks you for advice, yes you can suggest.

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3708.0.html

[Stue (DC)]

We have recently seen people cherry-picking messages out-of-context in attempts to abuse the Titan system as a way to punish their in-game rivals. This rule is intended to clarify our intentions and make it more difficult to create IR abuses out of generic comments, which was never the intention of the IRs.

At the same time, we are now cracking down on abusive Titan reports.

It would be nice to know whether people who are doing that are sending similar-tone messages in short time period to Titans? As far as I remember it worked for years - groups tightly coordinated ooc send bunch of messages to titans, and titans take such quantity as an important factor in the case, something like "many players complain against ..."

for years there is need that titans separate "many players" from ooc-group who actually does classic spamming. and that can be done with proper, not too demanding investigation.

maybe there would be no need for this tread is something like that is being done. currently, any, even smaller group who is well-coordinated ooc can wreck havoc continentwise whenever they desire it.

[Anaris]

It would be nice to know whether people who are doing that are sending similar-tone messages in short time period to Titans? As far as I remember it worked for years - groups tightly coordinated ooc send bunch of messages to titans, and titans take such quantity as an important factor in the case, something like "many players complain against ..."

for years there is need that titans separate "many players" from ooc-group who actually does classic spamming. and that can be done with proper, not too demanding investigation.

maybe there would be no need for this tread is something like that is being done. currently, any, even smaller group who is well-coordinated ooc can wreck havoc continentwise whenever they desire it.

The Titans are perfectly capable of judging such things. They're a long way from the rubber-stamp for reports that some people would paint them.