View source for Talk:Inalienable rights

the list isn't really complete, I know I've forgotten a few, someone please add them. Also you can add a template to pages using the code:
<pre>{{Inalienable rights|description of the right}}</pre>
It will end up looking like:
{{Inalienable rights|mulus in silva ambulat}}
--[[User:Nicholas|Nicholas]] July 26, 2005 20:50 (CEST)

:Excellent! --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 27 July 2005 09:30 (CEST)

::We had the same problem with stubs - should these go at the top or bottom of pages? They are more important than stub messages, but might break up the page. [[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 27 July 2005 11:58 (CEST)

:::I'd say that they are probably important enough to break up the page. They're suppose to stand out, so that no one can claim "I didn't know." -- [[User:Nicholas|Nicholas]] July 27, 2005 18:44 (CEST)

== Themed Armies ==

I think the page should mention themed armies are acceptable. I'm aware that it is acceptable for a realm to have a themed army based around having a single type of unit in it, usually an all cavalry army meant for hit and run raids. Obviously if a player wants their character to be in such an army they'd need a cavalry unit.

The reasoning I assume is that it is not a player's inalienable right to be in whatever army they want to be in and being transferred to one army or another is not a punishment.

Since this is confirmed as an acceptable practice I think it should be mentioned on the main page.

{{unsigned|Pcw27}}

:Anything is allowed of it's clearly in good faith and does not contradict any existing rules. Hell, you are even entitled to pass a law that makes archer RCs illegal, for example (I've asked Tom in the past). That is, if you are willing to pay the consequences of having a full army without archers ever. -[[User:Chénier|Dominic &quot;Chénier&quot;]] 17:17, 31 January 2011 (CET)

:''(Reposting this comment, it some how got wiped out by [[User:Chénier|Chénier]]'s edit.)''
:I really don't think it's necessary to include things like this in the IR. If we try to add examples and clarifications like this to all the IRs, we're going to end up with a lot of them. Then you're going to invite rules lawyering, and other such weaseling in people trying to get around the IRs. --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] ([[User talk:Indirik|talk]]), [[BattleMaster Wiki:Editors|Editor]] ([[BattleMaster Wiki:User-Editors Talk|talk]]) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (CET)

== A category? ==

I've just found out the hard way how difficult it is to get a list of inalienable rights.

Maybe we should make it a category instead? That way we would automatically get a list of all pages linked, and we can make a small list on the category page to flesh it out.

--[[User:Tom|Tom]] 5 August 2005 08:55 (CEST)

:You mean, just add <pre>[[Category:Inalienable Rights]]</pre> to the template? That would probably pull in a number of (mostly) unrelated pages, but if that's not an issue, it would probably work. --[[User:Dolohov|Dolohov]] 5 August 2005 15:39 (CEST)

::Hm, that's a good idea. Yes, putting it into the template would be a good thing. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 5 August 2005 20:38 (CEST)

::Done.  Of course, now we have to go through and make minor edits to the other pages to get the templates to update. --[[User:Dolohov|Dolohov]] 5 August 2005 20:57 (CEST)


== Query about Inalienable Rights ==

I mention this because of a bit of confusion on my part. To quote, my general says "I am putting a MASSIVE emphasis on recruit just Cavalry and Infantry with banners." Does this count as a violation of inalienable rights? The article is not very clear about "Not Orders".

--[[User:The1exile|The1exile]] 26 November 2005 12:48 (CET)

*I would say the infantry with banners is a surgestion to make your unit better, it's like with seige engines. If you really need one then you have to tell people to get them. With the cavalry part that is out of bounds. [[User:ScottSabin|ScottSabin]] 28 March 2006 11:57 (CEST)



==Query about T.L. abusing the Inalienable rights for defence==
In our realm preist is not a option, one troopleader therefore traveled to a distant land to become a preist but has been there for over a month and is claiming "I have a right to become a priest its my right" is it still protected because he claims to be "becoming a preist"?
:I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here - no-one is infringing on his right to become a priest are they? Even though it seems like a pretty pointless excersize on his part if he can't physically become one... Anyway, if he's dead weight to the realm, and sitting in foreign lands not doing anything, what would the problem be with the ruler banning him for being useless? None really that I can see. --[[User:Arithon|Roy]] 30 March 2006 16:10 (CEST)

