Rule Proposal

[Harris]

Finally, there's already a method for handling absentee barons/overlord. It's called the challenge. If you think somebody hasn't been dueling lately then challenge them or have your character call them out on it on the boards.

I'll preface this with the fact that I continue to teeter and sway on the fence about a titleholder activity requirement. I think we have to realize and acknowledge how this particular sentiment has changed over the years though. I realize there's a checks and balances system in place. To challenge you have to duel. If you don't duel you can't challenge. That's how the SoA works. If you're a Baron and you're not dueling it's the responsibility of the Warlords to keep you in check by challenging you.

But I don't feel that's the prevalent mentality of Warlords anymore. I get the impression Warlords see an absent Baron and think, "Well, so and so isn't even around. I don't wanna have to deal with them." Either the Baron will take forever to schedule the duel, won't be open to roleplay ideas, etc. That, for all intents and purposes, their challenge will feel hollow and wasted because the other person won't put forth any effort, which can be a reasonable assumption if they're not around in the first place. I'm not disputing or questioning the whys of not being around, but is it too far-fetched to assume that someone who hasn't been around because they can't/don't want to be would find a challenge to be a burden and treat it as such?

I don't think you can expect the rules system to go through such an overhaul like it has but expect the mentality to remain the same for everyone.

[Jake]

But I don't feel that's the prevalent mentality of Warlords anymore. I get the impression Warlords see an absent Baron and think, "Well, so and so isn't even around. I don't wanna have to deal with them." Either the Baron will take forever to schedule the duel, won't be open to roleplay ideas, etc. That, for all intents and purposes, their challenge will feel hollow and wasted because the other person won't put forth any effort, which can be a reasonable assumption if they're not around in the first place. I'm not disputing or questioning the whys of not being around, but is it too far-fetched to assume that someone who hasn't been around because they can't/don't want to be would find a challenge to be a burden and treat it as such?

I don't think you can expect the rules system to go through such an overhaul like it has but expect the mentality to remain the same for everyone.

Yeah, but there's nothing title-holder specific about that. So and so Baron/Warlord/Grandmaster isn't around as much. Maybe that means they don't want to duel anymore. Maybe that means they have a real life distraction. Maybe they are focusing on another character. Maybe it means nothing. Maybe that title-holder would be *totally* up for a story-based/RP-based challenge. The only way to know for sure is to ask.

An inactive Baron, like any dueler of any rank, can fall victim to the inactivity rules and get dropped from the standings. Yet another safeguard *already* in place.

Comparing and contrasting the use of SOA for Warlords and Barons...I'd point out that the SOA rules could prevent a Warlord from challenging, but it doesn't put their rank at risk. Just because Harris or Jake doesn't duel for a cycle, we're not at risk to lose our rank of Warlord. Applying an SOA rule to the Barons and saying they have to meet this SOA or they lose their title is a different animal altogether.

So...to recap, safeguards already in place:

1. Any dueler (including the title-holders) is subject to removal from the standings due to inactivity, based on whatever timeframe the DoS Coord feels is appropriate to protect the health of the sport. Any title-holder that drops from the standings due to inactivity, loses their title.

2. Duelers can challenge title-holders for whatever reasons they like, including "I don't see you around enough", "I like the view from Seaside Manor and would like to live there", "you once called my girlfriend a name, and now you have to die."

It doesn't seem to me like there's enough justification so far to merit a new SOA rule for title-holders.

[Xavior Mues]

You want to duel? And they call me punchy! You know where the rings are and you know when they're open. Duel.

Well, that's my two cents.

[Xavior Mues]

Oh, and one more thing. I've been told by more title holders, than I have fingers and toes, that they stopped being active in the rings to lower the chance they would be scouted. Allowing Barons to challenge each other doesn't change anything.

But here I am again, making a liar out of myself by even posting on this damn board.

I have the solution! I have a lighter if anyone has some gas...we could fix everything and roast marshmallows all at the same time!

[Harris]

Comparing and contrasting the use of SOA for Warlords and Barons...I'd point out that the SOA rules could prevent a Warlord from challenging, but it doesn't put their rank at risk. Just because Harris or Jake doesn't duel for a cycle, we're not at risk to lose our rank of Warlord. Applying an SOA rule to the Barons and saying they have to meet this SOA or they lose their title is a different animal altogether.

I concede this point, as that explanation makes perfect sense how you stated it. The SOA doesn't penalize Warlords for not dueling, whereas any SOA would for Barons. And after taking into consideration the activity rules that are already in place for everyone it would probably cause more problems than it'd solve.

[Kalamere]

Yes and no. Some people want to have room for story inspired events to justify challenging. If the only contact possible with a title holder is via the message boards, that kinda takes away from that.

Not quite sure I understood that correctly. How is anyone prevented from using story inspired events to justify challenging? Can you clarify what you meant by that?

What I mean is that people don't necessarily want their characters to challenge just be because someone is absent. If there is no roleplay interaction in the chat rooms between Warlord X and Baron Y, then coming up with any kind of interesting cause to challenge Baron Y is much more difficult. If Baron Z is around pretty consistently and people get to bump up against her in the rings, potentially form some kind of rivalry or run across some other slight.. well that makes for a more interesting cause to challenge.

1. Any dueler (including the title-holders) is subject to removal from the standings due to inactivity, based on whatever timeframe the DoS Coord feels is appropriate to protect the health of the sport. Any title-holder that drops from the standings due to inactivity, loses their title.

Yes, it's written in the rules still:

Code: Select all

Any Warlord who is inactive for more than one complete cycle is subject to removal from the Standings with record archived by the Standings Keeper. This is not considered a retirement. Any other dueler who is inactive over the duration of a complete cycle is subject to removal from the Standings. To be reinstated, a letter to the Standings Keeper is required. 

It's there and precedent agrees with what you say, a title holder removed from the standings for this reason losses their title... I just don't know when the last time this was actually enforced was.

ETA: For what it's worth, I do realize there is a baron on the standings currently who would be removed for this.. but seeing that baron removed is NOT what I'm getting at here. I've nothing against the particular Baron and I'm fairly sure that we'd have seen him in the rings if the rule were being actively enforced, so I'm certainly not proposing he be stripped of the barony. It's a clause, however, that I think should probably be enforced going forward once people have been given fair notice.

[Jake]

Yes and no. Some people want to have room for story inspired events to justify challenging. If the only contact possible with a title holder is via the message boards, that kinda takes away from that.

Not quite sure I understood that correctly. How is anyone prevented from using story inspired events to justify challenging? Can you clarify what you meant by that?

What I mean is that people don't necessarily want their characters to challenge just be because someone is absent. If there is no roleplay interaction in the chat rooms between Warlord X and Baron Y, then coming up with any kind of interesting cause to challenge Baron Y is much more difficult. If Baron Z is around pretty consistently and people get to bump up against her in the rings, potentially form some kind of rivalry or run across some other slight.. well that makes for a more interesting cause to challenge.

True enough. I can't argue with that.

1. Any dueler (including the title-holders) is subject to removal from the standings due to inactivity, based on whatever timeframe the DoS Coord feels is appropriate to protect the health of the sport. Any title-holder that drops from the standings due to inactivity, loses their title.

Yes, it's written in the rules still:

Code: Select all

Any Warlord who is inactive for more than one complete cycle is subject to removal from the Standings with record archived by the Standings Keeper. This is not considered a retirement. Any other dueler who is inactive over the duration of a complete cycle is subject to removal from the Standings. To be reinstated, a letter to the Standings Keeper is required. 

It's there and precedent agrees with what you say, a title holder removed from the standings for this reason losses their title... I just don't know when the last time this was actually enforced was.

ETA: For what it's worth, I do realize there is a baron on the standings currently who would be removed for this.. but seeing that baron removed is NOT what I'm getting at here. I've nothing against the particular Baron and I'm fairly sure that we'd have seen him in the rings if the rule were being actively enforced, so I'm certainly not proposing he be stripped of the barony. It's a clause, however, that I think should probably be enforced going forward once people have been given fair notice.

That's something G would probably have to speak to, in terms of what he feels is fair, and maintains the health of the sport.

Should inactive duelers be dropped from the standings, yes, undoubtedly. What grace period should they have? 1 cycle? 2? A year? I think that should remain a variable under the control of the DoS/DoF/DoM Coord to determine what best nurtures the environment. But certainly it should happen. Though I know in the past that G has left people on the standings that he knew were still around, even if they hadn't dueled in a while. I think in the past it has been somewhat dependent on how active the duels were. When we're especially active, it's good to "weed the garden" more often. When we've been less active, I suspect the trend was to be a little more lenient.

This is an area I'd be comfortable leaving to the discretion of the Coord/Standings Keeper, but as you said with fair warning to the community (e.g., notices on the standings *AND* on the boards, at least 2-3 weeks before the culling) so that they'd have a reasonable chance to come in and get that character active.

[VeryOldHistoryGuy]

It's there and precedent agrees with what you say, a title holder removed from the standings for this reason losses their title... I just don't know when the last time this was actually enforced was.

The Commission has reached a decision in the matter of the absentee Baron, In Remains. Due to his failure to repsond to letters sent him by Reiver, as well as his two plus cycle absence, the comission was left with little leeway in the matter and have removed the Baron from the Standings. We wish to offer the 5th ring in the upcoming Tournament of Warlords, rather than let it remain vacant for a full cycle. It should be noted that the Barons regard

[Elijah]

Man I am really out of touch, because I have no idea what "SoA" means in the context of these posts. And also apologies for not realizing there are a minimum number of duels for challenge now.

Kalamere is correct in what Warlord rankings system I was referencing. Since there is about a tenth of duel participation as there was then I would imagine the standings/rankings upkeep would also be a lot less nightmarish. I was at the bottom of the list since I had only recently become a Warlord. A lot of us duelers who were apart of the Bishop's Chapel dojo SL were all near the bottom then and all of us had a friendly competition to see who could move up the list quicker, so yes I did challenge for the spots above me multiple times. The system died with the creation of the Baron ranks which I never saw a reason why.

My intent is not to replace "gamer" rules with "RP" rules or vice versa, but to make sure their are multiple options both preferences in participation. I don't care about how many title challenges there are anymore, but I do think something for Warlords among Warlords, and like Harris implied, something for Barons among Barons would benefit the sport.

I haven't done a duel in over 6 months and that was one weekend out of three in the last 18 months so I understand I don't have much credibility on the current situation in the sport. Once I can find a way to duel, either by dueling app for my phone or actually breaking down and buying a computer, i'd come duel regardless of the rules.

Not for nothing, but I miss TDL. I think those were the best times I had in this community. Joku Shoyia's TDL career and the RP I had with him on team match nights was some of the best times I've had, especially when it was LXD vs PFH.

I think's it's been so long since I dueled with Baphelocutis I think I forgot how to RP him in a duel anymore.

I like RP, I like writing about my character, but the rings are the stage of this theater.