About the Overlord's forfeit

Out of Character message board for the Duel of Swords

Moderator: Staff

Locked
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

About the Overlord's forfeit

Post by Kalamere »

I have a question I want to put out there. This is not to be taken as an official staff inquiry as I'm not asking in the capacity of DoS AC and I'm not looking to push any kind of a change. This past week or so though was the first time that we've implemented the rules around the Overlord forfeiting the title as what happened with Hope and Matt's challenge, so I wanted to see if there's consensus that it is the way people think it should go down.

Matt's acceptance came about an hour and a half after the deadline. Past the dealine, yes obviously and a violation of the rules as we have them. For a response 93 minutes late though, it might be a bit much to strip a title like this - especially an Overlord title held 8 months and defended 6 times and by a member of the community who is typically quite active.

Interestingly, the last time we had an Overlord answer just slightly late like this it was Rakeesh and Matt was the challenger. At the time we had the Baron's Council still and the ruling in that case was to allow Rakeesh to retain the Overlord title, but that in their challenge Matt would be the one to receive choice of format (which also stripped Rakeesh of the right to test him). link. I'll also add to this that Norah was the Coordinator at the time and we spoke privately on the matter. She was horrified at the prospect of the barons potentially ruling to strip Rakeesh and certain he would quit if we did; she had every intention of vetoing the baron's decision had we ruled that way. Funny that now it is black letter law to implement what she thought at the time was the worst possible outcome.

Another aspect to consider, is what to do with the title of Overlord when it is stripped and becomes vacant. In this case, by rule, the senior baron steps up to defend. History has this one going either way. Sometimes a champion has been put in, others it has gone first to the baron tournament and the challenger then fought the winner of said tournament. The last time it came about under the Baron Council rules was Vinny's challenge to Vanion who apparently died at some point in the interim. The council was pretty well split on things, but the outcome was to hold the Baron's tournament to install a new Overlord and then Vinny would fight his challenge against that person. Personally I like that method better as it puts an OL in place that has full OL powers and incentive to win as against the challenger.

I don't want to say the way I would like to see things done is THE way they should be done. Also, despite my continuing to bring up the Barons Council, I'm not suggesting the body be brought back. That's just the rule set we had at the times I have for comparison. I'm just asking the question:

Is the way this went down with Hope and Matt the way we believe is optimal? Is it all good because it is black letter law now? Is it too harsh or not the way perhaps you'd like to see it done?

I'm not actually looking to judge and say we need to make a change. I'm curious.
User avatar
Sabine
Seasoned Adventurer
Seasoned Adventurer
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:55 pm
Location: 3 Battle Park Lane Rhydin
Contact:

Post by Sabine »

I thought that the way it was handled was easy to understand and it created an interesting dynamic for play.

With that being said, OOC, I feel the same about the OL forfeiture as I do about the Barons/Opals, etc and would still prefer a 1 time "grace" for life happening.

As you said, Matt has held OL for 8 months, defended several times, is regularly active when his schedule allows and now he's being punished for being a little late.

It feels a little negative to me and watching the situation unfold OOC made me feel sad for him. Seemed like it was just a kick in the shins to top off of a rough week.
“We spoke eternal things that cannot die.” -Charles Baudelaire, from The Balcony; Fleurs du Mal (tr. by Roy Campbell), 1857
User avatar
King
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Not Your Prince Charming

Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:59 am
Location: At home or working.

Post by King »

It's simple.

Don't wait the full 7 days.

The fault is on the person who would wait 7 full days before responding to the challenge. There's always the risk of internet going out, of real life to smack you in the face, etc.

tl;dr - don't act shocked if you're late to responding to a challenge if you're drawing out responding to it in the first place.

As for Barons Tournament happening before hand, or having a senior Baron take on a challenger THEN it going to a Barons Tournament should the baron defend -- it's no big deal one way or another. As long as the title goes back into circulation is all I personally care about. The only issue is that if the Baron's tournament happens first? Then you have one less Barony open for challenging until a coming WLT. If a senior Baron fighting a challenger were to happen first, and the challenger wins, then the titles are all there. Other way around? Then there's always going to be an empty title.
User avatar
Vaeluthil Whitevale
Adventurer
Adventurer
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:52 pm
Location: With Cael

Post by Vaeluthil Whitevale »

I've been "privileged" enough to have a front row seat of sorts for both this stripping and the most recent one prior to that (Vanion/Vinny). It doesn't happen often but it isn't much fun OOCly when it does. With the first, I felt that after making the challenger wait and wait and wait, that it was best to get things moving as quickly as possible out of respect for resolving the original challenge. The rules were since changed to do that and I feel like we accomplished that this time around.