Answer: He does '''not''' have an Inalienable Right to play where he wants, with whom he wants. Nobody in this example is telling him that he can't become a priest, right? It was '''his choice''' to become a priest of that specific religion which he could only do in that place. In fact, even if you ban him, he can still become a priest. I don't see which Inalienable Right was violated here. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:59, 6 January 2009 (CET)

==Query on Unit Type==

Is it permissible to send a message realm wide that you are for example infantry heavy and it would be appreciated to recruit more archers?? It is not putting any one on the spot and people can choose to do it or not, it just lets them know what is helpful.

== Suggestion for addition to "Not Inalienable Rights" ==

I would like to suggest an addition to the "Not Inalienable Rights" section: You do '''not''' have an inalienable right to be in the realm of your choice.

It's a pretty simple, but fundamental thing.  Many people get pretty upset when they're banned, but (and I know that there's a page saying much the same thing) a Judge can ban for basically any reason ''except'' something touching on the inalienable rights.  Whether or not the ban was not justified IC, as long as your inalienable rights weren't violated, tough luck. --[[User:Danaris|Anaris]] 22:03, 23 September 2006 (CEST)

== Pausing ==

I have a question about pausing a character: my priest character is an elder follower of his religion. If I pause him, will he still be elder follower if I unpause him again later? Since religion is a way of life and you can only be a follower of one, unlike guilds, it should be different from the guild stuff, isn't it? [[User:Van Peteghem|Van Peteghem]] 13:11, 15 February 2007 (CET)
*Yep. We just ahd the founder of the Way of the Hammer unpause, and he was right back in his top spot :) -[[User:Andrasta|Andrasta]] 04:09, 22 November 2007 (CET)

== Ignoring orders and messages ==
Is a player who does not respond to messages or follow orders, but logs in often enough not to be auto-paused practicing his/her inalienable right to play at his/her own pace or not? I think that the way it is written here, it might be within their rights to do so. --OOC [[User:Habap|Habap]] 00:50, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
:Within his rights, but within the Realm's rights to ban him, I think. I think "logging in" assumes that you will log in and spend the time to click a few buttons. The right is not to have to log in more frequently, or spend time role playing or answering questions.

::Apparently not within the realm's rights to ban characters who log in but do not follow orders or respond to messages - a Judge in a realm I play in just got stripped of his position by the Titans for doing just that even though the players were active OOC and inactive IC. I've seen this before and after much thought on the issue over many years I still have no idea how to deal with <i>characters</i> who ignore orders even when the <i>players</i> are active - any action against them (and, logically, any action in favour of those who do follow orders, respond to messages or participate in the RP game as that puts those who do not at a disadvantage to those who do) could be considered a violation of the inalienable right to inactivity. It's one of those places where OOC and IC overlap but OOC and IC logic are incompatible (OOC: let it slide, IC: let them swing) so this needs clarification.-- [[User:Wraith0x29a]] 23:26, 11 March 2010 (GMT)

== Right to spend/save? ==
Does the player have an inalienable right to spend, save, or add to the family wealth? --OOC [[User:Habap|Habap]] 00:50, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
:It's not listed on the page, so it is not an inalienable right. That doesn't mean that you can't ridicule people for trying to tell you how to spend your money. But if you become known for sending lots of gold to your family, don't expect mercy when you run short of gold to pay your men, and you have to ask your realm-mates for a few extra coins to pay your men so they don't desert. People who can't manage their money are not looked upon kindly.  --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] 05:08, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

== Minor Edits ==
"Some of the worst events of both human history and in BattleMaster '''where''' done by people with good intentions." - That should be "'''were'''".  I would fix it myself, but the page is locked (understandably).--[[User:Gd2shoe|Slaadslayer]] 06:38, 16 June 2008 (CEST)
:Fixed it, as well as "advise" to "advice" (verb --> noun). --[[User:The1exile|The1exile]] 08:27, 17 June 2008 (CEST)

== Choice of Troop Question ==
You cannot instruct someone to the type of unit they pick, but can you instruct someone of the number they must have (minimum/maximum)?  This may be a little moot, since if they have too many, well you don't have to give them extra to support it.  What about the converse though?  If during a war, one of your knights is mustering only a small force despite gold and recruitment and the nation could use a bigger army, can you order that knight to recruit more of their unit type? -[[User:Baatarsaikhan|Baatarsaikhan]] 23:52, 7 August 2008 (CEST)
:The inalienable right says they can choose the '''type''' of unit to recruit. It mentions nothing about the number of troops, minimum CS, etc. Only type. --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] 02:58, 8 August 2008 (CEST)

== Choice of Troop Question ==
Can you order someone to place militia of a certain type (IE, "Place 25 Mixed Infantry in Lendan Stones")? What if you give them gold afterwards to recruit the unit of their choice (or at least, equivalent to before their militia-placing mission)? 
--[[User:egamma|egamma]]
:The inalienable right is very clear: You cannot tell someone to recruit a unit type. So if you order them to place MI, you are telling them to recruit MI. It doesn't matter if you give them gold to hire a new unit of their choice. Just like you can't tell someone to not go to this tournament but give them the entrance fee to the next. If you need a specific unit type placed as militia, ask for volunteers. --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] ([[User talk:Indirik|talk]]), [[BattleMaster Wiki:Editors|Editor]] ([[BattleMaster Wiki:User-Editors Talk|talk]]) 03:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


== Right to Use Ignore Button ==
This is one I've always been curious about. Obviously, there are a great number of things you can and should do if you need to use Ignore for someone important in your realm, but... At the end of the day, do you have the inalienable right to use the Ignore button against any character, and therefore not be responsible for any "legal" order contained within?
:Do you see an inalienable right to use the ignore button on the page? --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] ([[User talk:Indirik|talk]]), [[BattleMaster Wiki:Editors|Editor]] ([[BattleMaster Wiki:User-Editors Talk|talk]]) 11:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
::Obviously I don't. I'm asking if it should be considered as an addition.
:::That post wasn't phrased as "''Should there be'' such a right?" It was "''Is there'' a right?" Those are completely different questions. Is there such a right? Obviously not. Should there be such a right? I doubt it. But if you want to discuss it, the best place would be the [[Discussion List]]. Very few people will see the discussion here, and none of those people are one that can make that call.
::Is there some reason why you have to be a sarcastic jerk off to everyone in the game?
:::The inalienable rights are extremely clear. Efforts to attempt to weasel around them, or asking if the rights include something that they clearly don't will not be met kindly. When the Inalienable Rights come up, your best bet is to give them a wide margin. --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] ([[User talk:Indirik|talk]]), [[BattleMaster Wiki:Editors|Editor]] ([[BattleMaster Wiki:User-Editors Talk|talk]]) 17:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

== Running in an election  ==

Really? I've never seen a case where someone was ordered not to run, as doing so typically means the one doing the threat loses votes, but... uhm, how can voting not be one while running is? "The lack of votes is impeding my ability to run!", then? I don't see the point to this, and this poses the same threats to RP, politics, and diversity as an inalienable right to vote does, if not more so (since you couldn't know who voted anyways). Is it now illegal to stab a contender when a vote comes to secure the win because this impedes his ability to run? I suppose all these realms which have rules stating that you can't have two position (despite how I don't tend to agree with those) now illegal because the law restricts peoples' ability to run? What brought this rule, anyways, and why is this intentionally one when voting isn't? -[[User:Chénier|Chénier]] 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:It happened recently in Corsanctum on Dwilight. Tom mentioned this as needing changed since in the new system you can check who is running in an election while you couldn't in the old one (a protection). You can't see who is voting for who (protection of secrecy so a ban wouldn't be enforceable), but you can see who is running against who. This rule is still to be absolutely confirmed by Tom, along with the exact wording, but it has been added based on his statements. We might end up using an alternative method to preventing people from ordering others not to run, but this will stand until further confirmation from Tom, which should be within 24 hours based on his recent activity. --[[User:Bishamon Family|Ethan Lee Vita]] [[User talk:Bishamon Family|(Talk)]], Editor and Community Manager 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

::The hell happened in Corsanctum? What's the big fuss? -[[User:Chénier|Chénier]] 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)