Difference between revisions of "Talk:Inalienable rights"

From BattleMaster Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Suggestion for addition to "Not Inalienable Rights")
Line 43: Line 43:
  
 
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.
 
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)

Revision as of 21:03, 23 September 2006

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:

{{Inalienable rights|description of the right}}

It will end up looking like:

Be aware that mulus in silva ambulat is one of a noble's inalienable rights in Battlemaster. Anyone who gives you orders about mulus in silva ambulat should be reported to the Titans or Magistrates.

--Nicholas July 26, 2005 20:50 (CEST)

Excellent! --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. 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." -- Nicholas July 27, 2005 18:44 (CEST)

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.

--Tom 5 August 2005 08:55 (CEST)

You mean, just add
[[Category:Inalienable Rights]]
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. --Dolohov 5 August 2005 15:39 (CEST)
Hm, that's a good idea. Yes, putting it into the template would be a good thing. --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. --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".

--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. 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. --Roy 30 March 2006 16:10 (CEST)

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. --Anaris 22:03, 23 September 2006 (CEST)