Things went smoothly, Matt got stripped on the 19th, Hope and I fought on the 26th, the Barons tournament took place on the 1st. That's 12 days, within the 2 week period that Matt and Hope would have been given post acceptance anyways. There was no OOC controversy or feelings of being slighted since the rules were established in such a way that it was black and white. No room for feelings of favoritism or lack thereof based on the parties involved. Completely streamlined and now we have a new Overlord just like that.

I feel like this was the most efficient way to get the title back into circulation while being respectful of the original challenge and being impartial to those involved.
Personally I like that method better as it puts an OL in place that has full OL powers and incentive to win as against the challenger.
Aside from Hope, I was likely the baron that most wanted Hope to win. I really did, like really really. Truthfully to avoid any sense of impropriety OOCly, I probably should have passed it on to the next baron in line and washed my hands of it. But Vael had a job to do and the little manic faerie did it, my wants be damned. The "incentive to win" against the challenger is a) your own pride and b) getting the opportunity to have (and be in) a rarely seen Barons Tournament. That's history. What more incentive do you need aside from it being your own title?
Don't wait the full 7 days.
Long of the short, this. We're given a full seven days to accept and waiting until the last possible moment is just setting yourself up for accidents like this. They suck, definitely, but it's avoidable.
User avatar
Sabine
Seasoned Adventurer
Seasoned Adventurer
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:55 pm
Location: 3 Battle Park Lane Rhydin
Contact:

Post by Sabine »

Vaeluthil Whitevale wrote: I felt that after making the challenger wait and wait and wait, that it was best to get things moving as quickly as possible out of respect for resolving the original challenge. The rules were since changed to do that and I feel like we accomplished that this time around.

Things went smoothly, Matt got stripped on the 19th, Hope and I fought on the 26th, the Barons tournament took place on the 1st. That's 12 days, within the 2 week period that Matt and Hope would have been given post acceptance anyways. There was no OOC controversy or feelings of being slighted since the rules were established in such a way that it was black and white. No room for feelings of favoritism or lack thereof based on the parties involved. Completely streamlined and now we have a new Overlord just like that.

I feel like this was the most efficient way to get the title back into circulation while being respectful of the original challenge and being impartial to those involved.
All of that ^^^ I think things went really smoothly and if this is the way the rule is, then it was handled efficiently and went well.



There are various reasons as to why someone may draw out acceptance. Personally, I don't enjoy doing so nor being on the receiving end of it, but again there are reasons it may be done. It's easy to say "well you had SEVEN days!" but sometimes things just are not that cut and dry and well mistakes happen. Matt seems to draw out his acceptance of challenges and he hasn't (to my knowledge) had a problem before with making it in time.


I respect the rule in place, understand why it is in place, and for the most part agree with it, even if my empathetic streaks is cringing.
“We spoke eternal things that cannot die.” -Charles Baudelaire, from The Balcony; Fleurs du Mal (tr. by Roy Campbell), 1857
User avatar
G
Legendary Adventurer
Legendary Adventurer
Ric Flair

Posts: 4124
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:09 am
Location: Generally found at the Golden Ivy Tavern. If not there, then on the SpellJammer, his ship.

Re: About the Overlord's forfeit

Post by G »

Kalamere wrote:Is the way this went down with Hope and Matt the way we believe is optimal? Is it all good because it is black letter law now? Is it too harsh or not the way perhaps you'd like to see it done?
Yes. It is optimal. Why? Because everyone who challenges know they have exactly 7 days to respond. If they are going to wait as long as possible to respond to a challenge, then they know there are risks involved.

It eliminates any favoritism, bias or other such feelings when it comes to who should or should not be stripped of a title. If it were Xeric who had been stripped, for example, I am pretty sure there would be no sad or sorry faces whatsoever.

Having a cut and dry rule that is well known and clearly stated in regards to how long someone has to reply to a challenge is the easiest, simplest, most direct way in handling such a situation. Whether it be 90 minutes, 90 hours or 90 seconds.

As stated above. Don't want to risk being held in forfeit, then do not wait the 7 days. YOU(generic) are responsible for the title you hold. If you are making the challenger wait the full 7 days to get the challenge ready to go, you are fully responsible for what happens should you fail to respond in the legal amount of time.

And the best thing about a rule like this, is that *everyone* is held to the exact same standard. That's what makes it a good rule to have. No favoritism whatsoever. It's simply cut and dry.
G'nort Dragoon-Talanador
Duel of Swords Legend. Best In The World™.
First All Time DoS Title Holder.
Listed as "Daddy" in your daughters contacts list.
Image
User avatar
Sabine
Seasoned Adventurer
Seasoned Adventurer
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:55 pm
Location: 3 Battle Park Lane Rhydin
Contact:

Re: About the Overlord's forfeit

Post by Sabine »

G wrote: It eliminates any favoritism, bias or other such feelings when it comes to who should or should not be stripped of a title.

Having a cut and dry rule that is well known and clearly stated in regards to how long someone has to reply to a challenge is the easiest, simplest, most direct way in handling such a situation.

And the best thing about a rule like this, is that *everyone* is held to the exact same standard. That's what makes it a good rule to have. No favoritism whatsoever. It's simply cut and dry.
All'a that.
“We spoke eternal things that cannot die.” -Charles Baudelaire, from The Balcony; Fleurs du Mal (tr. by Roy Campbell), 1857
User avatar
King
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Not Your Prince Charming

Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:59 am
Location: At home or working.

Post by King »

Sabine wrote:There are various reasons as to why someone may draw out acceptance. Personally, I don't enjoy doing so nor being on the receiving end of it, but again there are reasons it may be done. It's easy to say "well you had SEVEN days!" but sometimes things just are not that cut and dry and well mistakes happen. Matt seems to draw out his acceptance of challenges and he hasn't (to my knowledge) had a problem before with making it in time.
This is what can happen when you draw out challenges. It's a good example on why you shouldn't.

As for times when seven days are not enough? Let's say you're scheduled to leave for a vacation and you're a title holder. A good idea is to send a message to the coordinators of the sport and give them a heads up that you might be gone for a set period of time, then they can make a judgement call should you be challenged. There are worse case scenarios where you have no say in what happens to you, and then you are challenged and unable to respond or defend. Sadly, games sometimes can't take into account personal pitfalls and must continue for the rest. it might feel sour for a title to be lost from someone if, let's say, they are sent to the hospital and have no way to defend, but those are the breaks. Even if it feels a little ugh to bring up.

Mistakes happen. But those who make the mistakes must be willing to accept the punishment. King challenged Aric at the wrong time, I accepted the punishment OOC. King rescinded her challenge again due to winning the WLT and I was prepared to lose the challenge right all together and felt no need to question it to the coordinators. Rules are rules, no matter the case.
User avatar
Hope
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Beast Mode

Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:13 am
Location: New Haven
Contact:

Post by Hope »

Having been in on this carousel this time around I'll share what I think on it. I spent the full 7 days preparing to duel Matt, mentally, and I was confident going into the final day, hoping he'd make it in time. When he didn't the channels for what were to come next were pretty clear so it's not like there were any curve balls coming my way. Given how it turned out, obviously I would have preferred dueling Matt over failing twice to win the Overlord title to someone I wouldn't have challenged to begin with and then two people I've never dueled before in my life in the sport. With that being said, the process itself was very clear and there were no real strings, just scheduling which wasn't an issue and a fun Baron Tournament that simply didn't go my way. I like the unique angle the Barons give Swords, I think a Council could have fun and merit; I just don't think this is it.

I would have liked to see Matt be given the opportunity to defend his title but I also don't want to be the person deemed unworthy of having that option as well. Tl;dr- political intrigue is fun and there's room for more I just don't think this is where it's needed.
User avatar
Sabine
Seasoned Adventurer
Seasoned Adventurer
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:55 pm
Location: 3 Battle Park Lane Rhydin
Contact:

Post by Sabine »

King wrote: This is what can happen when you draw out challenges. It's a good example on why you shouldn't.
I'm not going to pretend to know the particulars of WHY someone else draws out their response. Maybe they are so busy IRL that they need that time to figure out what will work with their schedule or to rearrange their following week(s). Maybe it's an IC reason just to add drama. I don't know.

As I stated, I can respect a rule, see that it was carried out in a way that worked out well, and still be empathetic to the situation and look at it from multiple angles. I don't see Matt throwing a hissy fit or asking for special treatment. He owned up to his mistake and apologized.

As a personal note to follow up Hope's response: Personally, it'd trip me up thinking I am going to face one person/challenge and then have everything be changed up. If I challenge someone there is generally a specific reason I have done so and it'd throw me for a loop to go through what Hope did. I'm not sure what I'd have done as the challenger in this case.

EDIT TO ADD: Maybe instead of the senior baron being responsible, the challenger could instead choose out of the loyal barons who they want to fight for the OL spot and then it goes to a tournament if they lose. This could give some of that "control" to the challenger that they lose by the current title holder forfeiting.
“We spoke eternal things that cannot die.” -Charles Baudelaire, from The Balcony; Fleurs du Mal (tr. by Roy Campbell), 1857
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Post by Kalamere »

Thanks for the replies on this, both here and in the PMs I got. It's a little unfortunate that we can't all feel comfortable posting publicly and expecting a civil discussion, but all in all I think the commentary amounts to largely a consensus that the current rule is fine as is. Not optimal given the lack of flexibility, but workable as a known quantity.
User avatar
JewellRavenlock
Legendary Adventurer
Legendary Adventurer
The Empress

Posts: 2473
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:26 pm
Location: Little Elfhame, Old Market
Contact:

Re: About the Overlord's forfeit

Post by JewellRavenlock »

I don't really like the rule.

I understand that it's good because it takes partiality and bias out of a baron council ruling or something like that.

I understand that it's good because everything did go very smoothly after Matt was stripped of his title.

I understand that it's good that we have a set rule and are holding people to it.

But Kal expressed Norah's thoughts on the matter in his original post, and my own mirror hers at the time:
Kalamere wrote:I'll also add to this that Norah was the Coordinator at the time and we spoke privately on the matter. She was horrified at the prospect of the barons potentially ruling to strip Rakeesh and certain he would quit if we did; she had every intention of vetoing the baron's decision had we ruled that way. Funny that now it is black letter law to implement what she thought at the time was the worst possible outcome.
I do want people to follow the rules. Responding to a challenge in a timely manner is an easy rule to follow. I set google calendar reminder for myself.

There should be repercussions to not following the rules.

I just don't feel that stripping someone of their title is the right repercussion. It would be nice if the repercussion could in some way foster more play rather than discourage the person from playing.
User avatar
Andrea Anderson
Legendary Adventurer
Legendary Adventurer
Less Than Three

Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:55 pm
Location: Her Twilight Isle home she shares with Lilith.

Post by Andrea Anderson »

I'd like to point something out, since I looked into this thread about another title forfeiture.

When Melanie was stripped of her title, the subject of what should be done to those who retire of are stripped of their titles came up.

Ideas of punishments were brought up and some suggestions were put into rules.

Matt is then stripped from his Overlord for the same exact reason. Not responding within the 7 day period.

We are now seeing a shift where it's being asked "Is the punishment too much?"

I have to ask. If this were done to someone the community might not be in favor of, as G pointed out in his post earlier, would this thread have even happened? Would there still be the same concern?
User avatar
Sabine
Seasoned Adventurer
Seasoned Adventurer
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:55 pm
Location: 3 Battle Park Lane Rhydin
Contact:

Post by Sabine »

That is one thing I was going to bring up but sat on, Apple.

And this is the reason as G pointed out that the rule is a good one. It's fair and it has no bias.

Even if I am not a fan of it, the rule did work out well and it's fair across the board.
“We spoke eternal things that cannot die.” -Charles Baudelaire, from The Balcony; Fleurs du Mal (tr. by Roy Campbell), 1857
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Post by Kalamere »

Apple wrote:I'd like to point something out, since I looked into this thread about another title forfeiture.

When Melanie was stripped of her title, the subject of what should be done to those who retire of are stripped of their titles came up.

Ideas of punishments were brought up and some suggestions were put into rules.

Matt is then stripped from his Overlord for the same exact reason. Not responding within the 7 day period.

We are now seeing a shift where it's being asked "Is the punishment too much?"

I have to ask. If this were done to someone the community might not be in favor of, as G pointed out in his post earlier, would this thread have even happened? Would there still be the same concern?
The cases are similar, but different in what they're hoping to accomplish. Also note that in both cases the discussion is being held outside of the personalities that might have triggered it. Meaning specifically that it was stated up front in the case you've linked to that nothing discussed there would apply to Melanie and as well in this case I said that this is nothing more than my own curiosity, so would obviously have no impact on Matt.

Beyond that though, I think the cases are distinguished in the basic question being asked.

In one case we point out that a warlord issuing challenge and losing may not challenge again for 14 days, while a baron forfeiting for whatever reason may challenge again after just 7.

In another, the question is posed as to whether a forfeit should be the ruling at all.

I, personally, would maintain that a forfeit still gets the lock down period as discussed in the first discussion, so in that sense there is no indication at all that we should look to a lightening of penalties. I would, however, also be open to discussion of whether or not a forfeit should be ruled in the first place.

---

As an addendum here, since I appear to be the one being called out as bias, I'd also like to state that I have no sympathy for Matt in the immediate case. Sorry Matt, I mean no offense and I don't intend at all to make this any worse on you. Matt has traditionally pushed the dates on all challenges as far back as they can go though, so it's almost poetic that it finally creeps up and bites him. Now.. the fact he figured it out and posted within about 90 minutes AND before anyone else (administratively anyway) picked up on it, does mitigate that some. I mean, a bad challenge doesn't get your challenge right stripped it you manage to pull it before anyone notices.
Last edited by Kalamere on Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked

Return to “Duel of Swords (OOC)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests