[Discuss] Marshal System Rules

[Hari N]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:09 AM, David Kester <davkester at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Hari N <hari2n at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now if you observe these events, when Alex posted his orders, it was
> > after making sure that he was in the right chain to post orders. He was
> > appointed as the second-in-command, only after which he posted this order.
> >
>
> The problem is that he was appointed second in command for the sole
> purpose of being able to give orders.  If this weren't a problem, every
> general would lead every army.
>

Well, the reason for the bolt only says that it is the duty of SIC to give
orders during Marshal's absence and does not talk/care(?) about the
intention behind it. This is exactly what was followed. Even otherwise, in
this case the sole purpose to appoint him as the SIC was to make sure to not
break this rule. If the intention was only to be able to post something
sounding like an order, he could have say used the request message flag and
said -"please treat this as an order", but this wasn't the intention here.

Also, before becoming the SIC, he did not post any orders, but channeled it
through his marshal.

Regards,
Hari
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss-moderated/attachments/20080403/ffda6466/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss